So by that logic, laws that prevent someone from getting married are, in fact, demonstrating intolerance? What does that say of people that choose to vote in favor of those laws? Of those that support those laws and lobby to get them passed? Is it then the laws that are intolerant, or the people that support the laws?
I could easily see a connection, then, between the laws that prevent someone from marrying, and those that would also refuse business due to some kind of held belief. Now, take away the law, so it is no longer illegal to marry. Does that imply that everyone that was intolerant (in support of the law) now is no longer intolerant? Something feels incorrect about that logic.
What business are you in? That's right. SHIPPING SOFTWARE. You do not develop software. You do not write code. All of that is completely immaterial. It is simply a means to do what you are in the business of. The single most important thing that you do is ship software. You WILL ship cringeworthy code. You WILL ship unfinished code. You should darned well accept that. The "When it's ready" is a total cop out. Virtually NOBODY has that luxury of shipping "when it's ready" code. The demands of schedule and finance will dictate when you can ship, not any esoteric nonsense about "when it's ready". If you run out of money developing the software, then who cares if you're holding on to this notion of not shipping when it's ready? Nobody. If code is developed, and that code is scrapped on a shelf, was it ever written?
You can't blame management for your inability to communicate. People sit down and blame management continually about every little detail about "I don't care, ship it!". Remember, that's because what you do is SHIP CODE. Management wants that stuff on the shelf yesterday because you didn't convince them that it wasn't possible. You can say that you did, and that stupid management ignored you, but the reality is that you're just plain wrong.
There HAS to be a reason why there are plenty of successful software applications out there that shipped "unfinished". BTW, how you handle the second part of shipping code (ie what you do with software patches) is where you can redeem yourself.
The reason for symmetrical wings on aerobatic aircraft is that they impede the flow even more and allow much greater control, at the expense of fuel efficiency.
Wanted to clarify this. The reason for symmetric airfoils on fighter aircraft is that camber provides no additional lift (compared to a flat plate) in a supersonic flow. Lift coefficient is still linearly proportional to angle of attack at supersonic speeds. However, drag coefficients rise quadratically with increasing camber/thickness. Thus, supersonic fighters have very thin, very symmetric airfoils. http://books.google.com/books?id=woeqa4-a5EgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=anderson+compressible#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I think, sir, that you're talking a bit out of your ass. Supersonic fighters have thin airfoils for aerodynamic reasons but they are by no means required to be symmetrical. The F15 and F16 (both supersonic capable aircraft) have cambered airfoils. Drag increases as the square of the lift coefficient - camber increases the lift coefficient for a given angle of attack, and thus camber increases induced drag (the component of drag associated with lift).
The reason stunt planes have symmetrical wings has to do with the fact that symmetric wings are more efficient when flying upside-down than a heavily cambered wing. That is a state that most other airplanes actively try to avoid. You get the same amount of lift out of the wing at the same angle of attacks. The reason why they're thick is because thicker wings allow you to delay stall. Since stunt planes fly slowly, you don't really have to worry about the efficiency of the wing. That and stunt planes are NOT optimized for aerodynamic efficiency - simply the ability to generate tons of lift quickly.
Next time you cite one of Dr. Anderson's wonderful text books, please read it first.
This argument is true of _any_ system, however, not simply these particular ones. If I can get a sysadmin to run this binary that I've put in my home directory, then I can fully compromise the entire machine.
There is no way to secure the interior completely without making it unusable. There are simply levels of security.
Any time you introduce humans into the equation, there is ALWAYS a possibility of compromising a secure system. So by that extent, maybe the test has unreasonable expectations?
I don't see how your comment is relevant to what I said.
The response I was posting about was how their proposed non-NAND option isn't an option at all, suggesting that perhaps Intel had done their homework to use NAND memory, and not DDR (or some newer version of it) memory.
Apparently, you didn't read my comment in the context of the OP at all.
Sounds like a good plan. Throw cheap battery backed memory, 4-16Gb onboard to act as a transparent buffer between harddrive(s) and system.
Do you mean gigabit or gigabyte? Also, 16 gigabytes of RAM right now isn't very cheap at all. The cheapest DDR2 memory I've seen is about 12.50 dollars per gigabyte, so that's an additional 200 dollars per 16 gigabytes. Is that a good price to pay for some potential increase in speed? IMO, that's what I'd call "extremely hard to justify" for a consumer.
