Is there something wrong with the angle? Sun-synchronous orbit means that each time the satellite appears over that same university campus, it will do so at the same time of day. So, unless you see multiple shadow angles implying that the image was taken over multiple passes and that the shadow angle changed with each pass, I don't see what's specifically unimpressive about the orbit. Can you explain your observation?
The system tray is by far *not* the closest Windows equivalent to the dock. First, the Quick Launch toolbar (detachable from the taskbar) is closer in function. More importantly, however, Windows allows any folder to be represented as a toolbar, docked to any edge of the screen or combined with the taskbar. This is particularly easy in Vista where you can just drag a folder icon to the edge of the screen and have it turn into a toolbar on its own. In XP, you need to right-click on the taskbar and create a new toolbar, navigating to the folder you wish to use for its contents.
Such toolbars allow not only app shortcuts, but folders, drive icons and so forth. I use 3, stacked above one another on the left edge of my screen. The topmost one is System icons, such as Computer, each drive, and quick access to the actual folders containing the icons contents of my Start Menu/Programs menu. Below that is a toolbar of my own commonly-accessed personal account folders. Finally, below this are my app icons. I almost never use the Start button for anything common.
Notice that the patent in question references 17 other patents. I haven't stepped through all of them, but most are not IBM despite going after similar concepts. Companies that try to come up with ideas aren't the culprits. That's their purpose and, in fact, their legal duty to the shareholders.
Filing a patent application doesn't equal being granted a patent. That involves the actions of patent clerks, who are underinformed and overloaded, combined with patent laws in need of updating.
It doesn't really work this way. I can assure you that employees have to push for their patents to make it through the process. This is because you *need* to defend your patents if they are violated if you are going to maintain the precedent and right to do so. Having frivolous IP in ones portfolio is just spending money on attorneys for no benefit. Generally, a disclosure must be of clear benefit to IBM's business model as well as defensible if it's going to make it through the process.
There are actually few companies that have done more to incorporate the needs of all 3 sectors than Microsoft. Try supporting a *billion* users, maintaining backward compatibility with 27 years worth of software (including DOS based) and a significant backlog of older hardware, serve up regular updates and patches to the entire user base in way that is typically minimally disruptive, provide built-in support for features that used to require third party software (such as web browsing, indexing/desktop search, media capture/editing/burning) to the point that they have now become accepted and familiar functions to non-savvy users. Now Extend support on older versions of your OS out for almost a decade, to at least the point where two newer versions have come out since. Further still, hold regular conferences to familiarize developers with APIs and driver models years in advance of changes to the OS to allow them to adapt. Microsoft even provided a hook in Vista SP1 to allow Google to install its competing desktop search in place of Microsoft's, without any sort of court order requiring it to do so (many said they should have fought harder on this but were too gun shy from prior antitrust proceedings). Exactly who is your example of a company that has done a better job? Apple?
Apple doesn't serve the Enterprise or OEM sectors at all, owns only a few percent of the consumer sector and, in that sector, feels free to obsolete existing products at will and ignores complaining parties on the principle that they are either committing user error or that Apple knows design better than their users. Want a second mouse button? Want a mechanical keyboard on the next iPhone? Want the ability to use your latest-gen iPod with non-approved 3rd party accessories? Want removable batteries on your iPod, iPhone or MacBook Air? Want the simple ability to resize your desktop windows by dragging any corner or edge instead of just one? Sorry. How about simply not having to pay $129 for every.x software update compared with, say, free updates, service packs and add-on modules for several years from Microsoft?
I should add that, while all DARPA's work is built around a defense mission, it's not focused as tightly on weapons as posters here are assuming. For example, DARPA helped fund the commercialization of silicon-germanium technology, which is a technology with a production cost similar to plain-vanilla silicon CMOS but with performance comparable (in many applications) to more expensive technologies such as gallium arsenide. The motivation for DARPA was to ensure that the US maintained a leading-edge, off-the-shelf commercial technology that the military could also access so that it wouldn't have to always resort to highly-expensive custom options (the proverbial $800 toilet seat). However, a side benefit has been that this commercialization was able to take place faster than internal R&D funding would have allowed, with the consequence that very many consumer products now use this technology (it's in very many cell phones, WiFi cards and GPS devices).
I have considerable experience applying for DARPA grant funding, administering DARPA contracts as principal investigator and going to both fact-finding and status-review meetings. Although I've been on the receiving end the whole time, I've had the pleasure of interacting with a variety of DARPA program managers.
DARPA does not conduct primary research itself. Rather, program managers contribute to forming an overall vision and each form their own plans to contribute to this mission. This means coming up with a set of research interests that they'd like to fund from their given budget, soliciting proposals, deciding who should receive money and then monitoring the progress. As they form their portfolios of projects, the managers report in to the head of DARPA and hope to make a good case for getting their portfolio funded so that they can use this funding to grant various contracts to carry out the research.
