The skills you learn in a cram course are going to get you an entry level code-monkey job at best.
Even code monkey jobs pays well. At least better than the average salary. Hell with 2 years experience as a code monkey under your belt, you can leverage this into a much better IT position somewhere.
The idea of "streaming games to your TV so you don't have to have a console" has been around since around 2000. Here's a complete gravey^H^H^H list of some of the companies who have tried. Even technologies like NVidia's shield or Steam's ability to stream within the intranet don't seem to have taken off.
Google entry into this market seems foolhardy at best.
The technology wasn't ready then. The technology is currently available for this to take off. With Google resources behind it this can succeed. Steam technology is different from what Google is doing. With Steam game platform--the game is rendered client side (as all games currently do) with information about the player movements, location, where the player is facing, etc sent server side. Because of this the player computer hardware is critical to game enjoyment and success against other players in multiplayer fps games. I play a lot of multiplayer online fps games, and my experience is that players with the best (most expensive) computer systems are the best players. They are the best players because their hardware gives them a decidedly edge. Google platform will get rid of that advantage enjoyed by players who are willing to shell out 2+ grand for a gaming rig. Also, it's going to be harder to cheat on Google platform and that is worth its price in gold.Believe me, I've been online gaming for 17 years and in that time many gamers wished for the games to be rendered server side so as to neutralize cheaters.
Vast majority of mobile SOCs, desktop processors, and GPUs in the last few years have dedicated H264 and/or H265 decode blocks. Shouldn't be an issue from that standpoint.
Biggest challenge for many, many people is going to be bandwidth and latency.
Bandwidth and latency will not likely be a problem. Bandwidth and latency hasn't been a major issue in online gaming for a few years now. With Google resources, they can put game servers in multiple geographic locations to reduce latency. The only challenge will be if Google servers can handle every game instance because if their serves are overloaded that will cause games to lag. Another issue will be how the netcode will adjust for players whose ping is high because they are overseas. However, these issues exists in all current multiplayer online gaming platforms.
Of course it is a project to track and monetize gamers. Tracking and monetizing users is, at the very core, what Google does.
Although this could have comical results. Imagine all the 12-14 year old kids who spend the evenings and weekends playing FPS suddenly getting ads for Lipton, Tazo, Twinings, PG Tips, and others.
You are not giving Google any credit. Google knows more about their users than you are comfortable with. Google is going to have a pretty good idea of the gender, race, age, income, etc of the people who are playing on the platform. Google is in the business to know these things.
I can't be sure from the article, but it looks like this is a different approach to gaming. Normally the code and data for the games is sent to your device, and then your device runs the game logic, renders the graphics, and outputs the video and sound, sending data to central servers for multiplayer gaming. This service takes data from your controller, sends it over the network to a server, runs all the logic and rendering there, then streams the video and sound back to your device.
This is a radical change that has lots of serious implications if it catches on.
Your local CPU is no longer important
Your local GPU is no longer important
Your local OS is no longer important
Network latency is much more important
Network bandwidth caps are very limiting
I expect Google will be able to encode the game video in a number of different formats, enabling streaming to many different devices. Doing this in real time is a nice trick. Eventually they should be able to support multi-monitor setups and other interesting configurations.
Network latency and bandwidth is critical to online gaming as it exists today. Google moving the heavy lifting to the server side doesn't change this. Online gamers have been dreaming about this the last 10 years. No more video card upgrade, no more memory card upgrade, no more overclocking the cpu, no more headache about building the best gaming rig on a budget, etc. Now if Google can host, my favorite game, americasarmy I will be stoked.
The A380 has always been a monument to European stupidity/delusion of grandeur
Oh, fuck off with your posturing. You don't know shit, so quit pretending that you do.
The A380 made sense under the conditions that were known at the time of its design. They didn't, and couldn't anticipate the rule changes that allowed two-engine aircraft to make long-haul flights over water. Boeing was looking at making higher-capacity versions of the 747, too.
