But if it's only sound-based, it's doomed to fail.
Back in college (which wasn't exactly eons ago) I was programming robots to maneuver spaces using 1) a camera and 2) sonar and 3) infrared. As cool as sonar was, it had two major drawbacks. First, it could only check distance about once a second (partly due to the fact that there were 12 of them, but you get the idea). Second, the sound was very prone to being absorbed (fabric on a cube wall) or dispersed (angles). This resulted in some amusing thumps as the bot would get a no-response from the cube wall, think that it was wide open, turn to it, and floor it.
Add some EM sensors and then you'll have something that makes the life of a blind man easier.
(Ooh look at me. I refuse to call it "earning". Oooh, it's probably grounds for a laawsuit if I said how lame they are. Somebody call the waahmbulance for this doofus.)
Agreed.
Some managers, directors, VPs and even chief-level executives might be nothing more than empty chairs, but there is a good number of them who are responsible by making strategic decisions and taking the time to understand all the working pieces of the company. And if inspiration strikes them best on the golf course (just as inspiration strikes me best on my coffee break or run), then so be it.
First of all, why the hell do you all put up with the ads showing the whole time on the pay-per-view/channel listings area??? All that space is wasted for some inane repeating "preview".
Adding a new channel (which would probably be something worthless like MTV4) would use the channel, but it would add to the licensing costs (which gets passed to the customer). I don't have much use for another junk channel.
Second, in ye olde days of regular TV, you could browse channels by pushing the button on the remote as quickly as you liked. Or before that, you could machine-gun turn the knob and watch the programs fly by. Now with digital cable you have a distinct pause on each channel that makes flipping around take forever. Is this inherent to digital TV? If it is a buffering issue, why can't the box buffer the next channel and the previous channel so that flipping is instant?
The blank screen is the box waiting for the next key-frame to be sent. 10 years ago those were about 1 every second. I don't know how frequent they are today, but probably less so (key frames are "expensive" from a compression stand-point). Each video stream requires it's own video decoder (probably the bulk of the cost in a non-DVR box). How many extra decoders do you add? 1? 2? 5? What happens if the user is looking at the guide and is jumping by page? It's a solvable problem, but not in a commodity market space.
Third, I notice that these boxes are crawling with input and output. Firewire, analog inputs, etc. None of them are actually turned on. WTF?
The USB port on mine is for technicians to run diagnostics on the box and the ethernet port in the back works. Everything has a purpose, even if it's not for me.
Even if it did use real HIV, in many cases the life-span for HIV is around 24 years after infection in the US. This is compared to what, 6 months-5 years for some of the worst forms of cancer? I think in many cases, people would very willingly make that trade. IN many cases it would allow people to live to almost a full average lifespan anyway.
Yes, but try to explain that one to a spouse or girlfriend.
"Because both of them have blue-collar jobs and have to work long hours to put food on the table."
That doesn't make any sense. If money is tighter, they should want LESS government programs and go with private day care, since government programs always cost more to achieve the same thing. You don't have to take my word for that: it's simple grade-school-level math.
Grade school-level math combined with grade-school level logic. If the families money is tighter, they should want to pay a private day care instead of getting a "free" (slightly higher taxes) after school program? It's not like they have direct control of the taxing and budgeting of the U.S. government; there are too many layers. This ignores the benefits of after school programs that benefit everyone: reduced crime and gang activity.
This comes back to everyone wanting small government except the programs they use. I know some die-hard Tea Party people who were more than happy to take advantage of Cash for Clunkers.
And why is little Bobby's family relying on the Federal government to supply the after-school program in the first place?
I'm all for kids and education and opportunities. But I like to see REAL sources for them, not inefficient and ineffective government crap.
Because both of them have blue-collar jobs and have to work long hours to put food on the table.
And the stock answer is: those programs were intended to benefit the weak and vulnerable, but eventually just about all of them turn out to be taken advantage of and abused by people who are NOT weak and vulnerable.
I'm sure little Bobby is really sorry he stayed an extra 30 minutes at the after school program.
Generation gap. The 60s people marched, risked jail time, and their lives to deal with this crap.
Many of the 60s people had their lives on the line. They were being drafted. Their friends were being drafted and dying. It incentivizes a bit of civil disobedience.
