IMHO it's not mice that cause hand funkiness, it's switching back and forth between keyboard and mouse. Mostly-mouse user interfaces are just as pleasant as mostly-keyboard, at least as long as you're not using those screwy Apple hockey puck mice.
I do have a serious ergonomic bone to pick wrt emacs, anything that makes me use CTRL, ALT, and/or ESC frequently is going to give me hand cramps real quick becuase of the distance those keys are from the alphanumeric ones (i mean finger distance, not whole-arm-movement distance). Vim with appropriate settings and nedit get my vote for Things That Just Let You Type. But to each his own, the whole point of ergonomics is after all that "one size fits all" is a steaming load of livestock byproduct.
Ship livestock to the mined areas that have been diagnosed with BSE (no, not BSD). Let them roam free, and tell the inhabitants not to eat the gibs. This concept has made it into a game called Unexploded Cow.
And before anyone flies off the handle, I'm just kidding.:^)
going theory is that they were testing some sort of experimental torpedo that cooked off in the forward torpedo room, causing an explosive loss of hull integrity. this may be why they're a little vague about what exactly happened. some theories were common in russia that a western sub sank it; a western sub was in the area monitering what was going on (probably trying to listen in on the above test), but the theory that said sub did the sinking was eventually officially denied by the russians as well as the western agencies involved and so has been pretty much discredited. odds are the only people who know exactly what happened are dead.
wonder what they'll do with the Kursk
on
Raising the Kursk
·
· Score: 2
I'm sure the initial goal will be investigation.
After that, perhaps a memorial to people who've died at sea for (the soviet union || CIS || russia) would be constructed out of it? I'll be interested to see what they do with it, it'd be a shame if they just ended up scrapping it to make cheap razor blades or something. (OTOH, if somehow they reconstruct her I imagine most sailors would be hesitant to sail on a ship with that sort of history...)
Nuclear devices are in _no way_ easy to build from scratch. Most countries haven't managed it, let alone any smaller entity. Yes, weapons grade fissile material is hard to get. But that's not even the hardest part. In order for a squeeze device to work, the explosive wavefront must be EXACTLY correct. The device has to be arrainged internally to function on the microsecond scale, and timed precisely. For example, you can't have just one detonator for a spherical core, because point A would detonate one shake of a lamb's tail too soon compared to the other side, so you end up with several very finely crafted explosive segments, each with it's own detonator. Of course, the electric signals to the detonators have to arrive at the same time, so you have to cut the wires to them all the same length and use really, REALLY accurate switches and fuses. Again, for example, the Krypton switches that are weapons-precision are made by one company in the US. One company, with one product line, being sold to one and only one customer. (So when Iraqi agents tried to buy some in the late 80s it raised some red flags.) So getting good bang material is just the start of the obstacles.
The threat of nuclear proliferation does not in my mind exist so much from the construction of new devices, but rather from the misappropriation of preextant ones. America has extremely tight controls on it's nuclear arsenal. The same can not be said of every member of the nuclear club (e.g. the soviet disunion, or china). If a terrorist got a nuke, my bet is that they would buy it on the black market, and deliver it via containerized freight.
The same argument holds to a lesser extent for chemical or biological weapons. Why bother trying to synthesize Sarin when you can just buy a shedload of artillery shells from a poor private guarding a disposal site in BFE Central Asia?
Conectiva seems to be effectively RedHat localized to Portugese (sp?) or Spanish for the sudamerican Linux market. I don't speak either language, so I can't personally vouch for how good of a job they do. Of course, like another poster has mentioned, Windows is a good idea as well, both becuase it is likely more thoroughly localized (hey, they do pay money to people, which is a great incentive to do the job well) and becuase (since you mentioned school), more educational software will be available for the machine.
You'd as likely find a strict Muslim eating pork rinds in a liquor store as you would surfing a pr0n site, for steganographic purposes or otherwise. The lives of these men are entirely constructed around a strict obedience to (what they misguidedly see as a correct interpretation of) their faith. Further, it as been noted by Western intelligence organizations that these terrorist organizations use very little technology at all (even phones) instead relying on classical "no-tech" spycraft, which is part of the reason that the increasingly-focused-on-electronic-surveillance agencies have a very hard time tracking bin Laden et al.
Even if you assume that they utilize information technology in their organization and steganography in particular, it is highly unlikely that pornographic images are being used.
