I imagine in your world, no one qualifies for a million-dollar paycheck.
Would someone else have written it? Possibly. Did they? No. Not every need is filled by programmers working for free, see how many projects are abandoned on Source Forge. Programmers, even if they are scratching an itch, have to be able to feed themselves and their families: if it's cheaper / faster to just buy a stack than develop one, many will.
F*ck, if I had to deal with clients who demanded that my software be free, because 'surely someone else in the community would write it if I didn't,' I'd tell the client to go find that person and move onto a new client.
The point being, don't take programmers for granted, whether they are being paid or not. I know there's this persistent mentality that an IT / SE / CS person's time is worth nothing, as anyone in those fields with friends / family members will attest to, but there's no need to feed into it. And if someone could make a few million dollars, either up front (at the register) like many software companies, or on the back end (through paid support) like many other software companies, I doubt many people would turn this down.
A fair amount for a day's work is typically tied to how many people wish to benefit from it, and the market price for said item. If I create a cure for HIV (re-gene-sequencing an Ebola Zaire strand to attack HIV infected T-Cells, employing the scorched earth mentality for denying the virus replication material, and allowing the body to flush out viral proteins now that their reservoir is gone) but only spend 6 hours creating it (because I'm so awesome!), but it benefits 300 million people, what exactly, in your world, is a fair amount for this day's work? What if I made it so you could have a free version, that only worked for 6 months at a time, or a non-free version for a $1 that would work for your lifetime? How many other people do you think would (try and fail) to recreate my work, and how much is my work worth? Do you think that I would make this cure in some lab for a meagerly $80,000 / year + tenure? Do I deserve my $millions?
What then is my motivation, if I am getting screwed on this matter, to continue my work for something like Cancer, or MS?
I'm more bothered by the eyes. I think, though I may be incorrect here, that with human eyes, they do not open at exactly the same time. They open with some independent variations of speed and timing per eye. Which isn't to say that they are far off here, only that with human eyes there is some degree of...randomness to the timings, in much the same way that you don't pronounce every word exactly the same way you did the moment before.
However, I would disagree on Peter Jurasik (Londo Mollari). The man truly captured the insanity of an aristocrat from a dying empire. "In the old days of the Republic..."
Perhaps, but I would argue that SG1 and SGA were more entertaining. You kind of get the feeling, as how some people remark about the original Star Wars trilogy, that the actors were doing Scifi, yes, but they were also having fun on the set, and were not below using a campy style when it suited them.
SGU is, for me, like the Star Wars prequels. It's like Stargate Continuum: it never happened.
SGU is exactly what the writers were making fun of in SG1's 200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_%28Stargate_SG-1%29
It's the younger, edgier version of SG1, with several plot lines lifted directly from the spoof (200) (pregnancy anyone?). From what I can surmise, having watched SGU, despite the intense pain, is that SGU is SGA rebooted, with a different cast. "We are far away from home, can communicate with home, and are surrounded by Ancient technology." It's SG1 with the military angle, it's SGA with the far from home angle, it's a disaster without any good humor.
First Season -> lots of one-off stories, not much plot development. Second Season -> switch to development of an actual, ongoing, underlying plot. Not so many one-off stories.
The first season annoyed me, as people were billing Fringe as a replacement for the X-Files (which has a major legacy to live up to), and IMHO, it has yet to prove itself in that arena. However, starting with the second season, there are some actual developments of a plot, which makes the show more watchable. The jury is out on whether this plot will each lead to something exciting/interesting/entertaining, or if the writers will write themselves into a hole, and pull a Lost.
Not so much. Incomplete information can be as destructive as bad information. Think about it...
From a programmer's standpoint, having a boatload of incomplete information from a client is a coin toss. Sure, you can get started on the project, and hey, maybe you can adapt your design to meet whatever pops up when the client finally gets around to giving you the missing information. Or you could waste time and good money going in the wrong direction for several months, with the low morale (among your team) when you realize you need to completely redesign the project.
A major problem lays with the definition of science. People speak of a "unanimous consensus" among Climate Scientists, which is nice, in much the same way as we might have a "unanimous consensus" among Computer Scientists or Chemists or Physicists. What more, science is not decided by committee or consensus (such things are more related to theology), but by reproduction of results by scientists performing the same experiment independently of one another. You have a hypothesis (a conjecture), observation and experimentation, followed by a theory (after many scientists have performed the experiment and have verified the results, and a fair amount of time has passed). The emphasis is on reproduction of results, by experimental validation. Making a prediction as per the hypothesis, and seeing if it comes true.
To repeat, reproduction, not consensus, is what matters. We do not teach children that the theory of gravity was verified by a bunch of scientists a long time ago, and that was that! Instead, we pull out the monkey and the dart gun (popular physics experiment), have them voice their predictions, then voice the prediction according to the theory of gravity, and perform the experiment. Students are free to play with the toys and to try to prove or disprove the theory of gravity. It's the prediction, then the proof, that solidifies the superiority of the scientific method over the navel gazing that passes for science (as reported by the media) today.
Science is not some holy priesthood where only the properly initiated can read and understand an experiment's results. Sure, there is some unique knowledge to the branch of climate science, as there is to physics, biology, computer science, etc. And yes, there may be a brief period of learning vocabulary, methods, and algorithms unique to that branch. However, to imagine that anyone who does not possess the title of "Climate Scientist" may not offer a dissenting opinion is utter madness.
Would I shun a mathematician who points to the break down of one of the algorithms in my program, just because he isn't as learned in programming languages as myself?
What more, the results these scientists offer is one of statistics, not experimental validation. This makes for weak evidence, which is not helped by their inability to properly store (and not tamper with), if rumors prove true, the raw data. Would you allow the election of a politician, if the method for counting had been altered? Should we take the people who tallied the votes at their word, given that they set fire to the original ballots, and we have no way to verify their results?