Their lives will be on the line again if they were to stop getting social security and/or medicare. Just sayin'.
I know that I stopped buying Ubisoft games when they first added this feature. It hurts the customers more then the pirates.
They probably attributed the reduced sales to "this game sucked more than the last one."
In all seriousness, suits forget that they are supposed to maximize profits (which often correlate to maximized revenue) and that it's better to have 1 more sale even if it means 1,000 more pirates (this ignores extra load on multiplayer servers, but CD Keys will keep the multiplayer-playing pirates from adding significant cost).
Note, for reference, that they have to MAKE a fleet that has those specified averages. They don't have to actually sell a fleet that has the specified performance. If they build a shitpot full of tinkertoy cars that get 80 mpg, they can then build some comfortable sedans that get 30 mpg, and sell the sedans, while the tinkertoys rot in the dealers' lots....
The titanic is headed full speed ahead into the iceberg. One side wants to maintain speed, so the coal men get paid. The other side pretends to want to decrease speed to 3/4 to save coal, and to embarrass the helmsman (but really wants to get to New York fast). Everyone is eventually gonna drown anyway.
There, fixed that for you. If you put the "crew" as the first side and the board of investors as the second, the analogy fits nicely (especially since the board dictates the budget and spending in the first place).
Yeah, I've often thought we were best off with a Democrat president and republican congress.
I've thought the same thing. Despite how antagonistic the Clinton-era Republican Congress was, they could still get stuff done. They worked well as an opposition party and made bills better through compromise. The Obama-era Republican Congress came to power by blocking anything and everything regardless of merit, so why should they stop once they have control of the House?
It's pretty late in the game for this generation of consoles. This seems like a 'who finished first' situation. Who cares? I'd rather the console makers concentrate on product support while working on making things better for the next generation of hardware.
There is still money to be made as games, consoles and accessories are still being sold. This is roughly when a console is most profitable. Also, "second place" really means "first place high-performance console". This is an important distinction when wooing game devs who are writing games that require more horsepower than the Wii offers.
It was not apples to apples (as in, MS and PhD both teaching). It reflected that people with MS were out in the industry making money while people with PhDs were more limited (either by choice or not) and mostly teaching.
Not only does working instead of being in school earn you experience that makes you more valuable, but it also get you something else: money. Even if the MS gets you a few more peanuts as year (which, as you rightly point out, isn't at all likely), it'll take a log time to make up for all the wages you "lost" going to school for two years. This is even more true for Ph.D.s.
I saw something a few months ago that showed Ph.D.s making about 10k less than people with Masters (across the board, not specific to software). They are more educated, but mostly can only work at universities, larger tech companies or on research. Most small businesses won't bother because the skill set / salary / experience doesn't match well.
That you get by being in the workforce for two years, not school. I'd personally look at an M.S. wearily.
One distinction I'll make is people who went straight from bachelors to masters and those who worked a couple of years in between (what I did). The students who did the latter were far more competent than the former.
I noticed that as well. The article talks about how Master's Degrees are a way to wait for the end of an economic downturn, and then "master's degree enrollment has been up since 2009!" It's like, uh... you realize that you just explained why it's gone up, right?
The increase of Master's degrees might also be an increase in students who don't want (or aren't ready) to enter the job market after their senior year. In my dabbling in graduate courses, I found many CS students who couldn't software engineer themselves out of a bag. They might command a higher starting salary, but usually a B.S. software engineer with 2 years of experience will be paid more than a M.S. with 0 (and after the first few years, experience pays more than the extra degree).
Slashdot Mirror
Surely you can't be serious?
I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
But if it's only sound-based, it's doomed to fail.
Back in college (which wasn't exactly eons ago) I was programming robots to maneuver spaces using 1) a camera and 2) sonar and 3) infrared. As cool as sonar was, it had two major drawbacks. First, it could only check distance about once a second (partly due to the fact that there were 12 of them, but you get the idea). Second, the sound was very prone to being absorbed (fabric on a cube wall) or dispersed (angles). This resulted in some amusing thumps as the bot would get a no-response from the cube wall, think that it was wide open, turn to it, and floor it.
Add some EM sensors and then you'll have something that makes the life of a blind man easier.
