I believe if you are rejected in a particular year, you must reapply the next year. And candidates are not really happy to wait around and try year after year.
So, if these banks had 21,000 applications over the last 5 years, I would expect they had far fewer applications than that outstanding when the financial crisis hit.
I hire a lot of foreigners. Trust me, we pay out the ass for them. They're more expensive than 90% of Americans who apply for the same job, and then again, they're more qualified than 90% of Americans who apply.
Agreed completely. It would be easy to implement what you say. Standard micro-cells won't do triangulation, they have to have special ones, but this would be possible, and if the use them in enough places, affordable.
Of course, this wouldn't be legal for them to do without FCC permission either. But at least it would work better.
I once stayed in a hotel where WiFi access was free in the lobby but nowhere else. My balcony had a view of the lobby, and I could pick up the lobby Wi-Fi bases from the balcony, but they would wold cut me off quickly when I was coming from outside the lobby. Clearly this hotel could develop a system where access was denied based upon physical location, despite allowing access from nearby. So I think prisons could manage it.
Finland spent almost 7 years switching over, and you didn't switch off analog until 18 months ago. That isn't "long ago".
The US is on a similar schedule, we've spent about 6 years switching over, and even if we delay it another 6 months, it still will be on about the same schedule as Finland.
This all despite switching the US being a far larger project due to the much higher number of stations to switch and converter boxes to supply.
I congratulate you on switching your system. I congratulate you on having a standard for digital TV that is widely used and closely related to your satellite systems (DVB).
But what justification do you have for getting on your high horse?
I don't doubt it's Vista at the core. I use Vista, and this feels just like it in many ways. Even the desktop picture is similar to the Vista boot screen.
But to be honest, a single yet-to-be-updated text file is not very convincing.
BIOSes only boot MBR/FDISK disks. And MBR tops out at 2TB. So now that the largest drive that MBR can support was announced today, isn't it time to move forward to a new boot system that can boot GPT disks (which can go well past a petabyte)?
EFI can do this, I can't see why we shouldn't be going to it.
People said the same things as you are saying 20 years ago. Iterative fractal systems (as you describe) were also big at SigGraph 1989.
But that extra power was instead used to raise the output resolution, texture resolution and the poly count, instead of using the trickery you speak of. I don't foresee a boom in the next 10 years any more than the last 20.
Also, there's no difference between ray tracing and scan-line rasterization that would dictate or even facilitate a change from textures (and transparency map) on a poly to more polys. You can use either technique with either system and both will suffer the same tradeoffs (including efficiency) in either case.
You are ignoring the magnitude difference between the two.
The failure rate of 360s due to the RRoD within 3 years is at least 50% (MS wrote down $1B to fix 10M 360s, if you assume it costs $200 to fix a unit, that means even they think half of them will fail within 3 years). Yeah, everyone knows someone who had a PS2 laser go on them (or had it themself), but except for a few models (most notably the early PS2 slims), the failure rate was actually low, well below 20%.
I attended Siggraph in 1989 and watched the AT&T Pixel Planes presentation. Things still haven't changed in 20 years.
I have no idea how you say that ray tracing somehow frees you from quads (or tris). You're still going to have to describe the geometry somehow. Depending how things are done you might get some freedom from surface normals and such, but you'll still have to figure out how to make that tree from sub-elements so that the ray-tracer can bounce rays off it. When a ray passes through the bounding box of the tree, you're going to have to be able to find out of the ray truly intersects the tree and if so, where on it did it hit, at what angle and what color the tree would appear to be from the angle the ray came from. That's going to require you describe the tree with geometry elements and the texture/color and spectral changes depending on angle.
That article is ancient. It's analysis is a hair off (mis-describing how blocking caps work). And most of all the difference between the shuffle and a regular iPod is not that the shuffle is "push-pull". All the devices in that test are push-pull. Single-ended (class A) is not power effective enough to use in a device like that.
The difference between the two is that a regular iPod has blocking caps to remove the DC component from the output. The shuffle at that time did not. Blocking caps create a high-pass filter with the impedance of the headphones, so low frequencies are rolled off. The capacitors need to be large enough that the roll off frequency is low enough that you get the bass notes through. At the time, the regular iPods didn't have high enough capacity blocking caps. However, this was changed shortly thereafter on the regular iPods and there has not been a noticeable difference between the two since then.
A couple other things: The lack of blocking caps meant that the iPod shuffle was outputting a DC value even when playing complete silence instead of being at ground. Thus it was very susceptible to making ground loops. In fact, if you plugged the shuffle into a charger and a computer at the same time, you were guaranteed to get a ground loop and usually the buzz that goes with it. If you used higher impedance headphones or connected the iPod to line in, the rolloff frequency went down so low that there never was an issue anyway. So the effect was only noticeable with headphones and most headphones cannot reproduce bass that low anyway. So only owners of high end headphones could even notice it. The iPod Shuffle in question used integrated amps on the main chip in the Shuffle. This chip was changed years ago when the Shuffle was put into a metal case. So there's no reason to believe any newer shuffle had the same characteristics anyway.
