Holy crap, you're right! And all this time I thought it was fusion too. Now I'm really confused as to the source of that humongous explosion... I guess if a tank of water can emit enough hydrogen, all you need to do then is add the burning shell of a zeppelin and BOOM!
The effects of alcohol on heart disease is also a myth.
What about the effects of alcohol on vascular health? I vaguely recall a recent/. article which described positive effects in that area, which - if they're not also a myth - could help with heart disease too?
Wow, you're right... getting a brutal dictatorship to torture and kill people who send you unwanted emails is *awesome!*
I don't think our future Attorney General Alberto Gonzales cares about going after spammers when there are "terrorists' under every rock 'n' tree to catch and wire up...
Now, now. The U.S. is not a brutal dictatorship. It's a compassionate conservative dictatorship!
It's fairly common amongst R&D companies, or R&D divisions of large companies, for researchers to have this exact deal - 20% of time, or thereabouts, on their own projects. The only thing unusual that Google has apparently done is extended this deal to people involved in more directly product-related development. However, software development is an unusual sort of business which has a lot in common with R&D, especially at a place like Google. In short, the main innovation here is that Google has managed to get some positive PR out of a practice that has been going on for decades.
Judging by your spelling, grammar, and only semi-coherent presentation, and assuming you're a man, you're not exactly a shining example of male intellectual superiority! Low end of the bell curve, huh?
Unless TiVo used a batch of bad hard drives, a hard drive failure isn't necessarily a sign of broader problems. If you've ever dealt with a reasonable sized population of computers, you know that hard drives fail fairly regularly.
FWIW, as a single data point, I've had no problem with my TiVo Series 2 since I bought it about six months ago.
The funny thing is, you would think an economist of all people would recognize how important the kind of factors you describe can be. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "some of the older guys are just biased against women". All of the evidence points to this being the case here.
Summers should be dismissed as president of Harvard, if only because of the sheer intellectual incompetence he demonstrated in describing an anecdote about his own daughter as though it had any relevance to the issue.
If he attempted a "gender-neutral upbringing", does that mean he isolated his daughter from outside sources of gender roles? Obviously not, since such sources include him and his poor wife (assuming she's still with him). So what conclusion can be drawn from this anecdote?
The obvious conclusion, considering the context, is that the current president of Harvard is intellectually unsuited for the position. This is what happens when a society prefers a particular group, such as white males - even the weakest ones can rise to the top, at the expense of the whole society, as has clearly happened here.
(For the record, I'm a white male, but I don't require the kind of unspoken societal affirmative action the Harvard president obviously received on his way up.)
It's sad that it's more about marketing than about innovation. I guess that's how the free market works.
It's not just the free market. A lot of progress takes place incrementally, between major inventions. That's true even in the sciences - in fact, if you study the philosophy of science, you'll find entire books have been written on the subject. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", for example. Kuhn describes a model of science in which most normal science is incremental and cumulative, punctuated occasionally by paradigm shifts due to a major new discovery or insight. Something very similar applies to the process of invention and then applying and improving on inventions, whether in the free market or in other environments.
Not quite right. IBM approached Microsoft about developing an OS, but MS was an application company at the time, and told them to talk to Digital Research about CP/M. Greatly summarized, Digital Research essentially blew IBM off, so IBM came back to Microsoft. Microsoft didn't want to turn down an opportunity twice, so turned around and looked for an OS to buy. They found QDOS, bought it for $50K, and turned around and licensed it (non-exclusively!) to IBM. Here's an article with some details.
If it's a pre-existing problem that the customer has, or a problem with a competitor's product, then it's a Problem and you can play that up all you want, because you're claiming to offer the solution.
However, if it's a problem with *your* product, then you call it an Issue, because you're a Solution provider by definition, not a Problem provider.
Unfortunately, in all but the simplest or freshest situations, it's all but impossible to disclaim all responsibility for a given Problem, so it's safer just to call them all Issues.
If you read *my* post, you'd know I did indeed read the whole article.
Perhaps what I wrote was ambiguous, although I can't help wondering if you're just doing the same thing all over again. I said "read the link", by which I meant read the text of the link within the Slashdot submission, not the article. You're complaining because you clicked on a link without reading what the link said, and then were surprised when the linked article was exactly what it was billed as.
As to my meanness, I responded to your post because it contained an unfair criticism of the submission, based more on your own quick mouse-finger than anything else. In particular, you described it as "bait and switch", which is clearly false if you actually read the text of the submission. The sentence I wrote, "However, recognizing all this requires that you read and think, not react, click, and complain", is not, in fact, mean in itself, unless it's false. Do you think it's false? If so, are you denying that you clicked through without reading the submission carefully?
