What was your exercise program like ? I understood the # of minutes you need to exercise per week to reap cardiovascular benefits, for instance, was pretty large.
Most of the ones I've known (from when I was in grad school and then from when I worked at a major biotech) do postdocs in order to build their research portfolio. If you want to a faculty research (not teaching) position in science, you need publications. These require research. Research requires time and money and in this day and age, the time typically spent in grad school is not enough to do a lot of top-quality research. And, grad school time is often spent teach undergrads, doing coursework, etc - whereas postdocs can usually afford to spend all their working hours on research.
So yes, postdocs aren't paid well, but most of that is because the position itself typically funds work that the postdoc needs and *wants* to do. It's a symbiotic relationship between PI and postdoc.
There are always, of course, the stars who are good enough to get research positions straight out of grad school. I've known a few.
I didn't see any evidence presented that "piracy can increase sales". All I saw were claims that box-office, gaming, and music revenues are increasing. But these increases are due to acknowledged growth areas (e.g. streaming, in-game buying, etc) and improved distribution methods (e.g., iTunes) and these claims say nothing about what revenues would have been in the absence of piracy. In other words, there is nothing to support the causality implied in the Slashdot story title
Frankly, I don't see how it is at all arguable that piracy can increase revenues. If I can download a band's entire catalog, which I have done, once I have done so the likelihood that I am going to go and pay for the band's music is drastically - in my case, completely - reduced. Same goes for downloading movies. It is, as one poster commented, just bits now. The visceral pleasure of owning a record with its cover art, sliding open the sleeves and smelling that wonderful vinyl smell is gone. A legally purchased copy of music or a movie is no better than a pirated download of same.
"blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself"
If so, then what does it matter whether or not commentary is allowed ?
What almost certainly happens is a bunch of pseudo- or anti-science gets posted. People then read this stuff and see it as legitimized by being on Popular Science, when they forget - or fail to see the distinction - that the dubious claims are on in a comments section.
Honestly, I believe that the Internet is modern science's biggest boon, and it's biggest threat. When know-nothings have a voice that can be as heard by as many people as experts, we're in trouble, and the Internet has brought that to us in spades.
"The problem wasn't that we stopped listening to customers, We believed we knew better what customers needed long term than they did".
Believing you know what customers wanted or needed is not necessarily the problem. Customers don't always know what they want. Apple (or, it appears, perhaps just Jobs) made hay giving what customers evidently wanted instead of listening to industry pundits and market research to figure that out. The problem here was that Blackberry just didn't know what their customers wanted, and moreover, couldn't deliver in a timely fashion.
Exactly how long has it been like this ? I tracked this project for about a decade until I concluded it would never be ready for production - over a decade ago.
There are already at least 480GB (close enough to 500, in books) **mSATA** SSD drives (Mushkin made the first I know of), which makes the drive in this post positively gargantuan.
With a camera phone, I'd say that the time it takes "to lock focus and save images" is arguably far more important than the number of megapixels.
Even with DSLRS, we've long ago reached the point where the average person needs more MP than are available, and none of *them* are at the 41 MP count. They also have far better optics than what is almost certainly in this (Zeiss nametag or not), and it is well understood in that domain that the importance of glass far outweighs the importance of whatever body you happen to be using.
If the point was just to get better low-light performance by packing on more pixels and then binning them, I wonder why they didn't just design sensors with bigger photosites - at least then, reasonable save times and storage consumption would be a possibility. I know that camera novices get sucked into the MP marketing hype, but does anyone buy a phone for the MP in the camera ?
- he says he's middle aged - let's say 50. He also said at 16 or 17 he joined "one of the distros". The earliest "distros" as such, started appearing around 1992, IIRC - around 21 years ago. So at most he's now 37 or 38 - not middle aged.
Now if he just defines "middle aged" differently, then he would have been hanging at 15 around the Radio Shacks (a hacker cliche) around 1990 - well past the eras of the TRS-80s and Color Computers that the cliche says hackers would be working on - unless he's claiming that was on PCs. Did Radio Shack sell PCs ?
