Also, is it just me, or the article title and content a bit misleading: how is a summer intern (PhD student from Stanford), who published this as a single-author paper (no IBM co-authors), an "IBM researcher"?
This is mentioned only at the very end of the "article".
Solving the problem at it's root would require that *both* doctors and their reviewers/patients can be held accountable for what they do or say, respectively. Reciprocity is fair.
However, the only thing such a measure will eventually achieve is to encourage anonymous reviews. An anonymous reviewer cannot be held accountable for anything.
In that respect this measure is just another example brain dead example of technology-blindness. It's not the first and certainly not the last, no surprise here!
Also, I've noticed a bunch (at least two) tethering apps, which are (a) paid, and (b) require root access (e.g., developer phone). I wonder if there is any connection here...
I see a lot of comments wondering about this. To clarify, RTFA: "...provide fingerprints upon re-entry."
Translation: each time you enter the country, instead of waiting on the 2-minute line and just wave your document(s), you'll wait on the 30-to-60-minute line and have your prints and photo taken. This is not about availability of the data (that is not new), it's about extra formal procedures at the borders.
Furthermore, the arguments about document forgery mentioned in the linked article also apply to US passports. After all, they are also issued by a US authority, like green cards. So, clearly that is the next logical step, except it may be a bit tougher to pass (simple: US citizens vote, non-citizens don't). But the new rules for permanent resident aliens should be a good move to prepare the public.
As to how useful all this data collection is: as someone currently stuck waiting for a visa because the new USCIS database system is not functioning properly, without a timeframe for fixing it, I have some doubts. At least I was formally warned about the presence of bugs in the system and potential indefinite delays, but I chose to be (too) optimistic -- so I cannot really blame USCIS for having to reschedule my trip.
...a bricks-and-mortar retailer that is in deep trouble, and this is supposed to indicate something good? Wake me up when they do offer a web-based version, rather than just switch to obfuscated pricing.
When I was taking experimental physics 101, I remember we verified basic laws in mechanics by sliding and throwing stuff around many many times, then fitting equations and calculating confidence intervals. Sure, we didn't have petabytes, it all fit in one square-ruled piece of paper.
Several centruries ago, the wholy grail of theory was perfect causality and inference of all the minute details. Chris Anderson seems to be stuck there. Quantum mechanics changed that for good, by talking in terms of statistical properties of position and momentum of particles. But that turns out to be a very useful set of models, with many practical uses. (String theory, on the other hand, through my limited understanding takes a different tack: it adds so many dimensions, that's it's possible to fit almost any kind of data -- as Feynman once complained, more or less.)
So, now we have petabytes of particles (so to speak). We can throw the dice many times and make observations and draw inferences that are statistical in nature. But we're still dealing with models and confidence intervals. The fundamentals are the same, maybe there is a relative shift in focus between theory and experiment, or between perfectly causal and statistical models, but that's about it in my view.
Chris Anderson may not be an expert and he seems to equate theory with the partly dated Laplacian concepts. I only partly agree: not even close to the end of science or theory, but perhaps a slight shift in focus, towards models that are more statistical in nature. Fundamentals remain the same, though, as far as I can tell.
Dojo is available on the AOL CDN for quite a while now... it's even the suggested way of using it, in the current manuals.
Also, since Google is opening up its platform, makes sense to host popular AJAX toolkits for all to use -- why the big fuss? If you host your apps there, might as well use the common libraries -- if you don't want to, fine.
I thought that the big fuss about Google Checkout was precisely to eventually allow pay-per-purchase (hidden somewhere in the Q&A here, where Schmidt is asked "why not just paypal?"). How is Microsoft doing this and how is it different? BTW, I already get some cashback from Google Checkout too...
I don't agree with censorship as a "solution", but does YouTube allow any videos? If, for example, I posted a porn (legal) or child pornography (illegal) video, would YouTube refuse to take it down because that would violates freedom of speech? If certain cultures have different views (and possibly laws??) about what is morally right or wrong, are they wrong for complaining or is YouTube wrong for refusing to accept non-Western standards?