-jcr
Yet Boeing was able to anticipate that the market was not there for super sized jets. How could Boeing correctly anticipate that and not Airbus. Simple, Airbus management didn't properly do their due diligence.
I hope you are not a financial analyst. You made two errors in your profit analysis. First the 25 billion is the development cost and does not include production costs. A large part of the revenue from a sale goes to covering the cost of production. Second, it is unlikely that the A380 ever sold at list price.
Over the life the program, Airbus took a loss on production--they got to having "digestible losses" and were forecasting being revenue positive on production costs. They did not achieve any positive return on their investment
You are correct. Airbus is writing off about 800 million due to cancelling the A380 program. The A380 program was still in the red at the time of cancellation.
Finally, and the main reason why you are talking sh*t, the A380 development cost about 25billions, but at a cost per plane of 445million and 234 were sold, Airbus got around 105billions... that is still a huge profit, most people would love to multiply 4x their investment, and we are talking billions of profits.
So yes, it is not the right design for current time, but it was when planned... and it was still a huge profit. The major problem is how long will it take for Airbus to replace it
Your financial analysis on the profitability of the A380 is incorrect. By cancelling the project, Airbus is taking a loss of about 800 million. That's a far cry from the huge profit you claimed. Nice try though.
This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.
The issue for carriers operating the A380 was that the plane needed to fill all the seats to be economical and most flights were operating below capacity (most flights were only half filled). UAE is the biggest customer for the A380. Dubai is the world 3rd busiest airport and still UAE had a hell of a time filling all the seats on their A380s without offering discounted tickets. So what is the point of operating the A380 if, on average, it will be ferrying no more passengers than the A330 or Boeing 777? The UAE really, really wanted the A380 to succeed but they had to cancel all their back orders, thereby forcing Airbus to kill the project. The future of air transport is with Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 not the A380.
The coastal elites will enjoy 5g while rural areas will be denied but such is the nature when you vote against your economic interests. Its great to be a coastal elite.
,,,the subway system? I'm assuming that subway rides are subsidized, that the fare does not cover the operation of the subway system. Riders pay $5 for a fare, but the actual cost to provide that fare is more, maybe 1.5-3x more.
What would a fare on the NYC subway cost if it payed to operate the subway?
I'm not opposed to mass transit subsidies, either. Lowering the price to get people into mass transit is a worthwhile goal, but if you let the subsidy get out of control it distorts the economics and you wind up with funding shortfalls because you're dependent on outside support.
Is it possible NYC's subway is approaching the point of being not economically viable? If it takes $20 billion to fix it right, is there a better transportation system that could be bought for that kind of money? $20 billion would put 5000 new electric cabs on the street and pay each driver $50k for the next 26 years. I'm not saying its better, but once the investment sizes are taken into considering it makes sense to think outside the box.
Would people be willing to pay $10 or $20 per fare for a system that self-funded, including upgrades and expansions? I bet a lot would switch to cabs or Uber for that money.
In America our physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, power lines, utility lines, etc) are crumbling. NYC subway is no exception to America's crumbling infrastructure problem. NYC subway issue is part of a national problem with our infrastructure that everyone recognizes and agree that something must be done. Good luck fixing America crumbling infrastructure considering the national budget will expand by over 1.5 trillion dollars in a few years because of the recent tax cuts. There is little political will to fix America crumbling infrastructure.
No one wants an above ground rail system. The feeling is that an above ground rail system brings blight. Should the government attempt such a solution there will be a hard push back from the community affected.
... today's six million daily riders are facing constant delays, infrastructure failures, and alarmingly crowded cars and platforms.
should read...
...today's six million daily riders are facing constant delays, infrastructure failures, and alarmingly crowded, old, dirty, noisy cars and platforms. (Bold mine...)
New Yorkers should visit places like Dubai, Shanghai, St Petersburg in Russia or even Singapore City, to see what a subway should look like and function.
Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
Those countries have better mass transit than NY because their governments heavily invested in public transportation. Government investments in mass transportation and other urban development projects have been the bane of republicans since the 1970's. NY state legislator was dominated by upstate republicans for a long time so there were no new investments into NYC transit infrastructure. As a matter of fact the NYC MTA was operating with budget deficits because of NY State under funding the agency. However, NYC transit system is not bad when you include city bus services. When you include the city bus system most New Yorkers live at most a couple of blocks from the transit system. Not bad for a city of 9 million and covering 304 square miles.
There are many. Toronto International Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival are two film festivals that are almost as prestigious as Cannes film Festival.
The solar system is about 40AU (depending on your definition of planet).
So "close" is really... well, testing things a bit. Astronomically, yes, very close.
Practically? It's 20,000 times the size of the entire solar system away and to my knowledge only two objects have ever left the solar system.
Chronologically? It happened 70,000 years ago which, again, is tiny in astronomical terms but it's already long gone. We could do nothing about it in a reasonable time, we'd barely be able to study it, and if it was slightly to the left we'd all be interstellar dust (again) by now.
Though interesting, it's hardly close or anything we can really utilise or study,
I'd be more worried along the lines of "chances are something else could come and go this and wipe us out and likely we'd never know it was going to happen". Not just stray asteriods (which obviously would be knocked for six by something like this straying close) but an entire damn star. That's solar-system-ending.
The solar system is way bigger than 40 AU. The Oort cloud is part of the solar system and it extends to about 3 light years. So, the solar system extends, at least, to 3 light years. Not to mention, the sun's magnetic bubbles extend that far. I'm not sure why you stopped at the last planet and not include the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud as part of the solar system.
For as much truth or insight as his post may contain, he still really doesn't get Google at all. Google's customers aren't the people who use Android, Google+, Google Voice, etc. Google's customers are advertisers that want to have eyeballs and ear holes to blast their ads at and they don't care about innovation, they just want something that works and Google wants to make sure that they keep those real customers of theirs by offering a rival to anything else that is being used to sell ads online. They didn't make Google+ because they wanted a better social network, they made Google+ so that if social networks became the new center of online advertising instead of web search that Google wouldn't end up out in the rain..
"Google's customers aren't the people who use Android, Google+, Google Voice, etc. Google's customers are advertisers" Is that really true? I don't think that's true at all. The people who use Google products and advertisers who advertise through Google are Google's customers. Why can't both be true?
Leak internal company documents to the media to push your SJW agenda? Not a problem!
Submit feedback as requested after a company training seminar? FIRED
Google was asking for feedback on how to increase female participation in tech. James Damore went beyond what Google was asking for and publish a manifesto that was clearly sexists and misogynistic. In publishing his misogynistic manifesto he broke employment rules governing personal conduct which gave Google cause to fire him. Google had no choice but to fire him because, at that point, he became a huge liability to the company. If Google didn't fire him the next time the company got sued by a female employee that employee could point to James Damore as proof that Google tolerates a climate of sexism. It sucks for James Damore but he should have been more self aware.
> And Bluetooth continues to suck, for a variety of reasons.
Does it? I have bluetooth headphones. I turn my headphones on and audio starts coming out of them. The audio sounds fine. What part of my experience sucks?
Most of the author's complaints seem to revolve around how most fast-pairing protocols are currently proprietary, but... pairing your headphones is something you don't do very often, so it's at best a minor inconvenience.
Define what "audio is fine" means to you. The 3.5mm audio on my smart phone is superior to Bluetooth. The audio quality on the Bluetooth is not as crisp and sharp (especially low frequency sounds) as the 3.5 mm audio. There could be a couple of reasons for this, I admit, (1) the 3.5 mm speakers are better quality than the Bluetooth speakers and (2) I'm using Bluetooth 4.0 which is two generations behind current specs. Even with the newer Bluetooth 4.2 specs I'm still reading complaints of audio quality. It's a shame that we are still debating the merits of Bluetooth audio, which is digital, in comparison to analog 3.5 mm audio. I think one of the issues with Bluetooth is the signal is lossly and too compressed to gave high fidelity. I'm sure that will change in time with better hardware and advancements in Bluetooth technology.
