"Who doesn't want a smart strong son? Or a pretty and smart daughter?"
Actually, those attributes don't mean much in determining the success or happiness of your children. Repeated surveys of the 'beautiful people' have shown that many of them think they are ugly. Talk to an anorexic who has wasted away until they are not much more than skin and bones and you will find that they see themselves as hopelessly fat.
You might argue that these people would not be that way if they could have been engineered with higher intelligence. I've counselled with individuals who were very bright, but at the same time were held back by believing things that everyone around them could see were not true. We have repeatedly made the mistake of thinking that education and/or higher IQ's are the things that will redeem our society. If that were the case, Ted Kazynski (sp?), by all accounts a brilliant mind, would not have turned out to be a sociopath.
a couple of days ago. Thought it was at Sharper Image but couldn't locate it just now. I've got the link at home, I'm sure (doubt I can use this incident to cost justify a laptop in my wife's eyes --- maybe if I just say, "I needed some information today...")
"....can you imagine how much money and manhours it will cost to change the name of a college?"
Not much since it seems they're going to go through the expense of upgrading from College 1.1 to University 2.0 anyway. All of the costs you mention will be necessary for that change. I remember when Wichita State University changed their name to 'The' Wichita State University - perhaps to differentiate their facility from all of the knock-off Wichita State Universities abounding. Big bucks were spent just to add the 'The' (Oh, and the extra space that followed it).
"Is the ruling that they cannot show US content, or that they cannot rebroadcast US channels? For example, a number of Canadian channels show some ammount of US shows, but also a lot of Canadian shows. Will iCrave have to censor these channels when they are showing US-originated shows?
This brings up an interesting point, as some shows are "US shows", but are produced in Canada. How would Highlander repeats fare in this?"
Those Canadian channels pay for the right to broadcast those American shows either as a feed from the network or re-broadcast of syndicated programs. Likewise, the Canadian production crews receive their fees from the producers and on down the food chain the broadcasters pay for the rights to air them.
If Web broadcasters wanted to pay the fees to become an affiliate 'station' and abide by the rules governing affiliates I'm certain the Networks would have no problem.
The affiliate situation brings up an additional thought here and an off-topic point as well.
Part of a Network's revenue stream depends on making available local spots for the affiliate stations to sell time for ads that they produce and/or sell as a major part of their revenue stream.
The off-topic thought is that perhaps the Networks will go after Amazon for trying to patent affiliate programs. Now that would be a more productive use for their corporate lawyers, bullying a bully.
In three days we've had 2 movie reviews and a television review. Admittedly, this one has a more tenuous techno connection than possibly X-Files. But the Fantasia 2000 comments seemed to focus very little on technology (other than the difference between Imax and Omnimax), yet it is the Katz article that draws the sort of personal venom seen here.
Don't like the movie? Fine. Don't think the topic is right for/.? Fine. But why attack the author? Neither of the other two posters were attacked.
Jon wasn't as wordy this time, perhaps he's trying to address a running complaint. The Fantasia piece was quite lengthy. No complaints.
Maybe those vocally opposed to reading Jon Katz articles should just put one of those handy-dandy 'liberry filters' on their computers since they can't seem to escape the psychological vortex created by his writing. I'm sure Jamie has some contacts for anyone wanting referrals.
What amazes me is that some of the 'Jon Katz has no business here on our techno/nerd/geek playground' crowd are also some of the same folks who vented bile when filtering software was discussed for libraries. I would think those too weak to use their own brains to filter--'Oh, there's a Katz article, I'll skip that'--would welcome a software tool to do it for them.
The extent to which the rules are well-known are inversely proportional to their frequency. Hence, the 100 year exception is quite well known, the 1000 year exception is less well known. I'm guessing the programmers here knew the 100 year exception, and programmed it in, but didn't happen to know about the 1000 year exception, and didn't look anything up. Assumptions, always a bugger, expecially with dates."
The defense rests, your Honor.
I don't know how many times I've been saved by looking up something I already knew. By now I'm sure that you've seen the other posts regarding division by 400 rather than 1000.
As long as it has to be hardwired on a cell by cell basis I think practical usages (beyond research) are going to be pretty limited. Now, if they couple this with a nano-device that can detect certain types of cells and jack the electrodes only into the target cells......
What we really need is a critter with a loadable personality module.
When talking cars came out "The door is ajar." I thought it would be fun to produce personality modules to replace the ho-hum voices vehicles came with. At the time, Mr. T was a celebrity and I thought the Mr. T version could say, "You left the door open, FOOL! When's that las' time you checked the oil in this thang?!"
Re:Friends and family???
