RTFA:"He acknowledged, however, that there is a significant gap between research results and commercial availability of devices based on scientific breakthroughs.
Other designers working in the field were also cautious about direct applications of the technology. Alex Dickenson, chief executive of Luxtera, a Carlsbad, Calif. start-up firm that announced a 10-billion bit per second optical modulator using a different silicon-based approach earlier this year, said that he believed there would significant hurdles to the commercialization of the Stanford discovery.
He cautioned that while the display was interesting from an academic perspective, the researchers had yet to prove that the effect works at the standard frequencies of light used by the telecommunications industry."
The article actually bothered checking with other experts in the field to see how close we are to commercial apps.
Would you mind checking tomorrow to see what the 360 controllers are labeled as? I'm really curious now, and I dunno if TFA is totally incorrect, or if there is some other reason for the interference that I'm not aware of that would explain 2.4GHz interfering with 900MHz... when TFA implies Walmart uses non-compliant 2.4GHz.
Well, TFA implied that if a device is certified, it won't be interfered with. It's more likely that your wireless setup is is noncompliant than the phones...
FTA: "The problem is unlikely to affect any home technology in the way that it caused problems at Wal-Mart, since the Xbox 360 has been certified by the FCC/ETSI for operation in the 2.4GHz band. No other devices with the certification will react negatively to the system's wireless output, though non-certified devices could be at risk."
So, Walmart is using wireless inventory systems in the 2.4GHz band that are not certified by the FCC/ETSI? Any implications of this?
The modulation. The signal travels at about the same time, but you can turn it on and off much much faster... so the density of bits per unit of time is much higher.
Normal signal: ____----____----____----
0 1 0 1 0 1
New hawtness: _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
010101010101010101010101
Both took the same amount of time to travel down the pipe. But one conveyed 4x the information.
The BBC tech department amuses me. Not patching on schedule, etc.
Follow the link in TFA that goes to the BBC's limiting employees to the use of PocketPC2002. Pretty funny stuff there:
"An internal email from the company's technology division stated all PDA platforms other than PocketPC are insecure - which will prevent anybody operating a Palm or Psion handheld device from using their PDA at work."
Which impies that the Beeb's tech division believes PocketPC to be secure. If we've learned anything over the decades, no system is secure.
The email said reasons of security and unusually, the "exposure to users of health and safety risks" left the company with no other choice but the PocketPC platform.
Health and safety risks for not using PocketPC? What, like Palm caused PDAs to emit toxins or explode in 2002?
Re: redundancy, I totally agree -- however, it doesn't take as much time as unique data.
Good point on the likelihood of finding anomalies. And the time spent on those is really dependent on the quantity of them, as well as the type.
Re:Gravy Train Over--Time to Get Real
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
"There's a storm coming, and it's time to save like you've never saved before."
As long as you aren't saving currency. Transfer your holdings into tradeable goods. Land will continue to appreciate in relative value as long as population continues to increase.
"This is already subverting the free market by opening a loophole which allows employers to look outside their home market in order to undercut workers in their own market."
It's subverting the limited, established somewhat-free-within-political-boundaries market as defined by governmental entities.
It's not a free market when you can't hire whomever you want.
The fact of the matter is that local and national markets are fast being swallowed by a global market for goods, for capital, and for labor.
Sticking our head in the sand isn't going to do us any good.
"NASA's main purpose isn't exploration or science, it's to preserve its own existence."
Well, duh, it's a government agency.
That's a primary purpose of all governments -- to preserve their own existence.
Not to say that government agencies, and governments in general, can't do things that are in the public good. On the individual level, people in government are often motivated by partially (even sometimes mostly!) altruistic reasons. But there are finite resources to be had, so on the institutional level, they work hard at preserving their own existence.
"The original estimate was for the rovers to survive 90 days and they figured that the data received would occupy planteary scientists for years to come. The data they have now ought to occupy scientists for decades."
Except that a lot of the data will be redundant. Fixed time based on type of data for analysis, variable time based on quantity of data.
Not to say that the extra data is worthless, or that it can't provide additional insight... but some of the data is just increasing sample size.
Besides, we don't want people thinking that unmanned missions to other planets will be useless for the next couple decades, since all the planetary scientists will be busy already...
In a virtual world where the only truly identifying characteristic is a character's name, how does a name change (forced or voluntary) impact relations with others in the game? A follow up question would be: how could developers, if they so chose, account for this to minimize any negative impact?"
They don't need to minimize the impact. For forced changes, people wouldn't bother following the name creation rules.
If a name change is voluntary, then the person who did it chose to face the consequences of the name change.
The thing is, CmdrTaco is upset because an identity he established outside the game is unusable inside the game. Yes, it took a while for enforcement to catch up to him. And yes, enforcement may seem arbitrary and sporadic, but I would think this more due to not enough GMs / rules lawyers / complainers to enforce every rule absolutely. But we don't have some inalienable right to have the same handle on every website we create an account on.