If you happen to (subconsciously, or even consciously) favor the politician (whom the possibly tainted vote) shows in the lead over the other politician, you might say that even if the vote had been altered, it could not possibly be altered by such a margin as to swing the election. Or if you didn't favor the leading politician, you might disagree, and affirm that it may matter.
In such areas of such areas of science where correlation wishes to give rise to causation, it of the utmost importance to avoid any appearance of tainted results.
On another note, why are some people resistant to these results? Why do they fight so fiercely? Well, some it is religion, some it is disbelief that human beings are capable of such worldwide changes, some it is the taint of the results making them hard to swallow and for others you are asking t
Perhaps, but I imagine we are using a lot more electronics that previous generations.
Think back a few generations, when having lights throughout the house + a radio in the living room was the hallmark of high-living.
Going back one generation, we have what, electric heating, electric ovens, microwaves, radio alarm clocks, VCRs, televisions, jacuzzi, air conditioning?
And the current generation? We have computers. I imagine most families have more than one (one for each parent, maybe one for each kid?). Most geeks have several (workstation, laptop, several servers made from cobbled together parts just lying around the house). Then you factor in ipods, DVD players, surround sound systems, giant televisions, cell phones, etc...
So, the next generation is going to eat more energy than the previous generation, even if we have super-efficient electronics, because they will have MORE of them.
It's because of this reason that I came to the realization a long time ago that the only way forward is to build more power plants. People want to use solar cells + wind power, that's great. I salute you. But 1) to get a house completely off the grid today (for my house) is somewhere around $30,000 easy, and 2) that will just barely meet the energy requirements I have today (if my energy requirements INCREASE, which they will, inevitably, I will have to put even more solar cells + wind turbines out there, and I have limited real estate). It's even more money when I take out insurance on those solar cells + wind turbine, plus, depending on the weather and the lifetime of the batteries I use to store this electricity, I could be out even more money in 5 years time. There isn't a battery on the market that I do not personally loathe (whichever type you chose, it has some sort of problem that ranges from annoying to dangerous).
And do not get me started on LED lights, which I have been patiently waiting for. Hideously over-priced, with light-production and quality that typically falls short of the 60-watt standard light bulbs I want to replace. I am not asking for perfection, and yes, I understand that LEDs are different beast, but you m*therf*ckers who charge $60 for a bulb that puts out, on a good day, the light equivalent of a 40-watt halogen bulb (while marketing it as a 60-watt bulb replacement), can all die. What happen to the green revolution that was supposed to produce stuff that was cheaper than the current stuff we are buying, and be better for the environment?
Between the recent bailouts (thank you Congress, R + D, got enough hate for both of you), and the push to be green (minimal benefits, extremely costly), I do not know why I bother putting money in my checking account.
We now decide on whether or not someone gets to keep their money on the basis of how hard he / she worked to earn it?? What subcommittee, from the dark nether regions of Cthulu's domain, decided this stellar policy in my absence?
The man got swindled. Whether or not the man has $2 or $2 million in his checking account, he deserves our sympathy. That he is an heir, and thus "didn't earn the money," is a poor excuse for some highly despicable behavior.
Send 'em a copy of the US Constitution, with the Bill of Rights in red highlight. Think about it, you can use their exploitation to your advantage.
Besides, it's not like we are getting much use out of the Constitution these days. "No knock warrants," yikes! Maybe they (the Chinese) can do better, one up us in this category.
On this point I agree. There have been an lot of abuses going on recently (past few years). While I am all for the pursuit of justice (provided the laws are just), there appears to be a lot of running about, spouting white noise, and corrupting of various higher places.
1) There is not latency issue. The UI is accelerated through the GPU so the crappy tearing and lack of redrawing content is gone. if you hate the 30ms transitions that take place when you minimize a window, then turn them off.
-> Hardly. UI may be accelerated via the GPU, yet it still takes forever to draw. The transitions are NOT what I am talking about.
2)How much more native do they need to be than "install codec - > play video" ?
-> Ever try playing video with WMP, especially at 1680 x 1050? Try a video clip with half that resolution, then see how gracefully Vista scales the video. It's horrible, and even when using other video players, it lags. Yes, it lags. Even with nothing else running. The machine is used for development work, so it is not an el cheapo. My machine may be only scoring a 5.3 (dual core processor, I will upgrade when I feel the NEED), but everything else scores a 5.9.
3) I think you have convinced yourself that Vista sucks because everyone says it does.
-> Critism does not equal my opinion. There have been improvements in Vista, namely 64 bit goodness and HD audio (though I think you can get this upgrade with Windows XP SP3), but also the introduction of many UI gaffs. Do not lump me with the "hate MS, because it's MS" or "hate on Vista" crowd just because I have a few sticking points with it. I'm having trouble selling the upgrade to my superiors, because of these issues. I know that there has been an aweful lot of crying over Vista, but not all critism comes from the "wrong" crowd. And if MS cannot address, or will not address these issues because they have written me off as being part of the "wrong" crowd, they will continue to endure harsh critiques of their OS. It's getting to the point where my people are looking at switching back to Windows XP, which, to be frank, is something I am trying to avoid.
I never agreed with the way the DoJ and the EU pursued MS over the IE fiasco. Mind you, this disagreement is coming from a die-hard Netscape fan (NS 4 keeps finding its way onto my machine, hate the "shop" button). I mean, honestly, is the EC getting some sort of kickback from the browser market? Who is making money here, to complain? We have Chrome, Firefox, Seamonkey (because I can), and Opera (among too many others), and yet, with the exception of Opera, the browsers are free! Seriously, the number of browsers out there (and choices made available by the multitude of said browsers) is comparable to the numbers of supported linux distros.