I'm sincerely curious about the caliber of people they turn out. I'm perhaps a bit curmudgeonly on this; I think that to be a competent software developer you need to have a pretty thorough grounding in math and science, as well as some native talent... which seems to be far more common in people drawn to math and science. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Do you really have to have a throughout grounding in math and science to be a software developer? How much math and science is involved in web development, payroll applications, SQL programming, etc?
I hope I am not in the minority with this, but I honestly enjoyed the concept of Dev/Code Bootcamps. I've had an internal philosophy that no matter what 'career' you do (to some extent, so let's not anon-troll that, please) or hobbies/interests, development skills in some programming language would help you. And if you want to make a career out of it, even better!
However, that being said, I'm also a firm believer in experience over quick buzzy skills any day of the week, 100% of the time. All I viewed this as was a way to 1) make a non-profit for gains in big dollars on the business side (WTF WOULDNT want a successful non-profit) and 2) water-down a field that, in my opinion, should NOT be watered down.
Software engineering/development, bridging advanced mathematics (e.g. linear algebra, calculus, etc.) takes an EXTREME amount of well-rounded background in all things computing, skills and investing into yourself, your study, your craft. It's the field I work in, respect and make a living in. I feel like a chimp in shadows of some truly gifted software developers I've met and worked with in my past and I've been doing this for almost 15 years professionally now. Those people didn't get there by taking a quick 4 week crasher on the shiny-new-topic, whizbang a resume with a thesaurus and try to land a $100K gig for 6 months to build a 'previous employment' line-item they could wow the next place into hiring them on.
It's sad from the ideology of it, but if this is the direction it's going, I'm not totally heartbroken either from the glass-half-empty perspective.
The problem with these kinds of arguments is the absolute position too many of us take. Is every programming assignment require a CS degree? Is a CS degree necessary for web development, payroll applications, database query, etc? I say no. Some programming tasks require a degree in computer science or engineering as a perquisite and other tasks a formal education in CS is not necessary. That's the way it is and should be.
You CAN learn to code in a few months, heck if you are a quick study you could probably learn to code in ONE month.
To write GOOD code however takes a LOT longer.
Something these code camp twats probably knew damn well, but were more that willing to take money from the ignorant.
Also what makes me bang me head against my desk is that people don't realize that coding is not simply learning how an if and a while work, it's about learning how to write a file, read a database (you'll have to learn SQL as well) etc. etc. in your chosen language. That takes a lot of time.
You can say that about most CS graduates. Even those from top CS departments. Hell, you can say that about most professions. There is a reason why real world experience counts so much in IT careers.
Slashdot Mirror
The skills you learn in a cram course are going to get you an entry level code-monkey job at best.
Even code monkey jobs pays well. At least better than the average salary. Hell with 2 years experience as a code monkey under your belt, you can leverage this into a much better IT position somewhere.
The idea of "streaming games to your TV so you don't have to have a console" has been around since around 2000. Here's a complete gravey^H^H^H list of some of the companies who have tried. Even technologies like NVidia's shield or Steam's ability to stream within the intranet don't seem to have taken off. Google entry into this market seems foolhardy at best.
The technology wasn't ready then. The technology is currently available for this to take off. With Google resources behind it this can succeed. Steam technology is different from what Google is doing. With Steam game platform--the game is rendered client side (as all games currently do) with information about the player movements, location, where the player is facing, etc sent server side. Because of this the player computer hardware is critical to game enjoyment and success against other players in multiplayer fps games. I play a lot of multiplayer online fps games, and my experience is that players with the best (most expensive) computer systems are the best players. They are the best players because their hardware gives them a decidedly edge. Google platform will get rid of that advantage enjoyed by players who are willing to shell out 2+ grand for a gaming rig. Also, it's going to be harder to cheat on Google platform and that is worth its price in gold.Believe me, I've been online gaming for 17 years and in that time many gamers wished for the games to be rendered server side so as to neutralize cheaters.
