Slashdot Mirror

Lets say 7,000,000,000 people on earth. If everyone got SARS, 280,000,000 would die(thats if everyone got it.)

If 1% of the population got it, thats 2,800,000 deaths. Not good times...

Unless you are the pharmacutical company that invented this to wipe out the world and start a new earth, while you hold the only antidotes!

Mike Davis's book, Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster,is a pretty good liberal read about LA and its various geological and meteorological issues. You might also check out his City of Quartz as well if you really hate the place :-)

Amazon associate link $11.20


Amazon, no associate link
$11.20

(Barnes and Noble, no affiliate link)
$12.60

Winton

Even Powell's doesn't have any.

a better book to pick up would be O'Reilly's Mac OS X for Unix Geeks, which has a section on setting up a DAMP system (Darwin, Apache, MySQL, Perl/PHP/Python). Pretty cheap too, you can get it from B&N or Amazon.

Amazon still thinks it is

Actually, its a little more complicated than that. Amazon has the paper back edition (ISBN 0957921810), but they too are out of the hardback edition (ISBN 0957921802) which is the edition identified in the book's stats part of the review.

bn.com doesn't even acknowledge the paperback exists, let alone having it in stock - but if you dig you will find they do have a copy of the hardback available through an affiliate dealer. Amazon's affiliated sellers don't have any of the hardback available and in fact have a buyer waiting for copy to go up for sale.

You know, it might be useful if Slashdot book reviews were limited to books that are currently in print!

On a train!!!

In a station!!!!

Ahem.

Try to having your manager read Peopleware by Tom DeMarco, Timothy Lister - or at Barnes and Noble, as the article pretty much summarizes some ideas from this book.

Well, it probably didn't harm it. People have an urge to find out what "they" don't want you to see. The preface of "Stupid White Men" in the UK tells how Michael Moore asked to be able to read from it as the publishers at the time wouldn't print it. The people there were eager to find out what was so bad that it had effectively been banned by the publisher.

...or reverse-engineer it from the MS-DOS binaries...

It's been done - the book Dissecting Dos came out in 1994.

Must vote for this, though I'm a bit prejudiced. I played Tully Bascomb (the "main" Sellers part) back in high school.
Queen Gloriana was played by a now renowned journalist (thanks Google): Catherine Seipp
Me? Now, I look more like Bluto. Or Tevya.

The original film was directed by Jack Arnold, who was also responsible for "The Creature From The Black Lagoon" and "It Came From Outer Space".

The latter film was "The Mouse On The Moon". Sellers wasn't in it. It was directed by Richard Lester. His follow up was "Hard Days Night".

"I've spent the last two years being subjected to biased slashdot propaganda. I couldn't hack into a properly configured windows system if my life depended on it."

Just because YOU can't doesn't mean others can't. Yes, getting a remote shell on Win2K is very difficult but using a documented exploit to run remote code is just a matter of following instructions.

The problem is 1) that someone should need a book to work an OS means it isn't for 'the rest of us'

Search for Widnows books on BN We found 12,767 titles
Search for Linux books on BN We found 839 titles

Hmm, that's funny. How come there are so many more books for learning windows on the market than there are for Linux? By your own definition, you souldn't be using Windows either. Care to search for Mac books? Maybe you shouldn't be using a computer at all?

The problem is 1) that someone should need a book to work an OS means it isn't for 'the rest of us'

Search for Widnows books on BN We found 12,767 titles
Search for Linux books on BN We found 839 titles

Hmm, that's funny. How come there are so many more books for learning windows on the market than there are for Linux? By your own definition, you souldn't be using Windows either. Care to search for Mac books? Maybe you shouldn't be using a computer at all?

You are absolutely right! Slashdotters don't need any stinking beginners Linux/BSD/Windows/OSX books. Instead, we need this. (miniture size for emergency situation, if any)

But it IS pretty obvious! If you wanted to design a circuit that detected overclocking, the first thing you'd think of would be to measure the clock speed and compare against the "proper" speed (how the "proper" speed is protected against change is another good question).

I think you don't really understand the definition of "obvious" as it applies to patents.

