Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
I had a bitch of a teacher try this 'technique' on me in second grade. I tried to kill myself. If you don't know what it's like, shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
No offense to teachers, but they're often morons.
Kids with ADHD, kids with learning disabilities, and kids who advance faster (why isn't THAT called a medical condition?) all do best when given a different environment than "normal" kids. If education wised up to this, and adapted as necessary, we wouldn't have the problems we do.
Still, in Second Grade you're not doing anything stressful enough to merit correction. If you can't cut it, they should take you out of school or put you back in first grade (and before that, a different teacher).
You have ADHD? Great. Good for you. But that doesn't make you special or handicapped. You are different, and that's it. To treat you otherwise is a disservice to you and a disservice to me.
Now, all that bias aside--what, exactly, is ADHD like subjectively that merits it as a condition?
Re:alternatives and cultural rant ahead...
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
ADHD is, IMNSHO, a great example of what's wrong with medicine in America. There's an innate sense of "normal", and every time medicine gives some new variation a name, that condition becomes "not normal."
A good example of this is one of those TV "enfotainment" bits on the Discovery Channel I watched a while back, dealing wiht the differneces between the genders. The differences are all well and good, but there's no reason to use a phrase such as "The male brain is divided", as if the female brain was the universal norm and only a few males were ever born.
(What they should have said is something like the following: "The male brain is less interconnected than the female , allowing for more specalization; the female brain is more interconnected, allowing for more multitasking." See? Easy enough, and no acciedntial misnormalization.)
Mental disorders / conditions are especially irritating. Diagnose a geek with ADHD, and they'll always remember having ADHD, they'll always act as if they have it, and they'll wind up getting special treatment because of it--when, in reality, their only problem is probably that they're not properly trained to sit and listen, and aren't forcing themselves to sit and listen.
I'm all for limited-use of carefully controlled mind-altering drugs to show the mind a differnet way to behave--but they shouldn't be used to make the mind behave in a way that the doctors and idiot parents consider "normal."
(Or, if we are going to go that route, can we have semi-regular injections of testosterone / estrogen to modify sexual desires and behavior? I'd love to be able to ease off the worrying about misplaced lust, and just fix myself with the push of a button. Mental discipline is so hard! [j/k, duh])
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
The point is that it's anyone's reasonable expectation to be able to obtain a stupid motherboard without going through any hassle
No one is under any compulsion to sell anything, as an individual part or not. MS could stop selling Windows, Office, or IE tomorrow, and no law in the world woudl prevent them. They could even refuse to sell to anyone who doesn't sign a pen-and-ink contract directly with MS, or who doesn't have an extant MS license.
If someone wants to reverse-engineer Apple's MB and sell them, they're welcome to--but Apple, not being a monopoly, is under no compulsion to make it easy to sell a component of their system in competition with their main product.
and that it is wrong for Apple to exert this sort of control over basic hardware, and also to irrevocably tie its hardware to its software.
If you want to run Apple hardware without an Apple OS, go right ahead. You can buy it used, or buy it as a whole unit (one computer) like any of Apple's other customers. You can even get an Apple reseller license, and sell nothing but Apple hardware with non-Apple Software on them.
Their attempts to decommoditize computers are Luddite in nature and will never get us anywhere.
Apples are )not_ commodoties, never have been, and probably never will be. They've conciously specalized their computer, and since there's a whole computer market that sells twenty times what they do a year, no one cares and there's nothing wrong with Apple doing so.
A mac should be the exact same price as a PC, or even cheaper, given that it usually has a lot less processing power and available software than a normal computer.
You fail to graps economics and capitalism. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If Apple does not convince a sufficient ammount of people that its computers are not worth more than their less-expensive competition's, they go out of business. If they do, then they've proven that their compuers _should_ cost more than their competition's, and can keep their price where they want it.
At the very least, Apple customers pay for a single vendor and a tightly integrated and well-designed computer.
How far are you going? I can't think of any role for the scooter that my bike doesn't cover.
Theoretically, transporting moderatly heavy goods (like groceries or full boxes of paper--anything too heavy to comfortabily carry) would be nicely served by a segway.