Then he just snuck out the back door when the men-in-black showed up. He got away because he never went back - even though surely the MIB knew who he was and that he was, apparently, still living with his mother and step-dad.
He doesn't want to be emailed in the months leading up to the conversation, ostensibly to maintain secrecy, which opens up another bunch of inconsistencies. First, if I'm able to read the author's emails, all I need to do is look for friends who stopped emailing him for a few months around the conversation. Secondly, who is he hiding from if he's already working for the government ?
Finally, the notion that a super-secret, middle-aged white guy ho walso plays in a hardcore rap band - and IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS SUCH - exposes this pack of lies completely. That's a pretty shitty cloak of anonymity a middle aged white guy that came from another country and plays a lot of instruments in a hard-core rap band north of DC is hiding under.
And how long were Apple users using Firewire drives before USB 3 - heck, even USB 2.0 if you want to pretend that's anywhere close to Firewire ? Even now Firewire is a viable interface.
There`s no misinformation on the part of Sony here. The article makes it clear how much battery life they are claiming with - and without - the extra battery.
And frankly, if the 11`` gets anything close to 11-h, I count that as pretty good. And depending on how much the extra battery weighs and how big it is, being able to work for 25-h - heck, even 15-h - gets all the way to awesome for me.
There is no Intel mac that's been released since 2006 that doesn't have at least those specs, unless you ripped hardware out of it, or put together a Hackintosh of your own, and did it badly, and cheaply.
Or are you complaining because *you decided* not to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and now can't upgrade to the latest Snow Leopard patch, which includes the App Store?
Uh, what about the Macbook Airs ? Do *they* have a DVD drive ?
That's like being happy to find out that only one third of policemen are not crooked, or only one third of people are child molesters. Would we be happy if the article read that "only" one third of *companies* snoop on our emails ?
I know that Google took it over and still makes Usenet content searchable, but a part of me pines for the simple days when it was Usenet that contained the useful technical information we needed, and when Dejanews was the best way to get to it.
Amen. Kind of makes it hard to argue that this isn't your Taco's own little vanity soapbox. But I guess the Anime/everything2/etc links already made that clear. I guess OSDN and its shareholders gives this guy a long leash because it doesn't really cost much, and they're willing to tolerate the editor's remarkable self-indulges as long as the site continues to function as a prominent Linux/GPL fanboy site. Thanks for reminding me again.
I expect to get flamed or modded down but I'm not posting as an AC because I really believe the above.
Nah, I bet he had it on his left hand. That's what he gets for the C-/M- key binding hell he put us through ! I bet the pinky-through-middle fingers on his left hand are absolutely shot !!
What I suggested is that the average user, IF they were aware that leaving their AP open POTENTIALLY ALLOWED access to people with dubious intentions to POSSIBLY commit illegal acts that might ultimately be traced to them, most would probably choose to close their AP. Whether or not such is a likelihood is immaterial - why would most rational people expose themselves to potential liability if there's not something in it for them ? And while responsibility for these actions SHOULD fall on the perpetrator, in cases where all the authorities have is an IP address (timely with the recent RIAA crackdowns), it's person with the AP who is going to have to answer first.
Ultimately what I am arguing is that I do NOT believe open APs are invitations to use bandwidth, at least not in the sense that they are made with the knowing consent of its owner. Do YOU really believe that the majority of APs are INTENTIONALLY left open ? Or would you agree that most APs are open because the owner didn't even know that means or how to close it ?
Further I contend that most people (you may indeed have very generous neighbours) would choose NOT give away things, even if it doesn't cost them anything, as long as they are paying for it. Here's an analogy, suppose you own a vacation home that you use one month out of the year. Do you a) allow people to use it for free, (save perhaps for a minimal allowance for wear-and-tear only) or b) rent it out for as much as you can ?
Here's another one, say you're paying $50 a month for cable tv. Your roommate wants cable TV too, but the cable TV company wants (say) $5/month for an extra outlet. Do you a) refuse, b) let him do it, for free, c) pay the cable company the 5 bucks, or d) let him do it but split the cable bill with him ? Forget that it's illegal, and unethical. If we can agree that lots of people are doing it, what arrangement do you think they have between themselves ? I think most people are doing d); you would say most people would choose b).