The specific method used is NOT obvious. There are common factors between different possible methods, as you pointed out, such as the need to measure the external clock, and compare it somehow. Specifically how those things are accomplished, and a number of other factors, are what is patented. This is like saying I can invent a new can opener, because any can opener has to cut into the can and then open it. Well, duh. What I'm patenting is how my method uniquely extends upon, or somehow differs from other methods of opening the can. Some might use a large butcher knife hanging from a string, some might use a laser. In either case the method can be patented because they are unique and non-obvious in their specific implementation.

For a really excellent book about the devopment of technology, and indirectly how this relates to patents, read The Evolution of Useful Things by Henry Petroski.

Out of this will come lots of students thinking about security the Microsoft way. They'll believe that more security features (ACLs, etc.) in a system make it more secure. They'll think that if they just throw more tools and wizards at software, they can handle anything.

Why do you spread such bulls^H^H^H^H^H misinformation if you don't know what you're talking about? I believe Microsoft security courses are based on Writing Secure Code, a real good book by two MS insiders. It's all about secure coding techniques, not features.

dare we suggest that microsoft start this initiative with its employees first?

This has already happened. Remember when Windows development was halted for a month to find and fix security issues last February? At the same time, all technical people at Microsoft had to go through a special security training. It was based on Writing Secure Code by some MS insiders, a real good book in fact.
I would think the particular course mentioned in the article would also feature this book.

Flexible work hours and an open plolicy regarding internet and telephone use is a very good policy, but the absence of this type of policy is a symptom of a deeper problem within corporate "culture," by that I mean the treatment of employees like any other "just-in-time" business resource.

Many companies today layoff and re-hire (euphamistically called "contract hire") employees as they're needed. Contract prices today are generally no where near where they were a few years ago because of the surplus number of contract workers and the new rage to outsource work to drastically cheaper overseas labor pools. Corporations spent the 80's and 90's trying to convince people that it really was in their best interest to function as resource units, even suggesting that it put the individual worker in the driver's seat, but in realitiy of course it was always in the corporations best interest. An excellent book on this subject is Thomas Frank's One Market Under God which chronicles the enormous PR and marketing resources expended by big companines to cultivate thier self-serving pseudo-populist image. Great insight also into the backgroud behind all those MCI and IBM commercials featuring throngs of third world looking people and the proverbial work-at-home CEO mom. Does Microsoft really stand in awe of us? I don't think so.

Few people are doing well contracting today. Employers need to realize that paying employees well and not treating them like children, indentured servants or worse as a simple "resource" like computers or other equipment but instead like fellow human beings, is the best way to make everybody happy and productive.

For an excellent overview of generic programming in C++ and the STL in particular, check out Generic programming and the STL, written by Matthew H. Austern.

It's definitely the best C++ book I've read so far.

Grrr. Damn HTML screwed up on me. Here's the post as it should have appeared.

There's always ebates.com's 4% money back deal for buying from barnes and nobles' website (and they have a long-running special, buy two or more items and get free shipping). Yeah, Amazon, you're not making it any easier on me.

I could be wrong but isn't Barnes & Noble's web site isn't run by Amazon?

That's why it's got the same interface - rather than develop their own technology to cater for online customers, B&N licensed Amazon's technology from them. A bit like buying an off-the-shelf database as opposed to writing your own one.

Amazon might not be profitting as much from a B&N online sale as it would from a similar online sale that it made itself but it's still making money on that sale somewhere. [barnesandnoble.com]

There's always ebates.com's 4% money back deal for buying from barnes and nobles' website (and they have a long-running special, buy two or more items and get free shipping). Yeah, Amazon, you're not making it any easier on me.

I could be wrong but isn't run by Amazon?

That's why it's got the same interface - rather than develop their own technology to cater for online customers, B&N licensed Amazon's technology from them. A bit like buying an off-the-shelf database as opposed to writing your own one.

Amazon might not be profitting as much from a B&N online sale as it would from a similar online sale that it made itself but it's still making money on that sale somewhere.

Rongorongo, the hieroglyphic script of Easter Island

The Voynich Manuscript, 200 pages, probably written in the 13 century

Indus Valley scripts from Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan, 4000 years ago

Etruscan

The Disc of Phaistos, from Crete, 3700 years ago

Meroitic hieroglyphs of ancient Nubia

Zapotec script
Have fun!

You should read Code And Other Laws Of Cyberspace, it's mostly focused on the Net and how it could be/should(n't) be regulated by government (and also how other governments might handle it).

