I suspect it's more to do with the fact that he loves graphics coding, and is good at it. If you were great at something you loved doing, and you were your own boss, why would you burn out?
I have no idea why burnout happens, but at least for me, whether I enjoy what I'm doing or not really doesn't seem to make much difference. I enjoy programming in general, but working too long on any one problem, no matter how interesting, eventually gets tedious.
The submitter didn't say exactly what sort of graphical display he would be doing, just that it was serial data capture and visualization. Depending on exactly what KIND of visualization it is, I wonder if Tcl/Tk is going to be fast enough to do it. I think we need more information.
I agree... Actually, what I'd do is code the entire GUI in VB and write the "real" stuff in my preferred language. It's not hard to plug C++ code into a VB app.
What impresses me the most about John Carmack, besides his obvious ability to write kickass graphics code, is the fact that he's stuck with it so closely for so long (Wolf 3D came out a LONG time ago). I'd have burned out seven years ago, but he keeps on cranking.
I guess a continuous flow of thousand dollar bills might have something to do with it...
I'm 6'4", and I started out at 326lbs. My dr. and I decided that my target weight should be 220 even though that's still in the 'obese' range on the BMI chart for my height, but I have a rather huge frame and the 190lbs that the BMI tells me I should be is totally unrealistic.
I'm 6'3" myself, 190 and rather twiggish looking if you don't count my gut. Back in high school/early college I was 150, a total stick. I'm somewhat surprised that 6'4" and 220 pounds is considered obese.
What, like by fat people dying early. Do you even know what Social Security is? Do you really think the government would really reduce this?
Before they "die early," they incur a lot of medical expenses. And I don't see how the sad state of our government today has any bearing on the issue.
what there aren't enough laws out there already. Let's put another burden on restaurants, they now have to calculate the amount of calories in their meal. Lot's of small places just do not have the means to do it, especially if their menu changes daily to reflect what local ingredients are fresh. In fact this would punish the more healthy places to eat far more than mcdonalds.
Did I, or did I not, state that I wouldn't support making this mandatory? I was pointing out the hyperbole in the "socialism" reference.
Cook your own food you lazy fat slob.
Can't make logical arguments so you resort to insults?
I'm an atheist, so I don't understand your statment on many fronts. You mention you have this other 'job' to work 'for God'. Aren't you commiting a sin by taking such poor care of the one body you have. What stupid kind of God you think prefers that you work for him before taking care of yourself?
As an agnostic myself, I don't see why the mere mention of God should trigger you to go into attack mode. The man's religion is not the issue.
The other thing that bothers me greatly about your post, is the usual socialist statement to make government protect you by using force to make someone else responsible: in your case restaurants and caloric counts, guess what? it doesn't work either: you can still pig out on a triple hamburger and triple fries at 2000 calories a meal if you know how much it's in there...
Dude, there's socialism and then there's Socialism. The guy isn't exactly quoting Marx, here. Putting a calorie count on a menu helps people make the right decisions. If they don't want to pay attention, that's their own problem. The responsibility is still theirs. If you don't see the value to society in helping overweight people lose their excess weight, you haven't thought hard enough. Ever notice the column on your paystub that says "Social Security?" Ever wished that number could be reduced?
Personally, I don't feel this is something that should be mandated, because going to restaurants is somewhat of a luxury in my opinion. But the concept is good, and none of this has anything to do with socialism.
Do you reprint all your menus every time you switch from Brand A (10 calories/serving) to Brand B (11 calories/serving).
Companies have to do this already with packaged foods. And I think that's a good thing.
Losing weight is simple...but it is not easy. Anyone who says it is easy has never experienced a weight problem.
You've listed a bunch of very relevant information, but... Read my post again. I never claimed weight loss is "easy," I have a problem with it myself. I was addressing where the responsibility for weight loss lies.
Holy crap! You lost 52lbs in three months? That can't possibly be healthy. Aren't you supposed to limit your weight loss to a few pounds per week?
