CW: Have you had any pressure from advertisers?
JK: Our business is so much better this year than it
was last year--it's remarkable. Rates are higher.
Doesn't this pretty much nullify and credibility in the whining
about how people who skip through ads are hurting the industry?
What's very annoying is that they don't "get it": when I'm fast
forwarding through the ads, either on the VCR or PVR, I'm
scanning to know when to let go of the FF button. I'm paying
MORE attention to the ad (albeit in time-compressed space)
than I probably would be in real-time.
For example:
"Ad, ugh, where's the
remote, , car ad, tampon ad, Miss Cleo, whoa what's
that? check out ad, back to fast forward,
grow more hair ad, lose unwanted hair ad, Miss Cleo,
dog food ad, ad that made no sense and I doubt I'd do
better in real-time, Jordan's Furniture ad - stop hafta
watch, FF again, car ad, stop for Dean's Home Furniture ad?
I doubt it!, Miss Cleo, back to program...
There's probably MORE brand name recognition among
VCR/PVR users than the people who have to suffer through
real-time ads. If I were in advertising, I'd definitely do a
study on this - actually I'd exploit it by making an ad that
looks great while fast-forwarded (or one that mimics it
in real-time - you'd get 60 seconds of content in 30 seconds!)
I once worked for an education-based.com. As part of our product we had a news service. It was mandated that we include horoscopes as part of it. I bristled arguing that we should set a standard of excellence valuing what we put out for content, but those objections were brushed aside. Why? Kids liked horoscopes and it would drive page views. (A co-worker was bold enough to point out that so would porn or gambling and suggested we pursue partnerships in those areas so as to incorporate them into our business model:-) Turns out that several of the people in charge of this decision also where into astrology. Hmmmmm.
A survey done at Harvard commencement a few years ago had roughly one-half of graduating seniors equating astrology and astronomy.
The engineering department at my graduate school didn't require calculus of their undergrads until *junior* year!
Can anyone help me find the data to support this stat I read a long time ago: it is easier to build a new athletic facility than it is to upgrade an existing library or science lab? Also, there's the fallacy that monies large athletic departments take in fund academic departments. I've never actually found one situation where this has been true. I do know one researcher whose overhead on grants was so large that it basically funded the entire English department.
We're racing towards a new Dark Ages. One interesting metric I read for this is loss of language. Apparently the working vocabulary of people in the US has dropped by some huge fraction (I don't remember what - more than 25%) over the last 50 years... When I read that, I like, go to my friend, "wow - like who did they ask?" and he goes "like that must be in the Middle Ages or something." And then I'm like "Yeah, no one talks like in the Middle Ages anymore."
Don't forget my favorite: "Hi" a sticker with a simple cartoon drawing of a guy waving. They're numbered, so I supposed you can look around for the entire series!:-)
Depending on the upper threshhold this wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that a non-negligible amount of traffic that comes to me is in the form on unsolicited e-mail, web pop-ups, etc. If I'm to pay by the byte, then I insist that every single unwanted bit is eradicated from my bill BEFORE any charge is applied.
So, let's turn the question around - if the threshhold were set fairly high (only affects, say, the upper third of users), but if they also guaranteed no spam and that any traffic you paid for, you requested, would it be more reasonable?
I have a motion-detecting laptop lock that will blast 70dB if the lock wire is cut. (Once it went off and I forgot the code, and some moron suggested cutting the lock, like that was going to silence the alarm.)
Isn't the point of a laptop that you can move it around? How can your oh-so-wonderful device tell the difference between you carrying it somewhere, or someone trying to rip it off? Please don't tell me that you shut it off when you're carrying it around...
How is it not obvious to people that products such as these do not get dime one of VC funding without first addressing concerns like these?
Lack of naivete? Two words: car alarms. How often do you jump out of your seat and run outside to prevent the burglar from stealing your or your neighbor's car when the alarm goes off? What? You don't even notice it anymore because it's never really a burglary attempt, and in fact hearing the damned thing go off "yet again" ticks you off?
How many times will the thing go off falsely and cause problems before it gets tossed. I'm betting 3 to 5...
you'd know that any tampering with the watch would instantly cause a notification sent out with the time and GPS location of the child.