For more on this, may I suggest any of Tom Brown Jr's books? He's written both manuals (which, as you'd expect are rather dry, but highly informative) and biographical story books, which are just as educational, but also very entertaining.

If you've never heard of him (and most people haven't) Tom Brown Jr, is one of the foremost experts on the lost art of tracking. He first started to learn the art as a young boy from his best friend's grandfather, who was a displaced Apache scout.

Today, he's a world renound naturalist and he also runs the finest tracking school in the world. People come from all over to study under him and his students. Other schools have even copied his techniques. You'd be shocked what you can learn from a track. Or even where you can find a track. Weight, sex, injuries (even old healed ones), mood, how full one's stomach or bladder are, weather one is carrying a load, even where someone is looking, can all be told from a track to a skilled tracker. Fascinating stuff.

Leading Geeks

No, no it hasn't -- go read the thread before you jump in in the middle.

That the pirates operated independently can be confirmed both by noting that they reported not to any particular ruler, but received aid from many rulers of the region, and indeed often played one against another (this is why, for example, it was the Bey of Tunis who reigned in the pirates after the sack of Tripoli, without consulting the Bey of Tripoli at all), and by noting that, in seeking congressional approval for action, Madison got approval for action against the pirates and such states as might support them, not against any specific state.

All of this is documented at length near the beginning of Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Do you have a reference which backs up your claims?

aren't looking hard enough.

And this online repository is useful too. Look at its archive section.

Actually no -- most of the pirate commanders worked with more than one of the region's sovereigns, and regularly played one off against the other. Indeed, After the sack of Tripoli, it was exactly the Bey of Tunis who used his direct influence with the pirate chieftans to reign them in, without consulting the Bey of Tripoli at all.

This is precisely why Madison sought (and obtained) authorization for the use of force not merely against Tunis or Tripoli, but explicitly against the pirates and such rulers as supported them.

A good history of the era and it's fights can be found near the begining of Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, by the way.

As for Jefferson, it was precisely he who bypassed the Congress in pursuing war against the Barbary Pirates without a declaration (Madison sought, and got such a declaration), perhaps because you take his words on rebellion far too literally (much as if you believed that president Hoover actually wanted to send inspectors around with poultry trucks to ensure that there really was `a chicken in every pot' :-) ).

Maybe it's just a pipe-dream, but I'd like to see people break away from their dependence on big multinational corporations to some degree.

christians who struggle with pr0n (such as myself).

Perhaps instead of struggling to give up your pr0n habit you should instead be struggling to give up your habit of blindly accepting superstitious beliefs. I suggest Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark as a starting point. Apply a little critical thinking to your situation and determine where the flaw lies.

Your slashdot-affiliate-bn free link for buying the book.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnIn quiry.asp?ISBN=1861007434

Anarchy!

When Email Goes Bad

I'm not going to list all the reasons email is good. You know them already, I assume you are an avid email user. (Anyone reading this is online, and just about anyone who goes online uses email.) I'm also not going to tell you email is evil, because it isn't.The negativeproductivity impact of email comes from the way you use it, not the medium itself.

There are two ways email impairs your productivity:

1. It breaks your concentration.
2. It misleads you into inefficient problem solving.

Let's take the concentration impact first. I'm a software engineer, and programming requires extended periods of concentration. Actually this isn't unique to programming, a lot of fields require that you concentrate. (Probably just about everything worth doing requires some concentration!)

{
I maintain that programming cannot be done in less than three-hour windows. It takes three hours to spin up to speed, gather your concentration, shift into "right brain mode", and really focus on a problem. Effective programmers organize their day to have at least one three-hour window, and hopefully two or three. (This is why good programmers often work late at night. They don't get interrupted as much...)
}

One of the key attributes of email is that it queues messages. Unlike face-to-faceconversation and 'phone calls, people can communicate via email without both paying attention at the same time. You pick the moments at which you pay attention to email. But many people leave their email client running continuously. This is the biggest baddest reason why email hurts your productivity. If you leave your email client running, it means anyone anytime can interrupt what you're doing. Essentially they pick the moments at which you pay attention. (Even somerandom spammer who is sending you a crappy ad for a get-rich scheme.) This is bad.