Naturally and as usual the political elites are using an external threat to move against internal things they do not like, such as encryption and pornography. (An analogy would be how every new recreational pharmaceutical is called a Date Rape Drug. Yet, strangely, the most frequently used chemical in date rape is still available widely, namely ethyl alcohol. Crack would be legal too if crack dealers were beefy white guys, wearing suits with Rotary Club pins on the lapel, that gave campaign contributions.)
that's cool, but if he needs to manage something like a 1U machine, there is probably only room for one pci card via one of those little angle thingies and he may have something that already needs to go there (like a raid card or something). just a guess...
wrt fortran, yeah it's nasty. but I'm interested in scientific programming, which is heavily fortran. Also, I've learned Befunge, so how bad could fortran be?:-)
You raise good points but I think that a certain extent you're missing the point of the whole alphabet soup of Java web development (Servlets/JSPs/Beans/J2EE/JDBC/MBeans/EJBeans/JXTA/JMQ/"und blah und blah und blah" [ObLola]).
Java [stuff] is intended to fit a monolithic development environment, where you have one application, no, make that Application, you're working on, with a team of highly (or at least somewhat) trained fellow coders wearing pinstripe suits likely on the behest of people that also wear pinstripe suits who probably do boring things like investment banking. The project manager has read The Mythical Man Month, and you all work in very formalized and well defined roles. The s(w)ervers are yours and yours alone to utilize to develop and deploy on.
Contrast this with ISPs, smaller web shops, and individual coders. They usually work in small teams, on short projects of small scale, and on machines that are shared with a lot of people. So simplicity and resource utilization take priority over Absolute Completeness And Verifiable Correctness.
Given that, it's natural for PHP to flourish where it does, and for Java [stuff] to flourish where it in turn does. Once again, right tool, right job.
(Lest anyone think I'm flaming, I like both environments, for different reasons and in different places.)
I don't know what happened between Apache JServe (Servlets 2.0 and JSP 1.0 via things like
gnujsp)and Tomcat, but man, talk about night and day difference in installation headaches.
Quite frankly, I've yet to make Tomcat work completely right. Installing new servlets and writing JSPs was pretty easy under the old system, and the integration with Apache was pretty good, so you may be able to implement ~username servlet and JSPs using that system instead. (Unless you need something in the later specs.)
(I'm fooling with tomcat 4 on a win2k machine at the moment and it does look pretty smooth, but then I've only had about 15 minutes yet to mess with it.)
Anyone know which revision of the fortran language the fortran compiler supports? I tried to figure it out from the page but it didn't say specifically. I've been meaning to learn fortran for a while out of curiosity, but F77 is sort of a bummer what with identifier and line size limits, etc etc. If this beast supported F9x, that would rock!
The biggest barrier I've encountered in small or startup environments to something like this is organizational "buy in". For example, at $workplace[-1] I wrote a defect tracking system custom tuned for us. Worked pretty well on a technical level... but nobody used it becuase with < 10 people, it was easier to just turn around and hand somebody a postit-note bug report.
Then again, that is characteristic of one of the central challenges facing a small organization, namely how to grow the structures to make a larger organization maintainable. I.e. overcoming the "this is a pain in the ass, why do we need this now?" factor. The answer to this depends strongly on the people involved, but if you can make the system about as painless as typing into an ASCII file or scribbling on a postit, you stand a better chance of success.
"imagine what could happen if all of a sudden a large wave of 60-year-old Unix gurus were unleashed as Linux developers"
TECO debs and rpms are made (if this has already happened, I don't want to know).
Someone publishes a.bashrc to give you that nice home-y ITS feel.
Thinkg**k comes out with an "emacs is for punks" shirt.
A Multics kernel personality (written in APL with a FORTRAN 66 I/O layer) is submitted with a reminder to Alan and Linus that they were soiling diapers when the author was rebeading core.
Somebody adds a "KILL SYSTEM" command to one or more shells.
Somebody writes a kernel module to accept input (through serial I'd guess, not that I'm advocating this) from handmade front panel switches...
... and somebody else modifies LILO/GRUB/GAG to accept input from them...
... and somebody else publishes a HOWTO on how to do away with LILO (...) if you have the front toggles...
... and the second author's name is Mel.
Someone mails Alan or Linus a kernel patch... on paper tape.
Two words: PDP port. (tech sidenote: yeah yeah, I know)
Termcap gets an entry for "asr33".