... which would tell you "Johnnie was last seen atthe Sbarros at 12:17". I'll leave you the homework of figuring out why that's only marginally helpful. Hints: 1) consider how much attention is payed to car alarms; 2) consider that parents are known to drop kids off places and then leave them there --- there's a code for this at Wal-Mart ("kid abandoned in store while parents have left the building [to shop somewhere else]")...; 3) consider the size of some malls and the time required to get from point A to point B, and the time necessary to flee the scene (not to mention the people hired to keep the place secure).
... are you still certain that the product isn't fraught with problems?
I can type much faster than I would be able to write anything, but for non-Latin character sets, esp. Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, it would be MUCH easier to use a pen than it would be to type things in or use another input method.
One of my pet dalliances is internationalization, and I've finally got an editor where I can put in text from multiple character sets. However, entering in Chinese is a VERY slow process (guess where to find the character, pick it out of a line up, double click), whereas with a pen, one could enter in several dozen characters per minute...
So, why can't the abductor (who is overwhelmingly a non-custodial parent, other relative, or boyfriend/girlfriend[*]) just cut the thing off with a pair of snippers?
Even if it's the classic melodrama of seedy pervert hanging around the mall looking for the random abductee, it's a case of 1) find person; 2) grab person; 3) snip off watch; 4) toss in garbage. Meanwhile the idiotic parents, completely self-absorbed in their deluded state of irresponsibility, just think that Johnnie is taking an awfully long time at Sbarro's...
[*] in this situation the kidnapped has run away or eloped, and the parents attempt to stop it from happening by filing charges of kidnapping on the other party.
People keep mixing up two separate questions in
this issue:
1) Is the warming real?
Yes - there is enough data to show the Earth
is warmer now than 100 years before (ignoring
the other 4.5+Gyr for the moment).
2) Is it due to man-made causes?
No - the scientific data (not GCM models based
on CO or CO2 as being the primary greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere, except that would be water,
which ISN'T contained in any GCM because that
is a much harder thing to model --- oops) show
that anthropogenic global warming as the primary
cause either violates basic cause-and-effect (the
temperature build-up occurs before 1945 and then
essentially levels out), or there's a global cooling effect that is being ignored by the GCMs
that for the most part counteracts the predictions over the last 50 years!
There's another "claim" that's bandied around which is to say that "most" scientists support
the belief of anthropogenic global warming.
This started with some list that was referred to
by the White House in a press conference, except
that no one that I know of has ever been able to
get a copy of that list. On the other hand,
nearly 20,000 physicists, climate scientists,
etc. signed a petition NOT supporting the
hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming,
which was slammed by the eco-fundies (who also
attempted to taint the data by registering fake
people - which goes to show how honest some
of them are --- and yes, I'm one of the signers,
have read the research papers, and drew my
own educated opinion on the subject).
What's sad is that most of the people who have
strong opinions on this topic have never looked
at the data, or have looked at horrible
distortions of the data (the plot in Earth
in the Balance makes one feel that there's a
huge explosion in CO in the last 100 years,
until you discover that all the other data
points have been binned differently --- I refer
the reader to Tufte's excellent books and
what he says about "the lie factor").
Go back to Friis-Christensen and Lasser (1991,
in Science or Nature) look at that plot,
compare to the actual warming trends. Then
look at the warming trends over the last
few millenia, and once you've removed the
solar component that's obviously there, examine
what's left. Perhaps there IS a man-made
component lurking in there somewhere, but so
far it's a small fraction of a degree.
The dire consequences for low-elevations
doesn't care if the cause is man-made or not.
However, the best plan of attack DOES change
depending on our choice of allocating resources.
Throwing $$$ at the "man-made" solution when
there's no demonstrable effect could do MORE
harm than good if $$$ isn't available when
nature continues unabated. In that regard
the anti-Kyoto people might be more on-target
then the people who are trying to save the Earth.
Greyfox writes: Where was citizen 626-45-8892 on the night of tuesday the 14th?
Citizen 887-14-0923, we noticed that for three days last week your traffic pattern analysis
deviated by 15 miles from its usual pattern.
Would you mind explaining what you were doing?
This isn't fictional - it happens in Indonesia and Signapore. You're tracked whenever you go through
public transportation for the purposes of "security".
Dvorak intentionally misses the point (god, he's
almost as clueless as Hiawatha Bray!).
First, you can't skip commercials, only fast-forward through them.