There are three stages to this badness. Stage one is configuring your email client to present alerts when you receive an email. Don't do this. Stage two is configuring your email client to make noise when you receive an email. Don't do this. Stage three is running your email client all the time. Don't do this, either. To be effective, you must pick the moments at which you're going to receive email. I know this goes against common wisdom. Just about everyone I know runs their client all the time, has it configured to make noise, and may even have it present alerts when an email is received. Don't do it.

Spam is the best kind of email to get, because you look at it quickly, see that it's spam, and delete it. Then you get back to work. Personal email is the second best kind of email to get, because you either respond quickly("Hi Jane, great hearing from you. See you at the club tonight.") or set it aside for later. Task-oriented work email is the worst kind of email to get. It often requires thought, and because it is work there is some immediacy to it. But as soon as you take the time to respond, you've interrupted yourself. You've shifted back to "left brain mode", and you've lost the thread of your concentration.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't respond to emails promptly. Check email whenever you're interrupted anyway - before you start work, after a meeting, after lunch, before you go home, etc. Set aside time to do this. Just don't let others dictate the timing.

Has this ever happened to you?

[ In the hallway at work... ]
O: "Hi R, how's it going?"
R: "Great, how are you?"
O: "Good. Hey, did you see my email about the framitz?"
R: "No, I haven't checked my email yet today, sorry."
O: "WHAT!"

It has happened to me. Sometimes I can't believe it - I sent the email at 9:30, and here it is 11:30, and they haven't checked their email? What are they doing? They're being efficient, that's what. They're picking their moment to be interrupted, and that's a good thing. We'll revisit this theme again below in the Three Hour Rule. For now, here's the takeaway:

• Turn your email client off. You should pick the moment at which you'll be interrupted.

Okay, now let's look at the second productivity-sapping attribute of email, that it misleads you into inefficient problem solving. Email is a communication medium. You send messages to others, you receive messages from others. Some of these messages are mere data transmission - FYIs so you know what's going on. Some are "noise" - 'thank you's, 'I got it's, jokes, etc. And some - many - are problem solving. You hear about a problem, and you respond with a possible solution, or a possible approach, or more questions. Nothing wrong so far - email is a good medium for problem solving. And it is so easy - you get an email, you think (sometimes), and you respond. Poof, you're done.

Except when you're not. Because there are some kinds of problems which don't get solved in email, ever. And as soon as you have that kind of problem, you have to stop, immediately, before you make the problem worse.

First, never, ever, criticize someone in email. For reasons which I have never fully grasped, any negative emotion is always amplified by communication through email. Sometimes you intend to be critical - someone has done something dumb, or said something silly, or emailed something ridiculous. Resist the urge to reply. Sometimes you don't mean to be critical - you're just making an observation, or engaging in technical debate, or adding facts to a discussion. But as soon as you sense that the recipient has taken your email as criticism, you must immediately switch media - a face-to-face meeting is best, but a 'phone call is also okay.

Second, don't get into prolonged technical debates in email. I've seen threads lasting weeks with a whole series of kibitzers, with everyone restating their points of view and nothing getting settled. Often email has the effect of polarizing the debate, and the combatants end up further apart in their views then when the debate began. As soon as you sense this happening, you must immediately switch media. A meeting with the core people involved in best, but a conference call is also okay.

Both of these kinds of problems which don't get solved in email are exacerbated by copying others. The bigger the audience, the worse things get. As bad as it is to be critical in email, it is far worse if ten colleagues are copied. Often the presence of an email audience is what makes for the polarization of technical debates - if the core people were the only onesinvolved, they would be less virulent and more willing to acknowledge other points of view and seek compromise. Okay, so here's the takeaway:

• Never criticize anyone in email, and avoid technical debates. Use face-to-face meetings or 'phone calls instead.

Before I go on to talking about productivity in general, let me share someother thoughts about email. First, be judicious in who you send email to, and who you copy on emails. Every email recipient is going to lose a little time reading each email you send. Simple emails which say "thanks" or "got it" or "see you at the meeting" are polite and part of normal human communication. But there is a limit, no need to reply "you're welcome", or "glad you got it", or "great, I'll see you, too". In my career I've run large teams, and sometimes people in those teams copied me on virtually every email they sent. Maybe they wanted me to know what was going on, or maybe they were letting me know what a great job they were doing. Either way, they were taking my time with stuff I didn't need to spend time on. I have a high capacity for skimming email, but there is always the feeling that they didn't get it; like "why did they copy me on this?" There should be a purpose to every addressee on each email. It is okay to drop recipients from a reply - in fact, it is good; less people are involved, and [to reiterate the point] the bigger the audience, the more any implied criticism or debate will be exacerbated.