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
"Aren't friends and family people that you keep in contact through the net?"
I don't know about lonely, but I know a lot of people who spend 'inordinate' amounts of time on the web that are increasingly uncomfortable when they have to interact in actual reality.
Of course, I'm not one of them (isn't that always how it goes?). I spend less time with family and friends because of a cross-country move a couple of years ago. I have no really close friends that I've met on the net. Those I consider close are my friends 'back home' and a few of the folks I've met since moving.
I think I do spend more time online than I used to, but I think that's more a function of having fewer friends in close proximity and, therefore fewer options available.
"I still think with policitians, real mail is much more effective than e-mail"
The lawmakers I've spoken with are all pretty much in agreement. Although we may find e-mail a great tool, it is all but ignored by politicians. When e-mail is considered, staff members just tally up the for and the against numbers and your well written, carefully considered e-mail is reduced to the same value as, "It's a commie plot I tell ya!" In other words, e-mail ranks at the same level as an unscientific poll.
Here's how the politicians I've talked with weigh constituent contacts (from least effective to most).
1. Petitions, e-mails, form letters, polls (unless commissioned)
2. Personal letters, phone calls and faxes. (Many consider personal letters slightly more effective than phone calls and faxes because they take more effort and stand a better chance of being evaluated as 'representative commentary' instead of tallied as a yea or nay)
3. The number one attention grabber is a small group of well-spoken individuals paying a personal visit.
Technique gets too much focus, if you want to be a better coder just code more!
I'll bet you're one of those people who criticizes the prolific Jon Katz' writing skills too. (insert smiley emoticon here)
Practicing bad technique doesn't make you any better at anything. There are notable exceptions of course (like Eric Liddle, one of the Olympic runners portrayed in the movie Chariots of Fire, who ran with his head back and eyes closed). If I don't at least occasionally check out some resources I keep doing what I already know. I may get better and faster at the current level, but I never progress to the next one.
It's kind of like the guy who told his boss he needed a raise because he had twenty years of experience, which was more than anyone else in the department. The boss countered with, "No. You've just had the same experience for twenty years."
Why do you think there is such a problem with underage drinking in this country? It is because of the DARE program and all these other programs that make these things seem more sacred to kids. Once we stop making it such an issue, the problem will go away.
Isn't that a bit of an oversimplification? Are you trying to say that the repeal of prohibition caused alcohol related problems to disappear? There were drug and alcohol problems before DARE.
The problem with such oversimplification is that it sometimes appears to be correct. If we were to decriminalize rape the record would show a dramatic dip in arrests for certain types of sexually related crimes. That doesn't mean that the problem disappears, just that it drops below radar.
Sure, the hardware won't be a problem, but who's going to write the software? You'll need a fat database containing not only each user, but all the sites that have been turned off for them as well....
Nope. If the library issues cards with mag stripes or barcodes, the database exists already. If not, all you need is the short list of allowed access level codes.
The mother then talked to the head librarian, who said that they can't do anything - the moment they try to censor this stuff the first admendment advocates get on their case.
I've seen the term 'scare tactic' used several times in this discussion. All instances seem to point a finger at the 'Pro-Filter' side of the debate. To be fair, this instance actually paints the librarian as sympathetic to the parent's complaint (and this particular librarian may well have been), but the American Library Association's stated position is that children should have access to all library resources regardless of the age of the child or the whether the content is age appropriate. It would seem to me that this statement of philosophy is more radical than the other since it promotes an absolute rather than trying to find common ground.
The software must have been designed by puritans: they're absolutely up in arms about the idea that somebody... somewhere... might be having fun.
Wonder why the Puritans are always taking it on the chin? Your paraphrase of an H.L. Menken quote was only one man's opinion (granted, it's the one that seems to have stuck).
In reality, the Puritans were often criticized for having too much fun. They also caught flack for insisting that celibacy was not superior to sex within marriage and even went so far as to extoll the pleasurable virtues of sexuality (within the confines of marital fidelity). Such thoughts were quite scandalous to the Quakers and Catholics of the day.
Just because a view is commonly held does not make it so.
If you don't know what numbers to specify where for your new sound card, don't install it, as you certainly don't deserve to be using it.
So, by your reckoning, if you don't know how to rebuild your engine, you don't deserve to drive a car. I suppose you grow your own crops and grind your own wheat and bake your own bread..... I think you can see where this is going. If you're not bright enough to write your own kernel (call it piglix if you like) you don't deserve to use a computer.
Granted, you do go on to state that you don't feel one should have to know all about interrupts, but that some level of knowledge should be required. I'm wondering if the level of knowledge you think appropriate is somewhere near your own current level and not so far beyond as to be out of reach for the near term.