All this means that a program managers job is all about talking with and traveling to academic and industry labs on a regular basis, trying to figure out what is going on, what work contributes to DARPA's goals, what work is likely to proceed well without DARPA's input and which would benefit most from DARPA grant money. There are proposals to solicit and read, usually with a lot of back and forth to refine them to the point where both DARPA and the receiving party can agree everything makes sense. There are review meetings to attend to make sure existing contracts are proceeding properly. This is a very travel intensive position that requires a lot of organization and a comfort level with people always holding out their cup for money. You need to be able to sift through this and be able to say yes to some and no to others.
None of this involves doing research yourself. Even though many program managers are researchers, they typically suspend this in order to do a public service and act as a DARPA program manager for a few years (its time-limited and you need to return back to the private sector afterward... this is to keep things fresh and avoid forming relationships with companies that might bias future decisions). There are benefits to the program managers such as access to leading-edge research results which could help know where to direct ones own research in the future. Plus, the pleasure of helping to enable this research. However, these jobs are not for those who don't like administrative work and would miss the lab.
In those good old days, CMOS was efficient because a CMOS gate draws very little power when it is not switching. This leakage current could be very small in the old days when power supplies were 5V and thus transistor threshold voltages could be high enough to make leakage small. The power drawn during switching was the main component and was relatively small because clock speeds were low.
Now, both static and dynamic power are high and even equal in modern chips. High clock speeds means high dynamic power. Scaled-down devices with 1V supplies means that there is no good threshold voltage that achieves both low leakage and the expected levels of high performance. Indeed, most technologies offer multiple threshold voltages to at least let the circuit designer use a high-performance or low-leakage device in any given circuit, depending on the needs of that circuit.
I don't see how anyone not running Vista personally has any credibility to post on this topic at all. None. Regurgitating the opinions and writings of others is not a contribution but rather the way in which FUD turns into a self-perpetuating reputation. And failing to recognize the distinction between OS issues and non-compliant software and drivers from vendors is just plain unfair and allows developers to get away with lazing out on their customers and passing the blame to MS (which we seem all to eager to allow them to do).
I replaced XP with Vista on 5 of my machines (the remaining several are workstations running AIX and Linux). One is running Ultimate, two are running Business and two are running Home Premium. How do they work? Like computers running a functional operation system. That is to say, my apps and hardware work fine and I can readily organize and access my files. Exactly what should I be hating? I actually like many aspects of the UI, including Aero's live taskbar icons, the fast desktop search and the ability to save searches as virtual folders (like smart collections). UAC is a non-issue once a machine is set up and even the annoyances during setup can be alleviated with just two small tweaks: turning off Secure Desktop (which removes very little protection for a lot of benefit) and changing ownership of the "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" folder to your admin account username (this avoids UAC popups when reorganizing your start menu icons).
I can see the point of this vehicle. It's a plane that can simply be transported to/from an airport more easily by being roadworthy as well. However, the compromises do seem more than they're worth. Reliability concerns over folding wing joints, weight concerns and so forth. One thing that'd deter me for sure is the fact that you incur wear and tear driving on a road, well above and beyond what you experience in the air or on the airport tarmac - pothole shock, flying stones from a truck in front of you, etc. I wouldn't want to fly with the possibility of such hidden damage, nor would I want to have to incur the degree of inspection the vehicle would consequently require after each road trip.
Major inaccuracy alert, starting with the fact that Vista SP1 is *not* yet rolling out via Windows Update. The article linked in the OP refers to Vista SP1 RC Refresh. This is a release candidate version of SP1, which means it's a publically available release but one that is still part of the beta program. To obtain the update, you need to implement a specific registry edit or Windows Update will not find and install it.
The RTM version of SP1 is not yet out officially, although the stand-alone installers for both 32- and 64-bit versions are riding the torrents.
Today's cars have a single lead-acid battery, but this battery is almost completely recycled. Thus, there's reason to be optimistic about the prospects of recycling. The automobile is one of the most fully-recycled consumer products. Think about it... you don't just toss one in the trash. There are specific permitted ways to dispose of one, meaning anyone who wants to recover value from it are able to do so.
Sony's role here was funding and coming to IBM with a set of specs that they wanted to see fulfilled. The chip innovations themselves are the work of a design team in Austin combined with a fabrication team in East Fishkill, NY. While Sony may have its own way of marketing the chip's capabilities, IBM (and Toshiba, which also contributed engineers and funding because they'd like to use the chip, too) also has its own plans for the chip, as they regard it as extremely capable when properly programmed. I've personally seen real-time demos on a development system and it's quite impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there something wrong with the angle? Sun-synchronous orbit means that each time the satellite appears over that same university campus, it will do so at the same time of day. So, unless you see multiple shadow angles implying that the image was taken over multiple passes and that the shadow angle changed with each pass, I don't see what's specifically unimpressive about the orbit. Can you explain your observation?