I may be out of place to suggest that bundling IE with Windows is almost of MS BOB calamity, but all things being what they are, MS (as well as their users, God help us) have already paid for that mistake. What exactly is the EU going to use said extracted cash to fund? I want to see a budget!
If the EU wants to pursue MS over something, let them do it over Vista. I mean seriously, the latency issues with this product actually cause me physical discomfort. I love getting access to a full 8 GB of ram, but using Vista's interface (Ultimate) feels a lot like using any Flash designed website: I want to track down, and dismember any and all who have knowledge of how to build such abmoninations.
While I am burning Karma, here's my Vista wish list:
1.) Fix the f*cking latency issues. Using Vista is like playing Unreal Tournament over a 56K connection, with 20 people, and you're the one hosting! I have a HIS ATI 4870 X2 video card, with 2 GB of RAM on it! Despite this upgrade, clicking even the Start button is like moving a pregnant whale. Mind the baby. 2.) Fix the video / sound playback with high resolution monitors. Make DIVX, AVID, AC3, and MKV native to Windows. Burn the DRM, it's a non-starter. Jobs has the market, good for him. It's still smaller than the OS market, at least the slice that you're going to get of it. You are not a content company, you are a software company. Show some pride! Fix the scaling issues with WMP. Make all video and sound scale nicely. 3.) Love the number of options available, but the interface is getting kind of cluttered. Maybe it's the color scheme, maybe it's something else, but please fix it. At the least, give me a cleaner skin, that (tied with the latency issues) makes it feel less cluttered. You can put a lot of information out there for the user, but if the user spends more time admiring your piece of art, and less time getting down to business, you have failed.
Take note of how distracting most websites have become today. Between Flash advertisements and spurious search results, it takes me longer to find what I want then ever before.
I gotta ask. What new technology is behind this "Bing" search?
I mean, I, like everyone on./, can think of a thousand pun-related variations off of the word "Bing", but what exactly is a "Decision engine"? It feels like more rebranding of the old stuff, less on the new technology.
Excellent point. Imagine a life-form consisting of plasma: star stuff. Now, there's a state of matter we were relatively unaware of up until recently. But somehow I doubt that communication via sound waves in an atmospheric medium between two beings (a standard human and another being, in this case approximating the form of a human being) would be the standard.
Contrary to the beings typically portrayed on Star Trek or Stargate, I have serious doubts that we would immediately recognize another form of intelligent life, with the general exception of them already recoginizing us and providing the missing key for interaction. I mean, figure language as being a major problem. Now, theoretically, telepathy could byspass that problem, but then other problems crop up: manners, customs, lack of information.
Don't get me wrong, it would be cool (and probably safer) to interact or otherwise engage with beings who knew how to approximate our forms, languages, and customs. And I imagine that I cannot imagine just what kind of changes mankind might undergo with regular interactions. But at the very least, I think it would be awesome.
Damn, there goes my klingon-style wedding. I guess we could compromise: normal wedding up until we say "I Do," followed by the bat'leth fight. Nothing like having your friends attack the newlyweds 30 seconds into it.
In restrospect, I guess I would have to work out several months before-hand to ensure I could pull that off (let alone the bride).
I guess that's the problem with most weddings, they're all memorable, but they're all done the same. I'd want to give the guests something to TRULY remember (in a good way, not the "My Wedding is Ruined!" which is also quite common IMHO). Wedding, then battle, not a bad idea. Followed by the honeymoon on some south pacific island. If I can't inspire ridiciulous amounts of jealousy and hatred from the in-laws of whomever I marry, it's no good.
It's a hard sell, but I'm going to bored otherwise. Just have to make sure it's not half-assed.
Actually, my solution is as follows: 1.) Remove the battery (clean by hand, isopropyl alcohol, the 91% you can get at CVS), 2.) Place rest of laptop in a bathtub (be sure to stopper the tub), 3.) Fill tub with said 91% isopropyl alcohol, 4.) Remove laptop from tub, place somewhere quiet for the alcohol to evaporate (figure a day or so to be on the safe side).
It might work, I'd say your chances are 50/50. Let me rephrase that, it WILL clean the laptop, it's up in the air as to whether the laptop will still function after being dunked in isopropyl alcohol (what are laptops made of these days? anything delicate that could be a problem?).
Indeed. However, in a market with both treatments and cures, people will probably pay more (as well as upfront) for the cure than for a treatment. It's kind of like the difference between buying software outright, and going for a subscription model. And you bet your bank account if people are offered the choice between $5/month for treatment for disease X and $5000 for the lifetime (or your money back) cure, people will typically rush to the cure.
Let's take an example. 500./ers and myself get together for a month or so at Med Con (or whatever) where we pull our brain power (and spend time studying up), and somehow (between the closed-body/open-body debates) we seemingly miraculously develop a cure for AIDS. Now putting aside business expenses (a giant warehouse to house that many geeks, various foods, air conditioning (so the geeks do not become 'ripe'), and of course an OC-120 (or whatever) for an internet connection), there's the small matter of them probably wanting to pick up some change (cash, money, $$$) for pulling this off. Which leads us to this point: we are going to charge our customers money for our cure.
Now, across the road Pharm Con is going on, and Big Pharm Company 45J notices what we have going on, and tries something similar (but different), and comes up with a treatment for AIDS (one that fully suppresses the viral DNA in a cell, making viral count practically undetectable). Being Big Pharm Company 45J (boo! hiss! Pharm companies!, No, really guys...), they also want to turn some cash. Which means they are going to charge their customers for their treatment.