The truth is that most of what we take for granted, from basic needs like food and shelter to conveniences like transportation and electronics are provided by others with expertise beyond our own. That's why the carpenter doesn't have to live in a really great house, but entertains his family with a 'TV' made of 2x4's with the kid's drawings on the plywood screen (although in many cases that might be more compelling...). His family can also have access to decent transportation, telephones, grocery stores, etc.
The problem appears to be the tension between accessibilty of technology and those who feel their self-worth is threatened by that accessibility. Often, it's not even the lack of ability that keeps folks from digging into the internals (whether software, hardware or auto mechanics) but a lack of desire. There are plenty of examples of say, Doctors who wanted to doctor, but had to learn programming in order to create the diagnostic tools they found lacking in their field. A programmer might have done it better, or at least faster, but there again is the lack of desire. Programmer doesn't want to learn doctor stuff, doctor doesn't want to learn programmer stuff, but one of them needs the tool.
Some of us use Linux because we LIKE IT! It's fun. Others of us use Linux because we need the tool. Wouldn't it be great if those who enjoy what they do could concentrate on building/growing/doing things for others who in turn are doing things we would rather not mess with?
RedHat etc produce things like rpm, graphical auto install routines etc. The user no longer has to know anything to get their system usable. Some would argue this is a good thing. However, for someone who wants experiment and play with their system this is no good. They have everything up and running but don't know a thing about it, thus can't use it to it's potential. I have seen this too often and it is a terrible shame. These are the next people we need to get involved as they will convert the rest.
What do you mean, "...can't use it to it's potential"? Anybody who can't figure out that they can administer the system from the command line or with vi is no techie. If the simplification of the installation process mesmerizes some self-proclaimed geek into thinking all things Linux are graphical and somehow off-limits to tampering, all that does is put a techno twist on the old adage that says a person who won't read is no better off than the person who can't read (paraphrase).
Do we really want these people using Linux etc? I say yes but I think it turns off some of the real geek types who think they are superior because they use Linux. This is a very sad thing indeed. Personally I make the time whenever possible to help newbies. Im no expert but there is a serious lack of people willing to help.
I think this is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The fact that their are a whole bunch of people unwilling to help and a vocal minority who are abusive to newbies doesn't mean that there is a dearth of helpful Linux users at any given level.
In conclusion I think the poularity is annoying many people who once thought they were superior.
Anyone who thought themselves 'superior' simply because they were able to run Linux at home should be able to either find another arena in which they may indulge their delusions, or do something that marks them as superior like creating top-of-the-line drivers for those things that are still broken, or doing a really fantastic kernel hack.
Not that I'm a Katz advocate (or the devil's for that matter), but where are all the folks that would roast Katz and call his parentage into question for seeing the dark cloud instead of the silver lining?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, those attributes don't mean much in determining the success or happiness of your children. Repeated surveys of the 'beautiful people' have shown that many of them think they are ugly. Talk to an anorexic who has wasted away until they are not much more than skin and bones and you will find that they see themselves as hopelessly fat.
You might argue that these people would not be that way if they could have been engineered with higher intelligence. I've counselled with individuals who were very bright, but at the same time were held back by believing things that everyone around them could see were not true. We have repeatedly made the mistake of thinking that education and/or higher IQ's are the things that will redeem our society. If that were the case, Ted Kazynski (sp?), by all accounts a brilliant mind, would not have turned out to be a sociopath.
carlos
Just one of only two or three. There is one privately funded project that shows promise of being the first to accomplish the thing.
carlos
carlos
Maybe these creative innovators are moonlighting at Amazon.
carlos
Not much since it seems they're going to go through the expense of upgrading from College 1.1 to University 2.0 anyway. All of the costs you mention will be necessary for that change. I remember when Wichita State University changed their name to 'The' Wichita State University - perhaps to differentiate their facility from all of the knock-off Wichita State Universities abounding. Big bucks were spent just to add the 'The' (Oh, and the extra space that followed it).
carlos
carlos carlos
It appears I'm just beside myself over this issue.... (Just use one of those above)
This brings up an interesting point, as some shows are "US shows", but are produced in Canada. How would Highlander repeats fare in this?"
Those Canadian channels pay for the right to broadcast those American shows either as a feed from the network or re-broadcast of syndicated programs. Likewise, the Canadian production crews receive their fees from the producers and on down the food chain the broadcasters pay for the rights to air them.
If Web broadcasters wanted to pay the fees to become an affiliate 'station' and abide by the rules governing affiliates I'm certain the Networks would have no problem.