So, as I'm interested, what's the granularity? How 'close' can two identically named businesses be?
IANAL (just in case you were thinking about coming to the US and starting "Disney burgers" or something.)
The granularity is probably something like "reasonablely distinct market." If I open up "Doug's comics" in Albany, I can certainy keep any other Dougs from opening up "Doug's comics" in Albany, and maybe in the nearby cities of Schenecteady and Troy--but a slightly more distant city like Saratoga or Utica is probably out, and places like Syracuse, Buffalo, or NYC are proably very different markets.
Can you really have two companies with the same registered name in two different states?
Hell yes.
There are (multiple) states larger than all of Great Britain. The USPTO takes note of where registered trademarks are assigned, by geography and by market.
How does the robot arm locate the object in a 3 dimensional space, using only one eye?
I'd be more impressed if they used two cameras to simulate "depth perception", myself. I have yet to hear of a setup that used stereoscopic vision.
As to your question, try covering one eye (you good eye, too!), picking up a spoon, and then trying to touch it to something in three-space. It's not as hard as some would have you believe, and I suspect it won't be as hard for a computer to pick it up, either.
I do. Hillary Clinton doesn't write back to any of her constituents who I've spoken to.
C'mon, you've got two others, just in Congress!
As for boycotting Amazon--if you want to do that, has your organization informed Amazon, directed links to their competition, and been as public as they can about it?
If not, it's not a boycott. It's just "voting with your dollars." And rather ineffectual at that.
In another perspective, If I were head of the space armies of an alien race and there were nuclear devices headed toward my planet, I would probably counter attack. I mean, what if this device loses control and hits one of the moons dead on. Then again, thats why I'm probably not head of military.
Thankfully, if our alien foe is so scared of radiation that something as simple and harlmess as these probes set them off, we'll be able to beat them back with boards-with-nails-in-them.
They did a browser check and popped me to a different site.
Mozilla WAS rendering their site fine, but then they slapped me to a "disallowed" site--which you probably should have read first.
To provide you with the most fulfilling and up to date online experience, this web site has been optimised for use with the most popular browsers - Internet Explorer (version 5 and above), Netscape 6.1 and AOL browser version 5.0 and above.
http://www.standardchartered.com.hk/
Their DHTML is a bit off, but the thing loads and is very useable.
Re:Sounds Fantastic -- Now Why Not Hemp
on
Corn-Based Plastic
·
· Score: 1
Yes, exactly.
Look for the period in my first sentence. The claim is that the folk selling durgs are / may be funding terrorism.
The post I was responding to claimed "pot-smoking terrorists", which was my rebuttal. It's not "smoke pot, be a terrorist." It's "buy pot, fund terrorism."
If you want a "good" internet experience, then you have to use IE, to use IE you have to buy Windows (since they're killing off the stand-alone IE). This ties more developers into the loop of coding to the dominant browser (IE) rather than the standards, which ties them into more MS oriented development tools.
Name me an IE_only website, please.
Re:Sounds Fantastic -- Now Why Not Hemp
on
Corn-Based Plastic
·
· Score: 1
I mean, c'mon now, pothead terrorists?
No one's ever claimed that. The War on Terror / War on Drugs crossover is "Drug dealers pay for terroism." Which, at the least, is plausible.
Of course, the best way to fight that is to make Pot legal and regulated.
My take is, God got all these things, they all got a use, we get to use them, use the planet, plus we are supposed to be neat, sorta take care of things too, there's our ecological balance idea. Makes sense to me.. We may not know WHAT some things are useful for yet-like chiggers, wazzup with them things?- but, everything is useful, and no government should say "no you don't", that's just bogus.
To be blunt, not everything is useful. (Find me a good use for houseflies, for a random example.) And to be even more blunt, the government, as an extension of the people, can villify or criminalize anyting that it wants to, subject to the restraints of the people.
Pot-smokers suffered a rather nasty PR loss about a century or so ago, causing the plant to be effectivly banned as a controlled substance. Since then, the flagrant violation of the law for purely "recreational use" has built up the old "pothead" perception, thus preventing any serious movement to legalize the stuff.
