Even if your argument is correct, I thought that there have already been other teams of scientists outside of the LHC who have come to much the same conclusion as the teams within the LHC.
*sigh* I type too slowly. This is one of those times I wish I could just delete my comments, 'cause it's now completely redundant or "Me too!" seeming.
Althought the previous post didn't put it in the most objective manner, I hardly think that the post should be modded "Flamebait." A bit direct, perhaps, and obviously writing from a very decided point of view, but I've seen much less objective and more objectionably phrased comments rated "Insightful" or "Informative." The bottom line is that whoever rated this "Flamebait" disagreed and wants the comment discredited. Too bad I don't have mod points right now.
To avoid just commenting on someone else's rating, I have to say that I agree that much of what Apple sells with its Macintosh is the Apple 'mystique.' Jobs is a great marketer and a great packager of product, whether that packagin comes in the form of industrial design (iPod), eye-candy (much of the OS X interface), or the intangible psuedo-elitism of owning an Apple Macintosh.
I don't have an axe to grind against Apple, I've used their products far longer than I have any of the IBM/Microsoft related lines (starting with the Apple II), but the parent is dead on when he labels Jobs as one of the great showmen of our times. And don't tell me that the Mac vs. PC ads are designed as fair, objective comparisons, because they're not, they're ads and they're meant to persuade people to buy Macs and regard the Apple brand well, pure and simple.
Considering that the paper detailing their argument, and the images/figures used therein, is hosted somewhere other than Microsoft's own website (at usenix.org, to be specific), I don't think its really accurate to say that someone else's failure to effectively handle traffic is a poor reflection on the effectiveness of their solution.
Why did parent get modded redundant? I don't think anyone else actually provided information that the "from control" reference was from Get Smart. If anything this should be informative, since I thought it was possible that it was referencing the control from Get Smart but I wasn't entirely sure.
My current keyboard, and by far my favorite of all that I've used or owned, is the Microsoft Natural Ergo Keyboard 4000.
I know, I know. It has a hideously long name and it's from Microsoft. Ignore these things as best you can, it's really quite a nice keyboard. Obviously it is a split design, which doesn't work for a lot of people, but it's more friendly than any other split design I've tried. It's got an interesting set of ergonomics which I won't explain here because Microsoft's product page (http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard/productdetails.aspx?pid=043) does a good job of explaining.
For reviews, in case you don't want to bother doing a quick search, there are the following:
Anyway, just my little bit of input on the topic. It also should be noted that I have no experience in using this keyboard on OS X, so I suppose that this keyboard's usefulness in that context is something that those who use that OS will need to look at a bit more closely, since I can offer no input in that regard; although, it should be compatible in general as it connects via USB.
Of course, your insecurely networked dentist only has access to a small portion of your medical records, while Google Health would (presumably) eventually be caching your entire medical history.
Security concern becomes of a whole different order of magnitude when dental, medical, and mental health information all get chunked into the same system, then it becomes kind of like a Real ID for health; convenient one-stop shopping for all your privacy-invading needs.
The LDS uses its secret documents to harm people. In the LDS, youth who discover that they are gay are subjected to horrific treatment at the hands of the LDS clergy and lay leaders. Not true. I have friends who are LDS and gay and these alleged "secret documents" mentioned are simply administrative manuals. No more than that. No tortures or brain-washing or anything that could be rationally characterized as such. The LDS church is pretty open on their stance regarding same-sex attraction. If anyone actually wants to read it, and come to their own conclusions, it's under the 'Public Issues' section of the press-centric portion of the LDS church's website: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/
Agree with it or not, it isn't secret and it doesn't speak of horrific treatment, though there is a fundamental disagreement described therein with same-sex relationships and marriage.
Many gay LDS youth commit suicide as a result, and the church officially approves and condones that result. There have been suicides among gay LDS youth, but to characterize this as the fault of or unique to the LDS church is to ignore the fact that youth suicide rates among gay youth is described as much as four times higher than for other youth: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayteens/a/gaysuicide.htm
Further than that though, to say that the LDS church approves and condones such is a false and horrible thing to say. Neither I nor my gay friends have ever heard anyone in a leadership position in the LDS church advocate, encourage, or condone suicide under any conditions. Quite the opposite really. The manuals themselves speak of counseling and compassion in these issues, as opposed to the hate and agression which the parent's post seems to be implying is the case.
(As a matter of disclosure: I am not gay. I am LDS. And I have friends who are/were LDS and who are gay. They may not agree with, appreciate, or even be less than hostile regarding the LDS church's position on same-sex relationships and marriage, but never have any of them made such claims as those in the parent's post.)
This is blowing the entire thing out of proportion, not to mention a distortion/mischaracterization of the material at hand. This is an administrative manual, not a litururgical text, which involves policies and procedures. Nothing directly dealing with doctrine, as such, despite the frequent sciptural references that made to provide for the doctrinal underpinnings of the policy.
One of the more interesting commentaries on the Kindle that I've read came from the journal/blog of Neil Gaiman, who -- in case you don't know of him -- is an established and successful writer of both comic books, screenplays, and novels. He was given a preview hardware sample to play with for several months (he had to give it back), and though the comments on his journal are not extensive, they can be summed up as:
-He was unpaid for his enthusiastic comments (featured on Amazon's Kindle page)
-Much of his enjoyment seems to have come of having multiple books to choose from while traveling
-He thinks it's a bit overpriced
-He opines that Books:Kindle as CDs:iPods, citing different needs and overall experience between use while traveling and at home
It's not exactly in-depth coverage, but I think he pegs its usefulness in relationship to books pretty well, at least in a way that made sense to me.
For additional biographical notes (putting credentials and context to his thoughts on the Kindle) here's a convenient link to his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_gaiman
When I put the Geiger counter near a coconut, which accumulates radioactive material from the soil, it went berserk. How did You defend yourself from that coconut? No, no. It was the geiger counter that attacked her! Since she was holding it at the time, however, defending herself from it wasn't too hard... until the coconut caused it to mutate, of course.
So, your solution to a software problem is... go buy some hardware to solve it? Really?
All fake shock aside, your points about liking The GIMP for its dual monitor setup lovin' seem off to me as well, because I have a dual monitor setup at work and I use Photoshop there every day, and I've never had a problem in being able to put all of my tools on one monitor while the image resides on the second monitor. In fact, I've found it far more friendly than The GIMP in this usage scenario as well, largely still due to the complaints raised in GP's post.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with GIMP because it's not Photoshop, I have a problem with it because it feels like it's not a single, cohesive application. I feel like I'm managing several discrete applications that all happen to semi-relate to each other, and because the way it's used is, in my opinion, is still somewhat unrefined. Still, with every generation of The GIMP I check back in with it, kick the tires, and hope that it's finally at the point where I feel it's a viable option for me vs. Photoshop--not because I feel caged by Photoshop, but because I like having options and I firmly believe that competition is good for the consumer.
Now, I admit that even when The GIMP has solved the usability problems that I perceive that there will still be pains in converting over to different shortcuts, different workflows, and just differences in general. But so long as those differences are surrounded by equivalencies and I'm not giving up things that I need, then this I could deal with.
For me, the capabilities of Photoshop and the speed with which I can get things done is the key, because as high as the entry price is for Photoshop, the time price for completing operations and projects is lower than with anything else I've found. This is simply the way it works for a lot of people. It makes more sense to shell out a few hundred dollars for something that's going to save me hours worth of work, and therefore increase my earning potential, even if I feel the software might be overpriced or if I love the idea of open source, democrative efforts.
Also, just a comment: while I found answer four to be very entertaining, I was thrilled with his analysis of consumer/commercial writers (what he calls 'Beowulf' writers) vs. academic/literary writers (termed 'Dante' writers by him), because it's one of the most consistent and matter-of-fact analysis of the two broad types of authors out there that I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
Lets not forget the fact that studies have shown that spending on the space program has a direct correlation to increased GNP of the United States (estimates on how much vary, I've seen ratios ranging from 1:2 to 1:7 dollars-spent:GNP-rise).
And then, of course, there's all of the direct spin-offs that come from research done in the space program, and I'm not just talking tempurpedic!
Pressure? eBay will roll over and give Amazon power to delist it themselves! That's a common misconception. eBay doesn't provide anyone outside of eBay with tools to de-list auctions, but rather programs that allow others to send in takedown notices (NOCI = Notice(s) Of Claimed Infringement). The end effect is that for a company actively policing auctions the listings can get taken down quite quickly, often within their first hour. I think this is why people sometimes think that eBay has given others direct access to their systems, which is simply not the case.
Is this just speculation on your part? Or did he admit this to you? Or were you there when it happened? Maybe it's just me, but by the fact that he said "think" would mean that he was not claiming to know, so I would label that speculation.
I personally do not know if he is guilty or not... because I was not there to be a witness. And I probably will not ever know because I actually do have some specific experience to know that courtroom procedures frequently do prohibit a fair and truthful trial from taking place along the lines of one ruling the judge in this case has already made. Chill out. I mean, the man just stated an opinion, it's not like he's in a position of authority or that he's vehemently arguing the case.
The summary states that "The Church of Scientology can delete auctions from eBay with no supervision under the VeRO program," but even according to the linked article this is not the case. The removals are taking place through the VeRO program, they're just contending that the removals are frivolous. As if that weren't enough, the title states that Scientology has been given direct access to the database. Going from frivolous removals to unfettered access to eBay's DB is a pretty ridiculous leap, and seems disengenous on the part of the original poster.
Having once worked at eBay (I quit in late '07) in association with people on the VeRO team, I can tell you that direct access to the DB is not required to get an item off the site very quickly; it is quite easy for rights-holders to get items they claim to be infringing removed... all it takes is a single qualifying complaint (per item while I was there, but they may allow lists now).
A couple of notes about VeRO compaints, however:
1- The complaint is made under penalty of perjury, which creates some potential for liability for frivolous or incorrect complaints on the part of the complainant (potentially difficult to take legal action on, but present).
2- It is a complaint of IP (Intellectual Property) infringement, not simply copyright infringement. That's why items that are sold from an organization for a specific use, and whose resale is legally limited, can be said to infringe if they are being used/sold in a way inconsistent with the IP owner's wishes.
3- There is an appeals process, and the item can potentially get put back on the site.
If you'd like to see a copy of the notice that VeRO members (registered IP owners) must send to get things removed, then download this PDF (also linked from the priorly mentioned page): http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/NOCI1.pdf
Some of us simply support respect, whether for the living or the dead. My personal experience has been that those who do not care to respect the dead do not respect the living either and, quite often, are beings generally deficient of respect.
Respecting the dead is both about honoring the memory of the person gone and about respecting the feelings of those still living who more personally feel the weight of those who have passed.
It's really about honor and respect in general... something more easily understood the more fully it's part of one's character, I suppose.
@Anonymous Brave Guy
Apart from... [many examples]... what was wrong with it?:-) I found your examples interesting, but nearly all of them went over my head.
I am, of course, being facetious. So, were there or were there not 'gotchas' in the article? Or was your facetiousness a reference to how you were picking apart the article?
As the author himself points out at the end, much of this stuff isn't obvious to newbies, and it's better if someone tells them earlier rather than later... the only thing worse for inquisitive newbies than no information is bad information. I ask, because I'm one of those inquisitive newbies and if there is a better source for the type of information that this article provides, such as explanations for the examples you cite, then I would greatly appreciate learning where such a thing could be found.
My problem, and I suspect this is the case for many beginners, is that there is so much available that I don't know what's crap and what's not. Also, it seems that the only way to get alot of this information is to consume and digest mass quantities of books on programming, when it would be nice to have a single discrete source for such things.
Of course, there's the matter of getting people to agree on what doesn't suck, isn't there... *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
Even if your argument is correct, I thought that there have already been other teams of scientists outside of the LHC who have come to much the same conclusion as the teams within the LHC.
...undecidedly positive.
I don't think this means what you think it means.
You're trying too hard. :-p
"A realist is what a cynic calls themself." -- Me
*sigh* I type too slowly. This is one of those times I wish I could just delete my comments, 'cause it's now completely redundant or "Me too!" seeming.
Althought the previous post didn't put it in the most objective manner, I hardly think that the post should be modded "Flamebait." A bit direct, perhaps, and obviously writing from a very decided point of view, but I've seen much less objective and more objectionably phrased comments rated "Insightful" or "Informative." The bottom line is that whoever rated this "Flamebait" disagreed and wants the comment discredited. Too bad I don't have mod points right now.
To avoid just commenting on someone else's rating, I have to say that I agree that much of what Apple sells with its Macintosh is the Apple 'mystique.' Jobs is a great marketer and a great packager of product, whether that packagin comes in the form of industrial design (iPod), eye-candy (much of the OS X interface), or the intangible psuedo-elitism of owning an Apple Macintosh.
I don't have an axe to grind against Apple, I've used their products far longer than I have any of the IBM/Microsoft related lines (starting with the Apple II), but the parent is dead on when he labels Jobs as one of the great showmen of our times. And don't tell me that the Mac vs. PC ads are designed as fair, objective comparisons, because they're not, they're ads and they're meant to persuade people to buy Macs and regard the Apple brand well, pure and simple.
Considering that the paper detailing their argument, and the images/figures used therein, is hosted somewhere other than Microsoft's own website (at usenix.org, to be specific), I don't think its really accurate to say that someone else's failure to effectively handle traffic is a poor reflection on the effectiveness of their solution.
Why did parent get modded redundant? I don't think anyone else actually provided information that the "from control" reference was from Get Smart. If anything this should be informative, since I thought it was possible that it was referencing the control from Get Smart but I wasn't entirely sure.
My current keyboard, and by far my favorite of all that I've used or owned, is the Microsoft Natural Ergo Keyboard 4000.
I know, I know. It has a hideously long name and it's from Microsoft. Ignore these things as best you can, it's really quite a nice keyboard. Obviously it is a split design, which doesn't work for a lot of people, but it's more friendly than any other split design I've tried. It's got an interesting set of ergonomics which I won't explain here because Microsoft's product page (http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard/productdetails.aspx?pid=043) does a good job of explaining.
For reviews, in case you don't want to bother doing a quick search, there are the following:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,123241-page,1/article.html
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000400.html
http://reviews.cnet.com/keyboards/microsoft-natural-ergonomic-keyboard/4505-3134_7-31485240.html
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Natural-Ergo-Keyboard-4000/dp/B000A6PPOK
Anyway, just my little bit of input on the topic. It also should be noted that I have no experience in using this keyboard on OS X, so I suppose that this keyboard's usefulness in that context is something that those who use that OS will need to look at a bit more closely, since I can offer no input in that regard; although, it should be compatible in general as it connects via USB.
Of course, your insecurely networked dentist only has access to a small portion of your medical records, while Google Health would (presumably) eventually be caching your entire medical history.
Security concern becomes of a whole different order of magnitude when dental, medical, and mental health information all get chunked into the same system, then it becomes kind of like a Real ID for health; convenient one-stop shopping for all your privacy-invading needs.
Agree with it or not, it isn't secret and it doesn't speak of horrific treatment, though there is a fundamental disagreement described therein with same-sex relationships and marriage. Many gay LDS youth commit suicide as a result, and the church officially approves and condones that result. There have been suicides among gay LDS youth, but to characterize this as the fault of or unique to the LDS church is to ignore the fact that youth suicide rates among gay youth is described as much as four times higher than for other youth: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayteens/a/gaysuicide.htm
Further than that though, to say that the LDS church approves and condones such is a false and horrible thing to say. Neither I nor my gay friends have ever heard anyone in a leadership position in the LDS church advocate, encourage, or condone suicide under any conditions. Quite the opposite really. The manuals themselves speak of counseling and compassion in these issues, as opposed to the hate and agression which the parent's post seems to be implying is the case.
(As a matter of disclosure: I am not gay. I am LDS. And I have friends who are/were LDS and who are gay. They may not agree with, appreciate, or even be less than hostile regarding the LDS church's position on same-sex relationships and marriage, but never have any of them made such claims as those in the parent's post.)
This is blowing the entire thing out of proportion, not to mention a distortion/mischaracterization of the material at hand. This is an administrative manual, not a litururgical text, which involves policies and procedures. Nothing directly dealing with doctrine, as such, despite the frequent sciptural references that made to provide for the doctrinal underpinnings of the policy.
- -He was unpaid for his enthusiastic comments (featured on Amazon's Kindle page)
- -Much of his enjoyment seems to have come of having multiple books to choose from while traveling
- -He thinks it's a bit overpriced
- -He opines that Books:Kindle as CDs:iPods, citing different needs and overall experience between use while traveling and at home
It's not exactly in-depth coverage, but I think he pegs its usefulness in relationship to books pretty well, at least in a way that made sense to me.If you'd like to refer directly to his journal, including his brief thoughts on Kindle's DRM, here you go:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2007/11/me-in-manila.html
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2007/11/thanks-from-future.html (brief note at end on questionable PDF support)
For additional biographical notes (putting credentials and context to his thoughts on the Kindle) here's a convenient link to his wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_gaiman
So, your solution to a software problem is... go buy some hardware to solve it? Really?
All fake shock aside, your points about liking The GIMP for its dual monitor setup lovin' seem off to me as well, because I have a dual monitor setup at work and I use Photoshop there every day, and I've never had a problem in being able to put all of my tools on one monitor while the image resides on the second monitor. In fact, I've found it far more friendly than The GIMP in this usage scenario as well, largely still due to the complaints raised in GP's post.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with GIMP because it's not Photoshop, I have a problem with it because it feels like it's not a single, cohesive application. I feel like I'm managing several discrete applications that all happen to semi-relate to each other, and because the way it's used is, in my opinion, is still somewhat unrefined. Still, with every generation of The GIMP I check back in with it, kick the tires, and hope that it's finally at the point where I feel it's a viable option for me vs. Photoshop--not because I feel caged by Photoshop, but because I like having options and I firmly believe that competition is good for the consumer.
Now, I admit that even when The GIMP has solved the usability problems that I perceive that there will still be pains in converting over to different shortcuts, different workflows, and just differences in general. But so long as those differences are surrounded by equivalencies and I'm not giving up things that I need, then this I could deal with.
For me, the capabilities of Photoshop and the speed with which I can get things done is the key, because as high as the entry price is for Photoshop, the time price for completing operations and projects is lower than with anything else I've found. This is simply the way it works for a lot of people. It makes more sense to shell out a few hundred dollars for something that's going to save me hours worth of work, and therefore increase my earning potential, even if I feel the software might be overpriced or if I love the idea of open source, democrative efforts.
What a time to not have mod points... -1 Troll, and +1 Ironic, to parent if I did. ;-)
Q: Why are the van drivers there in the first place?
A: Because Google paid them to be.
Thank you for this! Somehow I'd missed it.
Also, just a comment: while I found answer four to be very entertaining, I was thrilled with his analysis of consumer/commercial writers (what he calls 'Beowulf' writers) vs. academic/literary writers (termed 'Dante' writers by him), because it's one of the most consistent and matter-of-fact analysis of the two broad types of authors out there that I've ever had the pleasure of reading.
Lets not forget the fact that studies have shown that spending on the space program has a direct correlation to increased GNP of the United States (estimates on how much vary, I've seen ratios ranging from 1:2 to 1:7 dollars-spent:GNP-rise).
And then, of course, there's all of the direct spin-offs that come from research done in the space program, and I'm not just talking tempurpedic!
By the way, for those interested, here's a link to eBay's existing gift card policy: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/gift.html
Note/Disclaimer: I used to work for eBay in their Trust & Safety department.
The summary states that "The Church of Scientology can delete auctions from eBay with no supervision under the VeRO program," but even according to the linked article this is not the case. The removals are taking place through the VeRO program, they're just contending that the removals are frivolous. As if that weren't enough, the title states that Scientology has been given direct access to the database. Going from frivolous removals to unfettered access to eBay's DB is a pretty ridiculous leap, and seems disengenous on the part of the original poster.
Having once worked at eBay (I quit in late '07) in association with people on the VeRO team, I can tell you that direct access to the DB is not required to get an item off the site very quickly; it is quite easy for rights-holders to get items they claim to be infringing removed... all it takes is a single qualifying complaint (per item while I was there, but they may allow lists now).
A couple of notes about VeRO compaints, however:
1- The complaint is made under penalty of perjury, which creates some potential for liability for frivolous or incorrect complaints on the part of the complainant (potentially difficult to take legal action on, but present).
2- It is a complaint of IP (Intellectual Property) infringement, not simply copyright infringement. That's why items that are sold from an organization for a specific use, and whose resale is legally limited, can be said to infringe if they are being used/sold in a way inconsistent with the IP owner's wishes.
3- There is an appeals process, and the item can potentially get put back on the site.
For an overview of the process, you can go to this page eBay provides to explain it: http://pages.ebay.com/help/tp/vero-rights-owner.html
If you'd like to see a copy of the notice that VeRO members (registered IP owners) must send to get things removed, then download this PDF (also linked from the priorly mentioned page): http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/NOCI1.pdf
Some of us simply support respect, whether for the living or the dead. My personal experience has been that those who do not care to respect the dead do not respect the living either and, quite often, are beings generally deficient of respect.
Respecting the dead is both about honoring the memory of the person gone and about respecting the feelings of those still living who more personally feel the weight of those who have passed.
It's really about honor and respect in general... something more easily understood the more fully it's part of one's character, I suppose.
My problem, and I suspect this is the case for many beginners, is that there is so much available that I don't know what's crap and what's not. Also, it seems that the only way to get alot of this information is to consume and digest mass quantities of books on programming, when it would be nice to have a single discrete source for such things.
Of course, there's the matter of getting people to agree on what doesn't suck, isn't there... *sigh*