The fact of the matter is (apologies to Chuck Palahniuk & Jim Uhls) you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. In WoW, you are as anonymous as the next guy... until you make a name for yourself in Wow.
CmdrTaco says it himself (though unintentionally, I believe): "This experience has brought up a host of feelings on matters of virtual identity and virtual worlds."
Virtual Worlds. That's plural. While we may grow attached to our handles (I use Red Flayer a variety of places), we should have no expectation that our identity in one 'world' should be valid in another 'world' -- that's the whole point of virtual worlds, no? I'm not an accountant in the World of Greyhawk, I'm a dwarven priest. And my name is not $Real_name, it's $Handle. But I'm not a dwarven priest named $Handle in the World of Warcraft...
Re: unique IDs such as seller numbers on eBay, those are used to represent us not in a virtual world, but in the real world. As such, there is an expectation that our unique ID should be non-transferable, non-spoofable, and unchangeable.
" For one, compromising ergonomics for everyone for features that only a subset of owners might use isn't a good idea."
Compromising a couple characteristics in order to create the perception of increased functionality works well. SUVs come to mind.
The mobile phone market is becoming like the automobile market is.
Sensible people will buy sensible phones. Other people will buy the 'SUV' of phones, not because it is better, but because they can brag to their buddies/coworkers/business contacts that they have the newest greatest most expensive phone.
I see it every day at my office, when the ad sales reps bitch and moan that the company won't pay for their new Dongle. And when, three months later, they've replaced that Dongle with a newer, more prestigious one. iPods, cell phones, PDAs, etc.
"The comments here crack me up. There's nothing that says "I'm not very good at my job" like posting "OMG I would get fired if I did that!"
For those of us who have the benefit of not working for PHBs, sure. But most people work for bosses who have little understanding of IT, and a great understanding of how to lay blame when the owner(s) or board of a company have a bone to pick.
Many corporate cultures have ingrained CYA habits, and they start at the top.
Nice advice, for someone who doesn't even follow it:
"My predecessor spent too much [so] I was told not to spend any money." When asked what argument he used to convince management to use an open source solution, Uemura said: "They didn't have an argument because they said don't spend any money." "They trusted me," he said. "The whole office was relying on one domain controller which was dying." (emphasis mine)
IT Manager at Consultancy Office != IT Consultant.
First, you seem to be doing much better than the average employee.
Second, "The lack of raises provided him with no "stick" and the lack of advancement opportunities provided him with no "carrot."""
I think you misunderstand the "carrot and stick" analogy. The carrot is a reward (like a raise, or promotion). The stick is the threat of punishment (like getting fired).
"I guess we just disagree about what constitutes normal use, don't we?"
Well, seeing as your cell phone likely does not have the screen exposed when it is in storage position...
If you read TFA, you'll see why there is a question of liability on Apple's end. The Mini had thicker protection, yet Apple still had a policy of replacing screens for those-who-bitch-enough. They ship the Nano with even less protection.
"Apple installed keys and change in your pocket, weird.""
The point was that the user did not modify the windshield or the wipers. Hard to draw a parallel (but since you tried...) between a car windshield and a Nano, you don't normally put a car in your pocket.
But the parent said competitive on "price per dollar." Price (in dollars) per dollar always equals 1. So, since the both have a price per dollar of 1, they are competetive...
Rubbing keys on a car windshield is not normal wear and tear, nor is taking a bullet through the crotch of your Levi's.
If your Levi's developed a hole in front of your junk through normal wear and tear, the first few times you wore them... then, yes, they are defective.
If your windshield became scratched by your windshield wipers, as factory installed, then yes, it is defective (or the wipers are).
Yeah, they overbuffed in response to imbalance early in the release. There was a lot of info about it, I recall reading an interview with one of the higher-ups at Blizzard explaining why they made Horde stronger. Problem is, they now need to either nerf Horde or buff Alliance... and be very careful of imbalancing the game the other way.
There are a couple timelines affecting how nerfs and buffs affect Alliance vs Horde. The short timeline is based on the nerf or buff itself, as applied to the current character base. The long timeline is the result of the buff or nerf affecting which side new chars are created on, as you point out.
Look for Blizz to slightly buff Alliance over the next few updates... quest rewards, etc.
Part of the core function is being able to use the display to navigate amongst your music. I'm talking abot scratches to the display screen, not the case in general.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA:"He acknowledged, however, that there is a significant gap between research results and commercial availability of devices based on scientific breakthroughs.
Other designers working in the field were also cautious about direct applications of the technology. Alex Dickenson, chief executive of Luxtera, a Carlsbad, Calif. start-up firm that announced a 10-billion bit per second optical modulator using a different silicon-based approach earlier this year, said that he believed there would significant hurdles to the commercialization of the Stanford discovery.