(And the first one to make a "blunt" pun gets smacked.)
letmesee, you want to be able to send a message, then at some undetermined time later you want to get a reply, and until then, not know if the person actually got it? That paradigm is now called e-mail, please update your paradigm dispatch table.
ICQ's IM paradigm is distinctly different from e-mail. It's just like the "insta chat" that AIM uses--except for autologging and offline messages. You _know_ if someone was publicly "there" or not when they get the message--and if they're not, you don't have to use an entirely different media.
(Rebutting "offline IM" with "e-mail" is comparable to rebutting answering machines with postcards.)
What happends if the person you want to talk to is also in invisible mode?
Then they get the "offline" message, and can ignore or answer it as they wish. It's much more useful than you think.
It's rather annoying that AIM has "away" and "here" modes, and no in-between.... I know what client i'm going to switch back to when the bridge is working.
For example, try asking someone if the world is flat. Follow that up with asking them to prove that it isn't! Sure, the science minded crowd around here might find the logical breakdown rather boring, but outside of geekdom you might be amazed out how little thought is given to even this one fundamental truth.
Easy ways to proove that the Earth is round:
* Point at something big on the horizon, like a building. Head over to it, and see it get taller.
* Prove the trustworthyness of the pilots and sea-captians who have cirumvented the globe.
* Do the landbound scholar thing, and take comparative angle measurements of the sun at different times of day.
A better thing to try and get people to prove is "Communism is evil." Or "Capitalism works." Or, heck, "there is / is not a God."
But if you're making a word document anyway, saving it in MS's extended HTML is a good way to look at the actual document structure for those pining for WP's reveal codes.
<rant> HTML was designed to be extended and adopted. As long as these extensions are (1) reasonable, (2) publicly documented, (3) human-readable (no <foo> tags!), and (4) not-obstructive, no one should care.
Unless the HTML causes your browser to hang, it works perfectly fine and objecting to its use on moral ground is just snobbish. </rant>
<rant> Why the heck are you making formatted text at all, anyway? HTML or not, you should write your data / info / text in one format, and have an easy system for getting that into any other format that you need. </rant>
HTML should not be used for fixed text formatting.
True. But it can be.
The ask was for a "reveal codes" feature. MS's extended HTML is fairly human-readable and includes just about all of the elements needed to make a word doc.
And get this, I was applying for a job as a 'LINUX software engineer' and I was told my resume in plain text looked too ugly, if I wanted to redo it in Word because it looked better! *gagh*
You want to be a "Linux software engineer" and you can't do a descent resume format?
I'd think that you'd either use one of the native Linux word processors, HTML, or TeX. Or, better yet, have a mini demo disk accompaning your one-page resume, done by someone else if you can't figure out how to do it...
Erm, you're missing the parent posters point. The removal of so-called "minute detail" makes no difference if the human ear is physically incapable of perceiving it
I'm not missing the point; I'm disagreeing with it.
Sound outside of the normal range of hearing is essentially meaningless--but if it can be reproduced by audio equipment, it's plausible that a people will be able to tell the difference between a recording with and a recording without. Sounds that people do not recognize as sounds on a concious level may still be picked up as components of other sounds; we didn't get our measure of "average human ability" through an autopsy, we go it through measuring average human ability.
Canada is socialist. A military boot camp is totalitarian. They are no more the same adjective than "Russian" and "Communist" are.
And the terrorists didn't win; their goal was to convince us to leave them alone, or come in and make things the way that they wanted them to be.
The terrorists were also fools. If they really wanted to freak us out, the wouldn't have tried to hit the drabest buildings we have--they would have aimed at the white house and the Statue of Liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a bitch of a teacher try this 'technique' on me in second grade. I tried to kill myself. If you don't know what it's like, shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
No offense to teachers, but they're often morons.
Kids with ADHD, kids with learning disabilities, and kids who advance faster (why isn't THAT called a medical condition?) all do best when given a different environment than "normal" kids. If education wised up to this, and adapted as necessary, we wouldn't have the problems we do.