The affiliate situation brings up an additional thought here and an off-topic point as well.
Part of a Network's revenue stream depends on making available local spots for the affiliate stations to sell time for ads that they produce and/or sell as a major part of their revenue stream.
The off-topic thought is that perhaps the Networks will go after Amazon for trying to patent affiliate programs. Now that would be a more productive use for their corporate lawyers, bullying a bully.
carlos carlos
Don't like the movie? Fine. Don't think the topic is right for /.? Fine. But why attack the author? Neither of the other two posters were attacked.
Jon wasn't as wordy this time, perhaps he's trying to address a running complaint. The Fantasia piece was quite lengthy. No complaints.
Maybe those vocally opposed to reading Jon Katz articles should just put one of those handy-dandy 'liberry filters' on their computers since they can't seem to escape the psychological vortex created by his writing. I'm sure Jamie has some contacts for anyone wanting referrals.
What amazes me is that some of the 'Jon Katz has no business here on our techno/nerd/geek playground' crowd are also some of the same folks who vented bile when filtering software was discussed for libraries. I would think those too weak to use their own brains to filter--'Oh, there's a Katz article, I'll skip that'--would welcome a software tool to do it for them.
Don't worry, Jon. You just hang in there.
Love, Mama Katz
isleap = false;
if(year%4 == 0) {
isleap=true;
year%100 == 0 ? isleap=false;
year%1000 == 0 ? isleap=true;
}
The extent to which the rules are well-known are inversely proportional to their frequency. Hence, the 100 year exception is quite well known, the 1000 year exception is less well known. I'm guessing the programmers here knew the 100 year exception, and programmed it in, but didn't happen to know about the 1000 year exception, and didn't look anything up. Assumptions, always a bugger, expecially with dates."
The defense rests, your Honor.
I don't know how many times I've been saved by looking up something I already knew. By now I'm sure that you've seen the other posts regarding division by 400 rather than 1000.
carlos
As long as it has to be hardwired on a cell by cell basis I think practical usages (beyond research) are going to be pretty limited. Now, if they couple this with a nano-device that can detect certain types of cells and jack the electrodes only into the target cells......
carlos
When talking cars came out "The door is ajar." I thought it would be fun to produce personality modules to replace the ho-hum voices vehicles came with. At the time, Mr. T was a celebrity and I thought the Mr. T version could say, "You left the door open, FOOL! When's that las' time you checked the oil in this thang?!"
No, that's an old MCI Marketing strategy....
carlos
Of course, I'm not one of them (isn't that always how it goes?). I spend less time with family and friends because of a cross-country move a couple of years ago. I have no really close friends that I've met on the net. Those I consider close are my friends 'back home' and a few of the folks I've met since moving.
I think I do spend more time online than I used to, but I think that's more a function of having fewer friends in close proximity and, therefore fewer options available.
carlos
The lawmakers I've spoken with are all pretty much in agreement. Although we may find e-mail a great tool, it is all but ignored by politicians. When e-mail is considered, staff members just tally up the for and the against numbers and your well written, carefully considered e-mail is reduced to the same value as, "It's a commie plot I tell ya!" In other words, e-mail ranks at the same level as an unscientific poll.
Here's how the politicians I've talked with weigh constituent contacts (from least effective to most).
1. Petitions, e-mails, form letters, polls (unless commissioned)
2. Personal letters, phone calls and faxes. (Many consider personal letters slightly more effective than phone calls and faxes because they take more effort and stand a better chance of being evaluated as 'representative commentary' instead of tallied as a yea or nay)
3. The number one attention grabber is a small group of well-spoken individuals paying a personal visit.
carlos
Shouldn't somebody tell the spokesman quoted here that this is the proper configuration?
carlos
I'll bet you're one of those people who criticizes the prolific Jon Katz' writing skills too. (insert smiley emoticon here)
Practicing bad technique doesn't make you any better at anything. There are notable exceptions of course (like Eric Liddle, one of the Olympic runners portrayed in the movie Chariots of Fire, who ran with his head back and eyes closed). If I don't at least occasionally check out some resources I keep doing what I already know. I may get better and faster at the current level, but I never progress to the next one.
It's kind of like the guy who told his boss he needed a raise because he had twenty years of experience, which was more than anyone else in the department. The boss countered with, "No. You've just had the same experience for twenty years."
carlos
Isn't that a bit of an oversimplification? Are you trying to say that the repeal of prohibition caused alcohol related problems to disappear? There were drug and alcohol problems before DARE.