I will. And I've actually been down on Seagate ever since they took AAM off their drives with the 7200.x series.
But hey, just because I'm a W-D fan right now and not a Seagate fan doesn't mean I'll never trust Seagate again. This kind of stuff just goes around in circles. At one time, W-D couldn't make a drive that worked and Seagate was the top of the industry.
Every company that is on top at one time has problems at another. Not every company that sucks makes it to the top though (I'm looking at you Maxtor).
It'll go around again I think, even though Seagate bought Maxtor, they'll likely remember how to make good drives again at some point.
Even assuming this math you talk about is correct, a "16MP" camera doesn't really have 16 million pixels. It has 8 million pieces of green data, 4 million pieces of red data and 4 million pieces of blue data. It then interpolates 16 million RGB pixels. But the actual informational content is lower.
Assuming your math is correct, and a field of 16 million RGB pixels at a normal viewing distance is all we can resolve, we still need a higher resolution camera than "16MP" to produce that field with full data at each pixel.
No, that's just ridiculous. It wasn't a university for scripts, it was a university for PEOPLE who want to become scripts. It's like going to law school or med school. I earned my degree and became the script I am today.
>MIT doesn't work that way. If you can get into MIT, you should be able to get through MIT.
Should be able?
Just because you should be able doesn't mean you will. All 4 of the people who lived in my apartment had what it took in the brains and money department to graduate. But only two of us did. They just didn't have what it took to complete their degrees. They took all the courses they liked and did great but could never finish the other required courses.
So is the University supposed to force them through these classes somehow?
Why is a 50% reduction in failures a useful stat? The schools want a certain amount of failures in these large "weeder" classes, because giving a diploma to everyone who pays waters down the value of the diploma.
If they wanted to reduce failures, they only needed to move the curve (which was set where it was on purpose in the first place).
Honestly, by the time you get to college, especially ones like MIT, if you can't learn because the environment isn't as cozy as it could be, I'm not sure it is completely the school's job to fix that for you. You might expect that in primary school, but you can't expect it in the world of work, so seems like college is a great place to start introducing people to the concept.
I would have to imagine another flip side of this is the students "don't get access" (whatever that really means in a big lecture) to top professors. Teaching 80 kids at once instead of 500 means you have to run 6x as many classes and professors aren't going to do this willingly. You're probably going to end up with only access to a T.A. (teaching assistant).
Sorry to have to break it to you. But much of the flash in Vista and Windows 7 is borrowed from Mac OS X, which is currently eating away at Windows market share.
Customers seem to like bling. So of course MS is going to offer it.
But the performance figures show it to be faster than Vista or XP.
How does it get in the way of programmers? I'm not a Windows programmer so I dunno.
I find the shit about 'test mode' for 64-bit to load your own drivers and then having it watermark your screen is bullshit. I shouldn't have to have crap in the corner of my desktop just because I want to load non-signed drivers.
I'm more interested in the extra registers that you code can assume exists on 64-bit x86s. Also, managing a larger than 32-bit addressing space in 32-bit mode can lead to a lot of extra instructions, since you can't use 64-bit registers to hold the data.
So yeah, I'm interested in 64-bit mode. Because it should help my machine run more efficiently. And Vista and Windows 7 don't support Win16 apps, so it isn't going to be a problem that win16 cannot use a hardware acceleration mode while running in 64-bit mode.
In the end, your argument is simply "why do we need 64-bit mode, we can do anything we want in 32-bit mode with a little extra work". Yeah, that's true about 16-bit mode too. It can do everything 32-bit mode can do (even without protected mode), and yet we switched away from 16-bit to 32-bit.
64-bit mode is on the rise because apps and OSes are starting to creak a bit with the limitations of 32-bit mode, and programmers being lazy beasts, would rather just change a compile option instead of write a bunch of paged data management code (a la EMS,XMS,EEMS and the old DOS extenders).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think H1-Bs work that way.
I believe if you are rejected in a particular year, you must reapply the next year. And candidates are not really happy to wait around and try year after year.
So, if these banks had 21,000 applications over the last 5 years, I would expect they had far fewer applications than that outstanding when the financial crisis hit.
I hire a lot of foreigners. Trust me, we pay out the ass for them. They're more expensive than 90% of Americans who apply for the same job, and then again, they're more qualified than 90% of Americans who apply.
Agreed completely. It would be easy to implement what you say. Standard micro-cells won't do triangulation, they have to have special ones, but this would be possible, and if the use them in enough places, affordable.