Vast majority of mobile SOCs, desktop processors, and GPUs in the last few years have dedicated H264 and/or H265 decode blocks. Shouldn't be an issue from that standpoint.
Biggest challenge for many, many people is going to be bandwidth and latency.
Bandwidth and latency will not likely be a problem. Bandwidth and latency hasn't been a major issue in online gaming for a few years now. With Google resources, they can put game servers in multiple geographic locations to reduce latency. The only challenge will be if Google servers can handle every game instance because if their serves are overloaded that will cause games to lag. Another issue will be how the netcode will adjust for players whose ping is high because they are overseas. However, these issues exists in all current multiplayer online gaming platforms.
Of course it is a project to track and monetize gamers. Tracking and monetizing users is, at the very core, what Google does. Although this could have comical results. Imagine all the 12-14 year old kids who spend the evenings and weekends playing FPS suddenly getting ads for Lipton, Tazo, Twinings, PG Tips, and others.
You are not giving Google any credit. Google knows more about their users than you are comfortable with. Google is going to have a pretty good idea of the gender, race, age, income, etc of the people who are playing on the platform. Google is in the business to know these things.
I can't be sure from the article, but it looks like this is a different approach to gaming. Normally the code and data for the games is sent to your device, and then your device runs the game logic, renders the graphics, and outputs the video and sound, sending data to central servers for multiplayer gaming. This service takes data from your controller, sends it over the network to a server, runs all the logic and rendering there, then streams the video and sound back to your device.
This is a radical change that has lots of serious implications if it catches on.
I expect Google will be able to encode the game video in a number of different formats, enabling streaming to many different devices. Doing this in real time is a nice trick. Eventually they should be able to support multi-monitor setups and other interesting configurations.
Network latency and bandwidth is critical to online gaming as it exists today. Google moving the heavy lifting to the server side doesn't change this. Online gamers have been dreaming about this the last 10 years. No more video card upgrade, no more memory card upgrade, no more overclocking the cpu, no more headache about building the best gaming rig on a budget, etc. Now if Google can host, my favorite game, americasarmy I will be stoked.
The A380 has always been a monument to European stupidity/delusion of grandeur
Oh, fuck off with your posturing. You don't know shit, so quit pretending that you do.
The A380 made sense under the conditions that were known at the time of its design. They didn't, and couldn't anticipate the rule changes that allowed two-engine aircraft to make long-haul flights over water. Boeing was looking at making higher-capacity versions of the 747, too.
-jcr
Yet Boeing was able to anticipate that the market was not there for super sized jets. How could Boeing correctly anticipate that and not Airbus. Simple, Airbus management didn't properly do their due diligence.
I hope you are not a financial analyst. You made two errors in your profit analysis. First the 25 billion is the development cost and does not include production costs. A large part of the revenue from a sale goes to covering the cost of production. Second, it is unlikely that the A380 ever sold at list price. Over the life the program, Airbus took a loss on production--they got to having "digestible losses" and were forecasting being revenue positive on production costs. They did not achieve any positive return on their investment
You are correct. Airbus is writing off about 800 million due to cancelling the A380 program. The A380 program was still in the red at the time of cancellation.
Finally, and the main reason why you are talking sh*t, the A380 development cost about 25billions, but at a cost per plane of 445million and 234 were sold, Airbus got around 105billions ... that is still a huge profit, most people would love to multiply 4x their investment, and we are talking billions of profits.