RAID cards have done this for ages, but it's becoming real option for desktops as memory price keeps declining.
Meh, even the most expensive RAID cards loaded up with tons of RAM aren't as fast as a couple of Intel SSD's right now, so why bother with the expense?
First of all, DDR RAM is not cheap (at least, not compared to NAND RAM). It costs significantly more per gigabyte than even the most expensive of Intel's offerings for SSD's. While it should provide more theoretical throughput than any SSD, benchmarks at various places (http://techreport.com/articles.x/16255/1) haven't shown that to be significant yet, at least from the end user perspective (some synthetic benchmarks show that the RAM based disks can be faster than SSD's, but translating that to real world usage scenarios by consumers doesn't quite show any tangible benefits).
DDR RAM uses up a very large amount of power per stick compared to SSD's do. I remember seeing the power consumption of one of the DDR2 based "volatile hard drives", and it was higher than spinning drives (at least at idle), and wasn't particularly faster than the best of intel's SSD's.
So sounds like DDR RAM on board is expensive, power hungry, and doesn't provide that much of a tangible benefit to consumers. Tell me again why it's a good idea?
"buh-kuh buh-kuh" has become standard words in my vocabulary.
"Where's the buh-kuh buh-kuh" (where's the Tivo Remote). "Buh-kuh buh-kuh" ("This commercial is stupid, fast forward please", or "Where's the Tivo Remote? I want to fast forward through this commercial/lame part of the show right now" or "whoa, did I see that right? Please rewind a few seconds"). "You buh-kuh buh-kuh'ed" ("You fast forwarded through the commercials too far into the show, please rewind a bit").
Reading a bit more about the patent dispute between Curtiss and the Wright company, it becomes clear that the Wright brothers wound up not being a financial success not because of lack of patent collections, but on moneys spent on defending the patents.
If that's the case, then that spells the doom of TiVO.
Having been through the patent process, it became clear to me that filing a patent does one and only one thing - it means that you can use your patent. Defending your patent (by litigation) ultimately will bankrupt you, unless you have a law firm on retainer (which in and of it self can bankrupt you if you're a very very very small business of one or two).
Things probably would have wound up being a bit different for the Wright Brothers had they simply accepted Toulmin's initial offer of being on retainer...
The ONLY thing FOIS had over Tivo was the multi-room DVR feature worked, and worked fairly well. Tivo definitely has room to improve in this area.
Interesting - I had thought that the Tivo HD that I bought has that as a selling point - it provides multi-room DVR features (albeit with other Tivo's or any generic computer running Windows/MacOSX).
If only there was some sort of small, removable storage media that you could plug into portable devices like the iPhone. I wonder when they're going to invent something like that... Then I wouldn't need to worry about this application eating up 1/8 of the total storage on the iPhone.
I'm the same way with a lotta stuff. Even though I had Cartographer in WoW, I had to open up all those zones completely.
WoW does that now. By exploring every spot on the map (actually, just removing all of the fog of war), you gain an achievement, and a new title "the Explorer" that you cahttp://games.slashdot.org/story/09/08/08/0345231/Finding-New-and-Unintended-Ways-of-Playing-Games?from=rss#n add to your name.
Ultima 3 was the last Ultima I did anythingn like that for. I killed a monster in EVERY square, populating the entire map with treasure chests. I suppose you could say that it eliminated all random encounters (since monsters were boxed in by the treasure chests) and helped me to focus on playing the rest of the game, but it took a really really really long time to actually get to that point.
Or to be more correct: There are four things in games: mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology.
I disagree. There's really only 3 - mechanics, story, and aesthetics. A new technology is strictly a method for delivering the other 3. I therefore don't think that it's one of the core aspects of the game. In other words, the technology doesn't manifest itself unless through at least 1 of the other things. I'd conjecture that you can get any of the others without requiring the others...
Yeah, I love this part. Your salary infomation is a secret, don't share with your coworkers, meanwhile HR is spreading it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has HR in his title in your local area.
YOUR salary is secret. However, the company can very easily say that "we have 15 managers in this field that make between y and z per month" and still not divulge YOUR salary. Provided they don't specify what each person makes (ie connecting you with your salary), there's no problem.