Of course, this wouldn't be legal for them to do without FCC permission either. But at least it would work better.
I once stayed in a hotel where WiFi access was free in the lobby but nowhere else. My balcony had a view of the lobby, and I could pick up the lobby Wi-Fi bases from the balcony, but they would wold cut me off quickly when I was coming from outside the lobby.
Clearly this hotel could develop a system where access was denied based upon physical location, despite allowing access from nearby. So I think prisons could manage it.
Finland spent almost 7 years switching over, and you didn't switch off analog until 18 months ago. That isn't "long ago".
The US is on a similar schedule, we've spent about 6 years switching over, and even if we delay it another 6 months, it still will be on about the same schedule as Finland.
This all despite switching the US being a far larger project due to the much higher number of stations to switch and converter boxes to supply.
I congratulate you on switching your system. I congratulate you on having a standard for digital TV that is widely used and closely related to your satellite systems (DVB).
But what justification do you have for getting on your high horse?
I don't doubt it's Vista at the core. I use Vista, and this feels just like it in many ways. Even the desktop picture is similar to the Vista boot screen.
But to be honest, a single yet-to-be-updated text file is not very convincing.
Somehow my body weighs 80kg and yet the 10x as many cells of bacteria only weigh 1.5kg?
Sounds like bullcrap to me.
BIOSes only boot MBR/FDISK disks. And MBR tops out at 2TB. So now that the largest drive that MBR can support was announced today, isn't it time to move forward to a new boot system that can boot GPT disks (which can go well past a petabyte)?
EFI can do this, I can't see why we shouldn't be going to it.
People said the same things as you are saying 20 years ago. Iterative fractal systems (as you describe) were also big at SigGraph 1989.
But that extra power was instead used to raise the output resolution, texture resolution and the poly count, instead of using the trickery you speak of. I don't foresee a boom in the next 10 years any more than the last 20.
Also, there's no difference between ray tracing and scan-line rasterization that would dictate or even facilitate a change from textures (and transparency map) on a poly to more polys. You can use either technique with either system and both will suffer the same tradeoffs (including efficiency) in either case.
You are ignoring the magnitude difference between the two.
The failure rate of 360s due to the RRoD within 3 years is at least 50% (MS wrote down $1B to fix 10M 360s, if you assume it costs $200 to fix a unit, that means even they think half of them will fail within 3 years). Yeah, everyone knows someone who had a PS2 laser go on them (or had it themself), but except for a few models (most notably the early PS2 slims), the failure rate was actually low, well below 20%.
The problems haven't changed since the 80s.
I attended Siggraph in 1989 and watched the AT&T Pixel Planes presentation. Things still haven't changed in 20 years.
I have no idea how you say that ray tracing somehow frees you from quads (or tris). You're still going to have to describe the geometry somehow. Depending how things are done you might get some freedom from surface normals and such, but you'll still have to figure out how to make that tree from sub-elements so that the ray-tracer can bounce rays off it. When a ray passes through the bounding box of the tree, you're going to have to be able to find out of the ray truly intersects the tree and if so, where on it did it hit, at what angle and what color the tree would appear to be from the angle the ray came from. That's going to require you describe the tree with geometry elements and the texture/color and spectral changes depending on angle.
That article is ancient. It's analysis is a hair off (mis-describing how blocking caps work). And most of all the difference between the shuffle and a regular iPod is not that the shuffle is "push-pull". All the devices in that test are push-pull. Single-ended (class A) is not power effective enough to use in a device like that.
The difference between the two is that a regular iPod has blocking caps to remove the DC component from the output. The shuffle at that time did not. Blocking caps create a high-pass filter with the impedance of the headphones, so low frequencies are rolled off. The capacitors need to be large enough that the roll off frequency is low enough that you get the bass notes through. At the time, the regular iPods didn't have high enough capacity blocking caps. However, this was changed shortly thereafter on the regular iPods and there has not been a noticeable difference between the two since then.
A couple other things:
The lack of blocking caps meant that the iPod shuffle was outputting a DC value even when playing complete silence instead of being at ground. Thus it was very susceptible to making ground loops. In fact, if you plugged the shuffle into a charger and a computer at the same time, you were guaranteed to get a ground loop and usually the buzz that goes with it.
If you used higher impedance headphones or connected the iPod to line in, the rolloff frequency went down so low that there never was an issue anyway. So the effect was only noticeable with headphones and most headphones cannot reproduce bass that low anyway. So only owners of high end headphones could even notice it.
The iPod Shuffle in question used integrated amps on the main chip in the Shuffle. This chip was changed years ago when the Shuffle was put into a metal case. So there's no reason to believe any newer shuffle had the same characteristics anyway.
No.
This has been going on for weeks, and Seagate has been deleting threads from their boards.