In the Madonna video, the background circles actually do look better (more round and evenly coloured) in the iTunes video. In the Elton John video, the faces in the dark background look better (the "main" face on the right has more grain and the face on the left is slightly more visible). This seems to indicate that there is more information in the hi-res versions, just not in the right places. I'm not an expert with modern video encoders, but could it be that whoever did the encoding of the video did a poor job at properly allocating the bits to the relevant portions of the image?
There is this thing called Bluetooth out there that is supposed to be a replacement for cables. Even my computer is not a single big box: it has a separate main unit, screen, keyboard, mouse and speakers. In order to put them together, all I have to do is plug them in. This is because they all obey a common standard.
So why not the same with portable devices? Let me put it this way: Integration should *not* be about building a single box that has everything, physically. It should be about plug-and-play interoperability and open standards.
So how about this: Instead of a big, bulky cellphone + PDA + MP3 player + camera +.... +... I'd like to have:
An iPod that can serve as a Bluetooth headset. It has a screen and a rudimentary keyboard (sufficient for most things, such as calling someone from my addressbook or answering a call), and audio I/O.
A Bluetooth headset. Much smaller than an iPod, but provides the basic functionality I need to receive and make calls.
A PDA with Bluetooth. It doesn't have a modem or access to a wireless network, but has everything else.
A slim digital camera, which can take photos and videos well. However, if I want to send an MMS (the main "excuse" for VGA cameras in cellphones), it would be nice if I could just send it via Bluetooth to my cellphone.
Wait! I actually have all these things already. So why can't my cellphone be a screen-less, keyboard-less, matchbox-sized device (basically, battery + Bluetooth tranceiver + GSM tranceiver) that I can drop in my backpocket when I want connectivity with the outside world?
Actually, the thing that is missing is interoperability! I can already have this modularity, but getting one device to see the other is a pain. Doing things like getting one device (say the iPod) to see the addressbook in another device (say, the small tranceiver box) is next to impossible.
An article in the Economist recently pointed out that integration for non-portable home entertainment devices is currently a failure because getting things to talk to each other is too complicated: typical consumers do not buy "service offerings" (e.g., system for distributed video, with terminals and servers) but rather buy individual devices on impulse, which they can just plug in and forget. That is why DVD players, for example, caught on: you buy the thing, plug it in and it works.
What we need is the same for digital devices, whether portable or not. The right way to integration is not to build a single box that is a TV + DVD player + computer + DVR + telephone + game console + web terminal +... +... (doesn't that sound ridiculous?). What is needed are open protocols that will make the interoperability that is possible with a TV, VCR and DVD also possible on a grander scale. Both for portable and non-portable devices. Just my 2c...
According to January's in-flight magazine from Lufthansa, on a 9000Km (5600 miles) flight, the A380 consumes 3.3 liters per 100Km and per passenger, versus 3.7 liters for the 737-400.
According to the same source, the only German airport that is ready for the A380 is Munich's. However, some "minimal modifications" will be made to the terminal building to make simultaneous boarding of both main and upper decks, via a number of bridges. Modifications are also underway at the Frankfurt-Main airport. These include 9 parking positions and enlarged waiting rooms. Fraport (the company that manages the airport) has already "set aside" about 50 million euros for the modifications. However, it is still "not clear" whether simultaneous boarding on both decks will be possible in Frankfurt.
Lufthansa has ordered 15 A380s (most likely all of them in the 500-passenger configuration, Rolls-Royce engine option) and will start flying them in the summer of 2007. The destinations have not yet been completely decided, but will be chosen by the end of 2006 among 19 "potential destinations." It looks like it will be mostly long-haul flights to the "emerging markets" in Asia.
Also related: Airbus Beluga "Super Transporter"
This is used to transport some of the "smaller" parts---I guess, if you want to build the largest commercial passenger plane, it helps if you have already built the world's largest freighter plane!:-)
And a last tidbit: the diameter of the A380s jet engines is the same as the diameter of the A320 fuselage. What the...?
