Same here. It's been a long time since I had to "go searching" for an app that wasn't already in the distro's collection. And it's been a good deal longer since I last downloaded something from Sourceforge. The only thing that even comes to mind is iscan which I need for my Epson scanner, and it's not hosted on sourceforge.
In any case, I'm glad to see the uptick in Apple downloads, though I suspect that's more a reflection of Linux geeks choosing Apple hardware, rather than the other way around. I don't have a laptop at the moment, But my last laptop was an iBook, and the the next one will probably be an iMac-Pro... because I know that Apple has good, solid hardware, and because the hardware is so tightly controlled, I know that it's easy to write for. If I get an Asus notebook, it's a crap-shoot for which chipset, which graphics chip, etc..
I'll gladly bet a beer that any decent Linux distro will boot "out of the box" on Apple hardware. But I'd be cautious about that bet on some random confabulation of "commodity-PC" hardware.
to bring the project in significantly under budget, then yes, the thing might actually fly someday. Otherwise, it's just another waste of money. In the last 10 years, SpaceX has built up an entire booster family (and attendant infrastructure) for less money than SLS is projected to cost per launch.
In a few more years, when SpaceX is flying astronauts to the ISS, and has an even bigger booster than SLS on the drawing board, then SLS will finally die a long overdue death. It's a shame to waste all that money, but when Congress is owned by corporate interests there's no easy way around that.
Yes, assuming it's physically possible -- the OP could be hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Nothing beats in-person interaction. But if her eyesight is still good, then electronic means can be a great substitute. As long as she can see you, that will be enough, even if she can't hear very well.
My grandma lived to 102, and although her hearing started to go in her 80's, she could still read and do crosswords into her late 90's. (She was a huge fan of Wheel Of Fortune.;-) Around 99 or so, macular degeneration took her sight, and only then did she start to deteriorate mentally. With no eyes or ears, she was basically in her own little world, but she would quickly snap into the here-and-now when people came to visit. Still, it was difficult to communicate... difficult to do most things... Around that time she decided she was ready to "go" and switched to hospice care, going off all her meds except pain killers. (She lasted for nearly 3 years after that.)
I wish we'd had iPads back then. I'm sure Grandma would have loved it.
> #6) Get her tied into some of these websites for genaeological research.
I've only read two of his books, but yes, assortative mating has been a feature of his work going back to the 90's. I agree that his claims overshoot the evidence thus far, but I think he's onto something all the same. As you say, the linkage between genes and behavior is fraught with complexity, but there are a couple of mitigating factors in this case.
First, autism's hallmark is a lack of empathy/interest/understanding toward other people. While such behavior is obviously influenced by a myriad of genetic and environmental factors, it's not hard to imagine that a handful of genes could have a major impact on the overall system.
Second, it's easy to see "geekiness" as a mild form of this inability to "get" social cues and understand/empathize with others. And life experience clearly shows that "geeky" classmates tend to band together, simply because they are the only ones that can understand and cope with each other's awkward foibles.
Third, it's not hard to imagine a handful of genes that could predispose one toward greater interest or fascination with systems and structures. Nor is it hard to imagine that when two such people meet, they will tend to "hit it off" quite readily. In fact, due to previous experience with social awkwardness, a pairing like this may be MUCH more likely to result in offspring. So although these traits may be "fuzzy" and rare, they could nevertheless have a positive feedback bias when paired with others of a similar type.
Fourth, in the old days, such awkward/geeky people didn't get much chance to reproduce. But now in the internet age, they have a much greater chance of finding a partner, and are more likely to end up with a similarly geeky one.
Baron-Cohen doesn't claim that this is the only cause of autism, but it makes sense. And although we don't understand how it works yet, there does seem to be a statistical trend behind the theory.
Except for the Alabama/Georgia mix-up, the rest of your post is right on the mark. Couldn't agree more. Another thing that blindsided him was that one cabinet secretary (can't remember his name) who got caught using cocaine. One of Carter's campaign points in '76 was his support for decriminalizing marijuana, but that whole agenda went down the crapper after the coke scandal. What a shame we couldn't have ended that idiotic policy 30+ years ago! But you're right, he came in promising to shake up Washington, and they stonewalled him.
He didn't say "nucular" but then he didn't quite say "nuclear" either... it was more like "nukiyuh" as I recall.
I don't think he personally deserves 100% of the blame for the "failure" of his presidency, but he certainly deserves some of it. (They all do.) He presided over a rough time for the country with some unpleasant structural shifts underway. But in any case, he has been much more successful as an ex-president.
