I don't follow. Handouts are good. We are in a liquidity trap. We have massive unemployment and a 0% interest rate. Perhaps cloud computing isn't what we should spend money on. However, the $32 million those people get for building cloud computing will very likely be spent on what those people should spend money on. Until we can raise interest rates (due to improved employment), you are either pro-government spending on crap like this, or you are a gold bug. And if you are a gold bug, you should *still* be in support of crap like this until we are either out of our liquidity trap, or we are on a gold standard. So what's the problem?
Ben Galbraith seems like a sweetheart and everything, but his blog post was devoid of content. And so what if JWZ is an overgrown toddler. Most developers are overgrown toddlers. Their app store should work without phone calls. As per a thread in his LJ, if you've written a killer app or you are famous, obviously Palm wants your experience to be flawless. The whole point is that it should work for everyone else too. Even if Palm doesn't care about you specifically.
Is Firefox careful to make sure that they are compatible with Flash? Some information is manageable from Firefox and some information from Flash. Yes, it sucks, but it is better that rewriting all of those flash applications to work in IE.
Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis were clearly not content to hack compelling software. Their travails sound like a Gibson novel. As far as I can tell, they made themselves the monarchs of Skype. One day, some enterprising journalist will tell us how the fuck they managed to sell Ebay an empty XBOX 360 box for billions of dollars.
While you do not have enough tabs to fill the title bar in Chrome, their non-standard window increases the size of the target for maximization.
I love Windows usability standards (I'm stuck in the XP era of fitts's law, screen real estate conservation, responsiveness) and that is the main reason I use Chrome.
This isn't like Apple shipping Safari for Winders w/ a close box in the upper right that doesn't activate when you click the top right pixel on the screen. Google has worked out the kinks here.
At a party w/ a ton of Apple engineers, I overheard a sociopathic (There was other evidence.) Apple kernel dev trying to recruit this sweetheart Sun kernel dev:
"The best thing about Apple is that we're not Google. We totally do evil. DRM, software patents, whatever."
Of course there were a ton of other, very nice Apple devs also who were nothing like that guy.
Sure, you can work out (+1 STR), get plastic surgery (+1 CHA), or sit at a computer all day (+1 INT, -1 CON, -1 STR, -1 CHA), but your life skills are really just tweaking the basics you started with.
This is patent bullshit. There are certainly very important predispositions to skill learning, but the Prime Requisite for skill learning in real life is time spent.
It's a horrible form factor concept. It only makes sense if you 1) are wedded to an x86 desktop OS, and 2) must have thumb typing. This is the case for very, very few people. Most people are better off with either 1) a netbook for your desktop OS, or 2) a smartphone for thumb typing.
Getting both in one device costs $$ for a reason: tiny market, no economy of scale.
Also, if anybody can interpret most inkblots to look like harmless things and this person sees "their mother attacking them with a machete" then any ink blot will work in your example.
The point isn't just whether it's harmful or harmless. The point is that hundreds of thousands of other people have all looked at this picture - for the first time - and we have statistics about their collected responses.
We do not have statistics about their second responses. Or their responses after someone told them it looks like a piglet. There are no studies indicating that the Rorschach has any validity in these cases.
For that person, having a horrific dream/experience/fantasy that your butterfly actually matches more closely to their memory, your test/tool gives a false positive.
Please, rest assured that 1) the test is not that simple and 2) no one uses it the way you seem to think. Try reading the article.
Yes of course. It is absolutely possible to resist diagnosis via the Rorschach. Sometimes it is useful, sometimes it is not.
I don't know if it has "lie scale" type measurements like the MMPI, but I do think you'd have to be able to fake well-ordered thinking to totally fool the Rorschach. That leaves many, many situations in which the test is still useful.
I'd just like to highlight that a diagnostic tool relying on a patient answering honestly is a little naive.
No, it is naive if you think your patient can't lie. As per the effing article, "It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to admit openly to psychotic thinking."
The whole point is that the Rorschach is just one more way to try to get information out of a dishonest patient. It may or may not work. Sometimes it is helpful, sometimes it is not.
you can't lie to a stethoscope or an MRI.
Uh... unfortunately they are pretty bad at diagnosing psychosis. Once you figure out how to use a stethoscope to diagnose psychosis, I promise, everyone will throw away their Rorschach tests.
The problem most people have with the Rorschach test or 'tool', however you want to word it - is that it doesn't measure anything. It's some pictures. They don't do ANYTHING.
You can show them to someone and then interpret their answers and use that to help show you the state of mind of the person answering. But, we (as a scientific community) still don't understand the inner workings of the mind.
I think this hilights your misunderstanding of the test. The point is that you compare the patient's responses to the responses of thousands of other people who have looked at the image before. It is NOT a Freudian inspection of a person's subconscious. If you show them something that everyone on the planet agrees looks like a piglet and they say it looks like their mother attacking them with a machete, that is a helpful tool for a psychologist.
The only reason they might replace X11 is to better fit whatever security model they use. And even though it is not resource intensive, they may be using such a small feature set from their windowing model that they want a slimmer install.
Back when Compiz was in its infancy or nonexistent, didn't there used to be a few compositing projects for Linux that could either run inside of X11 or on its own console? I would not be terribly surprised if they went with something that light weight.
