For this prank to work, the stickers should be different colors. That's why you have to solve it first, so you know that you're switching stickers from different sides.
Graphic design is a wash on the information layout of the site.
I see what you're saying, and you're basically right, but there's an aspect where it's not entirely true. Think about the information that would be conveyed by, say, a hot pink color scheme as opposed to one in earth tones. That's an extreme example, but the point is that there is information conveyed in the graphics about values, attitudes, connotation, and emphasis, etc. That's what I meant about there being a vocabulary.
It's a different kind of information being conveyed. I think of it as analogous to the facial expressions and body language that accompany speaking. And if the common wisdom is correct, that stuff accounts for more than half of the actual information conveyed in a conversation.
I'm not a graphic designer, but I play one on TV. Actually, my girlfriend is the designer, and I'm the analytical geek that she always asks to help her critique and polish her stuff, so I've picked up some basic premises in trying to explain to her things like why I think that little doohicky in the corner needs to be 3 pixels smaller, stuff like that.
It make take you a little while to line up a clear shot. It's best if during that time, he's not eating people. If you can get him moving away from others, it's less likely a missed shot will take out one of the zoo patrons. And, as a bonus, if he's moving toward you, it's easier to take the shot than if he is moving away, or worse, laterally and erratically. Of course, that advantage may be entirely offset by an increase in the shaking of your hands.
Animals respond to tone, pitch, projection, and volume, not vocabulary. It's just human psychology that "Stop" will be yelled in a firmer and more attention-getting voice than "here, kitty". Try telling your dog "what a good puppy" in a firm, demanding voice. Or alternately, try telling him "I'm going to wring your fsking neck, you worthless bastard" in a cooing voice. It's possible, but doesn't come naturally.
It doesn't take logic, in this kind of case instinct is a good guide, and I'm sure the cops acted on instinct - well, except for the running for your life part. Logic just backs up the instinctual actions after the fact.
My boss has asked me to 'punch up' the website to make it more appealing.
Sounds like the project has already failed, then.
Seriously, start by asking questions, not offering answers. And I mean to him, not to slashdot. What is it the site is meant to communicate? What services does it provide? What values should it express? Why does he think it is not appealing now? Who is the audience? What are their values and expectations? Why are you worrying about this on Sunday?
People that do this are called graphic artists for a reason, and art is communication and it has a vocabulary. Start with what you want to communicate and how it can/should be communicated, then find colors, shapes, symbols and relationships that express that.
Get a professional if you can, he's the one that knows to ask those questions, and how to execute the answers he discovers.
I am guessing there network inside the county is [intact]. Meaning there Military can still use there local network Sure, but how can you do any real military planning without Google Earth?
Just so you know, while you were at work today, I broke into your house and stole everything except your widescreen plasma TV. I'll expect a thank you note for the free TV you got from me.
MS Employees have paid for that bridge many, many times over with their payroll, sales, and property taxes. Don't worry about the poor state of WA having enough money for what they need to do (as opposed to what they choose to do).
And corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them.
Every Afghan shall have the right to express thoughts through speech, writing, illustrations as well as other means in accordance with provisions of this constitution. Directives related to the press, radio and television as well as publications and other mass media shall be regulated by law. They're following the same way the US is, alright. Using the loopholes that allow the government to do whatever it wants to do... well whatever it wants. In the US, the weasel clause is "without due process". In the Afghan constitution, I'm sure there's a clause about not blaspheming Allah, and so "in accordance with this Constitution" means that free speech is inviolable unless it blasphemes Allah - which is whatever the government says it is.
do you really think yelling "Stop" is going to have a major impact on the behavior of the tiger? Empirical evidence suggests that it did:
when the yelling was occurring the animal turned toward the officers Another way to phrase that was that the tiger turned away from everybody else who didn't have guns. Sounds like a perfectly conceived and executed plan to me.
What... wait... Multitasking? I'm sorry, what was that again...
Oh, wait, hold on a minute... Hey! move it! the light's green, you jerkwad... That's it, right foot is the gas... Pay attention to what you're doing for once, huh? Jeez.
Yeah, but what is RP's stance on quartering soldiers in private homes, huh? I haven't heard him say one word opposing it. What's he trying to hide? Vote "None of the Above" to protect the Third Amendment!!!
