So I did an informal survey of women 18 to eighty seven, and seventeen of eighteen respondants said "goatee"
Haha! You cracked the problem with a survey. Indeed thou art a genuine nerd!
Women are biologically programmed to seek guys that look groomed. When I was younger and cooler (my 20s) I occasionally studied magazines like GQ, FHM, Qui, Vogue Hommes etc and identified themes. You become sensitized to what looks good and what doesn't (called "taste"). This can be learned. Notice what the cool guys (that score with hotties) are wearing. Look for identified themes in good stores (I did second hand shops for hip retro gear when I was a student). Your hair is really important. Find the coolest haircutter you can afford and take his/her advice. To look *really* cool you have to catch emerging themes and be an earlier adopter (as for technology) but that is probably not necessary. Note: fashion themes are like an API for gaining women's attention that is highly specific and tightly defined: "sort of looks like it" doesn't cut it. Colors and brands must be right. You have to have the precise look; just so. And make sure everything hangs right. As a ladies' man muso friend of mine once advised: "if it don't fit, don't wear it".
If you are already quite good looking (I was average) but wear socks with sandals and a plastic pocket protector, then all you do is get a good haircut, throw away your entire wardrobe and adopt one of a number of easy well-defined dress formulas eg Jock, Motor Bike Guy, Art Student, etc. Jock is easy and works for well-built good looking guys. Art Student/Musician is for sensitive poetic types but is much harder than Jock. These days this is all too hard for me.
This can be work but it will increase your chances of getting laid (did for me). It won't help you though once you're chatting up if you lack confidence and your social skills suck. A nerd in nice clothes just looks less like a nerd.
I've been undergoing a substantial period of personal change over the last few months. Several friends who had started behaving unpredictably for their own reasons (50% my fault, but it elicited toxic reactions from me) left town for some time. Getting out from underneath them has allowed me to start rewiring my relationships and put new energy into people. Quite an improvement in my attitude and mood. Who you hang out with can make an enormous difference.
Not surprised about Einstein... he was the deep cat who could go off and think about a problem for years until he'd turned it inside out and back
He worked hard at being a deep cat though it was not "work" for him. As a polytechnic student he was bored out of his brain with the science courses and spent most of his time reading philosophy (an interest he had all his life). One of my lecturers said Einstein was bored with physics classes because he already knew somehow that Newtonian physics was inadequate. No-one saw his huge potential. As a kid his teachers thought him retarded (maybe he was AS) and a chronic underachiever. But he recounted that, as a small child, he had pondered what he would see in a mirror if he travelled toward his reflection at the speed of light (the seeds of relativity). Deep. He said he had been fascinated by the nature of light all his life and this is very apparent in his stupendous ouvre. Yet he said he didn't think himself very good at mathematics and I think it may have been Roger Penrose who taught him differential geometry (the advanced mathematical framework on which he built General Relativity).
I have read claims on the web that excessive masturbation can overstimulate the dopamine reward system in the brain making it more and more difficult to get off over time. This argument is sometimes used as a downside of (or perhaps mechanism of) so-called pron addiction. The alleged remedy is to avoid jerking off for long periods. I don't know if this has been proven.
Most of us knew one or two of those people in college/university. They look at a whiteboard full of difficult content, note it down once without ornamentation, never rewrite their notes, maybe read through the night before an exam and then regurgitate the lot perfectly. They get called brilliant. We tell ourselves that it's not the same skill necessarily as inspired creative problem solving though they usually seem to be good at that too, so maybe they are brilliant.
I was friends with and studied alongside one of these creatures (he became a Rhodes scholar) so I observed his techniques. I became a straight A student myself that year partly from that. He had honed his learning skills, intentionally or not, all of his life. He had genuine interest in the material (except Comp Sci which he hated while getting A++ grades), and was ambitious, competitive and extremely motivated, even when appearing to be half asleep. He was a good classical pianist (correlates with high IQ) and basketball player (so was fit), and never wasted time. No mindless boozing or bonging, it was wholesome-vomitus Christian Youth Group for him once per week. He could solve problems or find where to go for a solution when no-one else could. When an exam required answering three out of five questions perfectly for a 100% score, he would answer all five in the time it took me to answer three. In short, he was a rare talent and knew everything. When a key reference work was unavailable in English, he read both volumes in French. I later met students who also had so-called "photographic memories" but none were as sharp as him. To add insult to injury, he was handsome.