Finally, in other news, one other first for Lufthansa (BTW, no, I don't work for them, I'm not even German:-) is FlyNet, which uses Boeing's Connexion to offer live Internet via on-board WiFi (11Mbps) and a satelite link (1Mbps). Lufthansa is already offering it on many flights. Connexion was ditched by the US companies initially involved, citing "financial concerns" after 9/11 (and this, only a couple of weeks after 9/11... hmm:-). Of course, this is also a first for Boeing (which will be outfitting some Airbuses as well).
Actually, with all the junk I am carrying in my pockets anyway (most of which I basically use for one thing, but it still tries to duplicate functionality present in other devices without doing it quite right), I think I'd like to see devices that do one thing right.
Think about this: ideally, a "cellphone" for me would be a tiny box that has only three things:
a battery (can't do without it)
a GSM tranceiver (to talk to the outside world), and
a Bluetooth tranceiver (to talk to the "world" that lives in my pockets anyway).
It won't do anything else, but will do these basic functions right!
Now, this thing, I can just leave in my pocket. As for: (a) Talking? A small, cordless headset (w/ voice dialing and a voice interface for the common functions). I carry one anyway. (b) Keypad? A small PDA (to control the more advanced functions, say SMS and web-browsing), which has a screen already. I carry one anyway (when I need it). (c) MMS w/pictures? (not that I ever send any of these, but anyway) I carry an ultracompact digicam (Kyocera SL400R) anyway, when I want to take pictures. A Bluetooth interface shouldn't be that hard. (d) More serious stuff? Well, every laptop now has Bluetooth, pretty much. The phone can still stay in my pocket and double as a GSM modem.
If you think this is far-fetched, check this out: Nokia Wireless Image Headset
Now, this, I can carry only when I need the "extra" functionality!
As for Bluetooth cameras, well someone has thought of it already: Concord Bluetooth Camera
But it still needs to go some way towards miniaturization (which should be doable).
So: Do one thing and do it right! If modularity works for programs living in a PC, why not for hardware that lives in my pockets? Seems possible to me with the "new" technology. Just my 2c...
Actually, for graphics work where color accuracy does matter, CRTs still seem to be the choice.
Copying from, e.g., the NEC/Mitsubishi site on color calibration:
"All CRT and LCD monitors require calibration for accurate color-critical work, but some are easier to calibrate than others. Based on the current core technologies, CRT monitors are able to display a wider color space than LCD monitors and deliver more consistent brightness uniformity throughout the screen. For these reasons, CRT monitors can more easily be calibrated. LCD monitors also exhibit limitations in making adjustments in brightness, backlight color temperature, contrast and black level. Nevertheless, advances are quickly being made, utilizing different backlight designs to improve the calibration capabilities of LCD displays."
Ever wonder why all pro monitors for graphics work (meaning, those that come with an integrated colorimeter) are still CRTs?
Color accuracy aside, I find most LCDs too tiring (even with brightness/contrast turned almost all the way down). I've only recently seen LCDs I'd swap my CRT with, but these are stil quite $$$$. In any case, this is a matter of personal preference (maybe I have too sensitive eyes?).
Suprisingly, I didn't see anyone mention it. So, may I suggest: http://vivisimo.com/ Much easier to navigate than Google, thanks to clusterings that actually make sense (usually)!
"When you finish college, you think you know everything.
When you finish your MS, you realize you don't know anything.
When you finish your PhD, you realize you don't know anything, but neither does your advisor."
-- popular wisdom
Or is there some important OS difference between 64 CPUs and 128?
Is there a difference between buying your airplane ticket 2 months versus 2 days in advance? Yes, demand (you are probably on an urgent need)---and a few $K more. Or buying 1 hour in advance? Yes, demand (no-one else wanted you seat so far)... Is there a difference between business class versus coach on the same plane to the same destination? Yes, service---and a few $K again... etc etc
Programming vs. execution model...