Second, because of this, I've actually found myself *going back* and watching odd commercials
if they look interesting.
Third, because of *that* Dvorak misses the key
datum, namely, that you're sitting there fast-forwarding through the commercials, paying
strict attention so that you can hit the "Play" button again. You're ACTUALLY SEEING the commercials sped-up, recognizing the ones you've already seen, and (at least for me) checking out the ones that stand out.
So, in effect, the ads have just as much sticking power as they would already have, and you're NOT
out of the room as you might be with a known 3-minute gap where you can grab a snack or go to the bathroom. The advertisers might have their 30 seconds compressed into 5, but you can be sure that they mostly get their branding across because the audience is paying closer attention, even if it's only to watch for the end.
Sigh. Once again, science fiction over
science fact. Or at least the reality that
if there were any "Deadly Space Microbes"(TM)
that magically attached themselves onto
Mir, there's no more risk than there has
been over the last 5 billion years during which
similar microbes have made their way down to
the lower atmosphere from either outer space,
or those that somehow managed to be lofted up
from the lower depths of the atmosphere,
and managed to stick around long enough to mutate.
Oops - that means that nature might do EXACTLY THE
SAME THING. How dare it.
The entire concept of "a heathly environment"
is fallacious. If you require proof of this,
go to some remote place and see how healthy the
environment is for you. Just from natural water supplies you won't be able to drink, malaria, and the fact that many wild beests won't care about
killing you, I think you'll find that Earth (and
probably every other place in the Universe) is
a pretty hostile place to be.
And for THAT matter, why is shooting Mir
out into space or into the Sun any more
"environmentally friendly" than wontonly dumping your trash into some land fill? Basically that
IS the hypocrasy that you're suggesting; it's nothing more than a new gloss on "not in my back yard".
But really. We are an average planet around an average star.
Actually, there's little evidence to back this up.
I'm one of the team members on the project that tries to monitor a few hundred "solar-like" stars to test (among other things) how "normal" the Sun really is. Macroscopically, you can argue that it's on the Main Sequence, and doesn't do anything strange compared to other stars.
However, if you change the problem around to looking for stars that are almost identical to the Sun in every way (working out of the assumption that if the Sun is "ordinary" then there should be a lot of other stars that are also "ordinary", out of a carefully-chosen sample, you come up with a very VERY short list --- it's in the single digits, and even then I keep finding reasons to
exclude those stars from the list. One could almost claim at that point that there are no "average" stars.
I hope to have a paper submitted to the Astrophysical Journal later this year on this topic.
As for Earth being "average", again the evidence so far is that Solar System-like systems is not the norm. At this point we should be detecting Jupiters (5 AU orbiting planets with 1 Jupiter mass) around solar-like stars, yet the zoophony of extra-solar planetary systems favors either 51 Peg-like planets, or systems with planets that have highly eccentric orbits (e.g., the planet orbiting 16 Cyg B). There's a selection effect present, of course (it's easier to detect the ones with higher mass and shorter periods), but the surveys are reaching completion levels with long enough time series that we should be making up the difference *if* system configurations like ours are normal.
(The implication here is that in neither the 51 Peg-like system or the 16 Cyg B-like system is it
likely [possible?] to end up with an Earth-like planet --- they'll either get bounced our or the proto-planetary matter will be swept up.)
OK - say that human cloning works. Now you have this person who is both unique (in that
he or she is the first clone), and non-unique
(in that his/her DNA is someone else's) in the
most profound way.
Here's a kid who's developing years will be completely transparent to everyone: science, the media, and so on - our very own "Truman Show".
I just don't know what all that would do to someone's mental health - going through life knowing that they were a successful science experiment.
I suppose one could make the comparison with the first test-tube baby --- whose name I can't recall, so I suppose that says something about the long-term impact of her situation in the media --- and hope that things turn out for the best. However, aside from the ethics of actually performing the cloning, there are the ethics of taking on the societal responsibilities after a clone has successfully been produced.
Well, they TOLD you: "better pay, signing bonus",
didn't they?
So, you match and extend it. Pay raise, bonus,
and so on.