{
I have to digress for a pet peeve. I send an email to S, and S replies, copying eight other people. I reply back to S alone. S replies, again copying eight other people. This is bad. If I'm smart I will abandon email and continue the conversation with Sface-to-face or over the 'phone. If I'm not smart I'll flame S so badly his hair catches fire, copying everyone, and regret it later.
}

Second, email is a very relaxed medium, but observing some formality is important. Use an email client which spell checks. Use normal capitalization. Use correct grammar - complete sentences make email easier to read just like everything else. Don't use weird background colors and strange fonts. Don't append pictures of your dog. You get the picture... I've received emails from senior people which bordered on illiterate, with incorrect capitalization, grammar, incomplete sentences, etc. The impression is not positive.

Third, email can be immediate, but don't hesitate to review and revise important emails. In many companies email has all but replaced paper memos. In many business situations email has replaced letters. When writing an email which has a wide distribution, or which affects a negotiation, or possible deal, or potential sale, take the time to write a draft, and reread it later. You can almost always improve the wording, make a point more concisely, or other otherwise improve the communication.

Finally, remember that email is a public and permanent record. Email is plain text and goes out over public networks, and is often stored on servers for a long time and may be backed up for a longer time. It might feel "throwaway" at the time, but it will not be thrown away, as senior executives at Microsoft, Enron, Worldcom, and others have discovered. If you have something to say which won't bear the public light of day, it shouldn't be said in email. And if you are sending something confidential or sensitive, consider sending it as an encrypted and/or password-protected attachment.

Okay, enough about email. Here's the six rules for avoiding email tyranny :

1. Turn your email client off. Pick the moment at which you'll be interrupted.
2. Never criticize anyone in email, and avoid technical debates. Use face-to-face meetings or 'phone calls instead.
3. Be judicious in who you send email to, and who you copy on emails.
4. Observing some formality is important.
5. Don't hesitate to review and revise important emails.
6. Remember that email is a public and permanent record.

Got it? Cool. Thinking about email productivity led me to make some comments about productivity in general...

The Three Hour Rule

Programming is a right-brain activity. It is very conceptual and spatial and [gasp!] artistic. Effective programming requires that you transition from your body's normal "left brain" mode into a "right brain" zone. As I mentioned above, programming cannot be done in less than three-hour windows. Really. And in talking to friends in other fields, I'm convinced this applies to many other lines of work.

When you're in a three-hour zone, you've spun up to speed, gathered your concentration, shifted into "right brain mode", and are focusing on a problem. You're being productive. There are four things which can interrupt you, and you have to watch out for all of them:

1. Receiving email or 'phone calls.
2. Personal contact with colleagues.
3. Meetings.
4. Warp-offs.

Let's talk about each of these... First, emails or 'phone calls. Email we've talked about, this one is easy - just turn your email client off. Done. Mostpeople receive far less 'phone calls than emails, so calls aren't nearly as much of a problem. The solution is the same - put your phone in "do not disturb" mode. Nowadays most everyone has a cell 'phone, leave that on, and if there is a genuine emergency your significant other or doctor or whomever will reach you there. Most calls to your desk are colleagues or customers; these are important, but as with email, you should pick the time to take them.

Second, there is personal contact with colleagues. Most companies these days can't afford for everyone to have a private office, so it is pretty easy to get interrupted. (If you have an office, close the door!) Distractions include ambient noise, questions ("Hey, do you know how to invoke a framitz?"), and other interruptions ("Hey, you want to play foosball?"). These are really important (especially foosball), but they are interruptions, and they will mess up your three-hour window. Basically you want to isolate yourself from your colleagues, just like with email and 'phone calls. To deal with ambient noise, get yourself some really good headphones and play music. Cordless, if you want. For $100 you will have the best-sounding music you can imagine, and a sure-fire way to eliminate background noise.

{
The "office vs. cubicle" debaterages and has not been settled. Some companies give every engineer their own office, and claim the productivity improvement is worth the cost. Others feel the atmosphere is better in a cubicle farm, and the interaction between engineers leads to better problem solving. Without taking a stand in this debate, the fact is that most engineers work in cubicles, and have little control over this. So it is what it is - you have to make the best of it.