Huh. The mute button is located right above the backspace key on my keyboard. Though I suppose my keyboard isn't wireless, so it's not really a remote?
Much in the same way that animals kill each other for life to continue. The key is to do it responsibly, like the other animals do.
False. There's no correlation between an animal's behavior and "being responsible" when searching for food. Hunting for animals is an optimization problem in risk assessment. They have hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to support that claim. Hunting is risky (get an injury while chasing game, and you're probably not going to live), it takes a lot of energy to chase down game (animals don't have the benefit of rifles or other "tools" to hunt with), and the reward is only realized if they're successful.
People, on the other hand, have the luxury of not needing to go hunt wild game to eat. We can just go to the grocery store to get it. We have to think of being responsible, since hunting for food (in the same sense that an animal has to hunt) is not a necessary condition for our continued survival.
I am assuming that you mean it's because the keyboard isn't one of those fancy shmancy "ergonomic" keyboards.
Otherwise, you should take out a ruler, and measure the keyboards of any 15" laptop available (heck, even any 13+" laptop). I think that you'll see the keys are the same size as on a regular keyboard... On my older 15" (hp) latop, I measure the distance from the start of the "A" key to the end of the single quote key to be 21cm (or about 8.25 inches). How large is it on your keyboard?:)
Slashdot Mirror
So by that logic, laws that prevent someone from getting married are, in fact, demonstrating intolerance? What does that say of people that choose to vote in favor of those laws? Of those that support those laws and lobby to get them passed? Is it then the laws that are intolerant, or the people that support the laws?
I could easily see a connection, then, between the laws that prevent someone from marrying, and those that would also refuse business due to some kind of held belief. Now, take away the law, so it is no longer illegal to marry. Does that imply that everyone that was intolerant (in support of the law) now is no longer intolerant? Something feels incorrect about that logic.
What business are you in? That's right. SHIPPING SOFTWARE. You do not develop software. You do not write code. All of that is completely immaterial. It is simply a means to do what you are in the business of. The single most important thing that you do is ship software. You WILL ship cringeworthy code. You WILL ship unfinished code. You should darned well accept that. The "When it's ready" is a total cop out. Virtually NOBODY has that luxury of shipping "when it's ready" code. The demands of schedule and finance will dictate when you can ship, not any esoteric nonsense about "when it's ready". If you run out of money developing the software, then who cares if you're holding on to this notion of not shipping when it's ready? Nobody. If code is developed, and that code is scrapped on a shelf, was it ever written?
You can't blame management for your inability to communicate. People sit down and blame management continually about every little detail about "I don't care, ship it!". Remember, that's because what you do is SHIP CODE. Management wants that stuff on the shelf yesterday because you didn't convince them that it wasn't possible. You can say that you did, and that stupid management ignored you, but the reality is that you're just plain wrong.
There HAS to be a reason why there are plenty of successful software applications out there that shipped "unfinished". BTW, how you handle the second part of shipping code (ie what you do with software patches) is where you can redeem yourself.
The reason for symmetrical wings on aerobatic aircraft is that they impede the flow even more and allow much greater control, at the expense of fuel efficiency.
Wanted to clarify this. The reason for symmetric airfoils on fighter aircraft is that camber provides no additional lift (compared to a flat plate) in a supersonic flow. Lift coefficient is still linearly proportional to angle of attack at supersonic speeds. However, drag coefficients rise quadratically with increasing camber/thickness. Thus, supersonic fighters have very thin, very symmetric airfoils.
http://books.google.com/books?id=woeqa4-a5EgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=anderson+compressible#v=onepage&q=&f=false
I think, sir, that you're talking a bit out of your ass. Supersonic fighters have thin airfoils for aerodynamic reasons but they are by no means required to be symmetrical. The F15 and F16 (both supersonic capable aircraft) have cambered airfoils. Drag increases as the square of the lift coefficient - camber increases the lift coefficient for a given angle of attack, and thus camber increases induced drag (the component of drag associated with lift).