Now, all math aside, Big Pharm Company 45J is going to charge their customers $45/month for their treatment. On the other hand, Big Geeks Co:/// (the geeks at Med Con, thus incorporated) wants to charge our customers $20,000 for a 100% cure for AIDS.
Who wants to worry about taking AIDS medication everyday of their life, for the rest of their life, what may happen if you miss a dose (what? you missed a dose? viral suppression off!). I posit that cures are intrinsically worth more than treatments (not that treatments aren't worth a lot, when there isn't anything else available). Think from Big Pharm Companys' (as in, plural, many Big Pharm Companys, and hey, some of them even compete!) standpoint: 1.) Yes, going for the treatment over the cure makes sense only if you KNOW that no one else is going to go looking for the cure for a little while (it would be stupid for a Big Pharm Company to announce a treatment for AIDS, only to be one-upped by another Big Pharm Company announcing a cure only a week later), 2.) if it ever got out that Big Pharm Company 45J had the Cure for AIDS, and was suppressing it to sell treatments instead, the bad press would be so expensive in terms of the company's image, it's doubtful they would survive (without having to leave the country, as well as the very real suicides of some of the high-ranking execs).
I personally think that Big Pharm Companies, being keen for the green, would try for research that goes something along the lines of "Well, if this isn't the cure, it might at least be able to slow it down". My thinking being that research for cures and treatments of illnesses is closely related. Just a guess, I could be wrong, God knows I've been wrong about a lot of things in my life.
An odd thing to note is that Uranus, the 7th planet from the sun, has an orientation whereby each pole gets 42 years of continuous sunlight, and 42 years of darkness. I'll be honest, there are a number of oddities associated with that planet. Of course, as a scientist, correlation != causation, so I'll reserve judgement until I see some proof, but part of me wonders (if only in fantasy) if someone is home...
How small a company? 5-10 people, or perhaps a hundred?
If your co-worker isn't as technically literate as you, I recommend getting the site blocked. If it's a small company, kill it at the router (just add it to the blocked sites list yourself, no one will be the wiser). If it's a large company, talk to the network admin in charge of the proxy/firewall (under the guise of lost productivity attributed to employees using company assets for personal reasons).
True, there are many issues that you will encounter when setting up a Media PC. Least of all, Windows XP Media Center Edition. I mean, I know MS is trying, in that they are trying to provide both a fully usable computer that runs all of the Windows software, and an easy to use software that seamlessly integrates with your other AV equipment. But putting aside MS's issue, let's explore why Media PCs are not a popular hardware buy.
First of all, you need hardware aside from the PC itself for a media experience. A 27" TV and $50 Wal-Mart speakers are not going to cut it: this setup would be worse than a PC with a real monitor and computer speakers. You need some real hardware, at least a 40" screen (I have a 65" screen), although you can get away with a smaller LCD screen (DLP, Plasma, and Projection need to be larger as their pixel density tends to be lower, although HDTV is helping out here). So, that will run you at least a $1000 (assuming you get a nice screen, not bargain basement). You also need speakers. Hooked up to a receiver. Think at least Dolby 5.1 surround sound, with a decent set. Probably about $500.
So that's $1500 right there, and you're not even up to the PC yet.
But assuming you already have the above (I'd love to see Dell selling big screen TVs and surround sound setups with Media PCs: "Buy now, and get $100 off that 70" Mitsubishi DLP today!" -> right, that'll sell, you come to the PC. And a decent Media PC (running Windows), needs slightly more expensive hardware than a standard budget PC. Basically, you are bulding a pimped out gamer's machine, as no one is going to buy a Media PC to "check their email." They'd get a budget PC.
Start off with the latest and greatest ATI All-in-Wonder. That can cost at least $300, usually more towards $500. Sorry, Nvidia can't compete with ATI in the multimedia realm. Not yet, anyways. People are going to want to play games, and impress their friends. And you need that video input/output functionality. Sure, you could use seperate cards, but this solution is more elegant.
Next, sound card. Whatever Turtlebeach or Soundblaster offer from idrange on upwards (need something nice to drive those 6 speakers, and to provide 3D audio without taxing the processor).
Processor and memory need to be something decent. Thinking dual core, with at least a GB of ram. Hard disk at least 300GB, for all those movies (you've downloaded) you'll want to watch.
Keyboard/Mouse-> Logitech or MS, Wireless (bluetooth, more range), USB.
DVD writer (because).
Case -> something stylish. Common failing here, most Media PC cases are horrible to look at, work with, or upgrade. Something slick, that is easily upgradeable, but easy to work with.
Add all this up, and you have a fairly expensive PC. Sure, you could swap in cheaper components, or argue that you could get by with some of the onboard stuff, but this is a MediaPC, something that is a PC that works well with Media. And multimedia traditionally requires both horsepower and space.
Write a virus which swaps a Windows key for an invalid one, then activates WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage). Make it so several instances are running at any time, watching each other, and make it so that when a user tries to enter a valid key, the virus swaps the first character for the $ symbol or something.
This virus could completely obliterate any work-time productivity and bring the issue of WGA to the forefront of people's minds.
"That was why Henry Ford was considered novel, he paid his workers enough to buy his products during a time when others didn't. Thus lifting the entire city up, and then with competition for labor that trickled out beyond that cities borders..."
Not quite. Henry Ford paid his workers more than those of other companies because of a high churn rate, allowing him to recoup his investment. Other comapniess soon followed his example. What you ready today about HF and the middle class is mostly the work of some historical researchers paid off by the Ford family to make HF look good.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine in your world, no one qualifies for a million-dollar paycheck.
Would someone else have written it? Possibly. Did they? No. Not every need is filled by programmers working for free, see how many projects are abandoned on Source Forge. Programmers, even if they are scratching an itch, have to be able to feed themselves and their families: if it's cheaper / faster to just buy a stack than develop one, many will.
