I was just about to post this same thing. I have been using 24 ESR (and 17 ESR, for PPC compatibility) for a while now. I was fortunate enough to NOT get this bleep today.
My mother, on her microsoft windows based system, was wondering "What has happened? Where has my gmail gone?"
Massive change, just for the sake of change, with no warning, with no user awareness, with no customization? I used to think that only Microsoft could pull such bleep on us.
Funny, I am one of those "Open in new window" guys who still prefers new windows over tabs. I'm beginning to think I'm the only one.
My only reasons for wanting tabs over windows?
1. Memory. For some reason, it takes a lot more system resources/memory to have 10 pages in 10 windows, than in 1 window with 10 tabs.
2. I want to keep related pages together. But ohh, Firefox doesn't have any tools for selecting tabs and working with them as a group. I think it was just a couple of changes that were needed: Move all tabs here and to the right off to a new window as a group; and, open all new tabs on the far right (instead of next to me).
3. What we really need, and have never had, is the ability to say "Open all external links in a new window", rather than "in a new tab in the same window". If you have things set up so that command-clicking gives you a new window, then external links open in a new window. But if you have it set to use a new tab for command-click, then external links become a tab in the same window.
If I open new tabs from command-clicking a link, they are probably related and belong in the same group.
If I open 5 tabs, and then close that page, go to the first tab, and read... and then start clicking: I am now looking at stuff related to the new page, not the old page -- so the tabs I am now opening have the potential to be unrelated to the rest of the tabs already on the bar. If I can say "Group these new tabs, and put them into a new window"? Wonderful. But no -- instead, as I wander the tab bar, I am browsing in stack-order, rather than queue-order, with no way to break the dozens of tabs up into reasonable grouping.
** And, even if I could, doing so drastically increases the system resources/memory usage.
Quote: Microsoft says it will not search a user's email or other Microsoft service "unless the circumstances would justify a court order, if one were available."
In other words, they are saying that they are the judicial review, the judge, and the jury, and then the executioner -- they decide the process, they determine who will review the case, they decide who will make the judgement, and then they will read your email.
The first three bullet points in that list of reform processes basically says, "We will either use an employee, or a paid contractor, to review the situation to decide if this will continue". And if the reviewer says "Stop", well, they might use a different reviewer next time.
There is no independence. No double checking. No review. No safety at all.
As bad as Google might be claimed to be, this is Microsoft's bare expose: Even in the face of admitting a problem, they won't actually do anything to fix it.
Did Google mess up with the predecessor to Google Plus -- their first attempt at social networking with the ability to make real comments, real content, no silly 140 character limit, etc.? Yep -- and they had a fix in their ToS and code for that program within two days. (Sorry I don't remember the name. I actually liked it better than this new bleep(*) they have.
The difference: Google may be aware that datamining can break privacy. Microsoft says from page 1, they will break your privacy.
(*): Due to the courts and the FCC, my right of free speech has been revoked.
It's about strange sleep patterns. It's not about "All nighters".
The article says:
Veasey and her colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania medical school wanted to find out, so, they put laboratory mice on a wonky sleep schedule that mirrors that of shift workers.
They let them snooze, then woke them up for short periods and for long ones.
Then the scientists looked at their brains -- more specifically, at a bundle of nerve cells they say is associated with alertness and cognitive function, the locus coeruleus.
They found damage and lots of it.
...
This is how the scientists think it happened.
When the mice lost a little sleep, nerve cells reacted by making more of a protein, called sirtuin type 3, to energize and protect them.
But when losing sleep became a habit, that reaction shut down. After just a few days of "shift work" sleep, the cells start dying off at an accelerated pace.
Yes, it's mice, not people. And yes, it says that once doesn't cause harm. It's after days of this that the protection mechanism shuts down.
To be more efficient in federal college loans, we need to tighten up the standards on who actually gets the loans. Those who will gain value from a college education and bring value to society. Those who can't or don't want to do a 4 year college can be encouraged towards tech school (good ones). Yes, we need good electricians, plumbers, welders, etc. Those jobs don't require a college degrees and are extremely useful in both residential and industrial jobs (and expensive due to the lack of supply for them).
TLDR: Stop giving loans to those who come out of college a burden to society.
I agree that we need to tighten up federal aid. I disagree that we can tell ahead of time of who will be a burden or not.
The real issue is the granting of loans in the first place.
The real issue: As the costs of a degree go up, the size of the loans go up as well. If the maximum size of the loan were to stay down -- or perhaps only go to people getting an education where the costs were limited -- then there would be pressure on the universities to keep the cost down.
In other words: In a balanced market, if you price your produce -- an education -- too high, fewer people will buy it => you lower your price. In a distorted market, no matter what price you put on it, someone will fund it's purchase -- and then demand repayment.
To fix the student loan problem, remove the "We'll fund your education at any price", and replace it with "We'll fund your education if it is likely to be repaid".