The system tray is by far *not* the closest Windows equivalent to the dock. First, the Quick Launch toolbar (detachable from the taskbar) is closer in function. More importantly, however, Windows allows any folder to be represented as a toolbar, docked to any edge of the screen or combined with the taskbar. This is particularly easy in Vista where you can just drag a folder icon to the edge of the screen and have it turn into a toolbar on its own. In XP, you need to right-click on the taskbar and create a new toolbar, navigating to the folder you wish to use for its contents. Such toolbars allow not only app shortcuts, but folders, drive icons and so forth. I use 3, stacked above one another on the left edge of my screen. The topmost one is System icons, such as Computer, each drive, and quick access to the actual folders containing the icons contents of my Start Menu/Programs menu. Below that is a toolbar of my own commonly-accessed personal account folders. Finally, below this are my app icons. I almost never use the Start button for anything common.
Notice that the patent in question references 17 other patents. I haven't stepped through all of them, but most are not IBM despite going after similar concepts. Companies that try to come up with ideas aren't the culprits. That's their purpose and, in fact, their legal duty to the shareholders. Filing a patent application doesn't equal being granted a patent. That involves the actions of patent clerks, who are underinformed and overloaded, combined with patent laws in need of updating.
It doesn't really work this way. I can assure you that employees have to push for their patents to make it through the process. This is because you *need* to defend your patents if they are violated if you are going to maintain the precedent and right to do so. Having frivolous IP in ones portfolio is just spending money on attorneys for no benefit. Generally, a disclosure must be of clear benefit to IBM's business model as well as defensible if it's going to make it through the process.
There are actually few companies that have done more to incorporate the needs of all 3 sectors than Microsoft. Try supporting a *billion* users, maintaining backward compatibility with 27 years worth of software (including DOS based) and a significant backlog of older hardware, serve up regular updates and patches to the entire user base in way that is typically minimally disruptive, provide built-in support for features that used to require third party software (such as web browsing, indexing/desktop search, media capture/editing/burning) to the point that they have now become accepted and familiar functions to non-savvy users. Now Extend support on older versions of your OS out for almost a decade, to at least the point where two newer versions have come out since. Further still, hold regular conferences to familiarize developers with APIs and driver models years in advance of changes to the OS to allow them to adapt. Microsoft even provided a hook in Vista SP1 to allow Google to install its competing desktop search in place of Microsoft's, without any sort of court order requiring it to do so (many said they should have fought harder on this but were too gun shy from prior antitrust proceedings). Exactly who is your example of a company that has done a better job? Apple? Apple doesn't serve the Enterprise or OEM sectors at all, owns only a few percent of the consumer sector and, in that sector, feels free to obsolete existing products at will and ignores complaining parties on the principle that they are either committing user error or that Apple knows design better than their users. Want a second mouse button? Want a mechanical keyboard on the next iPhone? Want the ability to use your latest-gen iPod with non-approved 3rd party accessories? Want removable batteries on your iPod, iPhone or MacBook Air? Want the simple ability to resize your desktop windows by dragging any corner or edge instead of just one? Sorry. How about simply not having to pay $129 for every .x software update compared with, say, free updates, service packs and add-on modules for several years from Microsoft?
I should add that, while all DARPA's work is built around a defense mission, it's not focused as tightly on weapons as posters here are assuming. For example, DARPA helped fund the commercialization of silicon-germanium technology, which is a technology with a production cost similar to plain-vanilla silicon CMOS but with performance comparable (in many applications) to more expensive technologies such as gallium arsenide. The motivation for DARPA was to ensure that the US maintained a leading-edge, off-the-shelf commercial technology that the military could also access so that it wouldn't have to always resort to highly-expensive custom options (the proverbial $800 toilet seat). However, a side benefit has been that this commercialization was able to take place faster than internal R&D funding would have allowed, with the consequence that very many consumer products now use this technology (it's in very many cell phones, WiFi cards and GPS devices).