The problem with such oversimplification is that it sometimes appears to be correct. If we were to decriminalize rape the record would show a dramatic dip in arrests for certain types of sexually related crimes. That doesn't mean that the problem disappears, just that it drops below radar.
carlos
Nope. If the library issues cards with mag stripes or barcodes, the database exists already. If not, all you need is the short list of allowed access level codes.
carlos
The mother then talked to the head librarian, who said that they can't do anything - the moment they try to censor this stuff the first admendment advocates get on their case.
I've seen the term 'scare tactic' used several times in this discussion. All instances seem to point a finger at the 'Pro-Filter' side of the debate. To be fair, this instance actually paints the librarian as sympathetic to the parent's complaint (and this particular librarian may well have been), but the American Library Association's stated position is that children should have access to all library resources regardless of the age of the child or the whether the content is age appropriate. It would seem to me that this statement of philosophy is more radical than the other since it promotes an absolute rather than trying to find common ground.
Here's their webpage:
http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/free_min.html
Wonder why the Puritans are always taking it on the chin? Your paraphrase of an H.L. Menken quote was only one man's opinion (granted, it's the one that seems to have stuck).
In reality, the Puritans were often criticized for having too much fun. They also caught flack for insisting that celibacy was not superior to sex within marriage and even went so far as to extoll the pleasurable virtues of sexuality (within the confines of marital fidelity). Such thoughts were quite scandalous to the Quakers and Catholics of the day.
Just because a view is commonly held does not make it so.
carlos
So, by your reckoning, if you don't know how to rebuild your engine, you don't deserve to drive a car. I suppose you grow your own crops and grind your own wheat and bake your own bread..... I think you can see where this is going. If you're not bright enough to write your own kernel (call it piglix if you like) you don't deserve to use a computer.
Granted, you do go on to state that you don't feel one should have to know all about interrupts, but that some level of knowledge should be required. I'm wondering if the level of knowledge you think appropriate is somewhere near your own current level and not so far beyond as to be out of reach for the near term.
The truth is that most of what we take for granted, from basic needs like food and shelter to conveniences like transportation and electronics are provided by others with expertise beyond our own. That's why the carpenter doesn't have to live in a really great house, but entertains his family with a 'TV' made of 2x4's with the kid's drawings on the plywood screen (although in many cases that might be more compelling...). His family can also have access to decent transportation, telephones, grocery stores, etc.
The problem appears to be the tension between accessibilty of technology and those who feel their self-worth is threatened by that accessibility. Often, it's not even the lack of ability that keeps folks from digging into the internals (whether software, hardware or auto mechanics) but a lack of desire. There are plenty of examples of say, Doctors who wanted to doctor, but had to learn programming in order to create the diagnostic tools they found lacking in their field. A programmer might have done it better, or at least faster, but there again is the lack of desire. Programmer doesn't want to learn doctor stuff, doctor doesn't want to learn programmer stuff, but one of them needs the tool.
Some of us use Linux because we LIKE IT! It's fun. Others of us use Linux because we need the tool. Wouldn't it be great if those who enjoy what they do could concentrate on building/growing/doing things for others who in turn are doing things we would rather not mess with?
carlos
What do you mean, "...can't use it to it's potential"? Anybody who can't figure out that they can administer the system from the command line or with vi is no techie. If the simplification of the installation process mesmerizes some self-proclaimed geek into thinking all things Linux are graphical and somehow off-limits to tampering, all that does is put a techno twist on the old adage that says a person who won't read is no better off than the person who can't read (paraphrase).
Do we really want these people using Linux etc? I say yes but I think it turns off some of the real geek types who think they are superior because they use Linux. This is a very sad thing indeed. Personally I make the time whenever possible to help newbies. Im no expert but there is a serious lack of people willing to help.
I think this is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The fact that their are a whole bunch of people unwilling to help and a vocal minority who are abusive to newbies doesn't mean that there is a dearth of helpful Linux users at any given level.
In conclusion I think the poularity is annoying many people who once thought they were superior.
Anyone who thought themselves 'superior' simply because they were able to run Linux at home should be able to either find another arena in which they may indulge their delusions, or do something that marks them as superior like creating top-of-the-line drivers for those things that are still broken, or doing a really fantastic kernel hack.
carlos
"oooh. FREE publicity....
Tell ya what, pal. You wash my car this weekend, and I will shout from the rooftops how well ya washed it "
So, you would give your legal skills about the same value as a good car wash?
And everybody was saying how arrogant you were.
carlos
Not that I'm a Katz advocate (or the devil's for that matter), but where are all the folks that would roast Katz and call his parentage into question for seeing the dark cloud instead of the silver lining?
carlos