"The point" you made in your second post is perfectly reasonable, but that's not what you posted first time around, and not what I responded to.
Pretty disappointing to find out that the actual article is an interview with somebody who interviewed Miyazaki,
You could have found that out if you'd read the link you clicked on, and the submission in general. It's only bait and switch if there was an attempt to hide something.
So where's the actual New Yorker article that the Slashdot story spent most of its time describing??
In New Yorker magazine (a paper publication), of course. The submitter of this piece did the best he could do (other than telling the under-rock-dwellers who Miyazaki is): alerted us to the existence of this interview, so we can go out and find the magazine if we want to, and linked to an interview with the author of the interview, which might even allow us to form an opinion about whether we want to bother to locate a copy of the New Yorker.
However, recognizing all this requires that you read and think, not react, click, and complain.
While not a bad book, it doesn't offer any breakthrough advice on actually motivating yourself to get things done.
There are many factors that can inhibit one from getting things done, and the book does address at least one of them which I've experienced: the sense of being overwhelmed by an impossibly long list of things you have to do. The book offers a decent solution in this area: keeping everything in an external source, prioritizing, and clearing your mind so that when you're working on any given task, you're not distracted by concerns about all the other tasks you could be working on. This can be quite useful for getting things done. But the author more or less takes motivation for granted - obviously, if you're not motivated to do any of the tasks you need to do, you do need to address that first.
I don't think it's ironic at all to talk about one's procrastination while reading a book about getting things done, except perhaps in the Alanis Morissette school of irony. Reading a book like this doesn't instantly fix one's life habits - it's not a binary switch between procrastination and perfection. But a book like this can give you tools which can help, if you work to change your habits and apply the ideas. That doesn't happen instantly. In fact, believing in quick fixes for this sort of thing are usually a sure route to failure. For many people, procrastination to a problematic degree is a lifelong challenge, which experience seems to indicate can at best be mitigated, not "cured", and the experience of the OP are fairly typical and expected ones in that context (and therefore not ironic).
Blog blog blog blog. Lovely blog! Wonderful blog! Blog blo-o-o-o-o-og blog blo-o-o-o-o-og blog. Lovely blog! Lovely blog! Lovely blog! Lovely blog! Lovely blog! Blog blog blog blog!
It says nothing of Bush or Internap. It says everything about cheapskate blog admins who think they can run servers without paying for battery backup.
The LiveJournal status page claims "Our data center (Internap) lost all its power, including redundant backup power". This is nothing to do with "cheapskate blog admins" and everything to do with a serious and quite likely unacceptable problem at Internap.
Of course, that's why Anonymous Cowards start out with zero points. Guilty of idiocy until proven innocent.
Thanks for the reply. Good to know. I'm trying to find out what I can expect to work and not work before jumping in, and more importantly, before advising interested clients to try it.
Elsewhere in this thread, Tracy Reed describes a serious problem with a Digium TDM400P 4 port FXO card. It sounds pretty crappy to me.
There's a big distinction between a smart & knowledgeable guy setting this stuff up for his own company, and doing it professionally where you're reselling systems. In the latter case, you're going to have many more configurations to deal with, so are more likely to run into problems. Also, paying customers are much less inclined to want to work around limitations or put up with problems than you might be if you're doing something for yourself or your own company.
That must be a red state thing. But calling it a "time honored American tradition" doesn't change the fact that it's a use of power without responsibility. Give a moron a gun, and suddenly he thinks it's OK to use it on animals who can't fight back. If you were talking about water pistols, that would be fine. But if you want to shoot an animal with a real gun just because it's being a minor nuisance, you should give some thought to what you're doing, if only because one day you might find yourself on the wrong end of that gun barrel, with someone on the other end rationalizing pulling the trigger as "painless disposal of vermin".
It's not particularly difficult to walk across the border into Mexico. After that, all you need is money. $30k or so will buy you citizenship in a few countries down south.
Actually, if this guy really has access to a lot of ready cash, he could just buy or charter a nice boat in Florida, and pay the captain not to worry about his passport.
Obviously, the end of the road is somewhere in sight at this point, but security is not really the problem, at least for experienced admins (admittedly, those are rare in the Windows world). NT is actually plenty secure as a server platform, if you know how to set it up. Most security bugs up until now services that should be disabled anyway, like DCOM, or that shouldn't be open to the Internet, like NETBIOS. I have clients who've run NT4 for years, outside firewalls, with no problems, while their Win2K boxes have been repeatedly infested by worms. The end of the road for NT is more likely to be driver support than anything else - it doesn't install well on newer machines.