One thing that I'm finding that companies
generally SUCK at is that they have no concept
of laying a foundation for helping their employees
create a career - that means short-, medium-,
and long-term plans. In other words, if Jim
shows potential of being a decent DBA, then you
at least discuss the possibilities with him
at a performance review, set those goals, and
as is possible, meet them. Yes, it makes Jim
more enticing to your competitors, but it makes
him more valuable to your company. IF you're
also keeping up with the Joneses in terms of
pay, benefits, stock options, and so forth, Jim
will very likely be with you a very long time.
On the other hand, if the only view you have of
the relationship with your employees is to the
end of the project, or of the quarter, then you
can be sure that they're constantly checking to
see if they might be happier somewhere else.
My dad worked for the same company for 34 years.
The "conventional wisdom" these days is that
our generation will change jobs many times over
the course of our career. I make more $$$ than
my dad ever did (although I had more $$$ in
student loans at a higher interest rate than
he did in the house he bought!), but the word
I'm hearing more and more often from people
about what they want from their job is "security".
It would be interesting to see how much that
word alone is worth.
I used to work for a company where I could make
my own hours and could work from home when I wanted. The net result was that my boss would
call me almost 24/7 (mostly the "7", including
during Thanksgiving dinner, Xmas Eve, etc. --- I
did not have a job that required babysitting of
important equipment or anything - it could've been
a 9-5 job, except that he wanted me constantly available).
This extended into travel where I was expected to
work 24/7 (here, literally 24/7), because it was
a "work trip" and (get this) "people in the real
world don't get time off during a work trip".
(Comp time was also an unknown concept.)
I'm much happier in my new job. I don't telecommute - ever. I get in before 8 and
usually leave before 5 (so I know what evenings
are like - and sunsets are so pretty!). I'll
work extra hours and some weekends when there is
*need* but manager apprehension based upon someone
else's inability to set a workable schedule isn't
a need - it's a failure in the system that should be held accountable before any cleanup is performed.
We'd be a LOT better off if we'd adopt this maxim
and STICK TO IT: if your job requires more than 1/3rd of your time (i.e., 8 hours a day), then not enough resources are being placed on those tasks, and something needs to be fixed. Or, to put it another way, the company is placing an unfair burden on you (unless there is some kind of compensation to make up for it ---
though I would also add unless the situation is clearly temporary).
If you break it down to 1/3rd sleep (which we need), 1/3rd work (which [most of us] need to get the $$$ for shelter, food, and entertainment) and 1/3rd time for us, it makes sense that our own time should equal or exceed the time we spend at work. I've found my live a LOT more fun and a LOT less stressed once I started guarding my own interests with the same loyalty that I guard my
company's.
Someone I know in the industry who deals with
corporate image types says that when you want
to complain to a company, make sure you address
it to the VP of Marketing. Not the CEO, the
President, and DEFINITELY not the person in
charge of Customer Service/Care/buzzword.
The trend these days is that ALL customer
(and esp. potential but as-yet-unrealized)
complaints can be completely ignored. Your
best shot is somehow convincing Marketing that
there's a problem in which case they'll bring
the matter up interally.
I myself have noticed this: in the last year I've
written two letters describing real problems with
service, one to Columbia House for botched
Babylon 5 tapes (one episode has 6 minutes of
footage missing, another has one episode repeated)
and Men's Warehouse (describing a rather horrific
shopping experience). In both cases, I have
heard nothing, nada, zero, despite following up
each letter with another letter asking why there
had been no previous response.
Using e-mail to send feedback has become even less
satisfying - if you hear
anything back, it's just a form letter drafted
by the lawyers and marketing to say nothing, but
to cover their trail that they have a XXX%
response rate.
What needs to happen is that the lack of
principles needs to be faulted as
vocally as the lack of service.
At present they have the upper hand because
they control the situation - take the situation
out of their control and the problem will be
attended to much sooner.
My recollection from when I first started
reading USENET (1988 or so), was that the
people who got flamed either didn't bother
to read up on a newsgroup before posting,
posted something they couldn't back up, or
refused to take responsibility for what they
said. Sort of a "write-only" concept.
Newsgroups were places where anyone could
just speak with (almost) no way to stop them.
For a brief time, believe it or not, it was
customary for arguments to be defered to
net.flame (later alt.flame) and the interested
parties would actually comply! One
interesting result of that was that alt.flame
developed its own culture with its own celebs
who definitely ripped each other apart, but in
many cases there was also an underlying level of
respect for each other's wit and imagination.