Somebody hits Tannenbaum (sp? cue old mono vs. micro kernel thread reference) over the head with a walker.
Joining Isoslack and Zipslack is... TapeSlack.
Someone does a photomontage of their naked, full moon ass and part of the kernel source and mails it to AT&T's corporate headquarters.
Linux becomes able to boot straight to SpaceWar using the framebuffer modules.
The man page for ed(1) gets updated.
Someone posts a flame about how directories are bloat. (no, not like LDAP)
Multics or ITS joins the ranks of supported VMware guest operating systems.
When you grovel around in/proc periodically the kernel gives you sage advice like "All Hardware Sucks."
Admittedly, I'd rather see the company dissolved, but at least they seem to have retained some teeth in what they (DoJ) are seeking. Namely, the prohibition of unfair licensing agreements and baring MS from preventing OEMs from having their own boot loaders seems like it might go a long way towards opening up the OEM market to alternatives.
I'm not at all suprised that the Bush administration (dubya or his minions) is waffling on acting against a big corporation, as a Texan I have watched him bend over backwards ever since he got elected to lick the boots of 'big bidness'; his agility in that realm is notable even for a Texas politico.
Maybe it's just the luck of the draw considering the CS programs I've looked at, but very few CS programs seem to emphasize *software engineering* as opposed to theory. (Don't get me wrong, theory is important, but theory and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee when it comes time to actually build something).
Software engineering can be taught, but IMHO the real prerequisits are a careful and analytic method of thought, along with the ability to absorb technical details like a dry sponge tossed in water, and the perserverance to tackle tasks that seem impossible. Any technical major in college will be sufficient to aquire these traits, because there are things of intellectual complexity to rival the worst of CS in many other fields (for example, IMHO the analysis of algorithms pales in comparison to quantum mechanics or group theory; and if you think Biology is simple I invite you to examine the Kreb's cycle or Citric Acid cycle at some point. ). The rest, quite honestly, you can aquire by going to a bookstore and buying books to fill in the theoretic gaps in your knowledge. And you don't really know anything until your first job.
So saying that only majoring in CS gives you the ability to produce good software and judge the merits of software, is more than slightly myopic.
Insight into solving problems with electrons flowing through silicon is by no means dependent on what formal educational background you have.
Remember, Turing and Djikstra weren't computer scientists in the formal sense of the word (respectively their formal backgrounds were/are in mathematics and theoretical physics).
Of course, coming into the art of software engineering from computational chemistry may have prejudiced me to some degree.;-)
Re:Hate to say, sounds like a dot-bomb strategy...
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
So Todd, what is the conversion factor between assload (Al?) and, say, gigabytes?:-)
wellbutrin's website. It's made by GlaxoSmithKline or GlaxoWellcome or whatever their name is today. That's for their sustained release version of it anyway. I seem to recall that the drug was going to lose patent protection soon, so you may start seeing generic versions on the market. Again, I'm not a doctor, so ask your health care professional about it. Good luck!
WRT "wanking", well, it's not exactly common slang , but people generally know what the term means. Yes, I'm in Texas. (Houston actually because I'm taking a working sabbatical from school, I was/am/will be a student (again) at UT-Austin (tense dependent on how you look at it).)
At (workplace - 2) I was the PFY at a place that used a horde of PCs in a compute cluster. Horde as in north of 150. Probably half of our time was spent simply running around fixing dead or dying machines. I think we had an average of one total machine failure a week, with lots of lesser events
thrown in to make life interesting. The most common failure mode was just a power supply crapping out (not unsuprising becuase these guys were running at 90+% system load 24x7x365).
RedHat is the best at making you pay for something you can get for free.
That's the only way most corporations will ever accept the use of (Free || Open Source) Software. I work as an IT consultant to @BIG_OIL_COMPANIES, and you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get them to accept things like perl. Hell, I think the only reason they did eventually let us use perl is because ActiveState is around so an actual company is out there that we can point to. Sad? yes. But that's the way it is out in the trenches.
[bathroom wanking, time thereof, taking really long when you're on Prozac]
Ah, you too, eh? Although in my case it was Seroxat (same family as Prozac). It can be pretty tiresome spending nearly an hour trying to come,can't it? It may have fixed my head but it totally buggered my right arm!!