Still, in Second Grade you're not doing anything stressful enough to merit correction. If you can't cut it, they should take you out of school or put you back in first grade (and before that, a different teacher).
You have ADHD? Great. Good for you. But that doesn't make you special or handicapped. You are different, and that's it. To treat you otherwise is a disservice to you and a disservice to me.
Now, all that bias aside--what, exactly, is ADHD like subjectively that merits it as a condition?
ADHD is, IMNSHO, a great example of what's wrong with medicine in America. There's an innate sense of "normal", and every time medicine gives some new variation a name, that condition becomes "not normal."
A good example of this is one of those TV "enfotainment" bits on the Discovery Channel I watched a while back, dealing wiht the differneces between the genders. The differences are all well and good, but there's no reason to use a phrase such as "The male brain is divided", as if the female brain was the universal norm and only a few males were ever born.
(What they should have said is something like the following: "The male brain is less interconnected than the female , allowing for more specalization; the female brain is more interconnected, allowing for more multitasking." See? Easy enough, and no acciedntial misnormalization.)
Mental disorders / conditions are especially irritating. Diagnose a geek with ADHD, and they'll always remember having ADHD, they'll always act as if they have it, and they'll wind up getting special treatment because of it--when, in reality, their only problem is probably that they're not properly trained to sit and listen, and aren't forcing themselves to sit and listen.
I'm all for limited-use of carefully controlled mind-altering drugs to show the mind a differnet way to behave--but they shouldn't be used to make the mind behave in a way that the doctors and idiot parents consider "normal."
(Or, if we are going to go that route, can we have semi-regular injections of testosterone / estrogen to modify sexual desires and behavior? I'd love to be able to ease off the worrying about misplaced lust, and just fix myself with the push of a button. Mental discipline is so hard! [j/k, duh])
The point is that it's anyone's reasonable expectation to be able to obtain a stupid motherboard without going through any hassle
No one is under any compulsion to sell anything, as an individual part or not. MS could stop selling Windows, Office, or IE tomorrow, and no law in the world woudl prevent them. They could even refuse to sell to anyone who doesn't sign a pen-and-ink contract directly with MS, or who doesn't have an extant MS license.
If someone wants to reverse-engineer Apple's MB and sell them, they're welcome to--but Apple, not being a monopoly, is under no compulsion to make it easy to sell a component of their system in competition with their main product.
and that it is wrong for Apple to exert this sort of control over basic hardware, and also to irrevocably tie its hardware to its software.
If you want to run Apple hardware without an Apple OS, go right ahead. You can buy it used, or buy it as a whole unit (one computer) like any of Apple's other customers. You can even get an Apple reseller license, and sell nothing but Apple hardware with non-Apple Software on them.
Their attempts to decommoditize computers are Luddite in nature and will never get us anywhere.
Apples are )not_ commodoties, never have been, and probably never will be. They've conciously specalized their computer, and since there's a whole computer market that sells twenty times what they do a year, no one cares and there's nothing wrong with Apple doing so.
A mac should be the exact same price as a PC, or even cheaper, given that it usually has a lot less processing power and available software than a normal computer.
You fail to graps economics and capitalism. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If Apple does not convince a sufficient ammount of people that its computers are not worth more than their less-expensive competition's, they go out of business. If they do, then they've proven that their compuers _should_ cost more than their competition's, and can keep their price where they want it.
At the very least, Apple customers pay for a single vendor and a tightly integrated and well-designed computer.
How many professional graphic designers use gimp? I would imagine the majority of them continue to use Photoshop.
You don't suppose that's so because (gasp!) Photoshop is just geniunely better software?
I've used the Gimp, and I've used Photoshop--and if I could get PS for my home PC, I would in a heartbeat.
How far are you going? I can't think of any role for the scooter that my bike doesn't cover.
Theoretically, transporting moderatly heavy goods (like groceries or full boxes of paper--anything too heavy to comfortabily carry) would be nicely served by a segway.
So, as I'm interested, what's the granularity? How 'close' can two identically named businesses be?
IANAL (just in case you were thinking about coming to the US and starting "Disney burgers" or something.)