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Different people prefer different languages, quite often for "minor" reasons. Some like @$%, some don't, yet others like whitespace-delimited blocks and others prefer {}, etc... Don't get me wrong -- I am a Python user personally and could enumerate several such reasons myself...:-)
However, in "conventional" compiled languages, it has always been (more or less) possible to mix and match: eg. code in C++ with older libraries in C, or with FORTRAN. The object code model (ie. anything that involves the linker) is largely independent of the programming language. There have been some attempts to do this with a common bytecode layer, but we aren't even close to the "features" of plain old.o files yet. Or am I wrong?
Why not be able to "link" different scripting languages? Jython has done this to a limited extent between Python and Java. And there is some talk about a "backend" vs. frontend separation in Perl. What is the current status of these? How far away are we from something like a cross-platform, scripting language targeted equivalent of ELF/libbfd etc (plus a common bytecode layer)?
The bottom line: a lot of people mentioned the pain of incompatibility with pre-existing code vs. the benefits of learning a new scripting language. But I don't think that the pain vs. benefits need be as tightly linked as people usually assume...
Note that the article mentions StarOffice 5.2, which does not use the Xprint extension (I assume this is what you are referring to?). As for the rationale of using Xprint... Admittedly not the best solution, but... Plus Xprint was in Solaris longer than it has been in XFree (>=4.x), I believe?
This may be of some utility and/or appeal to people involved with forma logic and theorem proving, but I think it overlooks the forest and focuses on a few trees.
"The mathematician's patterns, like the painter's or the poet's, must be beautiful; the ideas, like the colours or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics." -- G. H. Hardy, "A Mathematician's Apology"
Granted, for some, formal axiomatic proofs fit the above description. But that is just a small part and not "mathematics" in general! Learning mathematics does involve a cognitive leap, that of usually forming important abstractions.
In some calculus book whose title escapes me, there is a figure that illustrates a theorem about fixpoint equation convergence, along with a comment (by Hardy, again), that this is all the proof a mathematician needs...
I guess the bottom line is: proofs should not be confused with their descriptions. The descriptions themselves may be things of beauty, but aren't necessarily the proofs themselves!
You can get the original publication about X, which contains many references to papers about the predecessors from the ACM Digital Library (account needed). The paper is: Robert W. Scheifler, Jim Gettys, The X Window System, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(2), April 1986, pp 79-109 The paper is ~30 pages long and contains an excellent description of why X were designed like they were, and also a quite candid critique of the system's shortcomings by their authors. There is about 1+ page of history.
A brief quote from the intro: "At Stanford University, Paul Asante and Brian Reid had begun work on the W window system as an alternative to VGTS for the V system. Both VGTS and W allow network-transparent access to the display, using the synchronous V communication mechanism" [(c) ACM 1986]. More references: P Asente, W Referece Manual, Internal document, Dept. of Comp. Science, Stanford Univ., 1984 KA Lantz, WI Nowicki, Structured Graphics for Distributed Systems, ACM Trans on Graphics, 3(1), Jan. 1984, pp 23-51 W Nowicki, Partitioning of Function in a Distributed Graphics System, PhD Thesis, Dept of Comp Science, Stanford Univ, 1985 D Cheriton, The V Kernel: A Software Base for Distributed Systems, IEEE Software, 1(2), April 1983, pp 19-42
I also found some surprising references, such as the one with James Gosling (of Java fame), in his youth (while a student at CMU): J Gosling, D Rosenthal, A Window-Manager for Bitmapped Displays in Unix, in Methodology of Window-Managers, FRA Hopgood etal Eds, Springer-Verlag, NY, 1986 J Morris, M Satyanarayanan, M Conner, J Howard, D Rosenthal, F Donelson Smith, Andrew: A Distributed Personal Computing Environment, CACM, 29(3), Mar. 1986, pp 184-201 Andrew was a windowing system developed independently at CMU at about the same time X and Athena were being developed at MIT. Eventually, X dominated and an emulation layer was written for Andrew, to be able to run it's UI on top of X.;-)
A number of these are available online from ACMs DL. Otherwise, a trip to the library will probably provide you with more info than you need to know!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Extremely difficult for humans my behind: :-)
Grannies Handbrake Parking Challenge - Part 1
Grannies Handbrake Parking Challenge - Part 2
(from BBC Topgear)
Seriously though, congratulations to the Stanford team, this is pretty impressive at this speed.