But that's only part of the answer. The other part is loan insurance.
"We'll fund your education, if it is likely to be repaid, if you agree to pay back the cost, plus a premium for loan insurance, along with the guarantee that if you can't pay it back within N years of graduation, your loan is forgiven". (N should be around 7-10).
In other words, since you know ahead of time that it is impossible to repay every student loan, that you limit the size of the loans, and expect those who succeed will cover the costs of those who fail.
What is the long-term result of that?
1. More people getting loans, and going to school. 2. More people getting degrees, and yet not having the jobs for all of them to get the high-paying jobs that will repay the debts. 3. Partial repayments from most, full repayments from others, and lots of discharged debts 4. As the discharge rate goes up (as fewer graduates, by percentage, can repay), the amount of loan goes down, and the amount of insurance goes up, reducing what can be spent on schools 5. Which in turn forces the cost of education down. 6. Which runs the risk of reducing the quality of education. 7. Which either causes other problems in the future, or forces the education system to fundamentally change.
7 is the fun part. With thousands of schools, and thousands of experiments, someone will succeed. Someone will figure out how to make schooling work better.
And then, either lots and lots of people will copy it, or it will be copyrighted, trademarked, patented, etc, and locked up for just one single group, with extension after extension, until...
Wait, actually, our current system doesn't sound so bad after all:-)
Imagine what some of the greatest minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty.
Imagine what some of the most influential minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty. Regardless of whether or not their ideas were good ones.
I'm not saying that longer life is better or worse; I happen to like it. I'm just saying we have a lot of maturity to do as a species before we could manage that.
We cannot turn it back on again. Even if we wanted to. As all the engineers, physicists, and operators who designed, built and maintained that machine are either dead or retired....
It is easier to gut the machine and rebuild it from scratch than turn it on again.
Alright, I am curious. What, exactly, stops you from flipping the switch back to "on"?
Yes, I am ignorant. But it's a serious question.
It was running, right? So you know that it works.
So, 1. What is so hard about starting it up, and 2. If you knew you could not turn it back on after turning it off, why turn it off?
Genetics give three different types of insulin response to carbohydrate intake: low, medium, high. They are roughly (warning: 30+ year old data) 25, 50, and 25%. Diabetics (again, 30+ year old data, and incomplete/initial when it was taken) (insulin resistance, not pancreatic failure) correspond only to the high insulin response.
Any attempt to document the response of food/diet to population results that fails to account for which type of insulin response you are testing on is a fail. Basic, simple, first step of peer review fail.
When I see articles like this (and I read the article), I can only think that a non-peer reviewed preliminary study is getting as much press coverage as should go to well-established, peer-reviewed, properly control-tested studies.
Essentially:
1. Different levels of insulin response will have different effects on body behavior, as well as survivability in times of famine. 2. Low insulin response basically makes it impossible for your body to have the same behavior as high insulin response 3. Diets that are healthy for high insulin response is probably good for everyone, but low insulin response can safely eat things that high insulin response cannot. 4. High insulin response means a bigger store of fat, and survival through times of food scarcity.
None of that was addressed by this, or even most of the food studies that get lots of media attention. It's almost as if the people covering the news have no knowledge of what they are covering.
Unless you created a pocket universe, started a creation event, formed stars from the resulting big bang cloud, fused a solar system worth of hydrogen into heavier matter, collected the matter into a planet in the perfect orbit, formed a primordial soup, created life from the soup, evolved the life to create coffee bean producers, harvested the beans, processed and roasted the beans, ground them, and finally pressed them yourself, then it's not proper coffee.
I'll just train the butterflies, and let their wings do the work for me.
I do not want to force anybody to do anything they do not want to do, but a condition for being a citizen of the USA is that you have to speak the language. It actually is the law, if that means anything.
Nope.
All you have to do is be born or naturalized in the USA, and subject to its jurisdiction.
Unless, you are the courts: Then, you say all you have to do is be born or naturalized, and then you are subject to its jurisdiction.
Or, if you are someone who actually paid attention to older rulings: then, all you need is for a state to consider you a citizen; once one state says you are a citizen of that state, then all states have to accept you as a citizen.
Believe it or not, that was re-affirmed in a case from (memory... might be off) 1999, against the state of california, for trying to make new arrivals to the state get less welfare support from california.
I think the quote was something like, "Citizens of the united states, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose their own state; states do not have the right to reject citizens".
The issue of being a citizen of a state or not actually dates back to old court rulings that had to deal with someone that was born, and lived entirely in Washington DC, and had never lived in any state. Prior to the 14th amendment, being a citizen or not was entirely up to the states to declare; some gave that to blacks, and others did not.
It is my understanding that the _early_ supreme court rulings after the 14th amendment actually made this clear: states still could issue citizenship, and if they did not, you could claim citizenship from the central government, and then get all the federal rights in state courts.