F*ck, if I had to deal with clients who demanded that my software be free, because 'surely someone else in the community would write it if I didn't,' I'd tell the client to go find that person and move onto a new client.
The point being, don't take programmers for granted, whether they are being paid or not. I know there's this persistent mentality that an IT / SE / CS person's time is worth nothing, as anyone in those fields with friends / family members will attest to, but there's no need to feed into it. And if someone could make a few million dollars, either up front (at the register) like many software companies, or on the back end (through paid support) like many other software companies, I doubt many people would turn this down.
A fair amount for a day's work is typically tied to how many people wish to benefit from it, and the market price for said item. If I create a cure for HIV (re-gene-sequencing an Ebola Zaire strand to attack HIV infected T-Cells, employing the scorched earth mentality for denying the virus replication material, and allowing the body to flush out viral proteins now that their reservoir is gone) but only spend 6 hours creating it (because I'm so awesome!), but it benefits 300 million people, what exactly, in your world, is a fair amount for this day's work? What if I made it so you could have a free version, that only worked for 6 months at a time, or a non-free version for a $1 that would work for your lifetime? How many other people do you think would (try and fail) to recreate my work, and how much is my work worth? Do you think that I would make this cure in some lab for a meagerly $80,000 / year + tenure? Do I deserve my $millions?
What then is my motivation, if I am getting screwed on this matter, to continue my work for something like Cancer, or MS?
I'm more bothered by the eyes. I think, though I may be incorrect here, that with human eyes, they do not open at exactly the same time. They open with some independent variations of speed and timing per eye. Which isn't to say that they are far off here, only that with human eyes there is some degree of...randomness to the timings, in much the same way that you don't pronounce every word exactly the same way you did the moment before.
Fair enough.
However, I would disagree on Peter Jurasik (Londo Mollari). The man truly captured the insanity of an aristocrat from a dying empire. "In the old days of the Republic..."
Perhaps, but I would argue that SG1 and SGA were more entertaining. You kind of get the feeling, as how some people remark about the original Star Wars trilogy, that the actors were doing Scifi, yes, but they were also having fun on the set, and were not below using a campy style when it suited them.
SGU is, for me, like the Star Wars prequels. It's like Stargate Continuum: it never happened.
SGU is exactly what the writers were making fun of in SG1's 200: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_%28Stargate_SG-1%29
It's the younger, edgier version of SG1, with several plot lines lifted directly from the spoof (200) (pregnancy anyone?). From what I can surmise, having watched SGU, despite the intense pain, is that SGU is SGA rebooted, with a different cast. "We are far away from home, can communicate with home, and are surrounded by Ancient technology." It's SG1 with the military angle, it's SGA with the far from home angle, it's a disaster without any good humor.
First Season -> lots of one-off stories, not much plot development.
Second Season -> switch to development of an actual, ongoing, underlying plot. Not so many one-off stories.
The first season annoyed me, as people were billing Fringe as a replacement for the X-Files (which has a major legacy to live up to), and IMHO, it has yet to prove itself in that arena. However, starting with the second season, there are some actual developments of a plot, which makes the show more watchable. The jury is out on whether this plot will each lead to something exciting/interesting/entertaining, or if the writers will write themselves into a hole, and pull a Lost.
Wh00sh!
Not so much. Incomplete information can be as destructive as bad information. Think about it...
From a programmer's standpoint, having a boatload of incomplete information from a client is a coin toss. Sure, you can get started on the project, and hey, maybe you can adapt your design to meet whatever pops up when the client finally gets around to giving you the missing information. Or you could waste time and good money going in the wrong direction for several months, with the low morale (among your team) when you realize you need to completely redesign the project.
A major problem lays with the definition of science. People speak of a "unanimous consensus" among Climate Scientists, which is nice, in much the same way as we might have a "unanimous consensus" among Computer Scientists or Chemists or Physicists. What more, science is not decided by committee or consensus (such things are more related to theology), but by reproduction of results by scientists performing the same experiment independently of one another. You have a hypothesis (a conjecture), observation and experimentation, followed by a theory (after many scientists have performed the experiment and have verified the results, and a fair amount of time has passed). The emphasis is on reproduction of results, by experimental validation. Making a prediction as per the hypothesis, and seeing if it comes true.
To repeat, reproduction, not consensus, is what matters. We do not teach children that the theory of gravity was verified by a bunch of scientists a long time ago, and that was that! Instead, we pull out the monkey and the dart gun (popular physics experiment), have them voice their predictions, then voice the prediction according to the theory of gravity, and perform the experiment. Students are free to play with the toys and to try to prove or disprove the theory of gravity. It's the prediction, then the proof, that solidifies the superiority of the scientific method over the navel gazing that passes for science (as reported by the media) today.
Science is not some holy priesthood where only the properly initiated can read and understand an experiment's results. Sure, there is some unique knowledge to the branch of climate science, as there is to physics, biology, computer science, etc. And yes, there may be a brief period of learning vocabulary, methods, and algorithms unique to that branch. However, to imagine that anyone who does not possess the title of "Climate Scientist" may not offer a dissenting opinion is utter madness.
Would I shun a mathematician who points to the break down of one of the algorithms in my program, just because he isn't as learned in programming languages as myself?
What more, the results these scientists offer is one of statistics, not experimental validation. This makes for weak evidence, which is not helped by their inability to properly store (and not tamper with), if rumors prove true, the raw data. Would you allow the election of a politician, if the method for counting had been altered? Should we take the people who tallied the votes at their word, given that they set fire to the original ballots, and we have no way to verify their results?