If you're talking about killing trespassing neigbour's cats, then that title "human being" which you apparently think gives you some kind of right to be a dickwad, no longer applies to you. Watch out for your karma, is the best advice I can give you, and think about this message when it catches up with you.
I live in a town with pretty terrible (hard) water, i.e. it sure isn't pure. However, I can repeat an experiment on demand, which I have performed multiple times for various interested friends: microwave a coffee-cup full of water to just before it starts bubbling; remove it from the microwave; insert metal teaspoon into water (while wearing oven gloves); and BLAMMO, hot water everywhere. So, what's happening here? Methinks the mythbusters missed something.
Note that the article you linked to was from 2002. The latest fingerprint scanners do liveness tests, making sure it's a living finger on the scanner, which defeats the "gummi bear" hack -- and incidentally, also defeats the old "chop off the finger" attack, although one hopes the would-be hacker (both literal and figurative!) is aware of that before he takes a machete to your finger.
That's not to say that fingerprint scanners are the way to go, but this sort of FUD isn't going to stop their adoption - it's better to be able to articulate the real reasons they're a bad idea. Schneier does a good job of that, with one of the main points being that you can't change your biometrics if they're compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy crap, you're right! And all this time I thought it was fusion too. Now I'm really confused as to the source of that humongous explosion... I guess if a tank of water can emit enough hydrogen, all you need to do then is add the burning shell of a zeppelin and BOOM!
It's fairly common amongst R&D companies, or R&D divisions of large companies, for researchers to have this exact deal - 20% of time, or thereabouts, on their own projects. The only thing unusual that Google has apparently done is extended this deal to people involved in more directly product-related development. However, software development is an unusual sort of business which has a lot in common with R&D, especially at a place like Google. In short, the main innovation here is that Google has managed to get some positive PR out of a practice that has been going on for decades.
Judging by your spelling, grammar, and only semi-coherent presentation, and assuming you're a man, you're not exactly a shining example of male intellectual superiority! Low end of the bell curve, huh?
Unless TiVo used a batch of bad hard drives, a hard drive failure isn't necessarily a sign of broader problems. If you've ever dealt with a reasonable sized population of computers, you know that hard drives fail fairly regularly.
FWIW, as a single data point, I've had no problem with my TiVo Series 2 since I bought it about six months ago.
The funny thing is, you would think an economist of all people would recognize how important the kind of factors you describe can be. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "some of the older guys are just biased against women". All of the evidence points to this being the case here.
Summers should be dismissed as president of Harvard, if only because of the sheer intellectual incompetence he demonstrated in describing an anecdote about his own daughter as though it had any relevance to the issue.
If he attempted a "gender-neutral upbringing", does that mean he isolated his daughter from outside sources of gender roles? Obviously not, since such sources include him and his poor wife (assuming she's still with him). So what conclusion can be drawn from this anecdote?
The obvious conclusion, considering the context, is that the current president of Harvard is intellectually unsuited for the position. This is what happens when a society prefers a particular group, such as white males - even the weakest ones can rise to the top, at the expense of the whole society, as has clearly happened here.
(For the record, I'm a white male, but I don't require the kind of unspoken societal affirmative action the Harvard president obviously received on his way up.)
It's not just the free market. A lot of progress takes place incrementally, between major inventions. That's true even in the sciences - in fact, if you study the philosophy of science, you'll find entire books have been written on the subject. Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", for example. Kuhn describes a model of science in which most normal science is incremental and cumulative, punctuated occasionally by paradigm shifts due to a major new discovery or insight. Something very similar applies to the process of invention and then applying and improving on inventions, whether in the free market or in other environments.
If it's a pre-existing problem that the customer has, or a problem with a competitor's product, then it's a Problem and you can play that up all you want, because you're claiming to offer the solution.
However, if it's a problem with *your* product, then you call it an Issue, because you're a Solution provider by definition, not a Problem provider.
Unfortunately, in all but the simplest or freshest situations, it's all but impossible to disclaim all responsibility for a given Problem, so it's safer just to call them all Issues.
Perhaps what I wrote was ambiguous, although I can't help wondering if you're just doing the same thing all over again. I said "read the link", by which I meant read the text of the link within the Slashdot submission, not the article. You're complaining because you clicked on a link without reading what the link said, and then were surprised when the linked article was exactly what it was billed as.