Don't ask me when the courts started messing up -- I don't know. But now, it's more "If you are born here, then you are automatically subject to federal jurisdiction, and the restrictions of article 1 no longer apply".
If you ever make a mistake -- and we are human -- then yes you need source control.
A better question: Do you need the ability to do lots of cheap branches and easy merging? I find it really makes things much, much easier, but changes the nature of "spagetti code" to the process of keeping track of all the branches.
That is the business man approach. "Your value, your contribution to society, the quality of what you do is determined entirely by your ability to make money from what you do".
No.
Skill at an art is not the same as skill at marketing that art. And it's different yet from skill at making a profit from marketing something that someone else did.
Skill at business isn't the same as skill at _blank_ Skill at marketing isn't the same as skill at _blank_
When did Einstein's paper on the photoelectic effect, or his paper on random walk of atoms (sorry, the name eludes me this morning) become "skill"? He got his Nobel for some other paper he wrote, where all he did was point out that the three basic assumptions of physics that people used were contradictory, and what happened when you only assumed two and let the third go by the wayside.
Well, in fairness, pointing out that common assumptions are contradictory probably is Nobel worthy. I'm sure Godel got a Nobel for doing that to math and logic, right?
(actually, I don't know if Godel got a Nobel for his incompleteness work.)
--- Side note: How do you get angle brackets in this text? I had to change those to "_blank_" because I could not use angle brackets around the word "blank".
I have not played the current MWO, but long, long ago, I had an Amiga game called "Titans of Steel".
Imagine "real-time" (turn based, but you took turns based on your mech's "next active tick time") mech warrior. Realize that the old board game system of "You can generate 1000 degrees of heat, and have it all go to 0 if you have normally functioning heat sinks" fails when you actually have that much heat generated at once and it takes time for your mech to cool off -- and watch mech designs actually change to take realistic heat mechanics come into play.
All those FASA designs, fundamentally only work if you can generate lots of heat and instantly be still cold. Remove that, and everything changes.
Very interesting game.
Only problem? Requires a good Amiga emulator. I haven't had functional kickstart/dos disks in decades, and I'm not even sure I could find this game again.
... Vendor A wasn't popular politically, but won on technical merit. Vendor B was a serious player, and had previously held 80% of the market in that segment, but (a) had fallen behind technically, and (b) their presentation had truly been Keystone Kops level bad, unfortunately. They simply didn't take it seriously; they expected to win on name recognition, so they basically just phoned it in.
...
a competitive analysis for my boss to justify my rankings, and I wrote about 20 pages, detailing the scoring criteria I used, my observations and analysis, etc. Some of the vendors were extremely interested in this (vendor C, in particular, since they just missed the final round by a whisker),
... Vendor C, in contrast, flew up two guys (one business guy, one tech) to take me out to lunch/dinner and get a Vulcan Mind Meld with me; their approach was "we came in number three, what do we need to improve to be number one".
A year later, Vendor B was sitting at 20% of the market, and unlikely to hang on to that, as both Vendor A and Vendor C had passed them....
I think I speak for everyone here when saying...I would really like to read that report.
I am thinking of how I could respond to this. I'm sure that "Wait, was "B" Microsoft?" would get me +5 silly. But this is probably more serious.
Company C -- whoever they are, whatever they do -- sounds like a company I'd like to work for. It's sounds much better than most of the companies I have worked for.
This is, in a nutshell, the market at its finest.
There is a serious view: If you do not improve, you will be overtaken by those that do. Historically, in this industry (Tech), the "improvements" are more likely to come from within -- from elsewhere in the same company. We've seen time and again, companies that sit on an improvement because it will hurt their big department, with IBM being the single biggest such example that I know of; and "biggest example" only because they were the biggest company for the longest. Which company has the highest rate of this, I don't know.
Historically, we see companies that say "We won't improve; no one else is close to us, and improvement helps division C less than stagnation helps division B." Here, we see "We won't improve; we think no one else is close to us", and improvement helps company C more than stagnation helped company B.
This is what we need to see more of. And I'd love to know who the "new kid to watch out for", C, is.
How is Google supposed to know what to do with that? Do you want norse mythology, a comic book, or something else? Do you want packet switching information, bank information, or "Acrylic Tank Manufacturing" -- that's a new one.
About a decade ago, "Cow9" -- that was the name of the alta vista search engine -- had a wonderful solution to this, that required loading a java applet into your browser as part of the search. I loved it, and was disappointed when it was killed off.
Google is far from the answer. Even google itself admits that this is a deep and hard question.
Objective C - falls into the category of managers wanting more years experience than the iphone has been in existence, so few developers match the requirements. Very high demand.
Very high demand?
I started learning Objective C when Apple was called NeXT. I'm one of those "more than the iPhone has been in existence" developers.
I have not been able to find objective C jobs... since 2001.
I thought the market was basically dead. Very high demand?