If you happen to (subconsciously, or even consciously) favor the politician (whom the possibly tainted vote) shows in the lead over the other politician, you might say that even if the vote had been altered, it could not possibly be altered by such a margin as to swing the election. Or if you didn't favor the leading politician, you might disagree, and affirm that it may matter.
In such areas of such areas of science where correlation wishes to give rise to causation, it of the utmost importance to avoid any appearance of tainted results.
On another note, why are some people resistant to these results? Why do they fight so fiercely? Well, some it is religion, some it is disbelief that human beings are capable of such worldwide changes, some it is the taint of the results making them hard to swallow and for others you are asking t
Perhaps, but I imagine we are using a lot more electronics that previous generations.
Think back a few generations, when having lights throughout the house + a radio in the living room was the hallmark of high-living.
Going back one generation, we have what, electric heating, electric ovens, microwaves, radio alarm clocks, VCRs, televisions, jacuzzi, air conditioning?
And the current generation? We have computers. I imagine most families have more than one (one for each parent, maybe one for each kid?). Most geeks have several (workstation, laptop, several servers made from cobbled together parts just lying around the house). Then you factor in ipods, DVD players, surround sound systems, giant televisions, cell phones, etc...
So, the next generation is going to eat more energy than the previous generation, even if we have super-efficient electronics, because they will have MORE of them.
It's because of this reason that I came to the realization a long time ago that the only way forward is to build more power plants. People want to use solar cells + wind power, that's great. I salute you. But 1) to get a house completely off the grid today (for my house) is somewhere around $30,000 easy, and 2) that will just barely meet the energy requirements I have today (if my energy requirements INCREASE, which they will, inevitably, I will have to put even more solar cells + wind turbines out there, and I have limited real estate). It's even more money when I take out insurance on those solar cells + wind turbine, plus, depending on the weather and the lifetime of the batteries I use to store this electricity, I could be out even more money in 5 years time. There isn't a battery on the market that I do not personally loathe (whichever type you chose, it has some sort of problem that ranges from annoying to dangerous).
And do not get me started on LED lights, which I have been patiently waiting for. Hideously over-priced, with light-production and quality that typically falls short of the 60-watt standard light bulbs I want to replace. I am not asking for perfection, and yes, I understand that LEDs are different beast, but you m*therf*ckers who charge $60 for a bulb that puts out, on a good day, the light equivalent of a 40-watt halogen bulb (while marketing it as a 60-watt bulb replacement), can all die. What happen to the green revolution that was supposed to produce stuff that was cheaper than the current stuff we are buying, and be better for the environment?
Between the recent bailouts (thank you Congress, R + D, got enough hate for both of you), and the push to be green (minimal benefits, extremely costly), I do not know why I bother putting money in my checking account.
Gah!
You gotta be kidding me.
We now decide on whether or not someone gets to keep their money on the basis of how hard he / she worked to earn it?? What subcommittee, from the dark nether regions of Cthulu's domain, decided this stellar policy in my absence?
The man got swindled. Whether or not the man has $2 or $2 million in his checking account, he deserves our sympathy. That he is an heir, and thus "didn't earn the money," is a poor excuse for some highly despicable behavior.
Shhhh. You're not supposed to know that.
Send 'em a copy of the US Constitution, with the Bill of Rights in red highlight. Think about it, you can use their exploitation to your advantage.
Besides, it's not like we are getting much use out of the Constitution these days. "No knock warrants," yikes! Maybe they (the Chinese) can do better, one up us in this category.
On this point I agree. There have been an lot of abuses going on recently (past few years). While I am all for the pursuit of justice (provided the laws are just), there appears to be a lot of running about, spouting white noise, and corrupting of various higher places.
1) There is not latency issue. The UI is accelerated through the GPU so the crappy tearing and lack of redrawing content is gone. if you hate the 30ms transitions that take place when you minimize a window, then turn them off.
-> Hardly. UI may be accelerated via the GPU, yet it still takes forever to draw. The transitions are NOT what I am talking about.
2)How much more native do they need to be than "install codec - > play video" ?
-> Ever try playing video with WMP, especially at 1680 x 1050? Try a video clip with half that resolution, then see how gracefully Vista scales the video. It's horrible, and even when using other video players, it lags. Yes, it lags. Even with nothing else running. The machine is used for development work, so it is not an el cheapo. My machine may be only scoring a 5.3 (dual core processor, I will upgrade when I feel the NEED), but everything else scores a 5.9.
3) I think you have convinced yourself that Vista sucks because everyone says it does.
-> Critism does not equal my opinion. There have been improvements in Vista, namely 64 bit goodness and HD audio (though I think you can get this upgrade with Windows XP SP3), but also the introduction of many UI gaffs. Do not lump me with the "hate MS, because it's MS" or "hate on Vista" crowd just because I have a few sticking points with it. I'm having trouble selling the upgrade to my superiors, because of these issues. I know that there has been an aweful lot of crying over Vista, but not all critism comes from the "wrong" crowd. And if MS cannot address, or will not address these issues because they have written me off as being part of the "wrong" crowd, they will continue to endure harsh critiques of their OS. It's getting to the point where my people are looking at switching back to Windows XP, which, to be frank, is something I am trying to avoid.
Agreed. Karma lamp is lit.
I never agreed with the way the DoJ and the EU pursued MS over the IE fiasco. Mind you, this disagreement is coming from a die-hard Netscape fan (NS 4 keeps finding its way onto my machine, hate the "shop" button). I mean, honestly, is the EC getting some sort of kickback from the browser market? Who is making money here, to complain? We have Chrome, Firefox, Seamonkey (because I can), and Opera (among too many others), and yet, with the exception of Opera, the browsers are free! Seriously, the number of browsers out there (and choices made available by the multitude of said browsers) is comparable to the numbers of supported linux distros.