Besides, when I lose data, I get cranky.
The patch is just so they don't have to pay out warranty claims by replacing drives, in essence it's not for us, it's for them.
I will. And I've actually been down on Seagate ever since they took AAM off their drives with the 7200.x series.
But hey, just because I'm a W-D fan right now and not a Seagate fan doesn't mean I'll never trust Seagate again. This kind of stuff just goes around in circles. At one time, W-D couldn't make a drive that worked and Seagate was the top of the industry.
Every company that is on top at one time has problems at another. Not every company that sucks makes it to the top though (I'm looking at you Maxtor).
It'll go around again I think, even though Seagate bought Maxtor, they'll likely remember how to make good drives again at some point.
That's for sure.
Never buy a hard drive from a manufacturer whose name begins with an M. Apparently Seagate starts with an M now.
Even assuming this math you talk about is correct, a "16MP" camera doesn't really have 16 million pixels. It has 8 million pieces of green data, 4 million pieces of red data and 4 million pieces of blue data. It then interpolates 16 million RGB pixels. But the actual informational content is lower.
Assuming your math is correct, and a field of 16 million RGB pixels at a normal viewing distance is all we can resolve, we still need a higher resolution camera than "16MP" to produce that field with full data at each pixel.
No, that's just ridiculous. It wasn't a university for scripts, it was a university for PEOPLE who want to become scripts. It's like going to law school or med school. I earned my degree and became the script I am today.
>MIT doesn't work that way. If you can get into MIT, you should be able to get through MIT.
Should be able?
Just because you should be able doesn't mean you will. All 4 of the people who lived in my apartment had what it took in the brains and money department to graduate. But only two of us did. They just didn't have what it took to complete their degrees. They took all the courses they liked and did great but could never finish the other required courses.
So is the University supposed to force them through these classes somehow?
I didn't go to MIT, btw.
For busybox.
So this isn't a new thing for Sony.
There's even a URL at Sony's site for the code (of course). I forget what it was.
Why is a 50% reduction in failures a useful stat? The schools want a certain amount of failures in these large "weeder" classes, because giving a diploma to everyone who pays waters down the value of the diploma.
If they wanted to reduce failures, they only needed to move the curve (which was set where it was on purpose in the first place).
Honestly, by the time you get to college, especially ones like MIT, if you can't learn because the environment isn't as cozy as it could be, I'm not sure it is completely the school's job to fix that for you. You might expect that in primary school, but you can't expect it in the world of work, so seems like college is a great place to start introducing people to the concept.
I would have to imagine another flip side of this is the students "don't get access" (whatever that really means in a big lecture) to top professors. Teaching 80 kids at once instead of 500 means you have to run 6x as many classes and professors aren't going to do this willingly. You're probably going to end up with only access to a T.A. (teaching assistant).
Sorry to have to break it to you. But much of the flash in Vista and Windows 7 is borrowed from Mac OS X, which is currently eating away at Windows market share.
Customers seem to like bling. So of course MS is going to offer it.
But the performance figures show it to be faster than Vista or XP.
How does it get in the way of programmers? I'm not a Windows programmer so I dunno.
I find the shit about 'test mode' for 64-bit to load your own drivers and then having it watermark your screen is bullshit. I shouldn't have to have crap in the corner of my desktop just because I want to load non-signed drivers.
Macintosh IIvi
Powerbook 2400c
Powerbook 550c
I have over 4G of RAM. And even if you don't, are you sure you won't have more than 4G of RAM before you move on to the next OS?
Installing 64-bit now makes a lot of sense.
I haven't had a problem with software incompatibilities. And I use some esoteric stuff. I was sure AnyDVD wouldn't work. I was wrong.
I'm more interested in the extra registers that you code can assume exists on 64-bit x86s. Also, managing a larger than 32-bit addressing space in 32-bit mode can lead to a lot of extra instructions, since you can't use 64-bit registers to hold the data.
So yeah, I'm interested in 64-bit mode. Because it should help my machine run more efficiently. And Vista and Windows 7 don't support Win16 apps, so it isn't going to be a problem that win16 cannot use a hardware acceleration mode while running in 64-bit mode.
In the end, your argument is simply "why do we need 64-bit mode, we can do anything we want in 32-bit mode with a little extra work". Yeah, that's true about 16-bit mode too. It can do everything 32-bit mode can do (even without protected mode), and yet we switched away from 16-bit to 32-bit.
64-bit mode is on the rise because apps and OSes are starting to creak a bit with the limitations of 32-bit mode, and programmers being lazy beasts, would rather just change a compile option instead of write a bunch of paged data management code (a la EMS,XMS,EEMS and the old DOS extenders).
You can dual-boot windows 7.
http://i.gizmodo.com/5120606/how-to-run-windows-7-and-your-old-os-on-the-same-computer