Does this mean that quantum computing is just bring us back to analog computers?
(Actually, I guess, if my elliptical thinking here is anywhere close to meaningful, I guess the idea would be that a quantum processor would allow building complex reprogrammable filters (amplifiers) that don't require iterations. (Not talking about the simple analog filters, of course.)
My son seems enamored of analog computing these days. I remember when I was, as well. Maybe, the babbling above being completely wrong notwithstanding, it's a little early to dismiss analog computing as just a failed path in the problem tree.
I really wish I understood what I am not talking about.
The right of the _people_ to bear arms, not the right of the state to bear arms (Since when, historically, has a state required any excuse, reason, or evidence of authority to keep weapons?), not the right of the militia to bear arms (Seriously. A militia without arms is just a crowd, maybe a mob. No, not the Mob in Chicago, they don't need anyone telling them they can have weapons, either.), but the right of the _people_.
Yeah, I really think someone is trying to twist the words of the Constitution. But not the parent, the parent is just a troll.
When things seem to be going better than they should, look for the grease on palms. Statistically, there should always be some issues and some discussion and some questions being raised somewhere.
A good rating in "lack of corruption" is not really something to brag about, and is especially not a reason to get complacent.
ODF is better than MSOOXML for getting certain kinds of jobs done, but we are all far too hung-up on standards. Microsoft has always been about them pretending to meet and beat the standards before the standards could possibly have been made. (MSC++, anyone?)
Our sin is in buying into the standards business. We're like the drunks looking for the lost wallet under the streetlamp, when we dropped it over there where it's dark. Yeah, we can see under the streetlamp, but that's not where the job that needs to be done is.
Real standards are not produced by some standards body, any more than they are produced by megacorporations out for everyone's money. (And not the money so much as the buying power, really.)
Real standards are distilled out of best practices.
If we really want to fight MSLeviathan, we need to get to work and build stuff that solves people's problems with tech that really works.
Speaking of which, I really need to get back to work, now.
Someone pointed out the Rambus business. There are many others.
Gaming the system has been around for a long time, and it isn't going away, as long as there are people who get their sense of self-worth from what they think they can make others do.
Raw text, with minimal semantic markup, is the answer to all of this. (Not even XML, unless the XML buys you something meaningful over being parseable by the calibrated eyeball.)
I guess I'm not sure if it was you or someone who apparently thinks a lot like you that called me twitter several times recently. I'm not particularly interested in going back to check the user name.
Are sock puppets that big a deal?
(I've been attacked by a sockpuppet or two before, I think it's no big deal. I suppose it can be a little ticklish, so to speak. But looking cool sways people for about two minutes, then they all go back to thinking what they want to think anyway.)
Peer pressure should be a null argument, and karma here is just a buffered form of peer pressure.
If twitter really is using five sock puppets at once, yeah, that's a bit overboard, taking a thread way too personal. That would be his problem, though, not mine.
Arguing with people should be reserved for people like Gates, Ballmer, Clinton, and others who have not only have demonstrated that they can't discuss ideas, but who also have somehow amassed a bit of power to do bad things. (Include Bush and Jobs and Hefner in the list if you personally think they are evil enough.)
But remember, arguing with people (instead of ideas) tends mostly to add to their power to do bad things. (Give them attention and they think you're rewarding them.)
Too much preaching, I know. I should probably get back to work.
and this is a good example of the contradictions of beauty.
People who have been married for a long time start to look like each other.
I don't know what your study says, but watching my friends, they tend to oooh and aaahh over people who are somewhat, but not too much different in appearance from their own family. The people they tend to go out with and stay with tend to have more features in common.
Living in Japan for a long time shows me two things:
There are women (and men) considered attractive in Japan who would be considered attractive in the US, but there are also a lot of women (and men) who are considered attractive in Japan who would be considered downright ugly in the US.
Consensus gives you lowest common denominator, as someone else commented already.
Sexual attractiveness maintained in public after marriage is often an influence in undoing the marriage. It may be that asymmetry is more generally attractive. (The difference between distractive and attractive is very often more a matter of attitude than perception.)
One thing I'm sure of is that the best way to be attractive is to let people know you want attention without letting people know you want attention.
In a certain city, an attractive girl gets unwanted attention. Take the same girl to a different city, and nobody notices her.
Until she starts acting "cute".
Beauty and attractiveness are somewhat separate concepts, but, as my mother used to say, "Beauty is as beauty does."
Look at Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog, or, for that matter, the Wilson sisters. I don't know about you, but I didn't think they were either attractive or beautiful until I'd been listening to their music for several years.
Or, for that matter, look at the Mona Lisa. I'm still not sure what the fuss is there.
And it's not just programming any more. There are a lot of teachers who look at you like you just stepped out of a UFO if you suggest using your document built on anything but MSOffice as teaching material. There are a lot of doctors who look at you the same way if you suggest using anything but MSWhatever box in any medical function. Dietary plans? MSExcel spreadsheets. Inventory? MSAccess. KnowledgeBase? you know it.
People want a standard. Everyone but Microsoft has been saying we shouldn't standardize yet. Microsoft lies and says they have a standard. Kaching.