Of course over time all things like this fade
away, and the signal to noise of "useful"
flameage eventually became low enough that
I stopped interacting on USENET at all.
I find it odd that Jon is only now getting
around to flames as a topic, since it's been
around the net for well over 10 years.
"... and in doing so, they only pushed out
the release date for the first non-beta
Mozilla to 2006, adding that this isn't
a long wait at all --- it's moving MUCH
faster than the glaciers!"
OK - I'm really happy that there will be
better integration to KDE, etc., but what
would REALLY impress me would be a target
release date for a non-beta Mozilla that
gets stuck to and is in the past tense!
I'm so tired of NN 4.7 which is so buggy
that I can't use it. I have NEVER managed
to get Gaelon working on my machine (although
I hear it's great).
Let's emblazon the medals themselves with
the logos of the sponsors!
...And now for coming in first for the high jump,
we present you with this gold Coca-Cola medallion!
Just scratch the surface and you might win a free
meal at McDonalds!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I know where the e-mail SPAM would appear... :-)
CW: Have you had any pressure from advertisers?
JK: Our business is so much better this year than it was last year--it's remarkable. Rates are higher.
Doesn't this pretty much nullify and credibility in the whining about how people who skip through ads are hurting the industry? What's very annoying is that they don't "get it": when I'm fast forwarding through the ads, either on the VCR or PVR, I'm scanning to know when to let go of the FF button. I'm paying MORE attention to the ad (albeit in time-compressed space) than I probably would be in real-time.
For example:
"Ad, ugh, where's the remote, , car ad, tampon ad, Miss Cleo, whoa what's that? check out ad, back to fast forward, grow more hair ad, lose unwanted hair ad, Miss Cleo, dog food ad, ad that made no sense and I doubt I'd do better in real-time, Jordan's Furniture ad - stop hafta watch, FF again, car ad, stop for Dean's Home Furniture ad? I doubt it!, Miss Cleo, back to program...
There's probably MORE brand name recognition among VCR/PVR users than the people who have to suffer through real-time ads. If I were in advertising, I'd definitely do a study on this - actually I'd exploit it by making an ad that looks great while fast-forwarded (or one that mimics it in real-time - you'd get 60 seconds of content in 30 seconds!)
I once worked for an education-based .com. As part of our product :-)
we had a news service. It was mandated that we include horoscopes
as part of it. I bristled arguing that we should set a standard of
excellence valuing what we put out for content, but those objections
were brushed aside. Why? Kids liked horoscopes and it would
drive page views. (A co-worker was bold enough to point out that
so would porn or gambling and suggested we pursue partnerships
in those areas so as to incorporate them into our business model
Turns out that several of the people in charge of this decision also
where into astrology. Hmmmmm.
A survey done at Harvard commencement a few years ago had roughly
one-half of graduating seniors equating astrology and astronomy.
The engineering department at my graduate school didn't require
calculus of their undergrads until *junior* year!
Can anyone help me find the data to support this stat I read a long
time ago: it is easier to build a new athletic facility than it is to
upgrade an existing library or science lab? Also, there's the fallacy
that monies large athletic departments take in fund academic departments.
I've never actually found one situation where this has been true.
I do know one researcher whose overhead on grants was so large that it
basically funded the entire English department.
We're racing towards a new Dark Ages. One interesting metric I read
for this is loss of language. Apparently the working vocabulary of people
in the US has dropped by some huge fraction (I don't remember what - more
than 25%) over the last 50 years... When I read that, I like, go to my friend,
"wow - like who did they ask?" and he goes "like that must be in the Middle Ages
or something." And then I'm like "Yeah, no one talks like in the Middle Ages anymore."
:-(
Don't forget my favorite: "Hi" a sticker with a simple cartoon drawing of :-)
a guy waving. They're numbered, so I supposed you can look around for
the entire series!
So, let's turn the question around - if the threshhold were set fairly high (only affects, say, the upper third of users), but if they also guaranteed no spam and that any traffic you paid for, you requested, would it be more reasonable?
Amazing. Only if I could moderate...
... there'd be bad moderation in the world?
I have a motion-detecting laptop lock that will blast 70dB if the lock wire is cut. (Once it went off and I forgot the code, and some moron suggested cutting the lock, like that was going to silence the alarm.)