In 2000 I joined PayPal, a dot-com with an egalitarian work environment where everyone had a cubicle, even the CEO. After many years of enjoying a private office, I was back in a cube. I quickly found two things to be essential, first, I positioned my desk and computer so I was not distracted by traffic (away from the cube opening), and second, I bought a great pair of cordless headphones. With these adaptations I was able to work just as productively as I had in an office. (Of course I used conference rooms for meetings.)
}

Dealing with questions and interruptions from colleagues is more difficult. The give-and-take between engineers in a team is important; often one person will have the answer to another's dilemma. There is also the social aspect, it is enjoyable to interact with your colleagues. However, you need to have those three-hour windows. I recommend a simple sign you can hang on your cube: "I'm in a zone", "Do not disturb", etc. (This is a chance to be creative...) Essentially you want your colleagues to know you're zoning. If they have a technical question which can wait, they can put it in email, or wait until you emerge. If they need immediate attention ("hey, you want to play foosball?") at least they know you were in a zone, and that they're interrupting you.

Third, meetings... Ah yes. An entire book can be written about meetings, and many have. Let me make a few comments about meetings and then leave it. Meetings interrupt everyone who attends, obviously, so they
(I will post the rest when I can..)

Or in other words, it's okay to rob people if they're rich enough to afford it?

Yes.

This video exposes Disney's hypocrisy in enforcing its copyrights.

If it matches any of the baloney detection tests it's not just a wishy-washy might-be "warning sign", it's proof that some part of the claim is bogus.

And for the curious, please...

DO NOT GO TO THE CARL SAGAN WEB SITE.

-Rick

Heh - that's just quoted directly from Tanenbaum's book... "never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck with video tapes".

oh well...

However, there's also evidence that the dotcom bust took a lot of money out of the economy. I heard that if investments were calculated into inflation during the late 90's (using value and not earnings models), then we were experiencing triple digit inflation.

Since most of the dotcoms were doomed from the beginning (see "Innovation and Entrepreneurship" by Peter Drucker chapter on technology entrepreneurs), and dotcom investing was more popular than Jesus; it's not surprising that the massive shift in wealth (most went to the already wealthy) will take some time to sort out.

Some think we're headed to a depression again because of the massive shift in wealth to the wealthy. I guess it's our doom to see if it's true. If so, then in the midst of the rubble there may be a chance for America(ns) to take back some ground in the tech field... unless they're being pushed down by the powers that be.

I think there's an Ayn Rand novel with exactly this event as a plot device.

It's not strictly comparable, though. A software application can be destroyed with no loss of materials or labor, and restored in a matter of minutes. A building can't.

I like Writing Secure Code from Microsoft Press, myself.

The back cover says:

"Required reading at Microsoft."

Yeah, *that's* the book I want to buy about writing secure code. Heh.

Yep, Zubrin really comes down hard on NASA, and rightly so. Be sure to read Zubrin's "Entering Space", too. It's a little more broadly scoped, but it's just as good.

The book is Snow Crystals by W. A. Bentley and W. J. Humphreys. It's available from Barnes & Noble here. It truly is a magnificent work. Highly recommended!

This news is at least a year old! This is the 25th Year Anniversary of the original series. This is just a mini-series. This is going to suck! Nobody likes what they have done. There are SEVERAL petitions to stop this from airing! The fans and Richard Hatch (Appolo from the series) have been trying to get a continuation of the original series. Richard Hatch has written 4 books continuing the saga. This site is a great place to get the information on the new mini series.
Where to start. There is no more 12 colonies on 12 planets. There is 12 colonies on 1 planet. The cylons weren't created a reptilian race. The cylons were created by the humans to fight each other. All the characters are pale shadows of themselves. Anything that made them look and act like a hero is gone. Starbuck & Boomer are both now woman. Mr. Moore turned this once great show into a social propaganda engine. Don't expect this to be anything like the original because he is basing this on the the original Battlestar Galactica movie which was the first few episodes of the show and does have a lot of the character development.

While people are recommending books, I'll throw one in: Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas Hofstadter. The book deals with formal systems and other topics, and won the Pulitzer prize - well worth reading.