And plaintext with good search really could have done the job for 99% of everything that's being done with computers.
Well, that's what somebody want's somebody to believe.
Funny thing is, votes can get changed to approve.
Somebody has wanted very strongly, from the outset, to make this nothing but approval of a done deal, just like the elections in Russia. The market "has already voted" because MSOffice is so "prevalent", so it's "stupid" not to make MSOffice a "standard".
The logic of popularism, as opposed to the logic of a free market.
I've been in city council meetings and other places where people think they have a chance to wield a little influence to make things come out the way they want. It's amazing the lies people tell to each other, and to themselves, to "win" their point. (And you watch, after a few years, they generally find themselves hoist on their own petards.) As long as there are a lot of people who have bought into the "power" model of society, this sort of stuff will go on, because people get their self-images all tangled up in the amount of "power" they can wield.
Someone once said it this way:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all [human beings], as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
And they keep it up while telling themselves that everyone is doing it.
Anyway, as someone pointed out on Groklaw recently, Gates very likely figures he can't lose. Either way, he's put the ISO down, and that makes it that much harder to prove that his software is mathematical snakeoil.
But he's fooling himself if he believes he can hide the power of plaintext from the world forever. It would have been more to his empire's benefit to have let the ODF spec stand unchallenged and simply joined in with software that works (more or less) by that standard. Now, because of the travesty that is OOXML (not to mention Microsoft's primary formats) people will start realizing that it doesn't take filling a file full of formatting (and maybe a precious few semantic tags) to send someone a message asking how the trip to Cancun was, or asking for a quick summary of a committee meeting.
We get what we pay for (at best). I don't know about the rest of you guys, but my work journals and most of the stuff I want to keep forever is now in plaintext with a few ad-hoc semantic tags. (Not even full XML, if I figure I can parse it later with my eyeballs.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, cryptography. That way no one can tell who was actually elected except the government.
Does this mean that quantum computing is just bring us back to analog computers?
(Actually, I guess, if my elliptical thinking here is anywhere close to meaningful, I guess the idea would be that a quantum processor would allow building complex reprogrammable filters (amplifiers) that don't require iterations. (Not talking about the simple analog filters, of course.)
My son seems enamored of analog computing these days. I remember when I was, as well. Maybe, the babbling above being completely wrong notwithstanding, it's a little early to dismiss analog computing as just a failed path in the problem tree.
I really wish I understood what I am not talking about.
Where'd you get that idea?
The militia is separate from both the army and the police. Look it up.
The militia is the last line of defense from external enemies and the first line from internal. It is the people, armed.
huh?
The right of the _people_ to bear arms, not the right of the state to bear arms (Since when, historically, has a state required any excuse, reason, or evidence of authority to keep weapons?), not the right of the militia to bear arms (Seriously. A militia without arms is just a crowd, maybe a mob. No, not the Mob in Chicago, they don't need anyone telling them they can have weapons, either.), but the right of the _people_.
Yeah, I really think someone is trying to twist the words of the Constitution. But not the parent, the parent is just a troll.
That's what Microsoft wants everyone to believe, at any rate.
When things seem to be going better than they should, look for the grease on palms. Statistically, there should always be some issues and some discussion and some questions being raised somewhere.
A good rating in "lack of corruption" is not really something to brag about, and is especially not a reason to get complacent.
That's a historical anomaly.
ODF is better than MSOOXML for getting certain kinds of jobs done, but we are all far too hung-up on standards. Microsoft has always been about them pretending to meet and beat the standards before the standards could possibly have been made. (MSC++, anyone?)
Our sin is in buying into the standards business. We're like the drunks looking for the lost wallet under the streetlamp, when we dropped it over there where it's dark. Yeah, we can see under the streetlamp, but that's not where the job that needs to be done is.
Real standards are not produced by some standards body, any more than they are produced by megacorporations out for everyone's money. (And not the money so much as the buying power, really.)
Real standards are distilled out of best practices.
If we really want to fight MSLeviathan, we need to get to work and build stuff that solves people's problems with tech that really works.
Speaking of which, I really need to get back to work, now.
Someone pointed out the Rambus business. There are many others.
Gaming the system has been around for a long time, and it isn't going away, as long as there are people who get their sense of self-worth from what they think they can make others do.
Raw text, with minimal semantic markup, is the answer to all of this. (Not even XML, unless the XML buys you something meaningful over being parseable by the calibrated eyeball.)
Raw text.
I guess I'm not sure if it was you or someone who apparently thinks a lot like you that called me twitter several times recently. I'm not particularly interested in going back to check the user name.
Are sock puppets that big a deal?
(I've been attacked by a sockpuppet or two before, I think it's no big deal. I suppose it can be a little ticklish, so to speak. But looking cool sways people for about two minutes, then they all go back to thinking what they want to think anyway.)
Peer pressure should be a null argument, and karma here is just a buffered form of peer pressure.
If twitter really is using five sock puppets at once, yeah, that's a bit overboard, taking a thread way too personal. That would be his problem, though, not mine.
Arguing with people should be reserved for people like Gates, Ballmer, Clinton, and others who have not only have demonstrated that they can't discuss ideas, but who also have somehow amassed a bit of power to do bad things. (Include Bush and Jobs and Hefner in the list if you personally think they are evil enough.)
But remember, arguing with people (instead of ideas) tends mostly to add to their power to do bad things. (Give them attention and they think you're rewarding them.)
Too much preaching, I know. I should probably get back to work.
You've called me twitter before, too.
Maybe some of the people you think are twitter are, but maybe you're seeing things that aren't there.
Maybe, in fact, there are people who really don't like being screwed by Microsoft.
and varies from time to time.
The word "hit" in the definition also tends to bias the rank, I think.
We all know what the entertainment industry is pushing out these days.
Have you analyzed your empiricals to cancel out the Hollywood effect?
If you look at the works of art of historical cultures, can we be sure that the standards we claim now are very universal?
Is least ugly basically the lowest common denominator?
(Somebody say something about liquid crystal display here, okay?)
The golden ration works for Greeks. Some Greeks.
It doesn't seem to work quite the same for Japanese.
and this is a good example of the contradictions of beauty.
People who have been married for a long time start to look like each other.
I don't know what your study says, but watching my friends, they tend to oooh and aaahh over people who are somewhat, but not too much different in appearance from their own family. The people they tend to go out with and stay with tend to have more features in common.
Living in Japan for a long time shows me two things:
There are women (and men) considered attractive in Japan who would be considered attractive in the US, but there are also a lot of women (and men) who are considered attractive in Japan who would be considered downright ugly in the US.
Consensus gives you lowest common denominator, as someone else commented already.
Sexual attractiveness maintained in public after marriage is often an influence in undoing the marriage. It may be that asymmetry is more generally attractive. (The difference between distractive and attractive is very often more a matter of attitude than perception.)
One thing I'm sure of is that the best way to be attractive is to let people know you want attention without letting people know you want attention.
In a certain city, an attractive girl gets unwanted attention. Take the same girl to a different city, and nobody notices her.
Until she starts acting "cute".
Beauty and attractiveness are somewhat separate concepts, but, as my mother used to say, "Beauty is as beauty does."
Look at Anni-Frid Lyngstad and Agnetha Fältskog, or, for that matter, the Wilson sisters. I don't know about you, but I didn't think they were either attractive or beautiful until I'd been listening to their music for several years.
Or, for that matter, look at the Mona Lisa. I'm still not sure what the fuss is there.
Any way, happy Aril 1st.
And it's not just programming any more. There are a lot of teachers who look at you like you just stepped out of a UFO if you suggest using your document built on anything but MSOffice as teaching material. There are a lot of doctors who look at you the same way if you suggest using anything but MSWhatever box in any medical function. Dietary plans? MSExcel spreadsheets. Inventory? MSAccess. KnowledgeBase? you know it.
People want a standard. Everyone but Microsoft has been saying we shouldn't standardize yet. Microsoft lies and says they have a standard. Kaching.
And plaintext with good search really could have done the job for 99% of everything that's being done with computers.
I'm getting tired. Time to go after some groceries before the sun goes down.
Well, that's what somebody want's somebody to believe.
Funny thing is, votes can get changed to approve.
Somebody has wanted very strongly, from the outset, to make this nothing but approval of a done deal, just like the elections in Russia. The market "has already voted" because MSOffice is so "prevalent", so it's "stupid" not to make MSOffice a "standard".
The logic of popularism, as opposed to the logic of a free market.
I've been in city council meetings and other places where people think they have a chance to wield a little influence to make things come out the way they want. It's amazing the lies people tell to each other, and to themselves, to "win" their point. (And you watch, after a few years, they generally find themselves hoist on their own petards.) As long as there are a lot of people who have bought into the "power" model of society, this sort of stuff will go on, because people get their self-images all tangled up in the amount of "power" they can wield.
Someone once said it this way:
And they keep it up while telling themselves that everyone is doing it.
Anyway, as someone pointed out on Groklaw recently, Gates very likely figures he can't lose. Either way, he's put the ISO down, and that makes it that much harder to prove that his software is mathematical snakeoil.
But he's fooling himself if he believes he can hide the power of plaintext from the world forever. It would have been more to his empire's benefit to have let the ODF spec stand unchallenged and simply joined in with software that works (more or less) by that standard. Now, because of the travesty that is OOXML (not to mention Microsoft's primary formats) people will start realizing that it doesn't take filling a file full of formatting (and maybe a precious few semantic tags) to send someone a message asking how the trip to Cancun was, or asking for a quick summary of a committee meeting.
We get what we pay for (at best). I don't know about the rest of you guys, but my work journals and most of the stuff I want to keep forever is now in plaintext with a few ad-hoc semantic tags. (Not even full XML, if I figure I can parse it later with my eyeballs.)
Did anyone besides me see that "Microsoft Works" and read it "Microsoft Wonks"?
Scary thought.
Is the price of the mouse and the 4GB SD card worth the shame of buying a license for MSXP and MSWorks?
(Probably need the extra SD if you're going to run MS software, I'd guess.)
What version of IE runs on NT3?