Also, is it just me, or the article title and content a bit misleading: how is a summer intern (PhD student from Stanford), who published this as a single-author paper (no IBM co-authors), an "IBM researcher"?
This is mentioned only at the very end of the "article".
Dude, that's the spirit -- you should be a Chief Data Architect at IBM! :-))
"It'll Be Messy" :-)
What you say about anonymity is really important.
Solving the problem at it's root would require that *both* doctors and their reviewers/patients can be held accountable for what they do or say, respectively. Reciprocity is fair.
However, the only thing such a measure will eventually achieve is to encourage anonymous reviews. An anonymous reviewer cannot be held accountable for anything.
In that respect this measure is just another example brain dead example of technology-blindness. It's not the first and certainly not the last, no surprise here!
Also, I've noticed a bunch (at least two) tethering apps, which are (a) paid, and (b) require root access (e.g., developer phone). I wonder if there is any connection here...
I see a lot of comments wondering about this. To clarify, RTFA: "...provide fingerprints upon re-entry."
Translation: each time you enter the country, instead of waiting on the 2-minute line and just wave your document(s), you'll wait on the 30-to-60-minute line and have your prints and photo taken. This is not about availability of the data (that is not new), it's about extra formal procedures at the borders.
Furthermore, the arguments about document forgery mentioned in the linked article also apply to US passports. After all, they are also issued by a US authority, like green cards. So, clearly that is the next logical step, except it may be a bit tougher to pass (simple: US citizens vote, non-citizens don't). But the new rules for permanent resident aliens should be a good move to prepare the public.
As to how useful all this data collection is: as someone currently stuck waiting for a visa because the new USCIS database system is not functioning properly, without a timeframe for fixing it, I have some doubts. At least I was formally warned about the presence of bugs in the system and potential indefinite delays, but I chose to be (too) optimistic -- so I cannot really blame USCIS for having to reschedule my trip.
No no, this is really a cost-cutting measure!
From now on, IBMers can legally get their guests to pay for their food ("royalty fee", capice?). Better watch out if an IBMer invites you to dinner!
...a bricks-and-mortar retailer that is in deep trouble, and this is supposed to indicate something good? Wake me up when they do offer a web-based version, rather than just switch to obfuscated pricing.
When I was taking experimental physics 101, I remember we verified basic laws in mechanics by sliding and throwing stuff around many many times, then fitting equations and calculating confidence intervals. Sure, we didn't have petabytes, it all fit in one square-ruled piece of paper.
Several centruries ago, the wholy grail of theory was perfect causality and inference of all the minute details. Chris Anderson seems to be stuck there. Quantum mechanics changed that for good, by talking in terms of statistical properties of position and momentum of particles. But that turns out to be a very useful set of models, with many practical uses. (String theory, on the other hand, through my limited understanding takes a different tack: it adds so many dimensions, that's it's possible to fit almost any kind of data -- as Feynman once complained, more or less.)
So, now we have petabytes of particles (so to speak). We can throw the dice many times and make observations and draw inferences that are statistical in nature. But we're still dealing with models and confidence intervals. The fundamentals are the same, maybe there is a relative shift in focus between theory and experiment, or between perfectly causal and statistical models, but that's about it in my view.
Chris Anderson may not be an expert and he seems to equate theory with the partly dated Laplacian concepts. I only partly agree: not even close to the end of science or theory, but perhaps a slight shift in focus, towards models that are more statistical in nature. Fundamentals remain the same, though, as far as I can tell.