The reason stunt planes have symmetrical wings has to do with the fact that symmetric wings are more efficient when flying upside-down than a heavily cambered wing. That is a state that most other airplanes actively try to avoid. You get the same amount of lift out of the wing at the same angle of attacks. The reason why they're thick is because thicker wings allow you to delay stall. Since stunt planes fly slowly, you don't really have to worry about the efficiency of the wing. That and stunt planes are NOT optimized for aerodynamic efficiency - simply the ability to generate tons of lift quickly.
Next time you cite one of Dr. Anderson's wonderful text books, please read it first.
Boss - please do %dodgy_thing%.
You're kidding me. MS person thinks their IT. I think you really want:
Boss - please do ${dodgy_thing}
There you go, problem solved. There's an open source solution to 80% fix of 100% of the problems.
This argument is true of _any_ system, however, not simply these particular ones. If I can get a sysadmin to run this binary that I've put in my home directory, then I can fully compromise the entire machine.
There is no way to secure the interior completely without making it unusable. There are simply levels of security.
Any time you introduce humans into the equation, there is ALWAYS a possibility of compromising a secure system. So by that extent, maybe the test has unreasonable expectations?
Orange screen VT100's hooked up to the local time-share in the university basement? ... remembers when his public library still had those VT100's.
But if you had those Orange Screen VT100's, you'd be running lynx anyway, and your browsing speeds would be stunningly fast anyway.
Of course not. The example was just there in order to show that there are situations where the honest curse of action is to say "no".
Wow, that was probably one of the best cases of bad typing I've ever seen. I suppose that's the net result of "No good deed goes unpunished".
I don't see how your comment is relevant to what I said.
The response I was posting about was how their proposed non-NAND option isn't an option at all, suggesting that perhaps Intel had done their homework to use NAND memory, and not DDR (or some newer version of it) memory.
Apparently, you didn't read my comment in the context of the OP at all.
Sure you can. But you can't get 16 gigabytes of DDR2 RAM for 40-ish dollars. The OP was talking about DDR2, not flash memory.
Sounds like a good plan. Throw cheap battery backed memory, 4-16Gb onboard to act as a transparent buffer between harddrive(s) and system.
Do you mean gigabit or gigabyte? Also, 16 gigabytes of RAM right now isn't very cheap at all. The cheapest DDR2 memory I've seen is about 12.50 dollars per gigabyte, so that's an additional 200 dollars per 16 gigabytes. Is that a good price to pay for some potential increase in speed? IMO, that's what I'd call "extremely hard to justify" for a consumer.
RAID cards have done this for ages, but it's becoming real option for desktops as memory price keeps declining.
Meh, even the most expensive RAID cards loaded up with tons of RAM aren't as fast as a couple of Intel SSD's right now, so why bother with the expense?
First of all, DDR RAM is not cheap (at least, not compared to NAND RAM). It costs significantly more per gigabyte than even the most expensive of Intel's offerings for SSD's. While it should provide more theoretical throughput than any SSD, benchmarks at various places (http://techreport.com/articles.x/16255/1) haven't shown that to be significant yet, at least from the end user perspective (some synthetic benchmarks show that the RAM based disks can be faster than SSD's, but translating that to real world usage scenarios by consumers doesn't quite show any tangible benefits).
DDR RAM uses up a very large amount of power per stick compared to SSD's do. I remember seeing the power consumption of one of the DDR2 based "volatile hard drives", and it was higher than spinning drives (at least at idle), and wasn't particularly faster than the best of intel's SSD's.
So sounds like DDR RAM on board is expensive, power hungry, and doesn't provide that much of a tangible benefit to consumers. Tell me again why it's a good idea?
"buh-kuh buh-kuh" has become standard words in my vocabulary.
"Where's the buh-kuh buh-kuh" (where's the Tivo Remote).
"Buh-kuh buh-kuh" ("This commercial is stupid, fast forward please", or "Where's the Tivo Remote? I want to fast forward through this commercial/lame part of the show right now" or "whoa, did I see that right? Please rewind a few seconds").
"You buh-kuh buh-kuh'ed" ("You fast forwarded through the commercials too far into the show, please rewind a bit").
Reading a bit more about the patent dispute between Curtiss and the Wright company, it becomes clear that the Wright brothers wound up not being a financial success not because of lack of patent collections, but on moneys spent on defending the patents.
If that's the case, then that spells the doom of TiVO.