Isn't the point of a laptop that you can move it around? How can your oh-so-wonderful device tell the difference between you carrying it somewhere, or someone trying to rip it off? Please don't tell me that you shut it off when you're carrying it around...
How is it not obvious to people that products such as these do not get dime one of VC funding without first addressing concerns like these?
Lack of naivete? Two words: car alarms. How often do you jump out of your seat and run outside to prevent the burglar from stealing your or your neighbor's car when the alarm goes off? What? You don't even notice it anymore because it's never really a burglary attempt, and in fact hearing the damned thing go off "yet again" ticks you off?
How many times will the thing go off falsely and cause problems before it gets tossed. I'm betting 3 to 5...
...which of course I did, your sarcasm aside...
you'd know that any tampering with the watch would instantly cause a notification sent out with the time and GPS location of the child.
... which would tell you "Johnnie was last seen atthe Sbarros at 12:17". I'll leave you the homework of figuring out why that's only marginally helpful. Hints: 1) consider how much attention is payed to car alarms; 2) consider that parents are known to drop kids off places and then leave them there --- there's a code for this at Wal-Mart ("kid abandoned in store while parents have left the building [to shop somewhere else]")...; 3) consider the size of some malls and the time required to get from point A to point B, and the time necessary to flee the scene (not to mention the people hired to keep the place secure).
... are you still certain that the product isn't fraught with problems?
One of my pet dalliances is internationalization, and I've finally got an editor where I can put in text from multiple character sets. However, entering in Chinese is a VERY slow process (guess where to find the character, pick it out of a line up, double click), whereas with a pen, one could enter in several dozen characters per minute...
So, why can't the abductor (who is overwhelmingly a non-custodial parent, other relative, or boyfriend/girlfriend[*]) just cut the thing off with a pair
of snippers?
Even if it's the classic melodrama of seedy pervert hanging around the mall looking for the random abductee, it's a case of 1) find person; 2) grab person; 3) snip off watch; 4) toss in garbage.
Meanwhile the idiotic parents, completely self-absorbed in their deluded state of irresponsibility, just think that Johnnie is taking an awfully long time at Sbarro's...
[*] in this situation the kidnapped has run away or eloped, and the parents attempt to stop it from happening by filing charges of kidnapping on the other party.
1) Is the warming real?
Yes - there is enough data to show the Earth is warmer now than 100 years before (ignoring the other 4.5+Gyr for the moment).
2) Is it due to man-made causes?
No - the scientific data (not GCM models based on CO or CO2 as being the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, except that would be water, which ISN'T contained in any GCM because that is a much harder thing to model --- oops) show that anthropogenic global warming as the primary cause either violates basic cause-and-effect (the temperature build-up occurs before 1945 and then essentially levels out), or there's a global cooling effect that is being ignored by the GCMs that for the most part counteracts the predictions over the last 50 years!
There's another "claim" that's bandied around which is to say that "most" scientists support the belief of anthropogenic global warming. This started with some list that was referred to by the White House in a press conference, except that no one that I know of has ever been able to get a copy of that list. On the other hand, nearly 20,000 physicists, climate scientists, etc. signed a petition NOT supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, which was slammed by the eco-fundies (who also attempted to taint the data by registering fake people - which goes to show how honest some of them are --- and yes, I'm one of the signers, have read the research papers, and drew my own educated opinion on the subject).
What's sad is that most of the people who have strong opinions on this topic have never looked at the data, or have looked at horrible distortions of the data (the plot in Earth in the Balance makes one feel that there's a huge explosion in CO in the last 100 years, until you discover that all the other data points have been binned differently --- I refer the reader to Tufte's excellent books and what he says about "the lie factor").
Go back to Friis-Christensen and Lasser (1991, in Science or Nature) look at that plot, compare to the actual warming trends. Then look at the warming trends over the last few millenia, and once you've removed the solar component that's obviously there, examine what's left. Perhaps there IS a man-made component lurking in there somewhere, but so far it's a small fraction of a degree.
The dire consequences for low-elevations doesn't care if the cause is man-made or not. However, the best plan of attack DOES change depending on our choice of allocating resources. Throwing $$$ at the "man-made" solution when there's no demonstrable effect could do MORE harm than good if $$$ isn't available when nature continues unabated. In that regard the anti-Kyoto people might be more on-target then the people who are trying to save the Earth.