As for Lybia, I'm somewhat encouraged by their choice of an engineer for this job, rather than a career politician or clergyman, or some other charismatic type. The last thing that country needs is a new "Dear Leader." They need someone who can learn quickly in a wide range of topics, someone who can make informed decisions with a minimum of tribal bias, and deal with the myriad problems of getting the country back on its feet again.
> oil companies are funding little if any of the serious research on global warming
FTFY
The oil cartel is not interested in actual science on this issue. But they do spend 7- and 8-figure sums on propaganda campaigns and lobbyists, including hefty donations to conservative think-tank "institutes" which, in turn, do fund a fair amount of "fake science" which is favorable to the industry.
How about setting up an airline that doesn't use TSA? We're supposed by have a "free market" right? Why not let the market decide? We have "no frills" airlines that reduce cost by cutting in-flight service. Just apply the same logic to security.
Instead of the standard TSA procedure, you get an Israeli-style interview check. The airline could even charge a premium for these "no-TSA" flights. I for one would gladly pay an extra %1 for such a ticket, and I know I'm not the only one. Actually, I think the market would be quite substantial.
Unfortunately, that will probably never happen. Because that would mean the TSA would have to give up some of its power, and entities that hold that kind of power almost never give it up willingly. Also, the security industry has already grown to the point where its lobbyists are able to prevent any such legislation getting through Congress. So basically we're screwed (or rather pawed) until we can get the money out of politics, and after the SCOTUS's Citizens United ruling, the only way to do that is by a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.
IIRC, Smith said taxes should be "easy," which doesn't necessarily mean small or large. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he would advocate "high" taxes, just that he favored progressive tax rates. In the current (US) political climate, a lot of people are talking about a flat tax, or other regressive schemes, and justify this on the theory of "supply side" economics. You know, we can't "punish the job creators" and all that... Smith would have laughed at such talk.
Basically, we had a very progressive tax system from WWII through the 70's. And that period was a golden age for the USA, just as Smith would have predicted. Rich people still had their mansions, yachts, and limos (or "opulence" as Smith might have put it), and the government managed to build infrastructure, provide services and offer inexpensive education, all without running up massive debts and deficits. And (except for women and minorities) everyone was pretty happy with the situation. Businesses thrived, workers enjoyed generous pensions and health benefits, and opportunities abounded.
Since then we've dabbled with various levels of less progressive schemes. (The income tax is progressive, but when you consider sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc., the total tax burden is still highest on the middle class.) The idea was that "job creators" would have more money, and therefore they would create more jobs. But they didn't always do that. Increasingly they found it easier to "gamble" their extra cash on stocks and securities. So while the government was running up historic deficits, there was an excess of "hot money" in the markets, leading to speculation and bubble formation.
Oh, and let's not forget deregulation... another exaggeration of Smith's ideas, which gave us the S&L crisis in the 80's and the "Great Recession" of 2008.
A lot of modern capitalists seem to misunderstand Adam Smith. Yes, he said that individual ambition serves the common good, but he never said that "profits come first." In fact, Smith defined "wealth" not as money, but in a more holistic way: "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society."
Also, those who argue for lower taxes on the rich and on corporations are certainly not following Smith's advice:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
I've only skimmed the PDF (it's way above my level anyway) but I didn't see any notes about license or copyright. It looks pretty detailed... perhaps enough to allow an open-source project to replicate the software. That would be cool.
Good point. I suspect there will be ways to detect artifacts of such changes, but those could probably be obscured by converting to a low-res format. Grainy-smudgy video has always been the friend of woo-woo purveyors.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper. (If it's there, and I missed it, please let me know.) Hopefully someone will make a plugin for this, so we can use it in GIMP, PS, etc..
Sorry, you're right, I "skimmed" over that bit. The "free trade" movement started under Nixon and was continued by Carter. (After all, it was Nixon who closed the gold window.) But it only started to accelerate under Reagan.
In a quiet corner across the street from Zuccotti Park, a cluster of 25 solemn-faced protesters struggled one night to give Occupy Wall Street what critics have found to be most lacking.
“We absolutely need demands,” said Shawn Redden, 35, an earnest history teacher in the group. “Like Frederick Douglass said, ‘Power concedes nothing without a demand.’ ”
The influence and staying power of Occupy Wall Street are undeniable: similar movements have sprouted around the world, as the original group enters its fifth week in the financial district. Yet a frequent criticism of the protesters has been the absence of specific policy demands....
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it hairlips everybody on bear creek!