Having been through the patent process, it became clear to me that filing a patent does one and only one thing - it means that you can use your patent. Defending your patent (by litigation) ultimately will bankrupt you, unless you have a law firm on retainer (which in and of it self can bankrupt you if you're a very very very small business of one or two).
Things probably would have wound up being a bit different for the Wright Brothers had they simply accepted Toulmin's initial offer of being on retainer...
The ONLY thing FOIS had over Tivo was the multi-room DVR feature worked, and worked fairly well. Tivo definitely has room to improve in this area.
Interesting - I had thought that the Tivo HD that I bought has that as a selling point - it provides multi-room DVR features (albeit with other Tivo's or any generic computer running Windows/MacOSX).
If only there was some sort of small, removable storage media that you could plug into portable devices like the iPhone. I wonder when they're going to invent something like that... Then I wouldn't need to worry about this application eating up 1/8 of the total storage on the iPhone.
I'm the same way with a lotta stuff. Even though I had Cartographer in WoW, I had to open up all those zones completely.
WoW does that now. By exploring every spot on the map (actually, just removing all of the fog of war), you gain an achievement, and a new title "the Explorer" that you cahttp://games.slashdot.org/story/09/08/08/0345231/Finding-New-and-Unintended-Ways-of-Playing-Games?from=rss#n add to your name.
Ultima 3 was the last Ultima I did anythingn like that for. I killed a monster in EVERY square, populating the entire map with treasure chests. I suppose you could say that it eliminated all random encounters (since monsters were boxed in by the treasure chests) and helped me to focus on playing the rest of the game, but it took a really really really long time to actually get to that point.
Or to be more correct: There are four things in games: mechanics, story, aesthetics, and technology.
I disagree. There's really only 3 - mechanics, story, and aesthetics. A new technology is strictly a method for delivering the other 3. I therefore don't think that it's one of the core aspects of the game. In other words, the technology doesn't manifest itself unless through at least 1 of the other things. I'd conjecture that you can get any of the others without requiring the others...
All I have to do is provide the skills and expertise to entice them to give it to me. And thats one part training, and two parts marketing.
And soon, you'll realize that it's really 3 parts marketing, and we have yet another marketeer in the workforce. My day died just a little more today.
Yeah, I love this part. Your salary infomation is a secret, don't share with your coworkers, meanwhile HR is spreading it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has HR in his title in your local area.
YOUR salary is secret. However, the company can very easily say that "we have 15 managers in this field that make between y and z per month" and still not divulge YOUR salary. Provided they don't specify what each person makes (ie connecting you with your salary), there's no problem.
Huh. The mute button is located right above the backspace key on my keyboard. Though I suppose my keyboard isn't wireless, so it's not really a remote?
Much in the same way that animals kill each other for life to continue. The key is to do it responsibly, like the other animals do.
False. There's no correlation between an animal's behavior and "being responsible" when searching for food. Hunting for animals is an optimization problem in risk assessment. They have hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to support that claim. Hunting is risky (get an injury while chasing game, and you're probably not going to live), it takes a lot of energy to chase down game (animals don't have the benefit of rifles or other "tools" to hunt with), and the reward is only realized if they're successful.
People, on the other hand, have the luxury of not needing to go hunt wild game to eat. We can just go to the grocery store to get it. We have to think of being responsible, since hunting for food (in the same sense that an animal has to hunt) is not a necessary condition for our continued survival.
That one definitely broke protocol - straight to double dog dare.
Gigabit ethernet still isn't on most computers you buy from anywhere else.
iSight built in, don't all the new Dells have this?
That's not entirely a fair statement - you could also make the case that Apple doesn't sell a sub 1000 dollar notebook, too..
More or less all non-Apple notebooks that have a starting cost of 1000 have gigabit ethernet built in...
I am assuming that you mean it's because the keyboard isn't one of those fancy shmancy "ergonomic" keyboards.
Otherwise, you should take out a ruler, and measure the keyboards of any 15" laptop available (heck, even any 13+" laptop). I think that you'll see the keys are the same size as on a regular keyboard... On my older 15" (hp) latop, I measure the distance from the start of the "A" key to the end of the single quote key to be 21cm (or about 8.25 inches). How large is it on your keyboard? :)