Where was citizen 626-45-8892 on the night of tuesday the 14th?
Citizen 887-14-0923, we noticed that for three days last week your traffic pattern analysis deviated by 15 miles from its usual pattern. Would you mind explaining what you were doing?
This isn't fictional - it happens in Indonesia and Signapore. You're tracked whenever you go through public transportation for the purposes of "security".
First, you can't skip commercials, only fast-forward through them.
Second, because of this, I've actually found myself *going back* and watching odd commercials if they look interesting.
Third, because of *that* Dvorak misses the key datum, namely, that you're sitting there fast-forwarding through the commercials, paying strict attention so that you can hit the "Play" button again. You're ACTUALLY SEEING the commercials sped-up, recognizing the ones you've already seen, and (at least for me) checking out the ones that stand out.
So, in effect, the ads have just as much sticking power as they would already have, and you're NOT out of the room as you might be with a known 3-minute gap where you can grab a snack or go to the bathroom. The advertisers might have their 30 seconds compressed into 5, but you can be sure that they mostly get their branding across because the audience is paying closer attention, even if it's only to watch for the end.
Sigh. Once again, science fiction over science fact. Or at least the reality that if there were any "Deadly Space Microbes"(TM) that magically attached themselves onto Mir, there's no more risk than there has been over the last 5 billion years during which similar microbes have made their way down to the lower atmosphere from either outer space, or those that somehow managed to be lofted up from the lower depths of the atmosphere, and managed to stick around long enough to mutate.
Oops - that means that nature might do EXACTLY THE SAME THING. How dare it.
The entire concept of "a heathly environment" is fallacious. If you require proof of this, go to some remote place and see how healthy the environment is for you. Just from natural water supplies you won't be able to drink, malaria, and the fact that many wild beests won't care about killing you, I think you'll find that Earth (and probably every other place in the Universe) is a pretty hostile place to be.
And for THAT matter, why is shooting Mir out into space or into the Sun any more "environmentally friendly" than wontonly dumping your trash into some land fill? Basically that IS the hypocrasy that you're suggesting; it's nothing more than a new gloss on "not in my back yard".
Actually, there's little evidence to back this up. I'm one of the team members on the project that tries to monitor a few hundred "solar-like" stars to test (among other things) how "normal" the Sun really is. Macroscopically, you can argue that it's on the Main Sequence, and doesn't do anything strange compared to other stars.
However, if you change the problem around to looking for stars that are almost identical to the Sun in every way (working out of the assumption that if the Sun is "ordinary" then there should be a lot of other stars that are also "ordinary", out of a carefully-chosen sample, you come up with a very VERY short list --- it's in the single digits, and even then I keep finding reasons to exclude those stars from the list. One could almost claim at that point that there are no "average" stars.
I hope to have a paper submitted to the Astrophysical Journal later this year on this topic.
As for Earth being "average", again the evidence so far is that Solar System-like systems is not the norm. At this point we should be detecting Jupiters (5 AU orbiting planets with 1 Jupiter mass) around solar-like stars, yet the zoophony of extra-solar planetary systems favors either 51 Peg-like planets, or systems with planets that have highly eccentric orbits (e.g., the planet orbiting 16 Cyg B). There's a selection effect present, of course (it's easier to detect the ones with higher mass and shorter periods), but the surveys are reaching completion levels with long enough time series that we should be making up the difference *if* system configurations like ours are normal.
(The implication here is that in neither the 51 Peg-like system or the 16 Cyg B-like system is it likely [possible?] to end up with an Earth-like planet --- they'll either get bounced our or the proto-planetary matter will be swept up.)
Here's a kid who's developing years will be completely transparent to everyone: science, the media, and so on - our very own "Truman Show". I just don't know what all that would do to someone's mental health - going through life knowing that they were a successful science experiment.
I suppose one could make the comparison with the first test-tube baby --- whose name I can't recall, so I suppose that says something about the long-term impact of her situation in the media --- and hope that things turn out for the best. However, aside from the ethics of actually performing the cloning, there are the ethics of taking on the societal responsibilities after a clone has successfully been produced.
So, you match and extend it. Pay raise, bonus, and so on.