By observing him I learned some very important things. (1) He had no fear of apparent complexity. Most people's brains freak when presented with a dense page of abstruse symbols. Something inside says "It's too hard" and "I hate this" and "I can't understand" - and they can't and they don't. I tried to relax while looking at complex material so I could get to the meaning instead of the fear. If I didn't get it then I'd ask questions and work it through it later. Even when this only half works your grades go up hugely and you start to enjoy it. (2) He could do working in his head, jumping ahead two lines in a proof. This skill is hard to cultivate. (3) He worked damn hard, really hard, but highly efficiently, reading through things but never re-writing. I admit I had to re-write things, that was the only way I was sure I knew the work. I think with enough practice and cleaner living I might have got this skill eventually though.
I know you're trying to be funny but that is so wrong. Once you try to do anything more complex with sed or awk than their most obvious uses it's reach for the code snippets web page.
But do these need to be banned? Is there really any justification for banning anything if it's my choice not to look at it? I choose not to click on most of this sort of thing. I much regret watching a vid of an execution by the Taliban not that long ago. It did upset me for days. I shouldn't have clicked on it.
But increase over what tiny timeline - the last few hundred years? That's a blink of the eye in human history, not a sample you can use to make predictions about something as volatile as freedom.
That's why surfdom, absolute monarchy, and slavery are no longer acceptable.
Who said these are no longer "acceptable'? Acceptability is only relevant (a) where people care, and (b) if something is recognized to be what it actually is. All three of these either overtly exist or have just changed form into something less obviously tyrannical. Granted, it is still an overall improvement. But instead of being "owned" by a master or landholder, we are entrapped in debt and work and we do it willingly. Absolute monarchy has been replaced with other forms of control in our faux democracy though in say China it turned quite overtly into totalitarian government. Putin is not effectively a "monarch"? Slavery still exists in the open in parts of Africa and there are laborers in Asia who are literally bought and sold, many of whom are children.
I am quite certain that our current control-oriented mindset is temporary...
Say what? I can't let that level of blind optimism (naivete) go. Why should you have any certainty? What grounds are there for making such a dangerous assumption? Liberty such as we have it was hard won over a thousand years. Liberty as we know it has not existed over the vast majority of human history; it is not the historically normal condition. It's actually an historical anomaly that we had to fight to create. In a few short years we have seen some former common law rights diminished (eg right to silence in the UK) and Constitutions re-interpreted to weaken other protections. We are constantly finding that governments and businesses insist on spying on us and that we are in effect governed behind the scenes by powerful economic interests.
There is another meme that applies: to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.
I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude.
Right: "even though I have no good evidence whether the effects of whatever are bad or not, I don't like it so that is enough. I am told it is bad therefore it is". This is the central idea of fascism.
The good news is this: with rapid economic development and relatively high birth rates (I think?), India has a youth culture boom on its hands. With luck, India will develop a mass counterculture of dissatisfied youth who will in effect say "Fuck that shit". I did say "with luck".
.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.
This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.
It's pretty clear he didn't get anywhere productive until he bought the ZaggFolio keyboard/case. He brings it up as a central point several times.
In other words he effectively turned the iPad2 into a keyboard-bearing netbook so the thing could be productive. That sounds entirely right. I have an iPad2 and the touch virtual kbd is almost useless for me.
You can bet there are powerful interests who want walled gardens to take over personal computing in all forms (tablet, smartphone, desktop). It's vertical integration with the potential to take control over DRM, censorship, your behavioral usage data, and all kinds of monetizable stuff. It's harder to pirate content that is encapsulated via a walled app - hence the trend to wrap media content (such as news, movies and now music like Bjork's album) in apps. At the most cynical level apps can be used to monetize previously free content.