<shameless plug>
http://www.bitquill.net/ post
</shameless plug>
Dojo is available on the AOL CDN for quite a while now... it's even the suggested way of using it, in the current manuals.
Also, since Google is opening up its platform, makes sense to host popular AJAX toolkits for all to use -- why the big fuss? If you host your apps there, might as well use the common libraries -- if you don't want to, fine.
I thought that the big fuss about Google Checkout was precisely to eventually allow pay-per-purchase (hidden somewhere in the Q&A here, where Schmidt is asked "why not just paypal?"). How is Microsoft doing this and how is it different? BTW, I already get some cashback from Google Checkout too...
I don't agree with censorship as a "solution", but does YouTube allow any videos? If, for example, I posted a porn (legal) or child pornography (illegal) video, would YouTube refuse to take it down because that would violates freedom of speech? If certain cultures have different views (and possibly laws??) about what is morally right or wrong, are they wrong for complaining or is YouTube wrong for refusing to accept non-Western standards?
In the Madonna video, the background circles actually do look better (more round and evenly coloured) in the iTunes video. In the Elton John video, the faces in the dark background look better (the "main" face on the right has more grain and the face on the left is slightly more visible). This seems to indicate that there is more information in the hi-res versions, just not in the right places. I'm not an expert with modern video encoders, but could it be that whoever did the encoding of the video did a poor job at properly allocating the bits to the relevant portions of the image?
So why not the same with portable devices? Let me put it this way: Integration should *not* be about building a single box that has everything, physically. It should be about plug-and-play interoperability and open standards.
So how about this: Instead of a big, bulky cellphone + PDA + MP3 player + camera + .... + ... I'd like to have:
- An iPod that can serve as a Bluetooth headset. It has a screen and a rudimentary keyboard (sufficient for most things, such as calling someone from my addressbook or answering a call), and audio I/O.
- A Bluetooth headset. Much smaller than an iPod, but provides the basic functionality I need to receive and make calls.
- A PDA with Bluetooth. It doesn't have a modem or access to a wireless network, but has everything else.
- A slim digital camera, which can take photos and videos well. However, if I want to send an MMS (the main "excuse" for VGA cameras in cellphones), it would be nice if I could just send it via Bluetooth to my cellphone.
Wait! I actually have all these things already. So why can't my cellphone be a screen-less, keyboard-less, matchbox-sized device (basically, battery + Bluetooth tranceiver + GSM tranceiver) that I can drop in my backpocket when I want connectivity with the outside world?Actually, the thing that is missing is interoperability! I can already have this modularity, but getting one device to see the other is a pain. Doing things like getting one device (say the iPod) to see the addressbook in another device (say, the small tranceiver box) is next to impossible.
An article in the Economist recently pointed out that integration for non-portable home entertainment devices is currently a failure because getting things to talk to each other is too complicated: typical consumers do not buy "service offerings" (e.g., system for distributed video, with terminals and servers) but rather buy individual devices on impulse, which they can just plug in and forget. That is why DVD players, for example, caught on: you buy the thing, plug it in and it works.
What we need is the same for digital devices, whether portable or not. The right way to integration is not to build a single box that is a TV + DVD player + computer + DVR + telephone + game console + web terminal + ... + ... (doesn't that sound ridiculous?). What is needed are open protocols that will make the interoperability that is possible with a TV, VCR and DVD also possible on a grander scale. Both for portable and non-portable devices. Just my 2c...
According to the same source, the only German airport that is ready for the A380 is Munich's. However, some "minimal modifications" will be made to the terminal building to make simultaneous boarding of both main and upper decks, via a number of bridges. Modifications are also underway at the Frankfurt-Main airport. These include 9 parking positions and enlarged waiting rooms. Fraport (the company that manages the airport) has already "set aside" about 50 million euros for the modifications. However, it is still "not clear" whether simultaneous boarding on both decks will be possible in Frankfurt.