He cautioned that while the display was interesting from an academic perspective, the researchers had yet to prove that the effect works at the standard frequencies of light used by the telecommunications industry."
The article actually bothered checking with other experts in the field to see how close we are to commercial apps.
Would you mind checking tomorrow to see what the 360 controllers are labeled as? I'm really curious now, and I dunno if TFA is totally incorrect, or if there is some other reason for the interference that I'm not aware of that would explain 2.4GHz interfering with 900MHz... when TFA implies Walmart uses non-compliant 2.4GHz.
Well, TFA implied that if a device is certified, it won't be interfered with. It's more likely that your wireless setup is is noncompliant than the phones...
FTA: "The problem is unlikely to affect any home technology in the way that it caused problems at Wal-Mart, since the Xbox 360 has been certified by the FCC/ETSI for operation in the 2.4GHz band. No other devices with the certification will react negatively to the system's wireless output, though non-certified devices could be at risk."
So, Walmart is using wireless inventory systems in the 2.4GHz band that are not certified by the FCC/ETSI? Any implications of this?
The modulation. The signal travels at about the same time, but you can turn it on and off much much faster... so the density of bits per unit of time is much higher.
Normal signal: ____----____----____----
0 1 0 1 0 1
New hawtness: _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
010101010101010101010101
Both took the same amount of time to travel down the pipe. But one conveyed 4x the information.
"Is it unreasonable for me to be able to have access to every single textbook on C++?"
Why yes, it is unreasonable to have every textbook on a programming language.
I'd hate to think of how long it would take to compile.
The BBC tech department amuses me. Not patching on schedule, etc.
Follow the link in TFA that goes to the BBC's limiting employees to the use of PocketPC2002. Pretty funny stuff there:
"An internal email from the company's technology division stated all PDA platforms other than PocketPC are insecure - which will prevent anybody operating a Palm or Psion handheld device from using their PDA at work."
Which impies that the Beeb's tech division believes PocketPC to be secure. If we've learned anything over the decades, no system is secure.
The email said reasons of security and unusually, the "exposure to users of health and safety risks" left the company with no other choice but the PocketPC platform.
Health and safety risks for not using PocketPC? What, like Palm caused PDAs to emit toxins or explode in 2002?
Re: redundancy, I totally agree -- however, it doesn't take as much time as unique data.
Good point on the likelihood of finding anomalies. And the time spent on those is really dependent on the quantity of them, as well as the type.
"There's a storm coming, and it's time to save like you've never saved before."
As long as you aren't saving currency. Transfer your holdings into tradeable goods. Land will continue to appreciate in relative value as long as population continues to increase.
"This is already subverting the free market by opening a loophole which allows employers to look outside their home market in order to undercut workers in their own market."
It's subverting the limited, established somewhat-free-within-political-boundaries market as defined by governmental entities.
It's not a free market when you can't hire whomever you want.
The fact of the matter is that local and national markets are fast being swallowed by a global market for goods, for capital, and for labor.
Sticking our head in the sand isn't going to do us any good.
"NASA's main purpose isn't exploration or science, it's to preserve its own existence."
Well, duh, it's a government agency.
That's a primary purpose of all governments -- to preserve their own existence.
Not to say that government agencies, and governments in general, can't do things that are in the public good. On the individual level, people in government are often motivated by partially (even sometimes mostly!) altruistic reasons. But there are finite resources to be had, so on the institutional level, they work hard at preserving their own existence.
"The original estimate was for the rovers to survive 90 days and they figured that the data received would occupy planteary scientists for years to come. The data they have now ought to occupy scientists for decades."
Except that a lot of the data will be redundant. Fixed time based on type of data for analysis, variable time based on quantity of data.
Not to say that the extra data is worthless, or that it can't provide additional insight... but some of the data is just increasing sample size.
Besides, we don't want people thinking that unmanned missions to other planets will be useless for the next couple decades, since all the planetary scientists will be busy already...
In a virtual world where the only truly identifying characteristic is a character's name, how does a name change (forced or voluntary) impact relations with others in the game? A follow up question would be: how could developers, if they so chose, account for this to minimize any negative impact?"
They don't need to minimize the impact. For forced changes, people wouldn't bother following the name creation rules.
If a name change is voluntary, then the person who did it chose to face the consequences of the name change.
The thing is, CmdrTaco is upset because an identity he established outside the game is unusable inside the game. Yes, it took a while for enforcement to catch up to him. And yes, enforcement may seem arbitrary and sporadic, but I would think this more due to not enough GMs / rules lawyers / complainers to enforce every rule absolutely. But we don't have some inalienable right to have the same handle on every website we create an account on.
The fact of the matter is (apologies to Chuck Palahniuk & Jim Uhls) you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. In WoW, you are as anonymous as the next guy... until you make a name for yourself in Wow.