52 pounds in 3 months is 4 pounds a week. Okay, it's one pound more than a "few," but hardly extreme. It represents a daily deficit of about 2100 calories. So suppose he decreased his daily caloric intake from 2200 to 1200 calories. 1200 is the recommended minimum for safe weight loss (not that I necessarily agree, but let's use that). So he still needs to shave off 1100 calories per day. Believe it or not, that's not hard to do. Do 500 calories on an exercise machine, and lose the other half by walking.
The fact that there's a whole profession centered around surgical measures to enforce weight-loss, surgical procedures which can have serious complications, means that for at least some people, it's not simply a matter of will power.
I can believe that for some people it is beyond their psychological abilities to reduce their eating. But lock them in a room and limit them to 1000 calories a day, and they'll lose the weight. They'll also probably shoot you when they get out.
Maybe what some of these folks need is a stay in a psychiatric facility where their food intake can be controlled by someone other than themselves, and receive counseling. Somehow I think the idea of chronic overeating as a psychiatric disorder will not go over well, though.
Are there enough people on Slashdot who have edited Wikipedia that we can start quoting WP:CIVIL and other policies?:)
It seems to be getting there!:-)
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 0
Also, there's no guarantee that, if you eat less than your body metabolizes, what gets metabolized will be fat. If something is funky with your fat metabolism, you may be eating away your muscles (and other tissue), and keeping the flab.
A metabolism like that isn't just "funky," it's downright totally fucked up. I'd be amazed if a person with a metabolic defect like that survived past one year.
Virus or no, the truth remains that if you eat less than your daily caloric requirement, you will lose weight. Being unable to control your intake of food DOES indicate a certain lack of control. It's hard to do -- I know this personally. But even if I knew I was infected with a virus I would still lay the responsibility squarely on my own shoulders.
Despite my attempts to keep this comment civil, I'm sure some will take offense...
By the same model, politicians are probably going to be the ones editing the entries about politics. If a politician doesn't like his own entry, he should get in there and fix it (or tell his staffers to). If entries become too volitile, they will trigger other wikipedia policies.
Let's restate this slightly. If (for example) George W. Bush doesn't like the words written on the protest signs outside his ranch, he should just go ahead and rewrite them. That sort of government censorship is reprehensible and explicitly forbidden by the First Amendment. Why should it be any more acceptable when it occurs on Wikipedia?
Suppose I write "Ted Kennedy sucks eggs" (again, just an example) on his Wikipedia page. One of his staffers removes the words. BZZZT -- you've just violated the First Amendment. The fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and the fact that those words weren't appropriate in the first place, does NOT change that fact.
By Wikipedia's design anybody can change entries, and the Congressmen are people.
It's not that simple. Members of Congress are agents of the government. Perhaps you remember something from the Bill Of Rights called the First Amendment. It states that the government cannot stifle free speech. Removing information from Wikipedia is CENSORSHIP. When a normal person does it, it's fine. When an agent of the government of the United States does it, it is a violation of the First Amendment.
It can be edited by everybody. Including the "Congressional staffers". Why is it "censorship"?
Whenever anybody on Wikipedia removes someone else's words, it's technically censorship. The fact that we view this as acceptable doesn't change that fact. The issue here is that the government is not allowed to censor. Thus, it could be argued that agents of the government may not legally edit Wikipedia. An expert in Constitutional law could probably make better arguments than I could, so I'll leave it at that.
With that said: I always try to vote against incumbents.
Interesting. Basically, this means you want the government to be as inexperienced as possible. While that might help solve problems surrounding entrenchment of political ideologies, it also makes things less efficient. You clearly think that's a fair tradeoff, I'm not sure if I agree.
Unfortunately, that happened to many Americans during the run-up to the ongoing war in Iraq. Most Americans didn't investigate the claims made by politicians and the media, and thus were ignorant to the fact that they were being seriously mislead.
How the hell are we supposed to investigate it ourselves? Fly to Iraq? According to you, anybody who hasn't done so is just lazy. Manipulated, sure. But lazy, I don't buy it.
Also, please explain how I should "personally investigate" the life of Galileo. What's his address? I have a few questions I want to ask him.
They can go after the people who leaked or stole it, provided they actually did something illegal in the process of discovering it, but people that they give the secret to (so long as they weren't co-conspirators in the illegal acts) didn't do anything wrong under the law.