So yes, it is not the right design for current time, but it was when planned... and it was still a huge profit. The major problem is how long will it take for Airbus to replace it
Your financial analysis on the profitability of the A380 is incorrect. By cancelling the project, Airbus is taking a loss of about 800 million. That's a far cry from the huge profit you claimed. Nice try though.
This is not the only problem. It has four engines instead of two like the 777 or the A350, which causes servicing to take longer and be more expensive and making it less fuel efficient.
Furthermore the wings are constructed to house more fuel tanks than actually used, making the wings unnecessarily complicated and heavy, decreasing efficency and increasing costs. In this case, preparation for an ultra long distance version which never was ordered created a problem for the versions in operation.
What I heard is that it is more fuel efficient. You can cram almost as many people into one A380 as a 777 or a A350 and that is with the normal A380 since the potential for stretch versions will now never be tapped. So the A380 can carry the same amount of passengers on four engines with one crew on one landing slot as two A350 or a two 777 on four engines, with two crews and two landing slots. That equals more efficiency, not less. This it what the A380 was conceived for, travel between large hubs over long distances, not trips between Farmerssville Kansas and Someburg in Texas. The real issue here from what I can gather is business models airlines are increasingly using. Airlines are increasingly using smaller aircraft to create connections between smaller airports and bypassing the big hubs so A380 demand remains weaker than anticipated. Additionally there was some talk about the big hubs being reluctant to make the changes needed for the A380, although I don't really think that is an insurmountable obstacle. All in all the A380 is an aircraft that will probably be highly sought after on the second hand market years from now when the market has expanded to the point where the capacity it offers is more sorely needed.
The issue for carriers operating the A380 was that the plane needed to fill all the seats to be economical and most flights were operating below capacity (most flights were only half filled). UAE is the biggest customer for the A380. Dubai is the world 3rd busiest airport and still UAE had a hell of a time filling all the seats on their A380s without offering discounted tickets. So what is the point of operating the A380 if, on average, it will be ferrying no more passengers than the A330 or Boeing 777? The UAE really, really wanted the A380 to succeed but they had to cancel all their back orders, thereby forcing Airbus to kill the project. The future of air transport is with Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 not the A380.
It is like everyone regressed to being a 12 year old boy.
Not so sure. When I was 12, movies were of better quality than these lets-make-a-quick-&-crappy-pre/sequel-to-keep-licensing-alive.
Which movies were better when you were 12?
The coastal elites will enjoy 5g while rural areas will be denied but such is the nature when you vote against your economic interests. Its great to be a coastal elite.
,,,the subway system? I'm assuming that subway rides are subsidized, that the fare does not cover the operation of the subway system. Riders pay $5 for a fare, but the actual cost to provide that fare is more, maybe 1.5-3x more.
What would a fare on the NYC subway cost if it payed to operate the subway?
I'm not opposed to mass transit subsidies, either. Lowering the price to get people into mass transit is a worthwhile goal, but if you let the subsidy get out of control it distorts the economics and you wind up with funding shortfalls because you're dependent on outside support.
Is it possible NYC's subway is approaching the point of being not economically viable? If it takes $20 billion to fix it right, is there a better transportation system that could be bought for that kind of money? $20 billion would put 5000 new electric cabs on the street and pay each driver $50k for the next 26 years. I'm not saying its better, but once the investment sizes are taken into considering it makes sense to think outside the box.
Would people be willing to pay $10 or $20 per fare for a system that self-funded, including upgrades and expansions? I bet a lot would switch to cabs or Uber for that money.
In America our physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, power lines, utility lines, etc) are crumbling. NYC subway is no exception to America's crumbling infrastructure problem. NYC subway issue is part of a national problem with our infrastructure that everyone recognizes and agree that something must be done. Good luck fixing America crumbling infrastructure considering the national budget will expand by over 1.5 trillion dollars in a few years because of the recent tax cuts. There is little political will to fix America crumbling infrastructure.