Sweet! Your revulsion is the world's. Worry not, however, as they broke up around the time you were at Syracuse. (Their horrorshow simmered into two derivatives -- The Sex Pistols, who were a controversial band for a few months in the '70s; and the one-hit-wonder Buster Poindexter. But I digress.) We here in future-land are free of that plague, and of Devo as well. (The glorious Rushmore soundtrack is the closest thing to a "latest Devo" album.)

...The decade of wisdom...

...Hayden, Bach, Gutrie, Basie, Ma, and Copeland...

Bah! You're still going with whatever Alan Lomax or NBC Radio spoonfed America. (And the only good Basie was Straight Ahead, which was all Sammy Nestico.) If you're really looking to boil the gristle out of the flesh, as it were, then start listening to the real stuff (created and celebrated by the populace, back when they controlled U.S. popular music), instead of mass-market derivatives like Copeland.

Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here.

Every order is organized by year newest to oldest. Every order is clickable to bring up the exact specifics of what was ordered: the number of shipments, the tracking numbers, what was order, it's price, and totals (shipping, tax, subtotal, grand total).

Attack the source problem *cough* Patriot Act *cough* not Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or whoever you want to smear because of some hivemind mentality.

If you don't want even record of the sale you need not shop at all, online or offline.

There is always going to be some paper trail; no matter if its a reciept, a CC statment, or the cashier remembering you.

The importance of Turner and Fauconnier's work is that they're coming out of linguistics and a deep understanding of the functions of such things as metaphors and counterfactuals and their essential involvement in letting language make sense.

Once such a threshold is crossed, you're going to see genetic selection for secondary characteristics which suddenly acquire greater pertinence to survival advantage. Trivially, if we can talk certain shapes of tongues will be favored, where before there may have been no selection pressure towards those best at forming the sounds of words. So on this sort of hypothesis - that a general sort of cognitive capability gradually increased until crossing a threshold at which a novel and significant sort of performance became enabled - there are also likely to be genetic shifts in the population following this favoring those genes which are most compatible with the new capability. This does not mean that these genetic shifts are themselves responsible for its appearance. It does not mean there is a "gene for language," even if you can demonstrate a correlation between the emergence of language and the favoring of a certain gene.

If, to again make a trivial example, on a planet far away a species developed the game of basketball. And if there were a vast intergalactic audience that quickly developed a love of basketball such that the players in this species developed a large survival advantage which extended for many generations, then you would subsequently see in their genetic record a flourishing of those genes which correspond with taller stature. That does not in any way prove or indicate that those are "basketball genes."

How the guy quoted in this article ever got a doctorate, let alone a post at Stanford, is baffling.

Buy the original graphic novel now before it is out of print and zooms up in price.

Gotta love a bunch of techies who entirely dismiss reason when it's in the way of fantasy.
Okay, let's see if you can figure this out if I say it in small words.
Feynman _ wrote _ those _ books.
And what a surprise, he was biased towards making himself look good. I'ld recomend Gleick's Genius or any of a dozen other sources for a less biased account.
The short form? Feynman was massively insecure, never was as successful at dating as his own writing makes it appear, and spent much of his life paying off one or more women who blackmailed him after some ill-considered romp or other.
Oh, btw, I hung out with one of his former assistants back in '85 to '87 and she was mighty clear about the distance between the reality and his own claims. Let's just say that she was not impressed with his social skills or his appeal to women. (And since she thought *I* was cute, clearly she had no problem with geek guys per se.)

After way too many years of seeing nerds (derogotory term intentional) citing Feynman's misogynist, fictionalized, self-aggrandizing, b*lllsh*t as a training manual, I've really had enough.

Okay, moving on to happier things, you folk really should check /. before wandering off so quickly.
The ever thorough bellus quies put together this far better set of geek dating links. At least a dozen /.ers should by now have mentioned Eric S. Raymond's detailed dating guide, while for the halfway there, need-to-RTFM, folk, here are the man pages on woman parts.
Those, came from $$$exyGal's links.
Or you could try hanging out here or here to finding the geekishly inclined, though first you might want to download and read this painful but excellent overview.

If on the other hand (heh, heh) you've already given up on finding a human of your own, then you might want to drop by here, here, and here.

Good luck to all of us.

Rustin

Also, "J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds" by Peter Goodchild. Really well-researched. It focuses on Oppy, but also provides good insight into the Manhattan Project overall.

Nor in my mind does he fully answer the question of why the scientists remained motivated to produce the weapons after Germany had been conquered.