But at their best, app ecosystems can provide consistent and much improved user experiences with sandboxing from nastyware. The above are are irresistable business propositions so it's not going away. My guess is is geeks will continue to build traditional native applications and repos on top of standard linux bases but we will find more companies only building apps so commercial support for the traditional desktop may decline.
Down at the coalface in app development houses most people are not thinking about most of this (maybe the business team is). They're just building to meet and create demand and make a buck. Will code for food.
People here are looking for a physical level of understanding which probably does not exist. QM is *all* mathematics. We have already described entanglement mathematically. Programs are just algorithms and algorithms are just mathematics. So your "simulation" is somewhat redundant? Just a thought.
The Many Worlds hypothesis may help you. While abused a bit in sci-fi like "Sliders" it appears it may really describe reality and is an relatively easy way to understand how a quantum computer can do many calculations in parallel. Each parallel calculation effectively occurs in a different universe. It does hurt your head to think about this.
There are little tricks - analogies only - that they sometimes feed experimental physics undergraduates to help them grasp QM ideas, eg the "bead on a wire" picture. But these are all bullshit really. QM, at least now, only really makes sense mathematically.
Is this because computing science majors are lousy at physics or what? The reverse is usually not true - theoretical physicists can have trouble getting gigs in physics and, because of their powerful mathematical backgrounds and ability to deal with difficult levels of abstract thought, often end up working in computing areas. Google prefer to hire mathematics majors over CS majors.
Slashdot Mirror
So I did an informal survey of women 18 to eighty seven, and seventeen of eighteen respondants said "goatee"
Haha! You cracked the problem with a survey. Indeed thou art a genuine nerd!
Women are biologically programmed to seek guys that look groomed. When I was younger and cooler (my 20s) I occasionally studied magazines like GQ, FHM, Qui, Vogue Hommes etc and identified themes. You become sensitized to what looks good and what doesn't (called "taste"). This can be learned. Notice what the cool guys (that score with hotties) are wearing. Look for identified themes in good stores (I did second hand shops for hip retro gear when I was a student). Your hair is really important. Find the coolest haircutter you can afford and take his/her advice. To look *really* cool you have to catch emerging themes and be an earlier adopter (as for technology) but that is probably not necessary. Note: fashion themes are like an API for gaining women's attention that is highly specific and tightly defined: "sort of looks like it" doesn't cut it. Colors and brands must be right. You have to have the precise look; just so. And make sure everything hangs right. As a ladies' man muso friend of mine once advised: "if it don't fit, don't wear it".
If you are already quite good looking (I was average) but wear socks with sandals and a plastic pocket protector, then all you do is get a good haircut, throw away your entire wardrobe and adopt one of a number of easy well-defined dress formulas eg Jock, Motor Bike Guy, Art Student, etc. Jock is easy and works for well-built good looking guys. Art Student/Musician is for sensitive poetic types but is much harder than Jock. These days this is all too hard for me.
This can be work but it will increase your chances of getting laid (did for me). It won't help you though once you're chatting up if you lack confidence and your social skills suck. A nerd in nice clothes just looks less like a nerd.
I have absolutely no information on this, however I did feel like getting the first post for once.
I've been undergoing a substantial period of personal change over the last few months. Several friends who had started behaving unpredictably for their own reasons (50% my fault, but it elicited toxic reactions from me) left town for some time. Getting out from underneath them has allowed me to start rewiring my relationships and put new energy into people. Quite an improvement in my attitude and mood. Who you hang out with can make an enormous difference.
It's worse than that he's dumb, Jim.