So magically the people downloading music and not paying for it are going to start paying? That doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation.
The honor system works when both sides are honorable. And most people, even slashdotters, are honorable. There's plenty of evidence that people will pay for what they want if doing so is cheap enough and easy enough. People value the work that others do, and seeing that they get fairly paid for it is part of the cost/benefit analysis that people do when deciding between "legitimate" downloads and "sharing". It's when the creator of the content or his agent is seen as predatory or arbitrarily restrictive that people begin to look for other sources.
For better or worse, right or wrong, business models based on selling bits are dead, just not buried yet. New ways are going to have to be found to make money from talent, creativity, and hard work, ways that don't rely on selling data exclusively. Free riders will always be a problem, content owners are going to have no choice but to suck it up, and learn to see it as a benefit instead of an attack. They can choose to treat their customers like decent human beings, or like a bunch of back-stabbing thieves - either way, their attitude will, for the most part, be reflected back to them.
Content sales in the very near future will be done with fewer middle-men, and more with direct relationships. It will be done with fewer restrictions, and more trust. There's already a lot of innovation occurring in business models built that way, just not by the record companies and movie studios.
"Another joyride that contributes absolutely nothing to space exploration."
That's like saying that competing in the Nascar provides no beneficial experience whatsoever toward building minivans. It's a baby step, but this is about making space exploitation a business more than inventing cutting edge tech - that's what Rutan and the rest are doing. It's about creating a body of experience.
What this will provide experience in includes, but is not limited to:
logistics (equipment) logistics (passengers) safety procedures safety equipment materials supply chain financing market research regulatory issues public relations efficiency tradeoffs passenger comfort tradeoffs product development (product as in "joyride" or other activities) production processes port facilities reliability maintenance business models
These are all things that the business world has enormous experience in in general, but little to no experience in applying them to space. They have to start somewhere.
Secondary effects that increase the viability of the industry as a whole include, but are not limited to:
public acceptance institutional acceptance (banking, VC, regulatory, insurance) financial viability of ports financial viability of secondary port and logistics infrastructure financial viability of vendors on the supply chain R&D of materials, fuels, components, etc. competitive incentives capital accumulation
Cutting edge tech makes it possible for somebody to go to space. Turning that tech into viable businesses is what will make it possible for lots of people to go to space.
I don't know how I earn money from something once I've made it open source. I'll offer some philosophical advice here, while admitting that for the practical application of it, I've got no help for you.
Rather than looking to earn money from things, look to earn it. You are the brand, you are the source of the value you sell to others, and you are the only thing you have full control of. Make yourself valuable enough to people that they will give you some of their value for some of your value. How would your approach to that change if, instead of thinking of the software as the results of getting that "job", you thought of it as part of the resume? How would your approach be different if you sought to create value that can neither be copied, nor stolen, nor depleted, and used your software as evidence of your ability to do that? Or a platform on which to do so? If that software is an investment in the brand of "you", would it be wise to cash it out now?
Jeez, you guys can slashdot a site even at a quarter to ten on a Saturday night? Don't you people have lives? Now go out to your bars, and your clubs, and your girlfriends, and get off the DA site so I can see it.
No, you're confusing the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect Nevertheless, "heisenblogging" would still be the obvious and useful term, should anybody suggest coining it...
It's rather wild - I was a courier for a few years. Good dispatchers are godly - even after I'd become a very good courier, passing into that zen-zone of pace & grace, there were still a couple of dispatchers who'd put me on completely bizarre new diagonal routes that turned out perfect every time. I've no idea how.
Note that the dispatcher is handling about 30 couriers, and he's also coordinating with two other dispatchers with about 30 cycles each as needed. It's grotesquely complex compared to Salesman and UPS problems, yet there are humans that do this processing every day. How? I used to be that guy on the other end of your phone/radio/pager (1990's Chicago), though I more often dealt with the drivers not the bikers, so I had it a little easier. I didn't think of the problem in mathematical terms then, but the skill was just a huge set of heuristics, and something very similar to a genetic algorithm being run continuously in my head.