Why not a series of monorails?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No one wants an above ground rail system. The feeling is that an above ground rail system brings blight. Should the government attempt such a solution there will be a hard push back from the community affected.
The statement...
... today's six million daily riders are facing constant delays, infrastructure failures, and alarmingly crowded cars and platforms.
should read...
New Yorkers should visit places like Dubai, Shanghai, St Petersburg in Russia or even Singapore City, to see what a subway should look like and function.
Sadly, Americans still think they have the best and greatest in the world.
Those countries have better mass transit than NY because their governments heavily invested in public transportation. Government investments in mass transportation and other urban development projects have been the bane of republicans since the 1970's. NY state legislator was dominated by upstate republicans for a long time so there were no new investments into NYC transit infrastructure. As a matter of fact the NYC MTA was operating with budget deficits because of NY State under funding the agency. However, NYC transit system is not bad when you include city bus services. When you include the city bus system most New Yorkers live at most a couple of blocks from the transit system. Not bad for a city of 9 million and covering 304 square miles.
There are many. Toronto International Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival are two film festivals that are almost as prestigious as Cannes film Festival.
1 light-year is 63,241 AU.
An AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
The solar system is about 40AU (depending on your definition of planet).
So "close" is really... well, testing things a bit. Astronomically, yes, very close.
Practically? It's 20,000 times the size of the entire solar system away and to my knowledge only two objects have ever left the solar system.
Chronologically? It happened 70,000 years ago which, again, is tiny in astronomical terms but it's already long gone. We could do nothing about it in a reasonable time, we'd barely be able to study it, and if it was slightly to the left we'd all be interstellar dust (again) by now.
Though interesting, it's hardly close or anything we can really utilise or study,
I'd be more worried along the lines of "chances are something else could come and go this and wipe us out and likely we'd never know it was going to happen". Not just stray asteriods (which obviously would be knocked for six by something like this straying close) but an entire damn star. That's solar-system-ending.
The solar system is way bigger than 40 AU. The Oort cloud is part of the solar system and it extends to about 3 light years. So, the solar system extends, at least, to 3 light years. Not to mention, the sun's magnetic bubbles extend that far. I'm not sure why you stopped at the last planet and not include the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud as part of the solar system.
I use Private Internet Access and have zero complaints. Easy to use, plenty fast, and about $40/yr. Well worth it.
I concur with everything you wrote. Being using it for 2 years now and would enthusiastically recommend it.
For as much truth or insight as his post may contain, he still really doesn't get Google at all. Google's customers aren't the people who use Android, Google+, Google Voice, etc. Google's customers are advertisers that want to have eyeballs and ear holes to blast their ads at and they don't care about innovation, they just want something that works and Google wants to make sure that they keep those real customers of theirs by offering a rival to anything else that is being used to sell ads online. They didn't make Google+ because they wanted a better social network, they made Google+ so that if social networks became the new center of online advertising instead of web search that Google wouldn't end up out in the rain. .
"Google's customers aren't the people who use Android, Google+, Google Voice, etc. Google's customers are advertisers" Is that really true? I don't think that's true at all. The people who use Google products and advertisers who advertise through Google are Google's customers. Why can't both be true?
Leak internal company documents to the media to push your SJW agenda? Not a problem!
Submit feedback as requested after a company training seminar? FIRED
Google was asking for feedback on how to increase female participation in tech. James Damore went beyond what Google was asking for and publish a manifesto that was clearly sexists and misogynistic. In publishing his misogynistic manifesto he broke employment rules governing personal conduct which gave Google cause to fire him. Google had no choice but to fire him because, at that point, he became a huge liability to the company. If Google didn't fire him the next time the company got sued by a female employee that employee could point to James Damore as proof that Google tolerates a climate of sexism. It sucks for James Damore but he should have been more self aware.
Don't buy such a TV. Simple law of economics.
Easier said than done as most TV are smart TV. Good luck finding a big screen TV that doesn't have smart TV features.