Not surprised about Einstein ... he was the deep cat who could go off and think about a problem for years until he'd turned it inside out and back
He worked hard at being a deep cat though it was not "work" for him. As a polytechnic student he was bored out of his brain with the science courses and spent most of his time reading philosophy (an interest he had all his life). One of my lecturers said Einstein was bored with physics classes because he already knew somehow that Newtonian physics was inadequate. No-one saw his huge potential. As a kid his teachers thought him retarded (maybe he was AS) and a chronic underachiever. But he recounted that, as a small child, he had pondered what he would see in a mirror if he travelled toward his reflection at the speed of light (the seeds of relativity). Deep. He said he had been fascinated by the nature of light all his life and this is very apparent in his stupendous ouvre. Yet he said he didn't think himself very good at mathematics and I think it may have been Roger Penrose who taught him differential geometry (the advanced mathematical framework on which he built General Relativity).
I have read claims on the web that excessive masturbation can overstimulate the dopamine reward system in the brain making it more and more difficult to get off over time. This argument is sometimes used as a downside of (or perhaps mechanism of) so-called pron addiction. The alleged remedy is to avoid jerking off for long periods. I don't know if this has been proven.
Nobody brains Brian's brain like Brian brained his brain.
Most of us knew one or two of those people in college/university. They look at a whiteboard full of difficult content, note it down once without ornamentation, never rewrite their notes, maybe read through the night before an exam and then regurgitate the lot perfectly. They get called brilliant. We tell ourselves that it's not the same skill necessarily as inspired creative problem solving though they usually seem to be good at that too, so maybe they are brilliant.
I was friends with and studied alongside one of these creatures (he became a Rhodes scholar) so I observed his techniques. I became a straight A student myself that year partly from that. He had honed his learning skills, intentionally or not, all of his life. He had genuine interest in the material (except Comp Sci which he hated while getting A++ grades), and was ambitious, competitive and extremely motivated, even when appearing to be half asleep. He was a good classical pianist (correlates with high IQ) and basketball player (so was fit), and never wasted time. No mindless boozing or bonging, it was wholesome-vomitus Christian Youth Group for him once per week. He could solve problems or find where to go for a solution when no-one else could. When an exam required answering three out of five questions perfectly for a 100% score, he would answer all five in the time it took me to answer three. In short, he was a rare talent and knew everything. When a key reference work was unavailable in English, he read both volumes in French. I later met students who also had so-called "photographic memories" but none were as sharp as him. To add insult to injury, he was handsome.
By observing him I learned some very important things. (1) He had no fear of apparent complexity. Most people's brains freak when presented with a dense page of abstruse symbols. Something inside says "It's too hard" and "I hate this" and "I can't understand" - and they can't and they don't. I tried to relax while looking at complex material so I could get to the meaning instead of the fear. If I didn't get it then I'd ask questions and work it through it later. Even when this only half works your grades go up hugely and you start to enjoy it. (2) He could do working in his head, jumping ahead two lines in a proof. This skill is hard to cultivate. (3) He worked damn hard, really hard, but highly efficiently, reading through things but never re-writing. I admit I had to re-write things, that was the only way I was sure I knew the work. I think with enough practice and cleaner living I might have got this skill eventually though.
How retarded is that delay (pun not intended)? Even Flash has had that for a while.
the kindest thing HP could do now is open source WebOS and hope the Chinese put it on cheap smart phones
I know you're trying to be funny but that is so wrong. Once you try to do anything more complex with sed or awk than their most obvious uses it's reach for the code snippets web page.
Perl can context grep any ****ing thing any which way from Sunday. Much easier and more powerful than awk.
But do these need to be banned? Is there really any justification for banning anything if it's my choice not to look at it? I choose not to click on most of this sort of thing. I much regret watching a vid of an execution by the Taliban not that long ago. It did upset me for days. I shouldn't have clicked on it.
People's expectations of freedom slowly increase
But increase over what tiny timeline - the last few hundred years? That's a blink of the eye in human history, not a sample you can use to make predictions about something as volatile as freedom.
That's why surfdom, absolute monarchy, and slavery are no longer acceptable.