The granularity is probably something like "reasonablely distinct market." If I open up "Doug's comics" in Albany, I can certainy keep any other Dougs from opening up "Doug's comics" in Albany, and maybe in the nearby cities of Schenecteady and Troy--but a slightly more distant city like Saratoga or Utica is probably out, and places like Syracuse, Buffalo, or NYC are proably very different markets.
Can you really have two companies with the same registered name in two different states?
Hell yes.
There are (multiple) states larger than all of Great Britain. The USPTO takes note of where registered trademarks are assigned, by geography and by market.
How does the robot arm locate the object in a 3 dimensional space, using only one eye?
I'd be more impressed if they used two cameras to simulate "depth perception", myself. I have yet to hear of a setup that used stereoscopic vision.
As to your question, try covering one eye (you good eye, too!), picking up a spoon, and then trying to touch it to something in three-space. It's not as hard as some would have you believe, and I suspect it won't be as hard for a computer to pick it up, either.
I do. Hillary Clinton doesn't write back to any of her constituents who I've spoken to.
C'mon, you've got two others, just in Congress!
As for boycotting Amazon--if you want to do that, has your organization informed Amazon, directed links to their competition, and been as public as they can about it?
If not, it's not a boycott. It's just "voting with your dollars." And rather ineffectual at that.
In another perspective, If I were head of the space armies of an alien race and there were nuclear devices headed toward my planet, I would probably counter attack. I mean, what if this device loses control and hits one of the moons dead on. Then again, thats why I'm probably not head of military.
Thankfully, if our alien foe is so scared of radiation that something as simple and harlmess as these probes set them off, we'll be able to beat them back with boards-with-nails-in-them.
They did a browser check and popped me to a different site.
Mozilla WAS rendering their site fine, but then they slapped me to a "disallowed" site--which you probably should have read first. http://www.standardchartered.com.hk/
Their DHTML is a bit off, but the thing loads and is very useable.
Yes, exactly.
Look for the period in my first sentence. The claim is that the folk selling durgs are / may be funding terrorism.
The post I was responding to claimed "pot-smoking terrorists", which was my rebuttal. It's not "smoke pot, be a terrorist." It's "buy pot, fund terrorism."
If you want a "good" internet experience, then you have to use IE, to use IE you have to buy Windows (since they're killing off the stand-alone IE). This ties more developers into the loop of coding to the dominant browser (IE) rather than the standards, which ties them into more MS oriented development tools.
Name me an IE_only website, please.
I mean, c'mon now, pothead terrorists?
No one's ever claimed that. The War on Terror / War on Drugs crossover is "Drug dealers pay for terroism." Which, at the least, is plausible.
Of course, the best way to fight that is to make Pot legal and regulated.
My take is, God got all these things, they all got a use, we get to use them, use the planet, plus we are supposed to be neat, sorta take care of things too, there's our ecological balance idea. Makes sense to me.. We may not know WHAT some things are useful for yet-like chiggers, wazzup with them things?- but, everything is useful, and no government should say "no you don't", that's just bogus.
To be blunt, not everything is useful. (Find me a good use for houseflies, for a random example.) And to be even more blunt, the government, as an extension of the people, can villify or criminalize anyting that it wants to, subject to the restraints of the people.
Pot-smokers suffered a rather nasty PR loss about a century or so ago, causing the plant to be effectivly banned as a controlled substance. Since then, the flagrant violation of the law for purely "recreational use" has built up the old "pothead" perception, thus preventing any serious movement to legalize the stuff.
(And the first one to make a "blunt" pun gets smacked.)
have tended to be more spacious
This, and this alone, is sufficient justification for the shuttle.
It's not a re-useable rocket. It's a re-usable space platform. It's not a jeep or a skiff--it's a bloody cruiser.
letmesee, you want to be able to send a message, then at some undetermined time later you want to get a reply, and until then, not know if the person actually got it? That paradigm is now called e-mail, please update your paradigm dispatch table.