Uh... The dude was illegally distributing COPYRIGHTED material. Its trade secret status doesn't come into it.
Funny thing though technically if it's illegal to sell the stuff I would assume it's illegal to buy it so the microsoft investigator committed a crime too.
You think it's illegal for a copyright holder to purchase their own copyrighted material from somebody? Uh...? How the hell does this compare to narcotics? Narcotics are an illegal substance, the MS Windows source code, to my knowledge is not (though it should be).
Wow, that dude's a real bright spark, isn't he? The fact that he can't comprehend why he should go to prison for what he's done is astonishing. Blaming everyone else is modus operandii for the criminally stupid.
The only unfortunate thing is the connections he'll make while serving his two years. He'll probably be even more dangerous when he gets out.
Yeah, let's forget this "science" crap. We should go back to making our decisions based on anecdotes, uncontrolled observations, and societal concepts of what is "obviously" true. It worked in the Dark Ages, after all.
There have been plenty of comments criticizing Google. From my vantage point it seems like there are more negative comments than positive about Google's choice. Maybe that's because I'm one of those who wanted to think that Google wouldn't do something like this.
Anyway, you're just picking and choosing which comments to pay attention to. Google's drawing plenty of fire around here.
Don't be retarded. Blizzard has a STATED POLICY against sexually based harassment. They are perfectly free to censor whoever the fuck they want, and I have no problem with that. The problem arises when they fail to enforce these anti-harassment policies. It isn't surprising that a GLBT group would form in order to counter this. Only then do they whip out the "sexual orientation" policy in order to snub the group.
This has utterly nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
What a terrifying seven words...
I have no idea why burnout happens, but at least for me, whether I enjoy what I'm doing or not really doesn't seem to make much difference. I enjoy programming in general, but working too long on any one problem, no matter how interesting, eventually gets tedious.
The submitter didn't say exactly what sort of graphical display he would be doing, just that it was serial data capture and visualization. Depending on exactly what KIND of visualization it is, I wonder if Tcl/Tk is going to be fast enough to do it. I think we need more information.
I agree... Actually, what I'd do is code the entire GUI in VB and write the "real" stuff in my preferred language. It's not hard to plug C++ code into a VB app.
I guess a continuous flow of thousand dollar bills might have something to do with it...
I'm 6'3" myself, 190 and rather twiggish looking if you don't count my gut. Back in high school/early college I was 150, a total stick. I'm somewhat surprised that 6'4" and 220 pounds is considered obese.
Sorry, I missed that earlier. I meant to write "Medicare" not "Social Security." My bad.
Before they "die early," they incur a lot of medical expenses. And I don't see how the sad state of our government today has any bearing on the issue.
what there aren't enough laws out there already. Let's put another burden on restaurants, they now have to calculate the amount of calories in their meal. Lot's of small places just do not have the means to do it, especially if their menu changes daily to reflect what local ingredients are fresh. In fact this would punish the more healthy places to eat far more than mcdonalds.
Did I, or did I not, state that I wouldn't support making this mandatory? I was pointing out the hyperbole in the "socialism" reference.
Cook your own food you lazy fat slob.
Can't make logical arguments so you resort to insults?
As an agnostic myself, I don't see why the mere mention of God should trigger you to go into attack mode. The man's religion is not the issue.
The other thing that bothers me greatly about your post, is the usual socialist statement to make government protect you by using force to make someone else responsible: in your case restaurants and caloric counts, guess what? it doesn't work either: you can still pig out on a triple hamburger and triple fries at 2000 calories a meal if you know how much it's in there...
Dude, there's socialism and then there's Socialism. The guy isn't exactly quoting Marx, here. Putting a calorie count on a menu helps people make the right decisions. If they don't want to pay attention, that's their own problem. The responsibility is still theirs. If you don't see the value to society in helping overweight people lose their excess weight, you haven't thought hard enough. Ever notice the column on your paystub that says "Social Security?" Ever wished that number could be reduced?