I may be out of place to suggest that bundling IE with Windows is almost of MS BOB calamity, but all things being what they are, MS (as well as their users, God help us) have already paid for that mistake. What exactly is the EU going to use said extracted cash to fund? I want to see a budget!
If the EU wants to pursue MS over something, let them do it over Vista. I mean seriously, the latency issues with this product actually cause me physical discomfort. I love getting access to a full 8 GB of ram, but using Vista's interface (Ultimate) feels a lot like using any Flash designed website: I want to track down, and dismember any and all who have knowledge of how to build such abmoninations.
While I am burning Karma, here's my Vista wish list:
1.) Fix the f*cking latency issues. Using Vista is like playing Unreal Tournament over a 56K connection, with 20 people, and you're the one hosting! I have a HIS ATI 4870 X2 video card, with 2 GB of RAM on it! Despite this upgrade, clicking even the Start button is like moving a pregnant whale. Mind the baby.
2.) Fix the video / sound playback with high resolution monitors. Make DIVX, AVID, AC3, and MKV native to Windows. Burn the DRM, it's a non-starter. Jobs has the market, good for him. It's still smaller than the OS market, at least the slice that you're going to get of it. You are not a content company, you are a software company. Show some pride! Fix the scaling issues with WMP. Make all video and sound scale nicely.
3.) Love the number of options available, but the interface is getting kind of cluttered. Maybe it's the color scheme, maybe it's something else, but please fix it. At the least, give me a cleaner skin, that (tied with the latency issues) makes it feel less cluttered. You can put a lot of information out there for the user, but if the user spends more time admiring your piece of art, and less time getting down to business, you have failed.
Take note of how distracting most websites have become today. Between Flash advertisements and spurious search results, it takes me longer to find what I want then ever before.
End Rant.
I gotta ask. What new technology is behind this "Bing" search?
I mean, I, like everyone on ./, can think of a thousand pun-related variations off of the word "Bing", but what exactly is a "Decision engine"? It feels like more rebranding of the old stuff, less on the new technology.
Excellent point. Imagine a life-form consisting of plasma: star stuff. Now, there's a state of matter we were relatively unaware of up until recently. But somehow I doubt that communication via sound waves in an atmospheric medium between two beings (a standard human and another being, in this case approximating the form of a human being) would be the standard.
Contrary to the beings typically portrayed on Star Trek or Stargate, I have serious doubts that we would immediately recognize another form of intelligent life, with the general exception of them already recoginizing us and providing the missing key for interaction. I mean, figure language as being a major problem. Now, theoretically, telepathy could byspass that problem, but then other problems crop up: manners, customs, lack of information.
Don't get me wrong, it would be cool (and probably safer) to interact or otherwise engage with beings who knew how to approximate our forms, languages, and customs. And I imagine that I cannot imagine just what kind of changes mankind might undergo with regular interactions. But at the very least, I think it would be awesome.
You know, you could just lock down the list of mac addresses that are cleared to access the WAP...
Cuts down the traffic quite a bit, I imagine. Also, you could just not broadcast the SID...
Damn, there goes my klingon-style wedding. I guess we could compromise: normal wedding up until we say "I Do," followed by the bat'leth fight. Nothing like having your friends attack the newlyweds 30 seconds into it.
In restrospect, I guess I would have to work out several months before-hand to ensure I could pull that off (let alone the bride).
I guess that's the problem with most weddings, they're all memorable, but they're all done the same. I'd want to give the guests something to TRULY remember (in a good way, not the "My Wedding is Ruined!" which is also quite common IMHO). Wedding, then battle, not a bad idea. Followed by the honeymoon on some south pacific island. If I can't inspire ridiciulous amounts of jealousy and hatred from the in-laws of whomever I marry, it's no good.
It's a hard sell, but I'm going to bored otherwise. Just have to make sure it's not half-assed.
Actually, my solution is as follows: 1.) Remove the battery (clean by hand, isopropyl alcohol, the 91% you can get at CVS), 2.) Place rest of laptop in a bathtub (be sure to stopper the tub), 3.) Fill tub with said 91% isopropyl alcohol, 4.) Remove laptop from tub, place somewhere quiet for the alcohol to evaporate (figure a day or so to be on the safe side).
It might work, I'd say your chances are 50/50. Let me rephrase that, it WILL clean the laptop, it's up in the air as to whether the laptop will still function after being dunked in isopropyl alcohol (what are laptops made of these days? anything delicate that could be a problem?).
Indeed. However, in a market with both treatments and cures, people will probably pay more (as well as upfront) for the cure than for a treatment. It's kind of like the difference between buying software outright, and going for a subscription model. And you bet your bank account if people are offered the choice between $5/month for treatment for disease X and $5000 for the lifetime (or your money back) cure, people will typically rush to the cure.
Let's take an example. 500 ./ers and myself get together for a month or so at Med Con (or whatever) where we pull our brain power (and spend time studying up), and somehow (between the closed-body/open-body debates) we seemingly miraculously develop a cure for AIDS. Now putting aside business expenses (a giant warehouse to house that many geeks, various foods, air conditioning (so the geeks do not become 'ripe'), and of course an OC-120 (or whatever) for an internet connection), there's the small matter of them probably wanting to pick up some change (cash, money, $$$) for pulling this off. Which leads us to this point: we are going to charge our customers money for our cure.
Now, across the road Pharm Con is going on, and Big Pharm Company 45J notices what we have going on, and tries something similar (but different), and comes up with a treatment for AIDS (one that fully suppresses the viral DNA in a cell, making viral count practically undetectable). Being Big Pharm Company 45J (boo! hiss! Pharm companies!, No, really guys...), they also want to turn some cash. Which means they are going to charge their customers for their treatment.