Lufthansa has ordered 15 A380s (most likely all of them in the 500-passenger configuration, Rolls-Royce engine option) and will start flying them in the summer of 2007. The destinations have not yet been completely decided, but will be chosen by the end of 2006 among 19 "potential destinations." It looks like it will be mostly long-haul flights to the "emerging markets" in Asia.
Also related: :-)
Airbus Beluga "Super Transporter"
This is used to transport some of the "smaller" parts---I guess, if you want to build the largest commercial passenger plane, it helps if you have already built the world's largest freighter plane!
And a last tidbit: the diameter of the A380s jet engines is the same as the diameter of the A320 fuselage. What the...?
Finally, in other news, one other first for Lufthansa (BTW, no, I don't work for them, I'm not even German :-) is FlyNet, which uses Boeing's Connexion to offer live Internet via on-board WiFi (11Mbps) and a satelite link (1Mbps). Lufthansa is already offering it on many flights. Connexion was ditched by the US companies initially involved, citing "financial concerns" after 9/11 (and this, only a couple of weeks after 9/11... hmm :-). Of course, this is also a first for Boeing (which will be outfitting some Airbuses as well).
Think about this: ideally, a "cellphone" for me would be a tiny box that has only three things:
- a battery (can't do without it)
- a GSM tranceiver (to talk to the outside world), and
- a Bluetooth tranceiver (to talk to the "world" that lives in my pockets anyway).
It won't do anything else, but will do these basic functions right!Now, this thing, I can just leave in my pocket. As for: (a) Talking? A small, cordless headset (w/ voice dialing and a voice interface for the common functions). I carry one anyway. (b) Keypad? A small PDA (to control the more advanced functions, say SMS and web-browsing), which has a screen already. I carry one anyway (when I need it). (c) MMS w/pictures? (not that I ever send any of these, but anyway) I carry an ultracompact digicam (Kyocera SL400R) anyway, when I want to take pictures. A Bluetooth interface shouldn't be that hard. (d) More serious stuff? Well, every laptop now has Bluetooth, pretty much. The phone can still stay in my pocket and double as a GSM modem.
If you think this is far-fetched, check this out:
Nokia Wireless Image Headset
Now, this, I can carry only when I need the "extra" functionality!
As for Bluetooth cameras, well someone has thought of it already:
Concord Bluetooth Camera
But it still needs to go some way towards miniaturization (which should be doable).
So: Do one thing and do it right! If modularity works for programs living in a PC, why not for hardware that lives in my pockets? Seems possible to me with the "new" technology. Just my 2c...
Copying from, e.g., the NEC/Mitsubishi site on color calibration:
"All CRT and LCD monitors require calibration for accurate color-critical work, but some are easier to calibrate than others. Based on the current core technologies, CRT monitors are able to display a wider color space than LCD monitors and deliver more consistent brightness uniformity throughout the screen. For these reasons, CRT monitors can more easily be calibrated. LCD monitors also exhibit limitations in making adjustments in brightness, backlight color temperature, contrast and black level. Nevertheless, advances are quickly being made, utilizing different backlight designs to improve the calibration capabilities of LCD displays."
Ever wonder why all pro monitors for graphics work (meaning, those that come with an integrated colorimeter) are still CRTs?
Color accuracy aside, I find most LCDs too tiring (even with brightness/contrast turned almost all the way down). I've only recently seen LCDs I'd swap my CRT with, but these are stil quite $$$$. In any case, this is a matter of personal preference (maybe I have too sensitive eyes?).
Suprisingly, I didn't see anyone mention it. So, may I suggest:
http://vivisimo.com/
Much easier to navigate than Google, thanks to clusterings that actually make sense (usually)!
"When you finish college, you think you know everything.
When you finish your MS, you realize you don't know anything.
When you finish your PhD, you realize you don't know anything, but neither does your advisor."
-- popular wisdom
Is there a difference between buying your airplane ticket 2 months versus 2 days in advance? Yes, demand (you are probably on an urgent need)---and a few $K more. Or buying 1 hour in advance? Yes, demand (no-one else wanted you seat so far)... Is there a difference between business class versus coach on the same plane to the same destination? Yes, service---and a few $K again... etc etc
However, in "conventional" compiled languages, it has always been (more or less) possible to mix and match: eg. code in C++ with older libraries in C, or with FORTRAN. The object code model (ie. anything that involves the linker) is largely independent of the programming language. There have been some attempts to do this with a common bytecode layer, but we aren't even close to the "features" of plain old .o files yet. Or am I wrong?
Why not be able to "link" different scripting languages? Jython has done this to a limited extent between Python and Java. And there is some talk about a "backend" vs. frontend separation in Perl. What is the current status of these? How far away are we from something like a cross-platform, scripting language targeted equivalent of ELF/libbfd etc (plus a common bytecode layer)?
The bottom line: a lot of people mentioned the pain of incompatibility with pre-existing code vs. the benefits of learning a new scripting language. But I don't think that the pain vs. benefits need be as tightly linked as people usually assume...
Note that the article mentions StarOffice 5.2, which does not use the Xprint extension (I assume this is what you are referring to?). As for the rationale of using Xprint... Admittedly not the best solution, but... Plus Xprint was in Solaris longer than it has been in XFree (>=4.x), I believe?
This may be of some utility and/or appeal to people involved with forma logic and theorem proving, but I think it overlooks the forest and focuses on a few trees.
Granted, for some, formal axiomatic proofs fit the above description. But that is just a small part and not "mathematics" in general! Learning mathematics does involve a cognitive leap, that of usually forming important abstractions.
In some calculus book whose title escapes me, there is a figure that illustrates a theorem about fixpoint equation convergence, along with a comment (by Hardy, again), that this is all the proof a mathematician needs...
I guess the bottom line is: proofs should not be confused with their descriptions. The descriptions themselves may be things of beauty, but aren't necessarily the proofs themselves!
Robert W. Scheifler, Jim Gettys, The X Window System, ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(2), April 1986, pp 79-109
The paper is ~30 pages long and contains an excellent description of why X were designed like they were, and also a quite candid critique of the system's shortcomings by their authors. There is about 1+ page of history.
A brief quote from the intro: "At Stanford University, Paul Asante and Brian Reid had begun work on the W window system as an alternative to VGTS for the V system. Both VGTS and W allow network-transparent access to the display, using the synchronous V communication mechanism" [(c) ACM 1986]. More references:
P Asente, W Referece Manual, Internal document, Dept. of Comp. Science, Stanford Univ., 1984 KA Lantz, WI Nowicki, Structured Graphics for Distributed Systems, ACM Trans on Graphics, 3(1), Jan. 1984, pp 23-51
W Nowicki, Partitioning of Function in a Distributed Graphics System, PhD Thesis, Dept of Comp Science, Stanford Univ, 1985
D Cheriton, The V Kernel: A Software Base for Distributed Systems, IEEE Software, 1(2), April 1983, pp 19-42
I also found some surprising references, such as the one with James Gosling (of Java fame), in his youth (while a student at CMU): ;-)
J Gosling, D Rosenthal, A Window-Manager for Bitmapped Displays in Unix, in Methodology of Window-Managers, FRA Hopgood etal Eds, Springer-Verlag, NY, 1986
J Morris, M Satyanarayanan, M Conner, J Howard, D Rosenthal, F Donelson Smith, Andrew: A Distributed Personal Computing Environment, CACM, 29(3), Mar. 1986, pp 184-201
Andrew was a windowing system developed independently at CMU at about the same time X and Athena were being developed at MIT. Eventually, X dominated and an emulation layer was written for Andrew, to be able to run it's UI on top of X.
A number of these are available online from ACMs DL. Otherwise, a trip to the library will probably provide you with more info than you need to know! ;-)