CmdrTaco says it himself (though unintentionally, I believe): "This experience has brought up a host of feelings on matters of virtual identity and virtual worlds."
Virtual Worlds. That's plural. While we may grow attached to our handles (I use Red Flayer a variety of places), we should have no expectation that our identity in one 'world' should be valid in another 'world' -- that's the whole point of virtual worlds, no? I'm not an accountant in the World of Greyhawk, I'm a dwarven priest. And my name is not $Real_name, it's $Handle. But I'm not a dwarven priest named $Handle in the World of Warcraft...
Re: unique IDs such as seller numbers on eBay, those are used to represent us not in a virtual world, but in the real world. As such, there is an expectation that our unique ID should be non-transferable, non-spoofable, and unchangeable.
" For one, compromising ergonomics for everyone for features that only a subset of owners might use isn't a good idea."
Compromising a couple characteristics in order to create the perception of increased functionality works well. SUVs come to mind.
The mobile phone market is becoming like the automobile market is.
Sensible people will buy sensible phones. Other people will buy the 'SUV' of phones, not because it is better, but because they can brag to their buddies/coworkers/business contacts that they have the newest greatest most expensive phone.
I see it every day at my office, when the ad sales reps bitch and moan that the company won't pay for their new Dongle. And when, three months later, they've replaced that Dongle with a newer, more prestigious one. iPods, cell phones, PDAs, etc.
All the carbon compunds you've listed have an additional problem, though -- combustion byproducts, like CO & CO2.
Water is also more easily available than the alternative fuels you mention -- cheaper to store, transport, and recover.
"The comments here crack me up. There's nothing that says "I'm not very good at my job" like posting "OMG I would get fired if I did that!"
For those of us who have the benefit of not working for PHBs, sure. But most people work for bosses who have little understanding of IT, and a great understanding of how to lay blame when the owner(s) or board of a company have a bone to pick.
Many corporate cultures have ingrained CYA habits, and they start at the top.
Just do it? They'll thank you later?
Nice advice, for someone who doesn't even follow it:
"My predecessor spent too much [so] I was told not to spend any money." When asked what argument he used to convince management to use an open source solution, Uemura said: "They didn't have an argument because they said don't spend any money." "They trusted me," he said. "The whole office was relying on one domain controller which was dying." (emphasis mine)
IT Manager at Consultancy Office != IT Consultant.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/carrot.html
An explanation of the derivation of the term, that points out the common fallacy of thinking it's a "carrot on a stick"
From the American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/C0128900.html
There are, of course, professionals in etymology that disagree, but it's generally accepted as reward/punishment, not unreachable reward.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/carrot.html
An explanation of the derivation of the term, that points out the common fallacy of thinking it's a "carrot on a stick"
First, you seem to be doing much better than the average employee. Second,
"The lack of raises provided him with no "stick" and the lack of advancement opportunities provided him with no "carrot."""
I think you misunderstand the "carrot and stick" analogy. The carrot is a reward (like a raise, or promotion). The stick is the threat of punishment (like getting fired).
"I guess we just disagree about what constitutes normal use, don't we?"
Well, seeing as your cell phone likely does not have the screen exposed when it is in storage position...
If you read TFA, you'll see why there is a question of liability on Apple's end. The Mini had thicker protection, yet Apple still had a policy of replacing screens for those-who-bitch-enough. They ship the Nano with even less protection.
"Apple installed keys and change in your pocket, weird.""
The point was that the user did not modify the windshield or the wipers. Hard to draw a parallel (but since you tried...) between a car windshield and a Nano, you don't normally put a car in your pocket.
But the parent said competitive on "price per dollar." Price (in dollars) per dollar always equals 1. So, since the both have a price per dollar of 1, they are competetive...
Rubbing keys on a car windshield is not normal wear and tear, nor is taking a bullet through the crotch of your Levi's.
If your Levi's developed a hole in front of your junk through normal wear and tear, the first few times you wore them... then, yes, they are defective.
If your windshield became scratched by your windshield wipers, as factory installed, then yes, it is defective (or the wipers are).
Yeah, they overbuffed in response to imbalance early in the release. There was a lot of info about it, I recall reading an interview with one of the higher-ups at Blizzard explaining why they made Horde stronger. Problem is, they now need to either nerf Horde or buff Alliance... and be very careful of imbalancing the game the other way.
There are a couple timelines affecting how nerfs and buffs affect Alliance vs Horde. The short timeline is based on the nerf or buff itself, as applied to the current character base. The long timeline is the result of the buff or nerf affecting which side new chars are created on, as you point out.
Look for Blizz to slightly buff Alliance over the next few updates... quest rewards, etc.
Part of the core function is being able to use the display to navigate amongst your music. I'm talking abot scratches to the display screen, not the case in general.