ICQ's IM paradigm is distinctly different from e-mail. It's just like the "insta chat" that AIM uses--except for autologging and offline messages. You _know_ if someone was publicly "there" or not when they get the message--and if they're not, you don't have to use an entirely different media.
(Rebutting "offline IM" with "e-mail" is comparable to rebutting answering machines with postcards.)
What happends if the person you want to talk to is also in invisible mode?
Then they get the "offline" message, and can ignore or answer it as they wish. It's much more useful than you think.
It's rather annoying that AIM has "away" and "here" modes, and no in-between.... I know what client i'm going to switch back to when the bridge is working.
For example, try asking someone if the world is flat. Follow that up with asking them to prove that it isn't! Sure, the science minded crowd around here might find the logical breakdown rather boring, but outside of geekdom you might be amazed out how little thought is given to even this one fundamental truth.
Easy ways to proove that the Earth is round:
* Point at something big on the horizon, like a building. Head over to it, and see it get taller.
* Prove the trustworthyness of the pilots and sea-captians who have cirumvented the globe.
* Do the landbound scholar thing, and take comparative angle measurements of the sun at different times of day.
A better thing to try and get people to prove is "Communism is evil." Or "Capitalism works." Or, heck, "there is / is not a God."
Well, yeah.
But if you're making a word document anyway, saving it in MS's extended HTML is a good way to look at the actual document structure for those pining for WP's reveal codes.
<rant>
HTML was designed to be extended and adopted. As long as these extensions are (1) reasonable, (2) publicly documented, (3) human-readable (no <foo> tags!), and (4) not-obstructive, no one should care.
Unless the HTML causes your browser to hang, it works perfectly fine and objecting to its use on moral ground is just snobbish.
</rant>
<rant>
Why the heck are you making formatted text at all, anyway? HTML or not, you should write your data / info / text in one format, and have an easy system for getting that into any other format that you need.
</rant>
HTML should not be used for fixed text formatting.
True. But it can be.
The ask was for a "reveal codes" feature. MS's extended HTML is fairly human-readable and includes just about all of the elements needed to make a word doc.
And get this, I was applying for a job as a 'LINUX software engineer' and I was told my resume in plain text looked too ugly, if I wanted to redo it in Word because it looked better! *gagh*
You want to be a "Linux software engineer" and you can't do a descent resume format?
I'd think that you'd either use one of the native Linux word processors, HTML, or TeX. Or, better yet, have a mini demo disk accompaning your one-page resume, done by someone else if you can't figure out how to do it...
If you really, really want to mimic WP's "reveal codes", write in HTML.
;)
Both OoO and MS-Word can write in HTML, and include viewers for said HTML. Or, you could use Mozilla Composer, Dreamweaver, VI, etc.
As an added bonus, you won't have the headaches that WP has that make Reveal Codes necessary.
And what kind of language? Visual Basic is still around, but I don't know of any serious programmers who really use it hard core
;)
You're talking about a replacement for batch files, and "not hardcore" is a problem?
VB makes an ok framework for accessing the extant systems in Microsoftie land--it's used for Office automation, for instance.
Plus, its simple enough that even codephobes like me can pick up and do something with it.
No such convention has ever happened
Wrong. A convention happened for the repeal of Prohibition.
Erm, you're missing the parent posters point. The removal of so-called "minute detail" makes no difference if the human ear is physically incapable of perceiving it
I'm not missing the point; I'm disagreeing with it.
Sound outside of the normal range of hearing is essentially meaningless--but if it can be reproduced by audio equipment, it's plausible that a people will be able to tell the difference between a recording with and a recording without. Sounds that people do not recognize as sounds on a concious level may still be picked up as components of other sounds; we didn't get our measure of "average human ability" through an autopsy, we go it through measuring average human ability.
Totalinarism. Not Socialism.
Canada is socialist. A military boot camp is totalitarian. They are no more the same adjective than "Russian" and "Communist" are.
And the terrorists didn't win; their goal was to convince us to leave them alone, or come in and make things the way that they wanted them to be.
The terrorists were also fools. If they really wanted to freak us out, the wouldn't have tried to hit the drabest buildings we have--they would have aimed at the white house and the Statue of Liberty.