Someone half a page up said that programmers needed two skills: How to do your job, how to find a job. I seem to only have half of that skill set.
I could not find a way to respond on that blog, so I'm responding here.
The failure rate reported seems to vary significantly based on drive more than on manufacturer -- in particular, I noticed that the newer seagates are reporting good failure rates, while the older ones have higher failure rates.
What I'd like to see is more like "At what point have 5% of the drives failed, excluding infant mortality". In other words, ignoring drives that fail in the first 30 days, how long before we have a 5% failure for that given drive?
Note that in most situations, the time quoted is for 50% of something to die, and that's reported as the mean time. 50% drive failure will take years, but 5% should be data you have by now, right?
No, the joke should have been about the reliability of Radio Shack's TRS-DOS for the model 1.
(Hint: it was $15, all the competition OS's were around $80-$100, and everyone knowledgeable about the issues thought that the prices were just about right, radio shack's dos possibly overpriced.)
You guys argue that people who have insurance should pay their premiums in proportion to how likely they are to use it. You consider that the fairest possible payment system. However, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you should only charge people who actually end up using it. So you should go ahead and eliminate insurance altogether, and you have the fairest model possible: only people who get into car accidents pay the costs, only people who get sick pay medical costs, only people who get robbed suffer their losses.
The entire point of insurance is to make the payment unfair in order to diminish the payment by spreading the risk among everyone. You agree to pay something, even though you hope to never have to cash in on the insurance, so that if you do have to cash in, everybody else who doesn't need to cash in subsidizes you, and you pay less.
The proper pricing model for insurance is based on percentage chance of using it. Do you have a 5% chance of using insurance? Then you should pay 5% plus profit margin in premiums.
Does someone who smokes have a higher chance of using insurance, and paying more for medical care? Yes? Ok, charge them more.
Does someone who has genes for issue X -- and lets say that they are active, expressed genes -- have a higher chance of using insurance and paying more for medical care? Yes? Ok, so...
Now we get into the first set of tricky questions. You can choose to smoke or not. You can't choose your genes. Do we penalize people for some things that they cannot control?
And why did we look at gene X -- there are hundreds of thousands of issues with genes. Potentially, every protein that can fold in more than one shape, or that can be generated in multiple slightly variant sequences could turn out to affect disease -- yet we only have some of them analized. Does it make sense to say "We know you are worse because of X, we don't know about Y, so we're giving you penalty for X, but not giving you a discount for Y"?
And who decides to study X and not Y? Is there a correlation between european genes vs african genes? "Race is only skin deep" is false -- the people who migrated out of africa did get different genes as a result. Should we not give penalties to people who have lost the malaria protection in their blood?
That last question is deliberately loaded, deliberately phrased. If you didn't understand it: The same sickle cell that gives you protection against malaria from mosquitoes also causes anemia from a lack of oxygen in other situations. How do you tell what's the benefit or the penalty?
And I haven't even gotten to the statistical abuse of several "different" issues that actually overlap to the point that you are double- or triple- surcharging for what is really a single issue.
Insurance pricing is not nearly as clear-cut as people want to make it seem.
Simple example: Under the affordable health care act, the stated goal is to get enough young, healthy people signed up to cover the costs of insuring the elderly. So the stated goal is to have younger people overpay -- pay higher than the expected usage costs -- to reduce the costs charged to older people.
Fairness? Charging people less for being healthy? How do you determine healthy? How do you determine fairness? Why do you deliberately overcharge group A to subsidize group B? Why permit this on age? How do you prevent it from being racial in disguise as soon as you look at genes?
This topic was on privacy. So where's the line?
If I want my genes to be private, and out of the insurance company, why not? If I want my actions to be private, and out of the insurance company, why not?
===
Car insurance companies finally seem to have the right model. You can get a discount if you voluntarily reveal your driving habits, but you don't have to if you don't want to.
Now, all we need is what I understand to be existing conversion law. That data is provided to you only for the purpose of calculating my insurance, and any other use is in violation of the law.
Slashdot Mirror
** Mod Parent Up **
I was just about to post this same thing. I have been using 24 ESR (and 17 ESR, for PPC compatibility) for a while now. I was fortunate enough to NOT get this bleep today.
My mother, on her microsoft windows based system, was wondering "What has happened? Where has my gmail gone?"
Massive change, just for the sake of change, with no warning, with no user awareness, with no customization? I used to think that only Microsoft could pull such bleep on us.
Funny, I am one of those "Open in new window" guys who still prefers new windows over tabs. I'm beginning to think I'm the only one.
My only reasons for wanting tabs over windows?
1. Memory. For some reason, it takes a lot more system resources/memory to have 10 pages in 10 windows, than in 1 window with 10 tabs.
2. I want to keep related pages together. But ohh, Firefox doesn't have any tools for selecting tabs and working with them as a group. I think it was just a couple of changes that were needed: Move all tabs here and to the right off to a new window as a group; and, open all new tabs on the far right (instead of next to me).
3. What we really need, and have never had, is the ability to say "Open all external links in a new window", rather than "in a new tab in the same window". If you have things set up so that command-clicking gives you a new window, then external links open in a new window. But if you have it set to use a new tab for command-click, then external links become a tab in the same window.
If I open new tabs from command-clicking a link, they are probably related and belong in the same group.
If I open 5 tabs, and then close that page, go to the first tab, and read ... and then start clicking: I am now looking at stuff related to the new page, not the old page -- so the tabs I am now opening have the potential to be unrelated to the rest of the tabs already on the bar. If I can say "Group these new tabs, and put them into a new window"? Wonderful. But no -- instead, as I wander the tab bar, I am browsing in stack-order, rather than queue-order, with no way to break the dozens of tabs up into reasonable grouping.
** And, even if I could, doing so drastically increases the system resources/memory usage.
Quote: Microsoft says it will not search a user's email or other Microsoft service "unless the circumstances would justify a court order, if one were available."
In other words, they are saying that they are the judicial review, the judge, and the jury, and then the executioner -- they decide the process, they determine who will review the case, they decide who will make the judgement, and then they will read your email.
The first three bullet points in that list of reform processes basically says, "We will either use an employee, or a paid contractor, to review the situation to decide if this will continue". And if the reviewer says "Stop", well, they might use a different reviewer next time.
There is no independence. No double checking. No review. No safety at all.
As bad as Google might be claimed to be, this is Microsoft's bare expose: Even in the face of admitting a problem, they won't actually do anything to fix it.
Did Google mess up with the predecessor to Google Plus -- their first attempt at social networking with the ability to make real comments, real content, no silly 140 character limit, etc.? Yep -- and they had a fix in their ToS and code for that program within two days. (Sorry I don't remember the name. I actually liked it better than this new bleep(*) they have.
The difference: Google may be aware that datamining can break privacy. Microsoft says from page 1, they will break your privacy.
(*): Due to the courts and the FCC, my right of free speech has been revoked.
It's about strange sleep patterns.
It's not about "All nighters".
The article says:
Veasey and her colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania medical school wanted to find out, so, they put laboratory mice on a wonky sleep schedule that mirrors that of shift workers.
They let them snooze, then woke them up for short periods and for long ones.
Then the scientists looked at their brains -- more specifically, at a bundle of nerve cells they say is associated with alertness and cognitive function, the locus coeruleus.
They found damage and lots of it.
...
This is how the scientists think it happened.
When the mice lost a little sleep, nerve cells reacted by making more of a protein, called sirtuin type 3, to energize and protect them.
But when losing sleep became a habit, that reaction shut down. After just a few days of "shift work" sleep, the cells start dying off at an accelerated pace.
Yes, it's mice, not people. And yes, it says that once doesn't cause harm. It's after days of this that the protection mechanism shuts down.
To be more efficient in federal college loans, we need to tighten up the standards on who actually gets the loans. Those who will gain value from a college education and bring value to society. Those who can't or don't want to do a 4 year college can be encouraged towards tech school (good ones). Yes, we need good electricians, plumbers, welders, etc. Those jobs don't require a college degrees and are extremely useful in both residential and industrial jobs (and expensive due to the lack of supply for them).
TLDR: Stop giving loans to those who come out of college a burden to society.
I agree that we need to tighten up federal aid.
I disagree that we can tell ahead of time of who will be a burden or not.
The real issue is the granting of loans in the first place.
The real issue: As the costs of a degree go up, the size of the loans go up as well. If the maximum size of the loan were to stay down -- or perhaps only go to people getting an education where the costs were limited -- then there would be pressure on the universities to keep the cost down.
In other words:
In a balanced market, if you price your produce -- an education -- too high, fewer people will buy it => you lower your price.
In a distorted market, no matter what price you put on it, someone will fund it's purchase -- and then demand repayment.
To fix the student loan problem, remove the "We'll fund your education at any price", and replace it with "We'll fund your education if it is likely to be repaid".
But that's only part of the answer. The other part is loan insurance.
"We'll fund your education, if it is likely to be repaid, if you agree to pay back the cost, plus a premium for loan insurance, along with the guarantee that if you can't pay it back within N years of graduation, your loan is forgiven". (N should be around 7-10).
In other words, since you know ahead of time that it is impossible to repay every student loan, that you limit the size of the loans, and expect those who succeed will cover the costs of those who fail.
What is the long-term result of that?
1. More people getting loans, and going to school.
2. More people getting degrees, and yet not having the jobs for all of them to get the high-paying jobs that will repay the debts.
3. Partial repayments from most, full repayments from others, and lots of discharged debts
4. As the discharge rate goes up (as fewer graduates, by percentage, can repay), the amount of loan goes down, and the amount of insurance goes up, reducing what can be spent on schools
5. Which in turn forces the cost of education down.
6. Which runs the risk of reducing the quality of education.
7. Which either causes other problems in the future, or forces the education system to fundamentally change.
7 is the fun part. With thousands of schools, and thousands of experiments, someone will succeed. Someone will figure out how to make schooling work better.
And then, either lots and lots of people will copy it, or it will be copyrighted, trademarked, patented, etc, and locked up for just one single group, with extension after extension, until ...
Wait, actually, our current system doesn't sound so bad after all :-)
Imagine what some of the greatest minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty.
Imagine what some of the most influential minds of our time could accomplish with an extra hundred years, or even an extra sixty. Regardless of whether or not their ideas were good ones.
I'm not saying that longer life is better or worse; I happen to like it.
I'm just saying we have a lot of maturity to do as a species before we could manage that.
and made a fortune from a website made in PHP, built on an idea he stole from someone else.
Would you rather make a fortune in basic based on code stolen from someone else?
We cannot turn it back on again. Even if we wanted to. As all the engineers, physicists, and operators who designed, built and maintained that machine are either dead or retired. ...
It is easier to gut the machine and rebuild it from scratch than turn it on again.
Alright, I am curious. What, exactly, stops you from flipping the switch back to "on"?
Yes, I am ignorant. But it's a serious question.
It was running, right? So you know that it works.
So,
1. What is so hard about starting it up, and
2. If you knew you could not turn it back on after turning it off, why turn it off?
Don't forget the model 16 -- a true multiuser system that ran Xenix (a unix variant).
68010, I think. My first unix system (v7 based initially).
Ahh... the days
Internally, I believe it was an upgraded model 2.
Genetics give three different types of insulin response to carbohydrate intake: low, medium, high. They are roughly (warning: 30+ year old data) 25, 50, and 25%. Diabetics (again, 30+ year old data, and incomplete/initial when it was taken) (insulin resistance, not pancreatic failure) correspond only to the high insulin response.
Any attempt to document the response of food/diet to population results that fails to account for which type of insulin response you are testing on is a fail. Basic, simple, first step of peer review fail.
When I see articles like this (and I read the article), I can only think that a non-peer reviewed preliminary study is getting as much press coverage as should go to well-established, peer-reviewed, properly control-tested studies.
Essentially:
1. Different levels of insulin response will have different effects on body behavior, as well as survivability in times of famine.
2. Low insulin response basically makes it impossible for your body to have the same behavior as high insulin response
3. Diets that are healthy for high insulin response is probably good for everyone, but low insulin response can safely eat things that high insulin response cannot.
4. High insulin response means a bigger store of fat, and survival through times of food scarcity.
None of that was addressed by this, or even most of the food studies that get lots of media attention. It's almost as if the people covering the news have no knowledge of what they are covering.
Oh, wait, what did I just say?
How about we just skip to the end of the chain?
Unless you created a pocket universe, started a creation event, formed stars from the resulting big bang cloud, fused a solar system worth of hydrogen into heavier matter, collected the matter into a planet in the perfect orbit, formed a primordial soup, created life from the soup, evolved the life to create coffee bean producers, harvested the beans, processed and roasted the beans, ground them, and finally pressed them yourself, then it's not proper coffee.
I'll just train the butterflies, and let their wings do the work for me.
Err, is that "obligatory XKCD"?
http://xkcd.com/378/
I do not want to force anybody to do anything they do not want to do, but a condition for being a citizen of the USA is that you have to speak the language. It actually is the law, if that means anything.
Nope.
All you have to do is be born or naturalized in the USA, and subject to its jurisdiction.
Unless, you are the courts: Then, you say all you have to do is be born or naturalized, and then you are subject to its jurisdiction.
Or, if you are someone who actually paid attention to older rulings: then, all you need is for a state to consider you a citizen; once one state says you are a citizen of that state, then all states have to accept you as a citizen.
Believe it or not, that was re-affirmed in a case from (memory ... might be off) 1999, against the state of california, for trying to make new arrivals to the state get less welfare support from california.
I think the quote was something like, "Citizens of the united states, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose their own state; states do not have the right to reject citizens".
The issue of being a citizen of a state or not actually dates back to old court rulings that had to deal with someone that was born, and lived entirely in Washington DC, and had never lived in any state. Prior to the 14th amendment, being a citizen or not was entirely up to the states to declare; some gave that to blacks, and others did not.
It is my understanding that the _early_ supreme court rulings after the 14th amendment actually made this clear: states still could issue citizenship, and if they did not, you could claim citizenship from the central government, and then get all the federal rights in state courts.
Don't ask me when the courts started messing up -- I don't know.
But now, it's more "If you are born here, then you are automatically subject to federal jurisdiction, and the restrictions of article 1 no longer apply".
Yes.
If you ever make a mistake -- and we are human -- then yes you need source control.
A better question: Do you need the ability to do lots of cheap branches and easy merging? I find it really makes things much, much easier, but changes the nature of "spagetti code" to the process of keeping track of all the branches.
EDIT: Brownian motion. Brownian motion. I can't actually find an "edit post" button.
In what you earn from doing what you do?
That is the business man approach. "Your value, your contribution to society, the quality of what you do is determined entirely by your ability to make money from what you do".
No.
Skill at an art is not the same as skill at marketing that art. And it's different yet from skill at making a profit from marketing something that someone else did.
Skill at business isn't the same as skill at _blank_
Skill at marketing isn't the same as skill at _blank_
When did Einstein's paper on the photoelectic effect, or his paper on random walk of atoms (sorry, the name eludes me this morning) become "skill"? He got his Nobel for some other paper he wrote, where all he did was point out that the three basic assumptions of physics that people used were contradictory, and what happened when you only assumed two and let the third go by the wayside.
Well, in fairness, pointing out that common assumptions are contradictory probably is Nobel worthy. I'm sure Godel got a Nobel for doing that to math and logic, right?
(actually, I don't know if Godel got a Nobel for his incompleteness work.)
---
Side note: How do you get angle brackets in this text? I had to change those to "_blank_" because I could not use angle brackets around the word "blank".
I like the idea how everything is a file etc.
But if you pay attention to modern evolution of OS's, everything is a directory makes more sense / a better map.
Files have extended attributes, various data/resource/etc forks; real directories cannot be read, but have a bunch of index'd names; etc.
People who say that hardware devices need special parallel communication: each such communication is just another entry in the directory.
And then there's the whole "This program contains different versions for different architectures" is just straight multiple single streams.
Threaten to use the laser to melt the icecaps, and alter the world's climate, unless I were paid one million dollars.
I have not played the current MWO, but long, long ago, I had an Amiga game called "Titans of Steel".
Imagine "real-time" (turn based, but you took turns based on your mech's "next active tick time") mech warrior. Realize that the old board game system of "You can generate 1000 degrees of heat, and have it all go to 0 if you have normally functioning heat sinks" fails when you actually have that much heat generated at once and it takes time for your mech to cool off -- and watch mech designs actually change to take realistic heat mechanics come into play.
All those FASA designs, fundamentally only work if you can generate lots of heat and instantly be still cold. Remove that, and everything changes.
Very interesting game.
Only problem? Requires a good Amiga emulator. I haven't had functional kickstart/dos disks in decades, and I'm not even sure I could find this game again.
I play Minecraft.
And, Minecraft: Magic Farm 2 modpack (aka "Death and Starvation come to multiplayer")
And, Minecraft: The forums
And, Minecraft: Mod debugging
And, Minecraft: Personal Modpack assembly and performance tuning.
And, Minecraft: Suggestions for improving mods / working with mod authors
And, Minecraft: The video recording editing sessions
And, Minceraft: The sister game of typos.
And, occasionally, minecraft, the video game of mining and crafting, and building.
...
Vendor A wasn't popular politically, but won on technical merit. Vendor B was a serious player, and had previously held 80% of the market in that segment, but (a) had fallen behind technically, and (b) their presentation had truly been Keystone Kops level bad, unfortunately. They simply didn't take it seriously; they expected to win on name recognition, so they basically just phoned it in.
a competitive analysis for my boss to justify my rankings, and I wrote about 20 pages, detailing the scoring criteria I used, my observations and analysis, etc. Some of the vendors were extremely interested in this (vendor C, in particular, since they just missed the final round by a whisker),
Vendor C, in contrast, flew up two guys (one business guy, one tech) to take me out to lunch/dinner and get a Vulcan Mind Meld with me; their approach was "we came in number three, what do we need to improve to be number one".
A year later, Vendor B was sitting at 20% of the market, and unlikely to hang on to that, as both Vendor A and Vendor C had passed them. ...
I think I speak for everyone here when saying...I would really like to read that report.
I am thinking of how I could respond to this. I'm sure that "Wait, was "B" Microsoft?" would get me +5 silly. But this is probably more serious.
Company C -- whoever they are, whatever they do -- sounds like a company I'd like to work for. It's sounds much better than most of the companies I have worked for.
This is, in a nutshell, the market at its finest.
There is a serious view: If you do not improve, you will be overtaken by those that do. Historically, in this industry (Tech), the "improvements" are more likely to come from within -- from elsewhere in the same company. We've seen time and again, companies that sit on an improvement because it will hurt their big department, with IBM being the single biggest such example that I know of; and "biggest example" only because they were the biggest company for the longest. Which company has the highest rate of this, I don't know.
Historically, we see companies that say "We won't improve; no one else is close to us, and improvement helps division C less than stagnation helps division B."
Here, we see "We won't improve; we think no one else is close to us", and improvement helps company C more than stagnation helped company B.
This is what we need to see more of. And I'd love to know who the "new kid to watch out for", C, is.
So, was B microsoft?
Google is not the answer.
Want proof? Try these two searches:
"Thor"
"atm"
How is Google supposed to know what to do with that? Do you want norse mythology, a comic book, or something else? Do you want packet switching information, bank information, or "Acrylic Tank Manufacturing" -- that's a new one.
About a decade ago, "Cow9" -- that was the name of the alta vista search engine -- had a wonderful solution to this, that required loading a java applet into your browser as part of the search. I loved it, and was disappointed when it was killed off.
Google is far from the answer. Even google itself admits that this is a deep and hard question.
Objective C - falls into the category of managers wanting more years experience than the iphone has been in existence, so few developers match the requirements. Very high demand.
Very high demand?
I started learning Objective C when Apple was called NeXT. I'm one of those "more than the iPhone has been in existence" developers.
I have not been able to find objective C jobs ... since 2001.
I thought the market was basically dead. Very high demand?
Someone half a page up said that programmers needed two skills: How to do your job, how to find a job. I seem to only have half of that skill set.
I could not find a way to respond on that blog, so I'm responding here.
The failure rate reported seems to vary significantly based on drive more than on manufacturer -- in particular, I noticed that the newer seagates are reporting good failure rates, while the older ones have higher failure rates.
What I'd like to see is more like "At what point have 5% of the drives failed, excluding infant mortality". In other words, ignoring drives that fail in the first 30 days, how long before we have a 5% failure for that given drive?
Note that in most situations, the time quoted is for 50% of something to die, and that's reported as the mean time. 50% drive failure will take years, but 5% should be data you have by now, right?
No, the joke should have been about the reliability of Radio Shack's TRS-DOS for the model 1.
(Hint: it was $15, all the competition OS's were around $80-$100, and everyone knowledgeable about the issues thought that the prices were just about right, radio shack's dos possibly overpriced.)
You guys argue that people who have insurance should pay their premiums in proportion to how likely they are to use it. You consider that the fairest possible payment system. However, if you take that to its logical conclusion, you should only charge people who actually end up using it. So you should go ahead and eliminate insurance altogether, and you have the fairest model possible: only people who get into car accidents pay the costs, only people who get sick pay medical costs, only people who get robbed suffer their losses.
The entire point of insurance is to make the payment unfair in order to diminish the payment by spreading the risk among everyone. You agree to pay something, even though you hope to never have to cash in on the insurance, so that if you do have to cash in, everybody else who doesn't need to cash in subsidizes you, and you pay less.
The proper pricing model for insurance is based on percentage chance of using it. Do you have a 5% chance of using insurance? Then you should pay 5% plus profit margin in premiums.
Does someone who smokes have a higher chance of using insurance, and paying more for medical care? Yes? Ok, charge them more.
Does someone who has genes for issue X -- and lets say that they are active, expressed genes -- have a higher chance of using insurance and paying more for medical care? Yes? Ok, so ...
Now we get into the first set of tricky questions. You can choose to smoke or not. You can't choose your genes. Do we penalize people for some things that they cannot control?
And why did we look at gene X -- there are hundreds of thousands of issues with genes. Potentially, every protein that can fold in more than one shape, or that can be generated in multiple slightly variant sequences could turn out to affect disease -- yet we only have some of them analized. Does it make sense to say "We know you are worse because of X, we don't know about Y, so we're giving you penalty for X, but not giving you a discount for Y"?
And who decides to study X and not Y? Is there a correlation between european genes vs african genes? "Race is only skin deep" is false -- the people who migrated out of africa did get different genes as a result. Should we not give penalties to people who have lost the malaria protection in their blood?
That last question is deliberately loaded, deliberately phrased. If you didn't understand it: The same sickle cell that gives you protection against malaria from mosquitoes also causes anemia from a lack of oxygen in other situations. How do you tell what's the benefit or the penalty?
And I haven't even gotten to the statistical abuse of several "different" issues that actually overlap to the point that you are double- or triple- surcharging for what is really a single issue.
Insurance pricing is not nearly as clear-cut as people want to make it seem.
Simple example: Under the affordable health care act, the stated goal is to get enough young, healthy people signed up to cover the costs of insuring the elderly. So the stated goal is to have younger people overpay -- pay higher than the expected usage costs -- to reduce the costs charged to older people.
Fairness? Charging people less for being healthy? How do you determine healthy? How do you determine fairness? Why do you deliberately overcharge group A to subsidize group B? Why permit this on age? How do you prevent it from being racial in disguise as soon as you look at genes?
This topic was on privacy. So where's the line?
If I want my genes to be private, and out of the insurance company, why not?
If I want my actions to be private, and out of the insurance company, why not?
===
Car insurance companies finally seem to have the right model. You can get a discount if you voluntarily reveal your driving habits, but you don't have to if you don't want to.
Now, all we need is what I understand to be existing conversion law. That data is provided to you only for the purpose of calculating my insurance, and any other use is in violation of the law.