Works nicely on very low power devices.
The problem with Tizen is Samsung. Who in their right mind would trust Samsung for their software solutions? They are terrible with software.
> And Bluetooth continues to suck, for a variety of reasons.
Does it? I have bluetooth headphones. I turn my headphones on and audio starts coming out of them. The audio sounds fine. What part of my experience sucks?
Most of the author's complaints seem to revolve around how most fast-pairing protocols are currently proprietary, but... pairing your headphones is something you don't do very often, so it's at best a minor inconvenience.
Define what "audio is fine" means to you. The 3.5mm audio on my smart phone is superior to Bluetooth. The audio quality on the Bluetooth is not as crisp and sharp (especially low frequency sounds) as the 3.5 mm audio. There could be a couple of reasons for this, I admit, (1) the 3.5 mm speakers are better quality than the Bluetooth speakers and (2) I'm using Bluetooth 4.0 which is two generations behind current specs. Even with the newer Bluetooth 4.2 specs I'm still reading complaints of audio quality. It's a shame that we are still debating the merits of Bluetooth audio, which is digital, in comparison to analog 3.5 mm audio. I think one of the issues with Bluetooth is the signal is lossly and too compressed to gave high fidelity. I'm sure that will change in time with better hardware and advancements in Bluetooth technology.
Has anyone worked with boot camp graduates?
I'm sincerely curious about the caliber of people they turn out. I'm perhaps a bit curmudgeonly on this; I think that to be a competent software developer you need to have a pretty thorough grounding in math and science, as well as some native talent... which seems to be far more common in people drawn to math and science. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Do you really have to have a throughout grounding in math and science to be a software developer? How much math and science is involved in web development, payroll applications, SQL programming, etc?
I hope I am not in the minority with this, but I honestly enjoyed the concept of Dev/Code Bootcamps. I've had an internal philosophy that no matter what 'career' you do (to some extent, so let's not anon-troll that, please) or hobbies/interests, development skills in some programming language would help you. And if you want to make a career out of it, even better!
However, that being said, I'm also a firm believer in experience over quick buzzy skills any day of the week, 100% of the time. All I viewed this as was a way to 1) make a non-profit for gains in big dollars on the business side (WTF WOULDNT want a successful non-profit) and 2) water-down a field that, in my opinion, should NOT be watered down.
Software engineering/development, bridging advanced mathematics (e.g. linear algebra, calculus, etc.) takes an EXTREME amount of well-rounded background in all things computing, skills and investing into yourself, your study, your craft. It's the field I work in, respect and make a living in. I feel like a chimp in shadows of some truly gifted software developers I've met and worked with in my past and I've been doing this for almost 15 years professionally now. Those people didn't get there by taking a quick 4 week crasher on the shiny-new-topic, whizbang a resume with a thesaurus and try to land a $100K gig for 6 months to build a 'previous employment' line-item they could wow the next place into hiring them on.
It's sad from the ideology of it, but if this is the direction it's going, I'm not totally heartbroken either from the glass-half-empty perspective.
The problem with these kinds of arguments is the absolute position too many of us take. Is every programming assignment require a CS degree? Is a CS degree necessary for web development, payroll applications, database query, etc? I say no. Some programming tasks require a degree in computer science or engineering as a perquisite and other tasks a formal education in CS is not necessary. That's the way it is and should be.
You CAN learn to code in a few months, heck if you are a quick study you could probably learn to code in ONE month. To write GOOD code however takes a LOT longer. Something these code camp twats probably knew damn well, but were more that willing to take money from the ignorant. Also what makes me bang me head against my desk is that people don't realize that coding is not simply learning how an if and a while work, it's about learning how to write a file, read a database (you'll have to learn SQL as well) etc. etc. in your chosen language. That takes a lot of time.
You can say that about most CS graduates. Even those from top CS departments. Hell, you can say that about most professions. There is a reason why real world experience counts so much in IT careers.