(Ooh look at me. I refuse to call it "earning". Oooh, it's probably grounds for a laawsuit if I said how lame they are. Somebody call the waahmbulance for this doofus.)
Agreed.
Some managers, directors, VPs and even chief-level executives might be nothing more than empty chairs, but there is a good number of them who are responsible by making strategic decisions and taking the time to understand all the working pieces of the company. And if inspiration strikes them best on the golf course (just as inspiration strikes me best on my coffee break or run), then so be it.
First of all, why the hell do you all put up with the ads showing the whole time on the pay-per-view/channel listings area??? All that space is wasted for some inane repeating "preview".
Adding a new channel (which would probably be something worthless like MTV4) would use the channel, but it would add to the licensing costs (which gets passed to the customer). I don't have much use for another junk channel.
Second, in ye olde days of regular TV, you could browse channels by pushing the button on the remote as quickly as you liked. Or before that, you could machine-gun turn the knob and watch the programs fly by. Now with digital cable you have a distinct pause on each channel that makes flipping around take forever. Is this inherent to digital TV? If it is a buffering issue, why can't the box buffer the next channel and the previous channel so that flipping is instant?
The blank screen is the box waiting for the next key-frame to be sent. 10 years ago those were about 1 every second. I don't know how frequent they are today, but probably less so (key frames are "expensive" from a compression stand-point). Each video stream requires it's own video decoder (probably the bulk of the cost in a non-DVR box). How many extra decoders do you add? 1? 2? 5? What happens if the user is looking at the guide and is jumping by page? It's a solvable problem, but not in a commodity market space.
Third, I notice that these boxes are crawling with input and output. Firewire, analog inputs, etc. None of them are actually turned on. WTF?
The USB port on mine is for technicians to run diagnostics on the box and the ethernet port in the back works. Everything has a purpose, even if it's not for me.
" What is the primary purpose of BART? " To serve the peoples transportation need; which includes cell phones and data connection.
Trains Subways Buses Cell-phones Trams
One of these things is not like the others.
Since this is San Francisco, you should add "cable car" to the list. ;-)
Even if it did use real HIV, in many cases the life-span for HIV is around 24 years after infection in the US. This is compared to what, 6 months-5 years for some of the worst forms of cancer? I think in many cases, people would very willingly make that trade. IN many cases it would allow people to live to almost a full average lifespan anyway.
Yes, but try to explain that one to a spouse or girlfriend.
"Because both of them have blue-collar jobs and have to work long hours to put food on the table."
That doesn't make any sense. If money is tighter, they should want LESS government programs and go with private day care, since government programs always cost more to achieve the same thing. You don't have to take my word for that: it's simple grade-school-level math.
Grade school-level math combined with grade-school level logic. If the families money is tighter, they should want to pay a private day care instead of getting a "free" (slightly higher taxes) after school program? It's not like they have direct control of the taxing and budgeting of the U.S. government; there are too many layers. This ignores the benefits of after school programs that benefit everyone: reduced crime and gang activity.
This comes back to everyone wanting small government except the programs they use. I know some die-hard Tea Party people who were more than happy to take advantage of Cash for Clunkers.
Except the budget itself is law, and it authorized the debt by requiring more expenses than are supported by income.
And that 14th amendment that says the U.S. debt will not be questioned.
And why is little Bobby's family relying on the Federal government to supply the after-school program in the first place? I'm all for kids and education and opportunities. But I like to see REAL sources for them, not inefficient and ineffective government crap.
Because both of them have blue-collar jobs and have to work long hours to put food on the table.
Time to start cutting Federal programs we can no longer afford.
Works for me. We can start by cutting the military budget in half. No need to be the world's policeman anymore.
How about we stop subsidizing rich people's businesses (Big Oil, GE, etc).
And the stock answer is: those programs were intended to benefit the weak and vulnerable, but eventually just about all of them turn out to be taken advantage of and abused by people who are NOT weak and vulnerable.
I'm sure little Bobby is really sorry he stayed an extra 30 minutes at the after school program.
Why do you think most millionaires don't spend all day doing nothing.
Greed and ego. Most millionaires either aren't satisfied and want more money or want to be the man in charge.
You're confusing being a dick with being legitimately authoritarian.
Some people can't distinguish between the two. It's kind of like "One man's rebel is another's freedom fighter."