One thing I do remember is that there was always one stop, or one tight cluster of stops, that if you eliminated it, the remainder fell into a pretty obvious route. It was often tricky to figure out which one it was, but once you found it, you'd have a near-optimal route for the 9 of 10 stops, or 19 out of 20, whatever, but then had to eat the grossly non-optimal time that last package or cluster took (usually with a different driver doing just that one, or incorporating it non-optimally into his route).
It was remarkably consistent how it seemed to always work that way. Even routing over multiple drivers, there was always one stop, and usually only one in a given time context, that had to be left out of the calculations. Sort of a genetic algorithm with a sacrifice. The political skill was in spreading that pain around so you didn't always screw one guy, and in making sure that that guy of the moment knew the limits to the whining you were willing to put up with.
Sorry, isn't ice cover currently up a million square kilometres (globally) compared to the average? Silly, that's not empirical evidence, that's just measurement and data. No, empirical is Algore's movie, that's all the evidence that counts.
are you implying that the animation [youtube.com] of the ice extent is FALSIFIED?!!!! These things are a matter of public record and are splattered all over the web. It has been reported ad nauseam by numerous media outlets, such that any falsification would become obvious because those who have access to the raw data could easily point out the errors. Yet, when people do just that, you call them "deniers" with the same sneer you'd have when referring to Nazis. I suppose you won't consider it "reputable" information until Dan Rather or Fox News says it.
The theory goes that fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds, which means a warmer climate. No, the theory goes that fewer cosmic rays means fewer high clouds, which means less warming. If you thought that the findings of the article support your take on the theory, and your theory is the opposite of the real theory, then that would mean the article supports the actual theory, then doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
The more annoying thing was to solve it for real, then transpose two of the stickers, and mix it up again. Let's see 'em solve it now!
I see what you're saying, and you're basically right, but there's an aspect where it's not entirely true. Think about the information that would be conveyed by, say, a hot pink color scheme as opposed to one in earth tones. That's an extreme example, but the point is that there is information conveyed in the graphics about values, attitudes, connotation, and emphasis, etc. That's what I meant about there being a vocabulary.
It's a different kind of information being conveyed. I think of it as analogous to the facial expressions and body language that accompany speaking. And if the common wisdom is correct, that stuff accounts for more than half of the actual information conveyed in a conversation.
I'm not a graphic designer, but I play one on TV. Actually, my girlfriend is the designer, and I'm the analytical geek that she always asks to help her critique and polish her stuff, so I've picked up some basic premises in trying to explain to her things like why I think that little doohicky in the corner needs to be 3 pixels smaller, stuff like that.
And thanks for the props in your title.
Animals respond to tone, pitch, projection, and volume, not vocabulary. It's just human psychology that "Stop" will be yelled in a firmer and more attention-getting voice than "here, kitty". Try telling your dog "what a good puppy" in a firm, demanding voice. Or alternately, try telling him "I'm going to wring your fsking neck, you worthless bastard" in a cooing voice. It's possible, but doesn't come naturally.
It doesn't take logic, in this kind of case instinct is a good guide, and I'm sure the cops acted on instinct - well, except for the running for your life part. Logic just backs up the instinctual actions after the fact.
Sounds like the project has already failed, then.
Seriously, start by asking questions, not offering answers. And I mean to him, not to slashdot. What is it the site is meant to communicate? What services does it provide? What values should it express? Why does he think it is not appealing now? Who is the audience? What are their values and expectations? Why are you worrying about this on Sunday?
People that do this are called graphic artists for a reason, and art is communication and it has a vocabulary. Start with what you want to communicate and how it can/should be communicated, then find colors, shapes, symbols and relationships that express that.
Get a professional if you can, he's the one that knows to ask those questions, and how to execute the answers he discovers.
Just make sure it has built-in wifi and and a non-replaceable battery and call it the iScope.
Just so you know, while you were at work today, I broke into your house and stole everything except your widescreen plasma TV. I'll expect a thank you note for the free TV you got from me.
MS Employees have paid for that bridge many, many times over with their payroll, sales, and property taxes. Don't worry about the poor state of WA having enough money for what they need to do (as opposed to what they choose to do). And corporations don't pay taxes, they collect them.
Yeah, but he should do it in a barrel, from the Canadian side.