One thing that I'm finding that companies generally SUCK at is that they have no concept of laying a foundation for helping their employees create a career - that means short-, medium-, and long-term plans. In other words, if Jim shows potential of being a decent DBA, then you at least discuss the possibilities with him at a performance review, set those goals, and as is possible, meet them. Yes, it makes Jim more enticing to your competitors, but it makes him more valuable to your company. IF you're also keeping up with the Joneses in terms of pay, benefits, stock options, and so forth, Jim will very likely be with you a very long time.
On the other hand, if the only view you have of the relationship with your employees is to the end of the project, or of the quarter, then you can be sure that they're constantly checking to see if they might be happier somewhere else.
My dad worked for the same company for 34 years. The "conventional wisdom" these days is that our generation will change jobs many times over the course of our career. I make more $$$ than my dad ever did (although I had more $$$ in student loans at a higher interest rate than he did in the house he bought!), but the word I'm hearing more and more often from people about what they want from their job is "security".
It would be interesting to see how much that word alone is worth.
As if fscking news sites were EVER "unbiased"...
This extended into travel where I was expected to work 24/7 (here, literally 24/7), because it was a "work trip" and (get this) "people in the real world don't get time off during a work trip". (Comp time was also an unknown concept.)
I'm much happier in my new job. I don't telecommute - ever. I get in before 8 and usually leave before 5 (so I know what evenings are like - and sunsets are so pretty!). I'll work extra hours and some weekends when there is *need* but manager apprehension based upon someone else's inability to set a workable schedule isn't a need - it's a failure in the system that should be held accountable before any cleanup is performed.
We'd be a LOT better off if we'd adopt this maxim and STICK TO IT: if your job requires more than 1/3rd of your time (i.e., 8 hours a day), then not enough resources are being placed on those tasks, and something needs to be fixed. Or, to put it another way, the company is placing an unfair burden on you (unless there is some kind of compensation to make up for it --- though I would also add unless the situation is clearly temporary).
If you break it down to 1/3rd sleep (which we need), 1/3rd work (which [most of us] need to get the $$$ for shelter, food, and entertainment) and 1/3rd time for us, it makes sense that our own time should equal or exceed the time we spend at work. I've found my live a LOT more fun and a LOT less stressed once I started guarding my own interests with the same loyalty that I guard my company's.
Anything less would be uncivilized. :-)
The trend these days is that ALL customer (and esp. potential but as-yet-unrealized) complaints can be completely ignored. Your best shot is somehow convincing Marketing that there's a problem in which case they'll bring the matter up interally.
I myself have noticed this: in the last year I've written two letters describing real problems with service, one to Columbia House for botched Babylon 5 tapes (one episode has 6 minutes of footage missing, another has one episode repeated) and Men's Warehouse (describing a rather horrific shopping experience). In both cases, I have heard nothing, nada, zero, despite following up each letter with another letter asking why there had been no previous response.
Using e-mail to send feedback has become even less satisfying - if you hear anything back, it's just a form letter drafted by the lawyers and marketing to say nothing, but to cover their trail that they have a XXX% response rate.
What needs to happen is that the lack of principles needs to be faulted as vocally as the lack of service. At present they have the upper hand because they control the situation - take the situation out of their control and the problem will be attended to much sooner.
After all, if you don't like your cable company, you can move!
(For the sarcasm/humor impaired, don't take the above text seriously.)
For a brief time, believe it or not, it was customary for arguments to be defered to net.flame (later alt.flame) and the interested parties would actually comply! One interesting result of that was that alt.flame developed its own culture with its own celebs who definitely ripped each other apart, but in many cases there was also an underlying level of respect for each other's wit and imagination.
Of course over time all things like this fade away, and the signal to noise of "useful" flameage eventually became low enough that I stopped interacting on USENET at all. I find it odd that Jon is only now getting around to flames as a topic, since it's been around the net for well over 10 years.
Stop the madness!
OK - I'm really happy that there will be better integration to KDE, etc., but what would REALLY impress me would be a target release date for a non-beta Mozilla that gets stuck to and is in the past tense!
I'm so tired of NN 4.7 which is so buggy that I can't use it. I have NEVER managed to get Gaelon working on my machine (although I hear it's great).
In a word, "No." Now that you've made me use a vowel, I'm gonna sue you for the $250 I hafta pay Vanna as a royalty fee!