As to my meanness, I responded to your post because it contained an unfair criticism of the submission, based more on your own quick mouse-finger than anything else. In particular, you described it as "bait and switch", which is clearly false if you actually read the text of the submission. The sentence I wrote, "However, recognizing all this requires that you read and think, not react, click, and complain", is not, in fact, mean in itself, unless it's false. Do you think it's false? If so, are you denying that you clicked through without reading the submission carefully?
"The point" you made in your second post is perfectly reasonable, but that's not what you posted first time around, and not what I responded to.
In New Yorker magazine (a paper publication), of course. The submitter of this piece did the best he could do (other than telling the under-rock-dwellers who Miyazaki is): alerted us to the existence of this interview, so we can go out and find the magazine if we want to, and linked to an interview with the author of the interview, which might even allow us to form an opinion about whether we want to bother to locate a copy of the New Yorker.
However, recognizing all this requires that you read and think, not react, click, and complain.
I don't think it's ironic at all to talk about one's procrastination while reading a book about getting things done, except perhaps in the Alanis Morissette school of irony. Reading a book like this doesn't instantly fix one's life habits - it's not a binary switch between procrastination and perfection. But a book like this can give you tools which can help, if you work to change your habits and apply the ideas. That doesn't happen instantly. In fact, believing in quick fixes for this sort of thing are usually a sure route to failure. For many people, procrastination to a problematic degree is a lifelong challenge, which experience seems to indicate can at best be mitigated, not "cured", and the experience of the OP are fairly typical and expected ones in that context (and therefore not ironic).
Blog blog blog blog.
Lovely blog!
Wonderful blog!
Blog blo-o-o-o-o-og blog blo-o-o-o-o-og blog.
Lovely blog! Lovely blog!
Lovely blog! Lovely blog!
Lovely blog!
Blog blog blog blog!
-- The Viking Blog Song
The LiveJournal status page claims "Our data center (Internap) lost all its power, including redundant backup power". This is nothing to do with "cheapskate blog admins" and everything to do with a serious and quite likely unacceptable problem at Internap.
Of course, that's why Anonymous Cowards start out with zero points. Guilty of idiocy until proven innocent.
Thanks for the reply. Good to know. I'm trying to find out what I can expect to work and not work before jumping in, and more importantly, before advising interested clients to try it.
Elsewhere in this thread, Tracy Reed describes a serious problem with a Digium TDM400P 4 port FXO card. It sounds pretty crappy to me.
There's a big distinction between a smart & knowledgeable guy setting this stuff up for his own company, and doing it professionally where you're reselling systems. In the latter case, you're going to have many more configurations to deal with, so are more likely to run into problems. Also, paying customers are much less inclined to want to work around limitations or put up with problems than you might be if you're doing something for yourself or your own company.
That must be a red state thing. But calling it a "time honored American tradition" doesn't change the fact that it's a use of power without responsibility. Give a moron a gun, and suddenly he thinks it's OK to use it on animals who can't fight back. If you were talking about water pistols, that would be fine. But if you want to shoot an animal with a real gun just because it's being a minor nuisance, you should give some thought to what you're doing, if only because one day you might find yourself on the wrong end of that gun barrel, with someone on the other end rationalizing pulling the trigger as "painless disposal of vermin".
It's not particularly difficult to walk across the border into Mexico. After that, all you need is money. $30k or so will buy you citizenship in a few countries down south.
Actually, if this guy really has access to a lot of ready cash, he could just buy or charter a nice boat in Florida, and pay the captain not to worry about his passport.
If you're talking about killing trespassing neigbour's cats, then that title "human being" which you apparently think gives you some kind of right to be a dickwad, no longer applies to you. Watch out for your karma, is the best advice I can give you, and think about this message when it catches up with you.
I live in a town with pretty terrible (hard) water, i.e. it sure isn't pure. However, I can repeat an experiment on demand, which I have performed multiple times for various interested friends: microwave a coffee-cup full of water to just before it starts bubbling; remove it from the microwave; insert metal teaspoon into water (while wearing oven gloves); and BLAMMO, hot water everywhere. So, what's happening here? Methinks the mythbusters missed something.
Note that the article you linked to was from 2002. The latest fingerprint scanners do liveness tests, making sure it's a living finger on the scanner, which defeats the "gummi bear" hack -- and incidentally, also defeats the old "chop off the finger" attack, although one hopes the would-be hacker (both literal and figurative!) is aware of that before he takes a machete to your finger.
That's not to say that fingerprint scanners are the way to go, but this sort of FUD isn't going to stop their adoption - it's better to be able to articulate the real reasons they're a bad idea. Schneier does a good job of that, with one of the main points being that you can't change your biometrics if they're compromised.