Same here. It's been a long time since I had to "go searching" for an app that wasn't already in the distro's collection. And it's been a good deal longer since I last downloaded something from Sourceforge. The only thing that even comes to mind is iscan which I need for my Epson scanner, and it's not hosted on sourceforge.
In any case, I'm glad to see the uptick in Apple downloads, though I suspect that's more a reflection of Linux geeks choosing Apple hardware, rather than the other way around. I don't have a laptop at the moment, But my last laptop was an iBook, and the the next one will probably be an iMac-Pro... because I know that Apple has good, solid hardware, and because the hardware is so tightly controlled, I know that it's easy to write for. If I get an Asus notebook, it's a crap-shoot for which chipset, which graphics chip, etc..
I'll gladly bet a beer that any decent Linux distro will boot "out of the box" on Apple hardware. But I'd be cautious about that bet on some random confabulation of "commodity-PC" hardware.
My thoughts exactly. Where can I get one?!?!
Finally, a place for Peter Thiel's libertarian paradise!
to bring the project in significantly under budget, then yes, the thing might actually fly someday. Otherwise, it's just another waste of money. In the last 10 years, SpaceX has built up an entire booster family (and attendant infrastructure) for less money than SLS is projected to cost per launch .
In a few more years, when SpaceX is flying astronauts to the ISS, and has an even bigger booster than SLS on the drawing board, then SLS will finally die a long overdue death. It's a shame to waste all that money, but when Congress is owned by corporate interests there's no easy way around that.
They should call it Central Services.
> #1) Visit with her. Often.
Yes, assuming it's physically possible -- the OP could be hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Nothing beats in-person interaction. But if her eyesight is still good, then electronic means can be a great substitute. As long as she can see you, that will be enough, even if she can't hear very well.
My grandma lived to 102, and although her hearing started to go in her 80's, she could still read and do crosswords into her late 90's. (She was a huge fan of Wheel Of Fortune.;-) Around 99 or so, macular degeneration took her sight, and only then did she start to deteriorate mentally. With no eyes or ears, she was basically in her own little world, but she would quickly snap into the here-and-now when people came to visit. Still, it was difficult to communicate... difficult to do most things... Around that time she decided she was ready to "go" and switched to hospice care, going off all her meds except pain killers. (She lasted for nearly 3 years after that.)
I wish we'd had iPads back then. I'm sure Grandma would have loved it.
> #6) Get her tied into some of these websites for genaeological research.
Excellent idea!
+1 for creative skirting of Godwin's law.
In Soviet Russia, damn-dirty-apes control YOU!
I've only read two of his books, but yes, assortative mating has been a feature of his work going back to the 90's. I agree that his claims overshoot the evidence thus far, but I think he's onto something all the same. As you say, the linkage between genes and behavior is fraught with complexity, but there are a couple of mitigating factors in this case.
First, autism's hallmark is a lack of empathy/interest/understanding toward other people. While such behavior is obviously influenced by a myriad of genetic and environmental factors, it's not hard to imagine that a handful of genes could have a major impact on the overall system.
Second, it's easy to see "geekiness" as a mild form of this inability to "get" social cues and understand/empathize with others. And life experience clearly shows that "geeky" classmates tend to band together, simply because they are the only ones that can understand and cope with each other's awkward foibles.
Third, it's not hard to imagine a handful of genes that could predispose one toward greater interest or fascination with systems and structures. Nor is it hard to imagine that when two such people meet, they will tend to "hit it off" quite readily. In fact, due to previous experience with social awkwardness, a pairing like this may be MUCH more likely to result in offspring. So although these traits may be "fuzzy" and rare, they could nevertheless have a positive feedback bias when paired with others of a similar type.
Fourth, in the old days, such awkward/geeky people didn't get much chance to reproduce. But now in the internet age, they have a much greater chance of finding a partner, and are more likely to end up with a similarly geeky one.
Baron-Cohen doesn't claim that this is the only cause of autism, but it makes sense. And although we don't understand how it works yet, there does seem to be a statistical trend behind the theory.
Except for the Alabama/Georgia mix-up, the rest of your post is right on the mark. Couldn't agree more. Another thing that blindsided him was that one cabinet secretary (can't remember his name) who got caught using cocaine. One of Carter's campaign points in '76 was his support for decriminalizing marijuana, but that whole agenda went down the crapper after the coke scandal. What a shame we couldn't have ended that idiotic policy 30+ years ago! But you're right, he came in promising to shake up Washington, and they stonewalled him.