Generation gap. The 60s people marched, risked jail time, and their lives to deal with this crap.
Many of the 60s people had their lives on the line. They were being drafted. Their friends were being drafted and dying. It incentivizes a bit of civil disobedience.
Their lives will be on the line again if they were to stop getting social security and/or medicare. Just sayin'.
I know that I stopped buying Ubisoft games when they first added this feature. It hurts the customers more then the pirates.
They probably attributed the reduced sales to "this game sucked more than the last one."
In all seriousness, suits forget that they are supposed to maximize profits (which often correlate to maximized revenue) and that it's better to have 1 more sale even if it means 1,000 more pirates (this ignores extra load on multiplayer servers, but CD Keys will keep the multiplayer-playing pirates from adding significant cost).
Note, for reference, that they have to MAKE a fleet that has those specified averages. They don't have to actually sell a fleet that has the specified performance. If they build a shitpot full of tinkertoy cars that get 80 mpg, they can then build some comfortable sedans that get 30 mpg, and sell the sedans, while the tinkertoys rot in the dealers' lots....
Or they go diesel like the rest of the world.
... the very first Earth Trojan asteroid,
Curse its sudden but inevitable betrayal.
Now die!
The titanic is headed full speed ahead into the iceberg. One side wants to maintain speed, so the coal men get paid. The other side pretends to want to decrease speed to 3/4 to save coal, and to embarrass the helmsman (but really wants to get to New York fast). Everyone is eventually gonna drown anyway.
There, fixed that for you. If you put the "crew" as the first side and the board of investors as the second, the analogy fits nicely (especially since the board dictates the budget and spending in the first place).
Yeah, I've often thought we were best off with a Democrat president and republican congress.
I've thought the same thing. Despite how antagonistic the Clinton-era Republican Congress was, they could still get stuff done. They worked well as an opposition party and made bills better through compromise. The Obama-era Republican Congress came to power by blocking anything and everything regardless of merit, so why should they stop once they have control of the House?
It's pretty late in the game for this generation of consoles. This seems like a 'who finished first' situation. Who cares? I'd rather the console makers concentrate on product support while working on making things better for the next generation of hardware.
There is still money to be made as games, consoles and accessories are still being sold. This is roughly when a console is most profitable. Also, "second place" really means "first place high-performance console". This is an important distinction when wooing game devs who are writing games that require more horsepower than the Wii offers.
I am shocked! SHOCKED!
Your winnings, sir...
Oh, thank you very much.
It was not apples to apples (as in, MS and PhD both teaching). It reflected that people with MS were out in the industry making money while people with PhDs were more limited (either by choice or not) and mostly teaching.
Not only does working instead of being in school earn you experience that makes you more valuable, but it also get you something else: money. Even if the MS gets you a few more peanuts as year (which, as you rightly point out, isn't at all likely), it'll take a log time to make up for all the wages you "lost" going to school for two years. This is even more true for Ph.D.s.
I saw something a few months ago that showed Ph.D.s making about 10k less than people with Masters (across the board, not specific to software). They are more educated, but mostly can only work at universities, larger tech companies or on research. Most small businesses won't bother because the skill set / salary / experience doesn't match well.
That you get by being in the workforce for two years, not school. I'd personally look at an M.S. wearily.
One distinction I'll make is people who went straight from bachelors to masters and those who worked a couple of years in between (what I did). The students who did the latter were far more competent than the former.
I noticed that as well. The article talks about how Master's Degrees are a way to wait for the end of an economic downturn, and then "master's degree enrollment has been up since 2009!" It's like, uh... you realize that you just explained why it's gone up, right?
The increase of Master's degrees might also be an increase in students who don't want (or aren't ready) to enter the job market after their senior year. In my dabbling in graduate courses, I found many CS students who couldn't software engineer themselves out of a bag. They might command a higher starting salary, but usually a B.S. software engineer with 2 years of experience will be paid more than a M.S. with 0 (and after the first few years, experience pays more than the extra degree).
(disclaimer, I'm only talking about CS)
Any good strategist knows you can't just sit in a fortress and remain safe forever. The same applies here.
Not really. You can't sit in a fortress forever because:
None of these apply to a well-secured data center (except maybe some people will be annoyed their password can't be 1234..5).