Personally, I don't feel this is something that should be mandated, because going to restaurants is somewhat of a luxury in my opinion. But the concept is good, and none of this has anything to do with socialism.
Do you reprint all your menus every time you switch from Brand A (10 calories/serving) to Brand B (11 calories/serving).
Companies have to do this already with packaged foods. And I think that's a good thing.
You've listed a bunch of very relevant information, but... Read my post again. I never claimed weight loss is "easy," I have a problem with it myself. I was addressing where the responsibility for weight loss lies.
52 pounds in 3 months is 4 pounds a week. Okay, it's one pound more than a "few," but hardly extreme. It represents a daily deficit of about 2100 calories. So suppose he decreased his daily caloric intake from 2200 to 1200 calories. 1200 is the recommended minimum for safe weight loss (not that I necessarily agree, but let's use that). So he still needs to shave off 1100 calories per day. Believe it or not, that's not hard to do. Do 500 calories on an exercise machine, and lose the other half by walking.
I can believe that for some people it is beyond their psychological abilities to reduce their eating. But lock them in a room and limit them to 1000 calories a day, and they'll lose the weight. They'll also probably shoot you when they get out.
Maybe what some of these folks need is a stay in a psychiatric facility where their food intake can be controlled by someone other than themselves, and receive counseling. Somehow I think the idea of chronic overeating as a psychiatric disorder will not go over well, though.
Are there enough people on Slashdot who have edited Wikipedia that we can start quoting WP:CIVIL and other policies? :)
It seems to be getting there! :-)
A metabolism like that isn't just "funky," it's downright totally fucked up. I'd be amazed if a person with a metabolic defect like that survived past one year.
Despite my attempts to keep this comment civil, I'm sure some will take offense...
Let's restate this slightly. If (for example) George W. Bush doesn't like the words written on the protest signs outside his ranch, he should just go ahead and rewrite them. That sort of government censorship is reprehensible and explicitly forbidden by the First Amendment. Why should it be any more acceptable when it occurs on Wikipedia?
Suppose I write "Ted Kennedy sucks eggs" (again, just an example) on his Wikipedia page. One of his staffers removes the words. BZZZT -- you've just violated the First Amendment. The fact that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and the fact that those words weren't appropriate in the first place, does NOT change that fact.
It's not that simple. Members of Congress are agents of the government. Perhaps you remember something from the Bill Of Rights called the First Amendment. It states that the government cannot stifle free speech. Removing information from Wikipedia is CENSORSHIP. When a normal person does it, it's fine. When an agent of the government of the United States does it, it is a violation of the First Amendment.
Whenever anybody on Wikipedia removes someone else's words, it's technically censorship. The fact that we view this as acceptable doesn't change that fact. The issue here is that the government is not allowed to censor. Thus, it could be argued that agents of the government may not legally edit Wikipedia. An expert in Constitutional law could probably make better arguments than I could, so I'll leave it at that.
Interesting. Basically, this means you want the government to be as inexperienced as possible. While that might help solve problems surrounding entrenchment of political ideologies, it also makes things less efficient. You clearly think that's a fair tradeoff, I'm not sure if I agree.
How the hell are we supposed to investigate it ourselves? Fly to Iraq? According to you, anybody who hasn't done so is just lazy. Manipulated, sure. But lazy, I don't buy it.
Also, please explain how I should "personally investigate" the life of Galileo. What's his address? I have a few questions I want to ask him.
Uh... The dude was illegally distributing COPYRIGHTED material. Its trade secret status doesn't come into it.
You think it's illegal for a copyright holder to purchase their own copyrighted material from somebody? Uh...? How the hell does this compare to narcotics? Narcotics are an illegal substance, the MS Windows source code, to my knowledge is not (though it should be).
The only unfortunate thing is the connections he'll make while serving his two years. He'll probably be even more dangerous when he gets out.
Yeah, let's forget this "science" crap. We should go back to making our decisions based on anecdotes, uncontrolled observations, and societal concepts of what is "obviously" true. It worked in the Dark Ages, after all.
Anyway, you're just picking and choosing which comments to pay attention to. Google's drawing plenty of fire around here.
This has utterly nothing to do with freedom of speech.