He didn't say "nucular" but then he didn't quite say "nuclear" either... it was more like "nukiyuh" as I recall.
I don't think he personally deserves 100% of the blame for the "failure" of his presidency, but he certainly deserves some of it. (They all do.) He presided over a rough time for the country with some unpleasant structural shifts underway. But in any case, he has been much more successful as an ex-president.
As for Lybia, I'm somewhat encouraged by their choice of an engineer for this job, rather than a career politician or clergyman, or some other charismatic type. The last thing that country needs is a new "Dear Leader." They need someone who can learn quickly in a wide range of topics, someone who can make informed decisions with a minimum of tribal bias, and deal with the myriad problems of getting the country back on its feet again.
Good luck to them! I hope they can make it work.
do not welcome our new x-ray overlords.
> oil companies are funding little if any of the serious research on global warming
FTFY
The oil cartel is not interested in actual science on this issue. But they do spend 7- and 8-figure sums on propaganda campaigns and lobbyists, including hefty donations to conservative think-tank "institutes" which, in turn, do fund a fair amount of "fake science" which is favorable to the industry.
How about setting up an airline that doesn't use TSA? We're supposed by have a "free market" right? Why not let the market decide? We have "no frills" airlines that reduce cost by cutting in-flight service. Just apply the same logic to security.
Instead of the standard TSA procedure, you get an Israeli-style interview check. The airline could even charge a premium for these "no-TSA" flights. I for one would gladly pay an extra %1 for such a ticket, and I know I'm not the only one. Actually, I think the market would be quite substantial.
Unfortunately, that will probably never happen. Because that would mean the TSA would have to give up some of its power, and entities that hold that kind of power almost never give it up willingly. Also, the security industry has already grown to the point where its lobbyists are able to prevent any such legislation getting through Congress. So basically we're screwed (or rather pawed) until we can get the money out of politics, and after the SCOTUS's Citizens United ruling, the only way to do that is by a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.
...that about wraps it up for God.
(Oolon Colluphid)
IIRC, Smith said taxes should be "easy," which doesn't necessarily mean small or large. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that he would advocate "high" taxes, just that he favored progressive tax rates. In the current (US) political climate, a lot of people are talking about a flat tax, or other regressive schemes, and justify this on the theory of "supply side" economics. You know, we can't "punish the job creators" and all that... Smith would have laughed at such talk.
Basically, we had a very progressive tax system from WWII through the 70's. And that period was a golden age for the USA, just as Smith would have predicted. Rich people still had their mansions, yachts, and limos (or "opulence" as Smith might have put it), and the government managed to build infrastructure, provide services and offer inexpensive education, all without running up massive debts and deficits. And (except for women and minorities) everyone was pretty happy with the situation. Businesses thrived, workers enjoyed generous pensions and health benefits, and opportunities abounded.
Since then we've dabbled with various levels of less progressive schemes. (The income tax is progressive, but when you consider sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc., the total tax burden is still highest on the middle class.) The idea was that "job creators" would have more money, and therefore they would create more jobs. But they didn't always do that. Increasingly they found it easier to "gamble" their extra cash on stocks and securities. So while the government was running up historic deficits, there was an excess of "hot money" in the markets, leading to speculation and bubble formation.
Oh, and let's not forget deregulation... another exaggeration of Smith's ideas, which gave us the S&L crisis in the 80's and the "Great Recession" of 2008.
But that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...
Now we can watch in fine-grained detail as the forests disappear.
A lot of modern capitalists seem to misunderstand Adam Smith. Yes, he said that individual ambition serves the common good, but he never said that "profits come first." In fact, Smith defined "wealth" not as money, but in a more holistic way: "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society."
Also, those who argue for lower taxes on the rich and on corporations are certainly not following Smith's advice:
I've only skimmed the PDF (it's way above my level anyway) but I didn't see any notes about license or copyright. It looks pretty detailed... perhaps enough to allow an open-source project to replicate the software. That would be cool.
Good point. I suspect there will be ways to detect artifacts of such changes, but those could probably be obscured by converting to a low-res format. Grainy-smudgy video has always been the friend of woo-woo purveyors.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any software available for download, only the research paper. (If it's there, and I missed it, please let me know.) Hopefully someone will make a plugin for this, so we can use it in GIMP, PS, etc..
Please mod up, +1.
Sorry, you're right, I "skimmed" over that bit. The "free trade" movement started under Nixon and was continued by Carter. (After all, it was Nixon who closed the gold window.) But it only started to accelerate under Reagan.
NYTimes has a piece about the lack of specific policy goals: