Today the government reported that an investigation has documented five separate occasions on which the Koran was "mishandled" by US troops at the detention center.
You're getting old. Your frontal lobe is declining, and with it your attention and working memory.
Historically, reading a long book of non-fiction, like a biography, over the course a day or so sitting outside, has helped alot.
Two suggestions:
(1) The baby-boomers are older than you. What you're experiencing, they've got twice as bad. They represent a large market. One way for drug companies to tap this market is to develop some "attention enhancers." No, not the herbal crap you seen sold on TV. Something that works.
(2) Ditch your old, tired spouse and get a young lover. Reportedly this fueled Schrodinger's Renaissance in middle-age, when he contributed to the foundations of quantum mechanics.
In a way, it's easier with a blank hardware check. You have a easy target - make it faster and keep as much useful stuff we already have done (if any....) as possible. They also, naturally, want to maintain the compatibility to the current API, broken or not.
Longhorn is different. It's supposed to make all that hardware actually seem useful, doing something novel about it. It's easy to make a slow crapload just imitating XP. Hopefully, they try to do just a little (maybe very little) more than that. That's treading into unknown land, and an unpredictable process. Optimizing isn't. You may not know how well you optimize, but the overall target is quite set and it's easy to measure how close you are to attaining it.
Dude, I swear this is not a flame. But I couldn't make heads or tails of your post. It's like ESL biz-speak from a parallel world.
Free (Freak) Republic no more defines traditional conservatism than Democratic Underground defines traditional liberalism. It's just a forum for extremely reactionary Bushbots and GOP partisans.
Your right, they don't define "traditional conservativism." But then, those currently in control of the Republican party and the Federal Government are not traditional conservatives either. The grandparent's post is accurate with respect to the post-Contract-for-America Republican party. You don't like it? Then stop voting for those wackos.
"What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it."
from a giant in economics, cognitive psychology, and artificial intelligence
He's just another self helper, i.e. a consultant for your life. And we all know consultants just charge you money for things you already know.
I was gonna mod you a troll but I think I'd rather supply all the (readily-available) facts you are ignoring.
Paul Graham has a Ph.D in computer science, has written a couple of excellent technical books, and was a founder of Viaweb, the start-up purchased by Yahoo! whose technology powers Yahoo! stores. The text was from a talk given to the UC-Berkeley computer club.
(1) Do you know who Paul Volcker is? He's not some shlub economist. He was the Chairmen of the Fed who, under Reagan, reigned in interest rates and generally set the monetary policy that allowed the 1980s bull market to flourish.
(2) Do you know what confirmation bias is? The tendency to only count evidence consistent with your theory and to discount evident that contradicts it. We're all subject to it. If you're a conservative, view Paul Krugman as a liberal, and discount his warnings based on this, at least you're committing a common mistake. But Volcker is one of your own. He's a conservative, he's more credible in this debate than anyone but perhaps Greenspan, and he's telling you that the Republican policies coming out of Washington are ruinous. Maybe you can pry open your mind just a little bit and consider his argument.
I disagree. The Newton failed for a number of well-known reasons. It was too expensive, too large, the hand-writing recognition software was not good enough, and it only interacted well with an economically marginally platform. Palm -- started by ex-Newton employees -- solved all of these problems. The generations of the Palm that gained market share worked as well or better with Macs as PCs.
The PC was the industry-standard platform, but it doesn't get credit for all independent technological inventions of the late 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. Would you credit the innovation of laser printers to the PC as well? The web browser? Of course, these new technologies had to inter-operate with the dominant computer platform, Wintel, to gain marketshare. But that platform did not spur their invention. The same is true of PDAs.
Keep in mind that this exchange exists in a thread about how the commodization of the PC market has slowed innovation dramatically. I believe this is true. But a corollary is that any new invention, if it's to gain marketshare, must inter-operate with PCs, at least in the short-term and intermediate term. Hence iTunes for the PC and iPods that interact well with that platform, even though they were hatched in other, more innovative environments.
Did it occur to you that this helps parents do their jobs without constantly spying on their children?
If single people, childless couples, and parents who don't use your strategies want to buy a videogame system, they shouldn't have to pay for a chip who's only purpose is to support your parenting strategy.
The issue isn't government censorship (yet). The issue is economic. You are not a special person and your personal preferences should not become retrictive industry standards (or God forbid federal laws).
This is a tool to help parents do their jobs. It is not being foisted on anyone.
If it's mandatory and we all have to pay for it, then it is being foisted on all of us.
I could care less if it fits your parenting strategy.
Anyone that wants one should be able to buy one as an option if the manufacturers decide there's a sufficiently big market for it.
You've got no God-given right to access a "safe" videogame system. If you don't like what's out there, buy a much older system from a time when the games were relatively mild or start your own company. If people bought Veggie Tales, I'm sure they'd buy your family game system.
As long as their kid is a computer illiterate, and so socially inept as to not have any smarter friends.
Besides the point.
We don't need moral choices being made for us (and paid for by us -- you think these chips are being funded out of church collection plates?) by others.
You want to test your kid's skillz? Lock in a chest and throw him to the bottom of a lake.
But it also means that those parents who believe that it's better to shelter their kids have a right to. And if technology can help them give their kids the upbringing they want to give them, I'm all for it. Freedom, remember?
Just don't make me pay the extra cost for a mandatory chip in all game systems that I'll never use.
If it's an option available for those who wish it, then I'm fine with it.
You want to actively filter the games your children play? You want to give media companies and the government a window on your playing habits? Go right ahead.
What this proposal will do is enforce your choice on everyone. Looks like freedom from your perspective, I know. But it ain't.
You fucking moron, Clarke served for several consecutive administrations, including Reagan and Bush I. Tell-all books?! They documented the incompetencies and crimes of the administration. You should be outraged at these as an American citizen, you dumb-ass GWB stooge. They tried to get Bush impeached?! This is fucking rich coming from the fuckers who actually impeached Clinton over a stray BJ. Bush's blunders have dirtied what the US stands for, have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. That is his fucking legacy you disgraceful piece of shit. Those who were there to report his administration's crimes should be hailed as patriots, not gassed.
The current administration has no place in a democratic republic. The Republicans of twenty years ago would/should be appalled by their behavior, and should switch party lines to vote these bums and their buddies in congress out. IMO, a large portion of the electorate has forgotten what they learned during high school civics. Their mindset is that it's better to win than to be right, and therefore winning licenses any policy whatsoever. Disgusting, really. Of my three closest Republican friends, one switched sides in 2004. A few more years of this crap and I'm sure one or both of the others will not be voting Republican in 2008 no matter who the candidate is.
I have a question for any "classic" Republicans -- small government, low taxes, strong military, isolationism, personal liberty, small federal budget -- reading this: How do you reconcile yourselves to the Bush administration? Have you left the party? Do you still vote Republican for the issues the party still endorses and just hold your nose for the rest? I remember voting for Clinton in 1992, seeing how ineffectual a president he was, and not voting for him in 1996. I assume others do the same when "their" party deserts them. Is this true?
MS regularly participates in the political process even though it does not (and can not) have the backing of 100% of it's employees.
One last try: When a company agitates for certain economic policies, it makes sense to me. When thet agitate for certain social policies, it makes less sense. Ballmer's claim is that MSFT will continue to do the former but not the latter. I think this is a defensible stance.
When Microsoft gives money to influence economic policies, and they do so in a manner which is legal under current US laws, I have no problem with their behavior. That the federal government is for sale is not their fault. It is my job as a US citizen to try to remedy this situation -- that businesses of all kinds get special access and lobby for legislation that benefits them to the detriment of everyone else -- by voting in people of integrity.
This is different for me than a corporation giving money to affect social policy.
Ballmer's letter says that Microsoft will continue to lobby to change economic policy but will not lobby to change social policy. This to me is a principled distinction, and I respect him for making it.
The question, really, is how Microsoft employees will react. I hope that the vast majority of them are outraged that a self-important local homophobic religious leader demanded the firing of two employee who testified to state officials as private citizens. A disgusting act, in my opinion. I hope Microsoft's many employees rise up as individuals and lobby their state officials for the kind of legislation that Ballmer himself personally favors.
This is a pretty conserative viewpoint, in the older sense of the world. If individual Microsofties raise their voices, then there will be no need for any corporation to get involved in the non-corporate affairs of the citizenry.
Slashdot Mirror
[FUD snipped]
Today the government reported that an investigation has documented five separate occasions on which the Koran was "mishandled" by US troops at the detention center.
Here's a link even you'lll believe.
Great reference. Just downloaded it from JSTOR.
Thanks!
It's happening to me as well.
You're getting old. Your frontal lobe is declining, and with it your attention and working memory.
Historically, reading a long book of non-fiction, like a biography, over the course a day or so sitting outside, has helped alot.
Two suggestions:
(1) The baby-boomers are older than you. What you're experiencing, they've got twice as bad. They represent a large market. One way for drug companies to tap this market is to develop some "attention enhancers." No, not the herbal crap you seen sold on TV. Something that works.
(2) Ditch your old, tired spouse and get a young lover. Reportedly this fueled Schrodinger's Renaissance in middle-age, when he contributed to the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Oooh, aren't you clever?
Gates's book is corporate porn, purchased and read only by white middle class men who crave the power and money they'll never have.
That book, btw, is terrible.
That's because he's a man with no insight on anything but gaining marketshare through any means necessary.
In a way, it's easier with a blank hardware check. You have a easy target - make it faster and keep as much useful stuff we already have done (if any....) as possible. They also, naturally, want to maintain the compatibility to the current API, broken or not.
Longhorn is different. It's supposed to make all that hardware actually seem useful, doing something novel about it. It's easy to make a slow crapload just imitating XP. Hopefully, they try to do just a little (maybe very little) more than that. That's treading into unknown land, and an unpredictable process. Optimizing isn't. You may not know how well you optimize, but the overall target is quite set and it's easy to measure how close you are to attaining it.
Dude, I swear this is not a flame. But I couldn't make heads or tails of your post. It's like ESL biz-speak from a parallel world.
Walmart's wages are not low, they are at state-mandated minimums.
What makes you think these are mutually exclusive?
[Hint: The good guys also want to increase the minimum wage, which has lagged well behind inflation, but the bad guys are against this too.]
Free (Freak) Republic no more defines traditional conservatism than Democratic Underground defines traditional liberalism. It's just a forum for extremely reactionary Bushbots and GOP partisans.
Your right, they don't define "traditional conservativism." But then, those currently in control of the Republican party and the Federal Government are not traditional conservatives either. The grandparent's post is accurate with respect to the post-Contract-for-America Republican party. You don't like it? Then stop voting for those wackos.
"What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it."
from a giant in economics, cognitive psychology, and artificial intelligence
He's just another self helper, i.e. a consultant for your life. And we all know consultants just charge you money for things you already know.
I was gonna mod you a troll but I think I'd rather supply all the (readily-available) facts you are ignoring.
Paul Graham has a Ph.D in computer science, has written a couple of excellent technical books, and was a founder of Viaweb, the start-up purchased by Yahoo! whose technology powers Yahoo! stores. The text was from a talk given to the UC-Berkeley computer club.
(1) Do you know who Paul Volcker is? He's not some shlub economist. He was the Chairmen of the Fed who, under Reagan, reigned in interest rates and generally set the monetary policy that allowed the 1980s bull market to flourish.
(2) Do you know what confirmation bias is? The tendency to only count evidence consistent with your theory and to discount evident that contradicts it. We're all subject to it. If you're a conservative, view Paul Krugman as a liberal, and discount his warnings based on this, at least you're committing a common mistake. But Volcker is one of your own. He's a conservative, he's more credible in this debate than anyone but perhaps Greenspan, and he's telling you that the Republican policies coming out of Washington are ruinous. Maybe you can pry open your mind just a little bit and consider his argument.
Get an account and get some Karma.
Your comic brilliance should not wasted here below everyone's threshold.
Leave the humor to the funny people.
Most of what people claim is so great about LISP is available in regular functional languages.
Lisp is a multiparadigm language. For example, it was the first ANSI-certified language with an OO system.
1) macros will blow your mind. Read Paul Grahams' 'On Lisp'
Of course, these things are true of most any functional language.
(1) is absolutely not true of functional languages.
The rest of your post is also full of errors (e.g., Common Lisp is as old as C and Fortran).
I disagree. The Newton failed for a number of well-known reasons. It was too expensive, too large, the hand-writing recognition software was not good enough, and it only interacted well with an economically marginally platform. Palm -- started by ex-Newton employees -- solved all of these problems. The generations of the Palm that gained market share worked as well or better with Macs as PCs.
The PC was the industry-standard platform, but it doesn't get credit for all independent technological inventions of the late 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. Would you credit the innovation of laser printers to the PC as well? The web browser? Of course, these new technologies had to inter-operate with the dominant computer platform, Wintel, to gain marketshare. But that platform did not spur their invention. The same is true of PDAs.
Keep in mind that this exchange exists in a thread about how the commodization of the PC market has slowed innovation dramatically. I believe this is true. But a corollary is that any new invention, if it's to gain marketshare, must inter-operate with PCs, at least in the short-term and intermediate term. Hence iTunes for the PC and iPods that interact well with that platform, even though they were hatched in other, more innovative environments.
Guess what? This is a form of parenting.
Yes, it's one form of parenting.
Just don't make the rest of us pay for it. You want this kind of thing? Buy it as an option.
Did it occur to you that this helps parents do their jobs without constantly spying on their children?
If single people, childless couples, and parents who don't use your strategies want to buy a videogame system, they shouldn't have to pay for a chip who's only purpose is to support your parenting strategy.
The issue isn't government censorship (yet). The issue is economic. You are not a special person and your personal preferences should not become retrictive industry standards (or God forbid federal laws).
This is a tool to help parents do their jobs. It is not being foisted on anyone.
If it's mandatory and we all have to pay for it, then it is being foisted on all of us.
I could care less if it fits your parenting strategy.
Anyone that wants one should be able to buy one as an option if the manufacturers decide there's a sufficiently big market for it.
You've got no God-given right to access a "safe" videogame system. If you don't like what's out there, buy a much older system from a time when the games were relatively mild or start your own company. If people bought Veggie Tales, I'm sure they'd buy your family game system.
As long as their kid is a computer illiterate, and so socially inept as to not have any smarter friends.
Besides the point.
We don't need moral choices being made for us (and paid for by us -- you think these chips are being funded out of church collection plates?) by others.
You want to test your kid's skillz? Lock in a chest and throw him to the bottom of a lake.
But it also means that those parents who believe that it's better to shelter their kids have a right to. And if technology can help them give their kids the upbringing they want to give them, I'm all for it. Freedom, remember?
Just don't make me pay the extra cost for a mandatory chip in all game systems that I'll never use.
If it's an option available for those who wish it, then I'm fine with it.
You want to actively filter the games your children play? You want to give media companies and the government a window on your playing habits? Go right ahead.
What this proposal will do is enforce your choice on everyone. Looks like freedom from your perspective, I know. But it ain't.
I am not so certain this is try. Check out what the last ten years have brought us:
- common usage of PDAs/Treos/Blackberries
The rise of this market was independent of anthing happening in the PC (i.e., Wintel) world.
Richard Clarke
You fucking moron, Clarke served for several consecutive administrations, including Reagan and Bush I. Tell-all books?! They documented the incompetencies and crimes of the administration. You should be outraged at these as an American citizen, you dumb-ass GWB stooge. They tried to get Bush impeached?! This is fucking rich coming from the fuckers who actually impeached Clinton over a stray BJ. Bush's blunders have dirtied what the US stands for, have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. That is his fucking legacy you disgraceful piece of shit. Those who were there to report his administration's crimes should be hailed as patriots, not gassed.
Whew, I feel better now. Any new BitKeeper news?
Spot on, Sheldon.
The current administration has no place in a democratic republic. The Republicans of twenty years ago would/should be appalled by their behavior, and should switch party lines to vote these bums and their buddies in congress out. IMO, a large portion of the electorate has forgotten what they learned during high school civics. Their mindset is that it's better to win than to be right, and therefore winning licenses any policy whatsoever. Disgusting, really. Of my three closest Republican friends, one switched sides in 2004. A few more years of this crap and I'm sure one or both of the others will not be voting Republican in 2008 no matter who the candidate is.
I have a question for any "classic" Republicans -- small government, low taxes, strong military, isolationism, personal liberty, small federal budget -- reading this: How do you reconcile yourselves to the Bush administration? Have you left the party? Do you still vote Republican for the issues the party still endorses and just hold your nose for the rest? I remember voting for Clinton in 1992, seeing how ineffectual a president he was, and not voting for him in 1996. I assume others do the same when "their" party deserts them. Is this true?
MS regularly participates in the political process even though it does not (and can not) have the backing of 100% of it's employees.
One last try: When a company agitates for certain economic policies, it makes sense to me. When thet agitate for certain social policies, it makes less sense. Ballmer's claim is that MSFT will continue to do the former but not the latter. I think this is a defensible stance.
In other words I am calling bullshit.
Let's not take this exchange to this level.
I draw a distinction that perhaps you don't.
When Microsoft gives money to influence economic policies, and they do so in a manner which is legal under current US laws, I have no problem with their behavior. That the federal government is for sale is not their fault. It is my job as a US citizen to try to remedy this situation -- that businesses of all kinds get special access and lobby for legislation that benefits them to the detriment of everyone else -- by voting in people of integrity.
This is different for me than a corporation giving money to affect social policy.
Ballmer's letter says that Microsoft will continue to lobby to change economic policy but will not lobby to change social policy. This to me is a principled distinction, and I respect him for making it.
The question, really, is how Microsoft employees will react. I hope that the vast majority of them are outraged that a self-important local homophobic religious leader demanded the firing of two employee who testified to state officials as private citizens. A disgusting act, in my opinion. I hope Microsoft's many employees rise up as individuals and lobby their state officials for the kind of legislation that Ballmer himself personally favors.
This is a pretty conserative viewpoint, in the older sense of the world. If individual Microsofties raise their voices, then there will be no need for any corporation to get involved in the non-corporate affairs of the citizenry.