Who said these are no longer "acceptable'? Acceptability is only relevant (a) where people care, and (b) if something is recognized to be what it actually is. All three of these either overtly exist or have just changed form into something less obviously tyrannical. Granted, it is still an overall improvement. But instead of being "owned" by a master or landholder, we are entrapped in debt and work and we do it willingly. Absolute monarchy has been replaced with other forms of control in our faux democracy though in say China it turned quite overtly into totalitarian government. Putin is not effectively a "monarch"? Slavery still exists in the open in parts of Africa and there are laborers in Asia who are literally bought and sold, many of whom are children.
I am quite certain that our current control-oriented mindset is temporary...
Say what? I can't let that level of blind optimism (naivete) go. Why should you have any certainty? What grounds are there for making such a dangerous assumption? Liberty such as we have it was hard won over a thousand years. Liberty as we know it has not existed over the vast majority of human history; it is not the historically normal condition. It's actually an historical anomaly that we had to fight to create. In a few short years we have seen some former common law rights diminished (eg right to silence in the UK) and Constitutions re-interpreted to weaken other protections. We are constantly finding that governments and businesses insist on spying on us and that we are in effect governed behind the scenes by powerful economic interests.
There is another meme that applies: to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs.
Meaning what? Revolution?
I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude.
Right: "even though I have no good evidence whether the effects of whatever are bad or not, I don't like it so that is enough. I am told it is bad therefore it is". This is the central idea of fascism.
.. maybe one day they'll come to their own senses of whether or not they enjoy freedoms when accessing networks ...
I cite the boiling frog meme. This is not the way to defend freedoms. If people sit around letting it happen, they will awake ome day as slaves.
The good news is this: with rapid economic development and relatively high birth rates (I think?), India has a youth culture boom on its hands. With luck, India will develop a mass counterculture of dissatisfied youth who will in effect say "Fuck that shit". I did say "with luck".
.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.
This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.
Hahhahhha! Somebody mod this Funny.
It's pretty clear he didn't get anywhere productive until he bought the ZaggFolio keyboard/case. He brings it up as a central point several times.
In other words he effectively turned the iPad2 into a keyboard-bearing netbook so the thing could be productive. That sounds entirely right. I have an iPad2 and the touch virtual kbd is almost useless for me.
You can bet there are powerful interests who want walled gardens to take over personal computing in all forms (tablet, smartphone, desktop). It's vertical integration with the potential to take control over DRM, censorship, your behavioral usage data, and all kinds of monetizable stuff. It's harder to pirate content that is encapsulated via a walled app - hence the trend to wrap media content (such as news, movies and now music like Bjork's album) in apps. At the most cynical level apps can be used to monetize previously free content.
But at their best, app ecosystems can provide consistent and much improved user experiences with sandboxing from nastyware. The above are are irresistable business propositions so it's not going away. My guess is is geeks will continue to build traditional native applications and repos on top of standard linux bases but we will find more companies only building apps so commercial support for the traditional desktop may decline.
Down at the coalface in app development houses most people are not thinking about most of this (maybe the business team is). They're just building to meet and create demand and make a buck. Will code for food.
People here are looking for a physical level of understanding which probably does not exist. QM is *all* mathematics. We have already described entanglement mathematically. Programs are just algorithms and algorithms are just mathematics. So your "simulation" is somewhat redundant? Just a thought.
The Many Worlds hypothesis may help you. While abused a bit in sci-fi like "Sliders" it appears it may really describe reality and is an relatively easy way to understand how a quantum computer can do many calculations in parallel. Each parallel calculation effectively occurs in a different universe. It does hurt your head to think about this.
There are little tricks - analogies only - that they sometimes feed experimental physics undergraduates to help them grasp QM ideas, eg the "bead on a wire" picture. But these are all bullshit really. QM, at least now, only really makes sense mathematically.
Is this because computing science majors are lousy at physics or what? The reverse is usually not true - theoretical physicists can have trouble getting gigs in physics and, because of their powerful mathematical backgrounds and ability to deal with difficult levels of abstract thought, often end up working in computing areas. Google prefer to hire mathematics majors over CS majors.