The class of drugs known as SSRIs are known to cause sexual dysfunction like you describe (SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor). Prozac is a member of this family, as is Seroxat. When you consider that other drugs offer the same effects without the nasty side effects, you have to wonder why these things are so popular. Namely, Wellbutrin is an extremely effective anti-depressant and does not have the side effects of the SSRIs (including the sexual ones), and has been on the market for quite a while (i.e. it's efficacy and theraputic profile is well characterized). Some studies indicate it (wellbutrin) may actually act as a mild sexual aide, but as drug companies are generally extremely conservative and image obsessed, they tend not to point out the sexual effects (good or bad) of the drugs they produce. Newsweek did a story on this in the last six months or so, but damn if I can find it in their archives.
I don't advocate chemistry as a first line of defense against depression, but if you do end up using medication, ask your doctor about alternatives to the SSRI family. (I am not a doctor or psychiatrist but I am involved in pharmaceutical chemistry as a student, or at least I will be when I go back to school:-).)
And yeah, I know this is off topic, but if it potentially helps even one person out there I'm willing to burn a few karma.
had to get paying jobs or had to take on more billable hours (lower contracting rates b/c of the downturn), would be my guess. either that or Linus took a hypnotism course and snuck into the last *bsd developer conclave, heh.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO it's not mice that cause hand funkiness, it's switching back and forth between keyboard and mouse. Mostly-mouse user interfaces are just as pleasant as mostly-keyboard, at least as long as you're not using those screwy Apple hockey puck mice.
I do have a serious ergonomic bone to pick wrt emacs, anything that makes me use CTRL, ALT, and/or ESC frequently is going to give me hand cramps real quick becuase of the distance those keys are from the alphanumeric ones (i mean finger distance, not whole-arm-movement distance). Vim with appropriate settings and nedit get my vote for Things That Just Let You Type. But to each his own, the whole point of ergonomics is after all that "one size fits all" is a steaming load of livestock byproduct.
Ship livestock to the mined areas that have been diagnosed with BSE (no, not BSD). Let them roam free, and tell the inhabitants not to eat the gibs. This concept has made it into a game called Unexploded Cow.
:^)
And before anyone flies off the handle, I'm just kidding.
going theory is that they were testing some sort of experimental torpedo that cooked off in the forward torpedo room, causing an explosive loss of hull integrity. this may be why they're a little vague about what exactly happened. some theories were common in russia that a western sub sank it; a western sub was in the area monitering what was going on (probably trying to listen in on the above test), but the theory that said sub did the sinking was eventually officially denied by the russians as well as the western agencies involved and so has been pretty much discredited. odds are the only people who know exactly what happened are dead.
I'm sure the initial goal will be investigation.
After that, perhaps a memorial to people who've died at sea for (the soviet union || CIS || russia) would be constructed out of it? I'll be interested to see what they do with it, it'd be a shame if they just ended up scrapping it to make cheap razor blades or something. (OTOH, if somehow they reconstruct her I imagine most sailors would be hesitant to sail on a ship with that sort of history...)
Nuclear devices are in _no way_ easy to build from scratch. Most countries haven't managed it, let alone any smaller entity. Yes, weapons grade fissile material is hard to get. But that's not even the hardest part. In order for a squeeze device to work, the explosive wavefront must be EXACTLY correct. The device has to be arrainged internally to function on the microsecond scale, and timed precisely. For example, you can't have just one detonator for a spherical core, because point A would detonate one shake of a lamb's tail too soon compared to the other side, so you end up with several very finely crafted explosive segments, each with it's own detonator. Of course, the electric signals to the detonators have to arrive at the same time, so you have to cut the wires to them all the same length and use really, REALLY accurate switches and fuses. Again, for example, the Krypton switches that are weapons-precision are made by one company in the US. One company, with one product line, being sold to one and only one customer. (So when Iraqi agents tried to buy some in the late 80s it raised some red flags.) So getting good bang material is just the start of the obstacles.
The threat of nuclear proliferation does not in my mind exist so much from the construction of new devices, but rather from the misappropriation of preextant ones. America has extremely tight controls on it's nuclear arsenal. The same can not be said of every member of the nuclear club (e.g. the soviet disunion, or china). If a terrorist got a nuke, my bet is that they would buy it on the black market, and deliver it via containerized freight.
The same argument holds to a lesser extent for chemical or biological weapons. Why bother trying to synthesize Sarin when you can just buy a shedload of artillery shells from a poor private guarding a disposal site in BFE Central Asia?