Now, all math aside, Big Pharm Company 45J is going to charge their customers $45/month for their treatment. On the other hand, Big Geeks Co:/// (the geeks at Med Con, thus incorporated) wants to charge our customers $20,000 for a 100% cure for AIDS.
Who wants to worry about taking AIDS medication everyday of their life, for the rest of their life, what may happen if you miss a dose (what? you missed a dose? viral suppression off!). I posit that cures are intrinsically worth more than treatments (not that treatments aren't worth a lot, when there isn't anything else available). Think from Big Pharm Companys' (as in, plural, many Big Pharm Companys, and hey, some of them even compete!) standpoint: 1.) Yes, going for the treatment over the cure makes sense only if you KNOW that no one else is going to go looking for the cure for a little while (it would be stupid for a Big Pharm Company to announce a treatment for AIDS, only to be one-upped by another Big Pharm Company announcing a cure only a week later), 2.) if it ever got out that Big Pharm Company 45J had the Cure for AIDS, and was suppressing it to sell treatments instead, the bad press would be so expensive in terms of the company's image, it's doubtful they would survive (without having to leave the country, as well as the very real suicides of some of the high-ranking execs).
I personally think that Big Pharm Companies, being keen for the green, would try for research that goes something along the lines of "Well, if this isn't the cure, it might at least be able to slow it down". My thinking being that research for cures and treatments of illnesses is closely related. Just a guess, I could be wrong, God knows I've been wrong about a lot of things in my life.
An odd thing to note is that Uranus, the 7th planet from the sun, has an orientation whereby each pole gets 42 years of continuous sunlight, and 42 years of darkness. I'll be honest, there are a number of oddities associated with that planet. Of course, as a scientist, correlation != causation, so I'll reserve judgement until I see some proof, but part of me wonders (if only in fantasy) if someone is home...
How small a company? 5-10 people, or perhaps a hundred?
If your co-worker isn't as technically literate as you, I recommend getting the site blocked. If it's a small company, kill it at the router (just add it to the blocked sites list yourself, no one will be the wiser). If it's a large company, talk to the network admin in charge of the proxy/firewall (under the guise of lost productivity attributed to employees using company assets for personal reasons).
It's simple and effective.
True, there are many issues that you will encounter when setting up a Media PC. Least of all, Windows XP Media Center Edition. I mean, I know MS is trying, in that they are trying to provide both a fully usable computer that runs all of the Windows software, and an easy to use software that seamlessly integrates with your other AV equipment. But putting aside MS's issue, let's explore why Media PCs are not a popular hardware buy.
First of all, you need hardware aside from the PC itself for a media experience. A 27" TV and $50 Wal-Mart speakers are not going to cut it: this setup would be worse than a PC with a real monitor and computer speakers. You need some real hardware, at least a 40" screen (I have a 65" screen), although you can get away with a smaller LCD screen (DLP, Plasma, and Projection need to be larger as their pixel density tends to be lower, although HDTV is helping out here). So, that will run you at least a $1000 (assuming you get a nice screen, not bargain basement). You also need speakers. Hooked up to a receiver. Think at least Dolby 5.1 surround sound, with a decent set. Probably about $500.
So that's $1500 right there, and you're not even up to the PC yet.
But assuming you already have the above (I'd love to see Dell selling big screen TVs and surround sound setups with Media PCs: "Buy now, and get $100 off that 70" Mitsubishi DLP today!" -> right, that'll sell, you come to the PC. And a decent Media PC (running Windows), needs slightly more expensive hardware than a standard budget PC. Basically, you are bulding a pimped out gamer's machine, as no one is going to buy a Media PC to "check their email." They'd get a budget PC.
Start off with the latest and greatest ATI All-in-Wonder. That can cost at least $300, usually more towards $500. Sorry, Nvidia can't compete with ATI in the multimedia realm. Not yet, anyways. People are going to want to play games, and impress their friends. And you need that video input/output functionality. Sure, you could use seperate cards, but this solution is more elegant.
Next, sound card. Whatever Turtlebeach or Soundblaster offer from idrange on upwards (need something nice to drive those 6 speakers, and to provide 3D audio without taxing the processor).
Processor and memory need to be something decent. Thinking dual core, with at least a GB of ram. Hard disk at least 300GB, for all those movies (you've downloaded) you'll want to watch.
Keyboard/Mouse-> Logitech or MS, Wireless (bluetooth, more range), USB.
DVD writer (because).
Case -> something stylish. Common failing here, most Media PC cases are horrible to look at, work with, or upgrade. Something slick, that is easily upgradeable, but easy to work with.
Add all this up, and you have a fairly expensive PC. Sure, you could swap in cheaper components, or argue that you could get by with some of the onboard stuff, but this is a MediaPC, something that is a PC that works well with Media. And multimedia traditionally requires both horsepower and space.
Hehe. I just thought of a really cool virus.
Ok, not so much cool as ridiculously annoying.
Write a virus which swaps a Windows key for an invalid one, then activates WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage). Make it so several instances are running at any time, watching each other, and make it so that when a user tries to enter a valid key, the virus swaps the first character for the $ symbol or something.
This virus could completely obliterate any work-time productivity and bring the issue of WGA to the forefront of people's minds.
"That was why Henry Ford was considered novel, he paid his workers enough to buy his products during a time when others didn't. Thus lifting the entire city up, and then with competition for labor that trickled out beyond that cities borders..."
Not quite. Henry Ford paid his workers more than those of other companies because of a high churn rate, allowing him to recoup his investment. Other comapniess soon followed his example. What you ready today about HF and the middle class is mostly the work of some historical researchers paid off by the Ford family to make HF look good.