I have considerable experience applying for DARPA grant funding, administering DARPA contracts as principal investigator and going to both fact-finding and status-review meetings. Although I've been on the receiving end the whole time, I've had the pleasure of interacting with a variety of DARPA program managers. DARPA does not conduct primary research itself. Rather, program managers contribute to forming an overall vision and each form their own plans to contribute to this mission. This means coming up with a set of research interests that they'd like to fund from their given budget, soliciting proposals, deciding who should receive money and then monitoring the progress. As they form their portfolios of projects, the managers report in to the head of DARPA and hope to make a good case for getting their portfolio funded so that they can use this funding to grant various contracts to carry out the research. All this means that a program managers job is all about talking with and traveling to academic and industry labs on a regular basis, trying to figure out what is going on, what work contributes to DARPA's goals, what work is likely to proceed well without DARPA's input and which would benefit most from DARPA grant money. There are proposals to solicit and read, usually with a lot of back and forth to refine them to the point where both DARPA and the receiving party can agree everything makes sense. There are review meetings to attend to make sure existing contracts are proceeding properly. This is a very travel intensive position that requires a lot of organization and a comfort level with people always holding out their cup for money. You need to be able to sift through this and be able to say yes to some and no to others. None of this involves doing research yourself. Even though many program managers are researchers, they typically suspend this in order to do a public service and act as a DARPA program manager for a few years (its time-limited and you need to return back to the private sector afterward ... this is to keep things fresh and avoid forming relationships with companies that might bias future decisions). There are benefits to the program managers such as access to leading-edge research results which could help know where to direct ones own research in the future. Plus, the pleasure of helping to enable this research. However, these jobs are not for those who don't like administrative work and would miss the lab.
In those good old days, CMOS was efficient because a CMOS gate draws very little power when it is not switching. This leakage current could be very small in the old days when power supplies were 5V and thus transistor threshold voltages could be high enough to make leakage small. The power drawn during switching was the main component and was relatively small because clock speeds were low. Now, both static and dynamic power are high and even equal in modern chips. High clock speeds means high dynamic power. Scaled-down devices with 1V supplies means that there is no good threshold voltage that achieves both low leakage and the expected levels of high performance. Indeed, most technologies offer multiple threshold voltages to at least let the circuit designer use a high-performance or low-leakage device in any given circuit, depending on the needs of that circuit.
I don't see how anyone not running Vista personally has any credibility to post on this topic at all. None. Regurgitating the opinions and writings of others is not a contribution but rather the way in which FUD turns into a self-perpetuating reputation. And failing to recognize the distinction between OS issues and non-compliant software and drivers from vendors is just plain unfair and allows developers to get away with lazing out on their customers and passing the blame to MS (which we seem all to eager to allow them to do). I replaced XP with Vista on 5 of my machines (the remaining several are workstations running AIX and Linux). One is running Ultimate, two are running Business and two are running Home Premium. How do they work? Like computers running a functional operation system. That is to say, my apps and hardware work fine and I can readily organize and access my files. Exactly what should I be hating? I actually like many aspects of the UI, including Aero's live taskbar icons, the fast desktop search and the ability to save searches as virtual folders (like smart collections). UAC is a non-issue once a machine is set up and even the annoyances during setup can be alleviated with just two small tweaks: turning off Secure Desktop (which removes very little protection for a lot of benefit) and changing ownership of the "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs" folder to your admin account username (this avoids UAC popups when reorganizing your start menu icons).
I can see the point of this vehicle. It's a plane that can simply be transported to/from an airport more easily by being roadworthy as well. However, the compromises do seem more than they're worth. Reliability concerns over folding wing joints, weight concerns and so forth. One thing that'd deter me for sure is the fact that you incur wear and tear driving on a road, well above and beyond what you experience in the air or on the airport tarmac - pothole shock, flying stones from a truck in front of you, etc. I wouldn't want to fly with the possibility of such hidden damage, nor would I want to have to incur the degree of inspection the vehicle would consequently require after each road trip.
Major inaccuracy alert, starting with the fact that Vista SP1 is *not* yet rolling out via Windows Update. The article linked in the OP refers to Vista SP1 RC Refresh. This is a release candidate version of SP1, which means it's a publically available release but one that is still part of the beta program. To obtain the update, you need to implement a specific registry edit or Windows Update will not find and install it. The RTM version of SP1 is not yet out officially, although the stand-alone installers for both 32- and 64-bit versions are riding the torrents.
Today's cars have a single lead-acid battery, but this battery is almost completely recycled. Thus, there's reason to be optimistic about the prospects of recycling. The automobile is one of the most fully-recycled consumer products. Think about it ... you don't just toss one in the trash. There are specific permitted ways to dispose of one, meaning anyone who wants to recover value from it are able to do so.
Sony's role here was funding and coming to IBM with a set of specs that they wanted to see fulfilled. The chip innovations themselves are the work of a design team in Austin combined with a fabrication team in East Fishkill, NY. While Sony may have its own way of marketing the chip's capabilities, IBM (and Toshiba, which also contributed engineers and funding because they'd like to use the chip, too) also has its own plans for the chip, as they regard it as extremely capable when properly programmed. I've personally seen real-time demos on a development system and it's quite impressive.