Stick one each up the asses of:
;^)
Conectiva seems to be effectively RedHat localized to Portugese (sp?) or Spanish for the sudamerican Linux market. I don't speak either language, so I can't personally vouch for how good of a job they do. Of course, like another poster has mentioned, Windows is a good idea as well, both becuase it is likely more thoroughly localized (hey, they do pay money to people, which is a great incentive to do the job well) and becuase (since you mentioned school), more educational software will be available for the machine.
Anyone taken a close look at that address, in light of recent behavior by MS?
Microsoft [Unit]
One Microsoft Way
Redmond WA
("My way or the highway"-reminiscent)
You'd as likely find a strict Muslim eating pork rinds in a liquor store as you would surfing a pr0n site, for steganographic purposes or otherwise. The lives of these men are entirely constructed around a strict obedience to (what they misguidedly see as a correct interpretation of) their faith. Further, it as been noted by Western intelligence organizations that these terrorist organizations use very little technology at all (even phones) instead relying on classical "no-tech" spycraft, which is part of the reason that the increasingly-focused-on-electronic-surveillance agencies have a very hard time tracking bin Laden et al.
Even if you assume that they utilize information technology in their organization and steganography in particular, it is highly unlikely that pornographic images are being used.
Naturally and as usual the political elites are using an external threat to move against internal things they do not like, such as encryption and pornography. (An analogy would be how every new recreational pharmaceutical is called a Date Rape Drug. Yet, strangely, the most frequently used chemical in date rape is still available widely, namely ethyl alcohol. Crack would be legal too if crack dealers were beefy white guys, wearing suits with Rotary Club pins on the lapel, that gave campaign contributions.)
that's cool, but if he needs to manage something like a 1U machine, there is probably only room for one pci card via one of those little angle thingies and he may have something that already needs to go there (like a raid card or something). just a guess...
wrt fortran, yeah it's nasty. but I'm interested in scientific programming, which is heavily fortran. Also, I've learned Befunge, so how bad could fortran be? :-)
You raise good points but I think that a certain extent you're missing the point of the whole alphabet soup of Java web development (Servlets/JSPs/Beans/J2EE/JDBC/MBeans/EJBeans/JXTA /JMQ/"und blah und blah und blah" [ObLola]).
Java [stuff] is intended to fit a monolithic development environment, where you have one application, no, make that Application, you're working on, with a team of highly (or at least somewhat) trained fellow coders wearing pinstripe suits likely on the behest of people that also wear pinstripe suits who probably do boring things like investment banking. The project manager has read The Mythical Man Month, and you all work in very formalized and well defined roles. The s(w)ervers are yours and yours alone to utilize to develop and deploy on.
Contrast this with ISPs, smaller web shops, and individual coders. They usually work in small teams, on short projects of small scale, and on machines that are shared with a lot of people. So simplicity and resource utilization take priority over Absolute Completeness And Verifiable Correctness.
Given that, it's natural for PHP to flourish where it does, and for Java [stuff] to flourish where it in turn does. Once again, right tool, right job.
(Lest anyone think I'm flaming, I like both environments, for different reasons and in different places.)
gnujsp)and Tomcat, but man, talk about night and day difference in installation headaches.
Quite frankly, I've yet to make Tomcat work completely right. Installing new servlets and writing JSPs was pretty easy under the old system, and the integration with Apache was pretty good, so you may be able to implement ~username servlet and JSPs using that system instead. (Unless you need something in the later specs.)
(I'm fooling with tomcat 4 on a win2k machine at the moment and it does look pretty smooth, but then I've only had about 15 minutes yet to mess with it.)
Anyone know which revision of the fortran language the fortran compiler supports? I tried to figure it out from the page but it didn't say specifically. I've been meaning to learn fortran for a while out of curiosity, but F77 is sort of a bummer what with identifier and line size limits, etc etc. If this beast supported F9x, that would rock!
The biggest barrier I've encountered in small or startup environments to something like this is organizational "buy in". For example, at $workplace[-1] I wrote a defect tracking system custom tuned for us. Worked pretty well on a technical level ... but nobody used it becuase with < 10 people, it was easier to just turn around and hand somebody a postit-note bug report.
Then again, that is characteristic of one of the central challenges facing a small organization, namely how to grow the structures to make a larger organization maintainable. I.e. overcoming the "this is a pain in the ass, why do we need this now?" factor. The answer to this depends strongly on the people involved, but if you can make the system about as painless as typing into an ASCII file or scribbling on a postit, you stand a better chance of success.