Oh, wait, hold on a minute... Hey! move it! the light's green, you jerkwad... That's it, right foot is the gas... Pay attention to what you're doing for once, huh? Jeez.
OK, sorry, where were we?
Yeah, but what is RP's stance on quartering soldiers in private homes, huh? I haven't heard him say one word opposing it. What's he trying to hide? Vote "None of the Above" to protect the Third Amendment!!!
And you thought those "Do not remove under penalty of law" tags on your mattress were a joke? In my country, your mattress tags you.
The honor system works when both sides are honorable. And most people, even slashdotters, are honorable. There's plenty of evidence that people will pay for what they want if doing so is cheap enough and easy enough. People value the work that others do, and seeing that they get fairly paid for it is part of the cost/benefit analysis that people do when deciding between "legitimate" downloads and "sharing". It's when the creator of the content or his agent is seen as predatory or arbitrarily restrictive that people begin to look for other sources.
For better or worse, right or wrong, business models based on selling bits are dead, just not buried yet. New ways are going to have to be found to make money from talent, creativity, and hard work, ways that don't rely on selling data exclusively. Free riders will always be a problem, content owners are going to have no choice but to suck it up, and learn to see it as a benefit instead of an attack. They can choose to treat their customers like decent human beings, or like a bunch of back-stabbing thieves - either way, their attitude will, for the most part, be reflected back to them.
Content sales in the very near future will be done with fewer middle-men, and more with direct relationships. It will be done with fewer restrictions, and more trust. There's already a lot of innovation occurring in business models built that way, just not by the record companies and movie studios.
"Another joyride that contributes absolutely nothing to space exploration."
That's like saying that competing in the Nascar provides no beneficial experience whatsoever toward building minivans. It's a baby step, but this is about making space exploitation a business more than inventing cutting edge tech - that's what Rutan and the rest are doing. It's about creating a body of experience.
What this will provide experience in includes, but is not limited to:
logistics (equipment)
logistics (passengers)
safety procedures
safety equipment
materials
supply chain
financing
market research
regulatory issues
public relations
efficiency tradeoffs
passenger comfort tradeoffs
product development (product as in "joyride" or other activities)
production processes
port facilities
reliability
maintenance
business models
These are all things that the business world has enormous experience in in general, but little to no experience in applying them to space. They have to start somewhere.
Secondary effects that increase the viability of the industry as a whole include, but are not limited to:
public acceptance
institutional acceptance (banking, VC, regulatory, insurance)
financial viability of ports
financial viability of secondary port and logistics infrastructure
financial viability of vendors on the supply chain
R&D of materials, fuels, components, etc.
competitive incentives
capital accumulation
Cutting edge tech makes it possible for somebody to go to space. Turning that tech into viable businesses is what will make it possible for lots of people to go to space.
Rather than looking to earn money from things, look to earn it. You are the brand, you are the source of the value you sell to others, and you are the only thing you have full control of. Make yourself valuable enough to people that they will give you some of their value for some of your value. How would your approach to that change if, instead of thinking of the software as the results of getting that "job", you thought of it as part of the resume? How would your approach be different if you sought to create value that can neither be copied, nor stolen, nor depleted, and used your software as evidence of your ability to do that? Or a platform on which to do so? If that software is an investment in the brand of "you", would it be wise to cash it out now?
Jeez, you guys can slashdot a site even at a quarter to ten on a Saturday night? Don't you people have lives? Now go out to your bars, and your clubs, and your girlfriends, and get off the DA site so I can see it.
One thing I do remember is that there was always one stop, or one tight cluster of stops, that if you eliminated it, the remainder fell into a pretty obvious route. It was often tricky to figure out which one it was, but once you found it, you'd have a near-optimal route for the 9 of 10 stops, or 19 out of 20, whatever, but then had to eat the grossly non-optimal time that last package or cluster took (usually with a different driver doing just that one, or incorporating it non-optimally into his route).
It was remarkably consistent how it seemed to always work that way. Even routing over multiple drivers, there was always one stop, and usually only one in a given time context, that had to be left out of the calculations. Sort of a genetic algorithm with a sacrifice. The political skill was in spreading that pain around so you didn't always screw one guy, and in making sure that that guy of the moment knew the limits to the whining you were willing to put up with.