Finally, my penultimate DSL provider definitely did charge a surcharge for bandwidth over a certain amount which I believe was only 5 or 6 GB/month. I exceeded that myself several times, mostly over 802.11b.
I disagree with your contention that an open AP is intentional. I bet most APs are left open unintentionally - if only by the user's ignorance, because I met most APs are owned by regular folks who aren't technicians. Sure, some people explicitly leave their APs open, but that doesn't mean they're in the majority.
Now, if you asked most users, "Do you want other people to be able to use the bandwidth you have paid for, for free", or "Do you want to remove an obstacle that could give someone could better access to your home network and better enable them to hack your computer/read your files/etc", or "Do you want to enable people you don't know to potentially use your network for illegal purposes" (all of which are inarguably true) what do you think most of them would answer?
And furthermore, what do you think those users who pay surcharges for extra bandwidth would answer ?
One could argue that the Republicans - if what they are accused of is true - had no reason to know they weren't supposed to use the files in question. After all, the permission system of every OS I'm familiar with goes beyond defining what people CAN'T use, by explicitly defining what people CAN use.
By definition, because the Republicans had read permissions on the files, they had EXPLICIT permission to read them. So, how are these inadvertent but still explicit permissions any different then the inadvertent but still explicit permissions in your example of an unsecured wireless AP running DHCP ?
And what if the owner of the AP has disabled DHCP ?
If I leave the door to my house unlocked it isn't an invitation for people to come in. It may be dumb but anyone coming in is still trespassing.
I don't get it. I agree with the poster, but what I don't understand is that he gets modded as insightful. But if he'd posted the same point in regards to people using someone else's unsecured wifi without their explicit permission, he'd get modded as a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
What was your exercise program like ? I understood the # of minutes you need to exercise per week to reap cardiovascular benefits, for instance, was pretty large.
Most of the ones I've known (from when I was in grad school and then from when I worked at a major biotech) do postdocs in order to build their research portfolio. If you want to a faculty research (not teaching) position in science, you need publications. These require research. Research requires time and money and in this day and age, the time typically spent in grad school is not enough to do a lot of top-quality research. And, grad school time is often spent teach undergrads, doing coursework, etc - whereas postdocs can usually afford to spend all their working hours on research.
So yes, postdocs aren't paid well, but most of that is because the position itself typically funds work that the postdoc needs and *wants* to do. It's a symbiotic relationship between PI and postdoc.
There are always, of course, the stars who are good enough to get research positions straight out of grad school. I've known a few.
so the video reveals Schindler's list ?
I didn't see any evidence presented that "piracy can increase sales". All I saw were claims that box-office, gaming, and music revenues are increasing. But these increases are due to acknowledged growth areas (e.g. streaming, in-game buying, etc) and improved distribution methods (e.g., iTunes) and these claims say nothing about what revenues would have been in the absence of piracy. In other words, there is nothing to support the causality implied in the Slashdot story title
Frankly, I don't see how it is at all arguable that piracy can increase revenues. If I can download a band's entire catalog, which I have done, once I have done so the likelihood that I am going to go and pay for the band's music is drastically - in my case, completely - reduced. Same goes for downloading movies. It is, as one poster commented, just bits now. The visceral pleasure of owning a record with its cover art, sliding open the sleeves and smelling that wonderful vinyl smell is gone. A legally purchased copy of music or a movie is no better than a pirated download of same.
"blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself"
If so, then what does it matter whether or not commentary is allowed ?
What almost certainly happens is a bunch of pseudo- or anti-science gets posted. People then read this stuff and see it as legitimized by being on Popular Science, when they forget - or fail to see the distinction - that the dubious claims are on in a comments section.
Honestly, I believe that the Internet is modern science's biggest boon, and it's biggest threat. When know-nothings have a voice that can be as heard by as many people as experts, we're in trouble, and the Internet has brought that to us in spades.
"The problem wasn't that we stopped listening to customers, We believed we knew better what customers needed long term than they did".
Believing you know what customers wanted or needed is not necessarily the problem. Customers don't always know what they want. Apple (or, it appears, perhaps just Jobs) made hay giving what customers evidently wanted instead of listening to industry pundits and market research to figure that out. The problem here was that Blackberry just didn't know what their customers wanted, and moreover, couldn't deliver in a timely fashion.
"Development of the Hurd has proceeded slowly." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd)
As per http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/status.html: " It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features".
Exactly how long has it been like this ? I tracked this project for about a decade until I concluded it would never be ready for production - over a decade ago.
There are already at least 480GB (close enough to 500, in books) **mSATA** SSD drives (Mushkin made the first I know of), which makes the drive in this post positively gargantuan.
that people have died when they after a Mavericks crash.
that the author is a Starcraft gamer. Look Mom, I'm not playing a stupid game, I'm improving myself.
With a camera phone, I'd say that the time it takes "to lock focus and save images" is arguably far more important than the number of megapixels.
Even with DSLRS, we've long ago reached the point where the average person needs more MP than are available, and none of *them* are at the 41 MP count. They also have far better optics than what is almost certainly in this (Zeiss nametag or not), and it is well understood in that domain that the importance of glass far outweighs the importance of whatever body you happen to be using.
If the point was just to get better low-light performance by packing on more pixels and then binning them, I wonder why they didn't just design sensors with bigger photosites - at least then, reasonable save times and storage consumption would be a possibility. I know that camera novices get sucked into the MP marketing hype, but does anyone buy a phone for the MP in the camera ?
Like so many others, I call BS.
- he says he's middle aged - let's say 50. He also said at 16 or 17 he joined "one of the distros". The earliest "distros" as such, started appearing around 1992, IIRC - around 21 years ago. So at most he's now 37 or 38 - not middle aged.
Now if he just defines "middle aged" differently, then he would have been hanging at 15 around the Radio Shacks (a hacker cliche) around 1990 - well past the eras of the TRS-80s and Color Computers that the cliche says hackers would be working on - unless he's claiming that was on PCs. Did Radio Shack sell PCs ?
Then he just snuck out the back door when the men-in-black showed up. He got away because he never went back - even though surely the MIB knew who he was and that he was, apparently, still living with his mother and step-dad.
He doesn't want to be emailed in the months leading up to the conversation, ostensibly to maintain secrecy, which opens up another bunch of inconsistencies. First, if I'm able to read the author's emails, all I need to do is look for friends who stopped emailing him for a few months around the conversation. Secondly, who is he hiding from if he's already working for the government ?
Finally, the notion that a super-secret, middle-aged white guy ho walso plays in a hardcore rap band - and IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS SUCH - exposes this pack of lies completely. That's a pretty shitty cloak of anonymity a middle aged white guy that came from another country and plays a lot of instruments in a hard-core rap band north of DC is hiding under.
And how long were Apple users using Firewire drives before USB 3 - heck, even USB 2.0 if you want to pretend that's anywhere close to Firewire ? Even now Firewire is a viable interface.
Ah, yes, Mavericks. A place where when things crash, people die.
I shudder to think how every other big wave spot's name will be co-opted by Apple.
There`s no misinformation on the part of Sony here. The article makes it clear how much battery life they are claiming with - and without - the extra battery.
And frankly, if the 11`` gets anything close to 11-h, I count that as pretty good. And depending on how much the extra battery weighs and how big it is, being able to work for 25-h - heck, even 15-h - gets all the way to awesome for me.
It's "energy-capturing".
4) DVD Drive
There is no Intel mac that's been released since 2006 that doesn't have at least those specs, unless you ripped hardware out of it, or put together a Hackintosh of your own, and did it badly, and cheaply.
Or are you complaining because *you decided* not to upgrade to Snow Leopard, and now can't upgrade to the latest Snow Leopard patch, which includes the App Store?
Uh, what about the Macbook Airs ? Do *they* have a DVD drive ?
That's like being happy to find out that only one third of policemen are not crooked, or only one third of people are child molesters. Would we be happy if the article read that "only" one third of *companies* snoop on our emails ?
I know that Google took it over and still makes Usenet content searchable, but a part of me pines for the simple days when it was Usenet that contained the useful technical information we needed, and when Dejanews was the best way to get to it.
Amen. Kind of makes it hard to argue that this isn't your Taco's own little vanity soapbox. But I guess the Anime/everything2/etc links already made that clear. I guess OSDN and its shareholders gives this guy a long leash because it doesn't really cost much, and they're willing to tolerate the editor's remarkable self-indulges as long as the site continues to function as a prominent Linux/GPL fanboy site. Thanks for reminding me again.
I expect to get flamed or modded down but I'm not posting as an AC because I really believe the above.
Nah, I bet he had it on his left hand. That's what he gets for the C-/M- key binding hell he put us through ! I bet the pinky-through-middle fingers on his left hand are absolutely shot !!
What I suggested is that the average user, IF they were aware that leaving their AP open POTENTIALLY ALLOWED access to people with dubious intentions to POSSIBLY commit illegal acts that might ultimately be traced to them, most would probably choose to close their AP. Whether or not such is a likelihood is immaterial - why would most rational people expose themselves to potential liability if there's not something in it for them ? And while responsibility for these actions SHOULD fall on the perpetrator, in cases where all the authorities have is an IP address (timely with the recent RIAA crackdowns), it's person with the AP who is going to have to answer first.
Ultimately what I am arguing is that I do NOT believe open APs are invitations to use bandwidth, at least not in the sense that they are made with the knowing consent of its owner. Do YOU really believe that the majority of APs are INTENTIONALLY left open ? Or would you agree that most APs are open because the owner didn't even know that means or how to close it ?
Further I contend that most people (you may indeed have very generous neighbours) would choose NOT give away things, even if it doesn't cost them anything, as long as they are paying for it. Here's an analogy, suppose you own a vacation home that you use one month out of the year. Do you a) allow people to use it for free, (save perhaps for a minimal allowance for wear-and-tear only) or b) rent it out for as much as you can ?
Here's another one, say you're paying $50 a month for cable tv. Your roommate wants cable TV too, but the cable TV company wants (say) $5/month for an extra outlet. Do you a) refuse, b) let him do it, for free, c) pay the cable company the 5 bucks, or d) let him do it but split the cable bill with him ? Forget that it's illegal, and unethical. If we can agree that lots of people are doing it, what arrangement do you think they have between themselves ? I think most people are doing d); you would say most people would choose b).
Finally, my penultimate DSL provider definitely did charge a surcharge for bandwidth over a certain amount which I believe was only 5 or 6 GB/month. I exceeded that myself several times, mostly over 802.11b.
I disagree with your contention that an open AP is intentional. I bet most APs are left open unintentionally - if only by the user's ignorance, because I met most APs are owned by regular folks who aren't technicians. Sure, some people explicitly leave their APs open, but that doesn't mean they're in the majority.
Now, if you asked most users, "Do you want other people to be able to use the bandwidth you have paid for, for free", or "Do you want to remove an obstacle that could give someone could better access to your home network and better enable them to hack your computer/read your files/etc", or "Do you want to enable people you don't know to potentially use your network for illegal purposes" (all of which are inarguably true) what do you think most of them would answer?
And furthermore, what do you think those users who pay surcharges for extra bandwidth would answer ?
One could argue that the Republicans - if what they are accused of is true - had no reason to know they weren't supposed to use the files in question. After all, the permission system of every OS I'm familiar with goes beyond defining what people CAN'T use, by explicitly defining what people CAN use.
By definition, because the Republicans had read permissions on the files, they had EXPLICIT permission to read them. So, how are these inadvertent but still explicit permissions any different then the inadvertent but still explicit permissions in your example of an unsecured wireless AP running DHCP ?
And what if the owner of the AP has disabled DHCP ?
If I leave the door to my house unlocked it isn't an invitation for people to come in. It may be dumb but anyone coming in is still trespassing.
I don't get it. I agree with the poster, but what I don't understand is that he gets modded as insightful. But if he'd posted the same point in regards to people using someone else's unsecured wifi without their explicit permission, he'd get modded as a troll.