A coat? In Texas? Are you insane?
Admittedly, I'd rather see the company dissolved, but at least they seem to have retained some teeth in what they (DoJ) are seeking. Namely, the prohibition of unfair licensing agreements and baring MS from preventing OEMs from having their own boot loaders seems like it might go a long way towards opening up the OEM market to alternatives.
I'm not at all suprised that the Bush administration (dubya or his minions) is waffling on acting against a big corporation, as a Texan I have watched him bend over backwards ever since he got elected to lick the boots of 'big bidness'; his agility in that realm is notable even for a Texas politico.
Software engineering can be taught, but IMHO the real prerequisits are a careful and analytic method of thought, along with the ability to absorb technical details like a dry sponge tossed in water, and the perserverance to tackle tasks that seem impossible. Any technical major in college will be sufficient to aquire these traits, because there are things of intellectual complexity to rival the worst of CS in many other fields (for example, IMHO the analysis of algorithms pales in comparison to quantum mechanics or group theory; and if you think Biology is simple I invite you to examine the Kreb's cycle or Citric Acid cycle at some point. ). The rest, quite honestly, you can aquire by going to a bookstore and buying books to fill in the theoretic gaps in your knowledge. And you don't really know anything until your first job.
So saying that only majoring in CS gives you the ability to produce good software and judge the merits of software, is more than slightly myopic.
Insight into solving problems with electrons flowing through silicon is by no means dependent on what formal educational background you have.
Remember, Turing and Djikstra weren't computer scientists in the formal sense of the word (respectively their formal backgrounds were/are in mathematics and theoretical physics).
Of course, coming into the art of software engineering from computational chemistry may have prejudiced me to some degree.
mike
wellbutrin's website. It's made by GlaxoSmithKline or GlaxoWellcome or whatever their name is today. That's for their sustained release version of it anyway. I seem to recall that the drug was going to lose patent protection soon, so you may start seeing generic versions on the market. Again, I'm not a doctor, so ask your health care professional about it. Good luck!
here's another website, more patient-centric
WRT "wanking", well, it's not exactly common slang , but people generally know what the term means. Yes, I'm in Texas. (Houston actually because I'm taking a working sabbatical from school, I was/am/will be a student (again) at UT-Austin (tense dependent on how you look at it).)
At (workplace - 2) I was the PFY at a place that used a horde of PCs in a compute cluster. Horde as in north of 150. Probably half of our time was spent simply running around fixing dead or dying machines. I think we had an average of one total machine failure a week, with lots of lesser events
thrown in to make life interesting. The most common failure mode was just a power supply crapping out (not unsuprising becuase these guys were running at 90+% system load 24x7x365).
That's the only way most corporations will ever accept the use of (Free || Open Source) Software. I work as an IT consultant to @BIG_OIL_COMPANIES, and you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get them to accept things like perl. Hell, I think the only reason they did eventually let us use perl is because ActiveState is around so an actual company is out there that we can point to. Sad? yes. But that's the way it is out in the trenches.
The class of drugs known as SSRIs are known to cause sexual dysfunction like you describe (SSRI = selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor). Prozac is a member of this family, as is Seroxat. When you consider that other drugs offer the same effects without the nasty side effects, you have to wonder why these things are so popular. Namely, Wellbutrin is an extremely effective anti-depressant and does not have the side effects of the SSRIs (including the sexual ones), and has been on the market for quite a while (i.e. it's efficacy and theraputic profile is well characterized). Some studies indicate it (wellbutrin) may actually act as a mild sexual aide, but as drug companies are generally extremely conservative and image obsessed, they tend not to point out the sexual effects (good or bad) of the drugs they produce. Newsweek did a story on this in the last six months or so, but damn if I can find it in their archives.
I don't advocate chemistry as a first line of defense against depression, but if you do end up using medication, ask your doctor about alternatives to the SSRI family. (I am not a doctor or psychiatrist but I am involved in pharmaceutical chemistry as a student, or at least I will be when I go back to school
And yeah, I know this is off topic, but if it potentially helps even one person out there I'm willing to burn a few karma.
seriously, there is such a thing as trusting your remote sensors too much... (the main reason spysats haven't replaces human intelligence sources)
had to get paying jobs or had to take on more billable hours (lower contracting rates b/c of the downturn), would be my guess. either that or Linus took a hypnotism course and snuck into the last *bsd developer conclave, heh.