Consider a game with the following semantics: You sit, unmoving, for two hours, with no user feedback, no buttons to push, nothing, completely passive, while the game plays out in front of you, exactly the same way as it would for anybody else. This sounds like a terrible game, but it's exactly what movies are, and movies are very popular and get little criticism that they're terrible games.
Slashdot Mirror
(See subject.)
Clearly we should do those things first. However, those things being a better expenditure do not make this thing a bad expenditure.
I don't follow. Handouts are good. We are in a liquidity trap. We have massive unemployment and a 0% interest rate. Perhaps cloud computing isn't what we should spend money on. However, the $32 million those people get for building cloud computing will very likely be spent on what those people should spend money on. Until we can raise interest rates (due to improved employment), you are either pro-government spending on crap like this, or you are a gold bug. And if you are a gold bug, you should *still* be in support of crap like this until we are either out of our liquidity trap, or we are on a gold standard. So what's the problem?
MS requires customers to install the new WGA on a regular basis. That is also nagging.
So when you say "in industry" you mean your industry, software development (not IT), and you mean dead for large projects (not dead).
Ben Galbraith seems like a sweetheart and everything, but his blog post was devoid of content. And so what if JWZ is an overgrown toddler. Most developers are overgrown toddlers. Their app store should work without phone calls. As per a thread in his LJ, if you've written a killer app or you are famous, obviously Palm wants your experience to be flawless. The whole point is that it should work for everyone else too. Even if Palm doesn't care about you specifically.
Is Firefox careful to make sure that they are compatible with Flash? Some information is manageable from Firefox and some information from Flash. Yes, it sucks, but it is better that rewriting all of those flash applications to work in IE.
fwiw, they've been running an investment fund and Joost, a distributed video streamer w/ content deals.
Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis were clearly not content to hack compelling software. Their travails sound like a Gibson novel. As far as I can tell, they made themselves the monarchs of Skype. One day, some enterprising journalist will tell us how the fuck they managed to sell Ebay an empty XBOX 360 box for billions of dollars.
While you do not have enough tabs to fill the title bar in Chrome, their non-standard window increases the size of the target for maximization.
I love Windows usability standards (I'm stuck in the XP era of fitts's law, screen real estate conservation, responsiveness) and that is the main reason I use Chrome.
This isn't like Apple shipping Safari for Winders w/ a close box in the upper right that doesn't activate when you click the top right pixel on the screen. Google has worked out the kinks here.
Just because there's nothing like it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Is it? It isn't news if a freebie Nokia explodes. I'm not saying that has ever happened, but I don't think it would be international news if it did.
At a party w/ a ton of Apple engineers, I overheard a sociopathic (There was other evidence.) Apple kernel dev trying to recruit this sweetheart Sun kernel dev:
Of course there were a ton of other, very nice Apple devs also who were nothing like that guy.
Her name was Dilemma?
People always think that the decisions are the hard part of robotics.
Carrying stuff and throwing it is way harder.
This is patent bullshit. There are certainly very important predispositions to skill learning, but the Prime Requisite for skill learning in real life is time spent.
It's a horrible form factor concept. It only makes sense if you 1) are wedded to an x86 desktop OS, and 2) must have thumb typing. This is the case for very, very few people. Most people are better off with either 1) a netbook for your desktop OS, or 2) a smartphone for thumb typing.
Getting both in one device costs $$ for a reason: tiny market, no economy of scale.
No screaming diatribes over 'purity' of ideology.
"Oh dear," said comment #28724745, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappeared in a puff of logic.
The point isn't just whether it's harmful or harmless. The point is that hundreds of thousands of other people have all looked at this picture - for the first time - and we have statistics about their collected responses.
We do not have statistics about their second responses. Or their responses after someone told them it looks like a piglet. There are no studies indicating that the Rorschach has any validity in these cases.
Please, rest assured that 1) the test is not that simple and 2) no one uses it the way you seem to think. Try reading the article.
Yes of course. It is absolutely possible to resist diagnosis via the Rorschach. Sometimes it is useful, sometimes it is not.
I don't know if it has "lie scale" type measurements like the MMPI, but I do think you'd have to be able to fake well-ordered thinking to totally fool the Rorschach. That leaves many, many situations in which the test is still useful.
No, it is naive if you think your patient can't lie. As per the effing article, "It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to admit openly to psychotic thinking."
The whole point is that the Rorschach is just one more way to try to get information out of a dishonest patient. It may or may not work. Sometimes it is helpful, sometimes it is not.
Uh... unfortunately they are pretty bad at diagnosing psychosis. Once you figure out how to use a stethoscope to diagnose psychosis, I promise, everyone will throw away their Rorschach tests.
I think this hilights your misunderstanding of the test. The point is that you compare the patient's responses to the responses of thousands of other people who have looked at the image before. It is NOT a Freudian inspection of a person's subconscious. If you show them something that everyone on the planet agrees looks like a piglet and they say it looks like their mother attacking them with a machete, that is a helpful tool for a psychologist.
Obligatory Evan Roth Intellectual Property Asshole Competition Link
Although it seems both assholes are refusing the bait.
The only reason they might replace X11 is to better fit whatever security model they use. And even though it is not resource intensive, they may be using such a small feature set from their windowing model that they want a slimmer install.
Back when Compiz was in its infancy or nonexistent, didn't there used to be a few compositing projects for Linux that could either run inside of X11 or on its own console? I would not be terribly surprised if they went with something that light weight.
Good point. Bram Cohen made a relevant post today about Ludology in City of Heroes: