No survey is completely objective. Seriously, all surveys are highly susceptible to the self-selection or opt-in behavior of the survey pool, the selection of the survey pool by the one conducting the survey, and of how the questions in the survey are ordered and constructed. That is how you can pay firms to help you get the stats you need.
I say props to this guy for mentioning it up front.
Ya, you were probably correct in not mentioning IE. You'd just get the "don't use IE" response.
But the browser type is relevant, or was, since there was a period when the chance of getting a virus was far higher for IE users - especially novice IE users.
It's like the crash tolerance of your car, or the insurance plan you choose. There is always a benefit in selecting the safer alternative, but ultimately none of them will prevent disaster for sure.
There are several good online virus scanners. They will ask you to download a small plugin, but I've used them with great success, without having to install applications.
Also, two arguments against what is often suggested:
1) Virus scanners aren't for everyone. Some are extremely intrusive, often with their own "innovative" interfaces that make them bulky and impossible to manage for novices. Some will hijack your email applications, not tell you exactly when they block or delete something, and can also hinder web surfing speeds. If you don't know how things work already, having a scanner will make things even more confusing. Add subscription fees, and I say the whole thing isn't worth it.
2) No, I don't think "knowing your software" is a good way to tell if something is legit. Seriously, Windows alone will update itself and install weird things, as do most large software suites these days. They give ambiguous names to critical components, and to think we would know them unless they were dangerous is a bit much.
If you know what you're doing, I'd say you can avoid most issues by just being careful and knowing the signs (of danger and of contamination).
If you don't (or helping someone who doesn't), then I say dumb down the apps so things are simpler and safer. Like migrate to gmail, make FireFox or Chrome the default browser, and just setup all the bundled security features to their appropriate settings (windows firewall etc).
In fact, Europe as a whole trails the United States severely in the deployment of next-generation broadband infrastructures. This performance gap is far less ambiguous, far more dramatic, far more accurately measured and far more meaningful than most of the measures of...
So infrastructure is where this article places meaning, but meaning is for the putter to place. I don't care about infrastructure. I care about the exact speeds I can get, and what options I have. I live in LA and they both suck.
International comparisons almost always suffer from limited data and limited comparability, particularly comparisons of prices and speeds.
Bullshit. All this information is publicly available and advertised. Advertised speeds may be off, but this can be derived by looking into the infrastructure behind any service. I don't see anything limited about this information.
Regulation curtails economic freedom, which is why a very high standard of evidence is required to justify regulation.
Oh, how we would all love for this to be the case. Regulation is proportional to lobbying efforts, and the biases of those elected into public service. When has science ever played any role in politics?
If regulation was based on evidence, we would all be driving electric cars and weed would be legal.
... In North America, this is largely a result of "network overhead," and is quite modest. In Europe, however, the variation is often dramatic.
Bullshit. Any decrease in anything can be attributed to "overhead"!! And "quite modest" based on what?
Buying internet access is like buying a gallon of milk, and finding it to be half empty, or worse. No, its not half full, its half empty, and I want my gallon dammit!!!
If using RAID for mirroring drives, well, you must also consider the fail rate of drives, as it is all about fault tolerance, no? It is reported that SSDs are far more durable, so the question should be, what does it take to match the fault tolerance of HDD RAID with an SSD RAID, and only after that, can we truly compare the pros and cons of their performance sacrifices.
I bet at least half the people interpreted this question as being about "research without search", and not specifically "without google". That is what the answers suggest. You might lose coke/sprite, but if you still have pepsi/7up life can go on pretty much unhampered.
Time is the gap between observation and comprehension. Time is the children of parents. Time is the helplessness that ensues, when you realize what you cannot do over.
It is my understanding that it is common belief and practice to motivate employees by creating a competitive environment. But a lot of companies take this to mean "within the company". Well, if you create a win lose situation, there will always be losers, and if it is all happening inside the company, you're forcing everyone to concentrate on fighting with one another, and inflicting harm to other parts of the company. In biology, this would be a disease.
And in any great competition, you will always have your dirty players, your cheaters, and those who thrive at politics and manipulating the minds of those around them. This is a lot of wasted energy that otherwise could be put towards improving something or creating value within the business. Not to mention, true craftsmen thrive on isolation and focus, and are easily slain with swords. That is why you should never pit your sales department (soldiers) with your dev department (architects), because if you've hired the right people your sales department will always win.
At the end of the day, it is up to the "parent" to know what they are doing, and to put up the walls that help channel energy in all the right directions. Soldiers go outside the company to fight their wars. Developers just sit back and fight deadlines.
If you do compete, compete with your competitors. If you do have internal competitions, make sure no one loses. You can make it a win-win, or just a single win, situation, like rewards for certain targets. But never leave room for open politics or cat fighting within departments or between employees. Just create a total dictatorship where there is one leader who knows what they are doing, and is responsible for everyone else. Democracies may allow everyone to stand equally, but they are the worst at getting anything done. And no one needs to be equal in the workplace.
Please excuse my choice of words, but all I'm saying is that some children are inherently weaker than others. I am not saying we should beat them. I am saying they need to be protected, or else they will be beaten because they cannot protect themselves. And they often do get teased even by "normal" people.
My observation is that some children are rabbits, some are wolves, and wolves hunt rabbits, but in some cases you will find rabbits picking on rabbits.
I am not blaming anybody, nor am I reasoning in favor of wolves, or even reasoning at all for that matter. Feel free to contest my observations, but please do not assume I am not arguing for one side or the other.
But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!
I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though. This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors? Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.
Well, I would still contend the article is focused on helping the victim without confronting the aggressor, and is also assuming the child has a mental condition. Most of the comments here assume there is a Karate Kid type bully picking on someone who just happens to be ugly or who can't swim. Although, I would say the approach the article takes is debatable, and also misleading.
There are always ways out. If a child is having serious problems, they simply should not be there. Parents are 100% responsible for the circumstances in which they place their children, including themselves being the parents. It may not be easy, but you can always change classes, change schools, even change the neighborhood you live in. If the child really is the number one priority, there is always an easy exit the parents can provide.
Now, if the child's parents suck, which is too often the case with troubled children, then it is up to the people around that child to see that, and help. The schools are 100% responsible for the children they teach, and the environment they maintain. Of course, if the school also sucks, which is also too often the case, and the child really is left to his or her own devices, then yes, the child will need proper devices to survive, and they may well not.
But that still doesn't mean exits do not exist. Going postal or suicide are prime examples of exits, and they both happen to require immense amounts of bravery. There are many others that require far less. The problem is with believing there is no way out. If they believed there was, then it would be really easy to find one. But that lack of imagination is precisely the problem.
A lot of angry replies here about blaming the victim, but this article isn't necessarily about blame!! Yes, blame the aggressor, but the cause lies in both.
The bottom-line: There are those with tendencies to bully, and those with tendencies to get bullied. The key here is if you do not have the power to change the behavior of the bully, you have the option to change yourself and no longer be bullied! Brilliant!!
There are a few other things worth mentioning.
1) Bullying can also be the product of circumstance, and not specifically the result of a said bully. It isn't the case where "if there is a bully ==> they will bully". There needs to be more of a "there is bullying ==> who's doing it" approach.
2) Some children really are sissies, and believe it or not, they can get inherently non-bullies to bully them. Sadly, these children often have sissy parents, sissy friends (if any), and are surrounded by sissy teachers. The original article definitely tries to shed light on this sissy factor.
3) There are SO MANY THINGS people can do to prevent bullying. It is so sad to see these situations escalate to the point where the victim commits suicide or decides to go postal in the school cafeteria. When such catastrophes occur, you will find parents of both the bully and the victim who didn't do enough, the friends and family who didn't do enough, the teachers and faculty that didn't do enough, and everyone who watched who didn't do enough. This kind of thing is 120% preventable, and the illusion that these victims succumb to that there is no way out, really is the worst fiction imaginable.
Not knowing where the exits are is how we can all get burned in life. Someone just show them the exits!! There is always a way out. And someone knows about it.
This is a perfect example of what I would like to call marketing mathematics: Statistics stacked to make the perfect argument for why you are the next big thing. It's what's used in business plans to convince people to give you money. Well, just look at the survival rate of such startups for proof it's all smoke and mirrors.
On a more relevant note, look at PCs and consoles. It's like saying the PC is the perfect gaming console. Sure, but it's a different market, a different dynamic, and user behavior nor market behavior justifies the extinction of consoles.
Phone gaming is not taking off, even on the iPhone. Real developers aren't able to charge users enough for their product, they aren't able to promote effectively, and Apple hasn't addressed the bottlenecks for any serious production.
Phone gaming is huge in Japan where they have everyone commuting spending an hour plus a day staring at their phones in the train, but like others have suggested, serious gamers are holding DS's and PSP's, while those with lesser interest just play simpler games they can grab for free.
When we are involved in tasks that require full focus, like gaming, it is not necessarily a drawback to have a device that also fully focuses on that task.
No one is afraid of being caught, at least in Cali. Everyone who did, still does - have a phone in their hands, and I've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use. Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of "I can get away with it". Be it jaywalking or littering, if there is a law, it should be enforced, and the fines should include the cost of enforcement. Ultimately if the required cost doesn't justify the subsequent fine, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that. If law is about order, then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.
Also, correlation is not causation!! This cannot be emphasized enough. Regardless of whether the science is sound or not, if their results are just at the "correlation" level, then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC. These are guesses with numbers, which is far far far from any proof or truth.
This, under normal defintions of smart, is clearly false.
You are right. I think "wisdom" or "intelligence" may be more of what I was after, but even then, without a specific definition, it is a statement that cannot always hold true anymore. As you rightly point out, speed and processing bandwidth are part of what goes into producing results, and computers are already better than any programmer at that. Although I would say, most if not all "smart" computers take full advantage of their processing upper-hand to compensate for their lack of intelligence... Of course, such "smart" robots are still the product of the craft of a programmer, which brings my contention full circle.
I worry the original author may also have had a different, more specific definition of "curiosity" that wouldn't include the likes of google, etc... in which case I've been had.
If curiosity is a behavior, then it should be pretty straight forward. In fact, depending on how you define "curiosity", then there are already many examples of programs that are curious. Google or Bing or any web crawler is definitely "curious". A satnav that searches for the best route from point A to point B could be "curious"...
A robot is only as smart as its smartest programmer.
And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.
The problem that is often ignored with this and similar claims is the problem of observability as illustrated in areas such as quantum physics, and even economics.
You cannot calculate the behavior of a black box without opening it. If opening it alters the state of its contents, then it may even be impossible. And if you have no means of observation to begin with, then it is downright impossible. Before you can claim you can calculate the next moment in time, you must be able to claim you have observed and know all the variables within the system of interest.
It's a hard sell when you charge more than good p0rn. Online we are consuming content. This site is selling content. And good adult entertainment can always sell for the highest market prices - be it video, print, live, or whatever. If you are more expensive than your rivals on the dark side, you are overpriced. Nothing - nothing tops good porn price-wise for those of us who buy it.
Products don't magically sell themselves and make their creators wealthy or even put bread on the table - the lesson of open source.
But if the ultimate goal of the open source movement is to eventually overtake closed source software, this is damning evidence such a scenario will never happen. At the end of the day, closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives. One could say this also includes those of us working closed source jobs by day and open source projects by night.
Making games sounds fun and forward thinking, but if you imagine implementing such a course you are looking at huge hardware, software, and human resource requirements. Even if all software is open source and free, someone who can teach children how to program is someone who can get a 6 figure income anywhere else... And with the public education system having problems keeping normal talent, counting on them to retain talented teachers is not being very realistic.
But before going high-tech, schools are already undermining creative education all together by cutting music and art classes. Who cares if there are no instruments! Make them sing. Who cares if there are no oil painting supplies.
You don't need money to teach creativity!
Creativity is about extracting one's imagination into the real world. It is about converting your thoughts into something you and others can feel, see, and touch (or taste, if you are cooking). All you need is a 5 dollar recorder to compose a song. A lead pencil and an eraser is enough for a child to draw their own visions of the future for all to see. Just sit them down and force them to be creative. You don't even need to judge their work. In fact, don't judge their work. Just encourage them to work harder.
Most importantly, skills make us happy!
My knowledge has never made me as happy as my skills have.
This is really the fault of the person who decided to keep their assets in a PayPal account. And this isn't the first time? Well, they just don't learn do they.
PayPal can freeze accounts for any number of reasons, of which very few have to do with the owner of the account. If someone pays you with a stolen card or from an account that is suspected to have been compromised, that can trigger a freeze. Their support is notoriously bad, and their instructions for re-enabling your account are always overcomplicated.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who receives money with PayPal.
Money received => withdraw immediately
NEVER HOLD A PAYPAL BALANCE.
Always be ready to redirect payments to a backup account.
Slashdot Mirror
No survey is completely objective. Seriously, all surveys are highly susceptible to the self-selection or opt-in behavior of the survey pool, the selection of the survey pool by the one conducting the survey, and of how the questions in the survey are ordered and constructed. That is how you can pay firms to help you get the stats you need.
I say props to this guy for mentioning it up front.
Ya, you were probably correct in not mentioning IE. You'd just get the "don't use IE" response.
But the browser type is relevant, or was, since there was a period when the chance of getting a virus was far higher for IE users - especially novice IE users.
It's like the crash tolerance of your car, or the insurance plan you choose. There is always a benefit in selecting the safer alternative, but ultimately none of them will prevent disaster for sure.
Were you using IE?
(I find this highly relevant)
There are several good online virus scanners. They will ask you to download a small plugin, but I've used them with great success, without having to install applications.
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
http://security.symantec.com/sscv6/home.asp
Also, two arguments against what is often suggested:
1) Virus scanners aren't for everyone. Some are extremely intrusive, often with their own "innovative" interfaces that make them bulky and impossible to manage for novices. Some will hijack your email applications, not tell you exactly when they block or delete something, and can also hinder web surfing speeds. If you don't know how things work already, having a scanner will make things even more confusing. Add subscription fees, and I say the whole thing isn't worth it.
2) No, I don't think "knowing your software" is a good way to tell if something is legit. Seriously, Windows alone will update itself and install weird things, as do most large software suites these days. They give ambiguous names to critical components, and to think we would know them unless they were dangerous is a bit much.
If you know what you're doing, I'd say you can avoid most issues by just being careful and knowing the signs (of danger and of contamination).
If you don't (or helping someone who doesn't), then I say dumb down the apps so things are simpler and safer. Like migrate to gmail, make FireFox or Chrome the default browser, and just setup all the bundled security features to their appropriate settings (windows firewall etc).
In fact, Europe as a whole trails the United States severely in the deployment of next-generation broadband infrastructures. This performance gap is far less ambiguous, far more dramatic, far more accurately measured and far more meaningful than most of the measures of ...
So infrastructure is where this article places meaning, but meaning is for the putter to place. I don't care about infrastructure. I care about the exact speeds I can get, and what options I have. I live in LA and they both suck.
International comparisons almost always suffer from limited data and limited comparability, particularly comparisons of prices and speeds.
Bullshit. All this information is publicly available and advertised. Advertised speeds may be off, but this can be derived by looking into the infrastructure behind any service. I don't see anything limited about this information.
Regulation curtails economic freedom, which is why a very high standard of evidence is required to justify regulation.
Oh, how we would all love for this to be the case. Regulation is proportional to lobbying efforts, and the biases of those elected into public service. When has science ever played any role in politics?
If regulation was based on evidence, we would all be driving electric cars and weed would be legal.
... In North America, this is largely a result of "network overhead," and is quite modest. In Europe, however, the variation is often dramatic.
Bullshit. Any decrease in anything can be attributed to "overhead"!! And "quite modest" based on what?
Buying internet access is like buying a gallon of milk, and finding it to be half empty, or worse. No, its not half full, its half empty, and I want my gallon dammit!!!
If using RAID for mirroring drives, well, you must also consider the fail rate of drives, as it is all about fault tolerance, no? It is reported that SSDs are far more durable, so the question should be, what does it take to match the fault tolerance of HDD RAID with an SSD RAID, and only after that, can we truly compare the pros and cons of their performance sacrifices.
On a side note, you can now get a sony laptop that comes equipped with a RAID 0 quad SSD drive.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644570897
I assume you would only do this with SSDs, given that they have a much lower failure rate than HDDs.
I bet at least half the people interpreted this question as being about "research without search", and not specifically "without google". That is what the answers suggest. You might lose coke/sprite, but if you still have pepsi/7up life can go on pretty much unhampered.
Time is the gap between observation and comprehension.
Time is the children of parents.
Time is the helplessness that ensues, when you realize what you cannot do over.
And so on and so forth...
It is my understanding that it is common belief and practice to motivate employees by creating a competitive environment. But a lot of companies take this to mean "within the company". Well, if you create a win lose situation, there will always be losers, and if it is all happening inside the company, you're forcing everyone to concentrate on fighting with one another, and inflicting harm to other parts of the company. In biology, this would be a disease.
And in any great competition, you will always have your dirty players, your cheaters, and those who thrive at politics and manipulating the minds of those around them. This is a lot of wasted energy that otherwise could be put towards improving something or creating value within the business. Not to mention, true craftsmen thrive on isolation and focus, and are easily slain with swords. That is why you should never pit your sales department (soldiers) with your dev department (architects), because if you've hired the right people your sales department will always win.
At the end of the day, it is up to the "parent" to know what they are doing, and to put up the walls that help channel energy in all the right directions. Soldiers go outside the company to fight their wars. Developers just sit back and fight deadlines.
If you do compete, compete with your competitors. If you do have internal competitions, make sure no one loses. You can make it a win-win, or just a single win, situation, like rewards for certain targets. But never leave room for open politics or cat fighting within departments or between employees. Just create a total dictatorship where there is one leader who knows what they are doing, and is responsible for everyone else. Democracies may allow everyone to stand equally, but they are the worst at getting anything done. And no one needs to be equal in the workplace.
(sorry for the typo) ... please do not assume I am arguing for one side or the other.
Please excuse my choice of words, but all I'm saying is that some children are inherently weaker than others. I am not saying we should beat them. I am saying they need to be protected, or else they will be beaten because they cannot protect themselves. And they often do get teased even by "normal" people.
My observation is that some children are rabbits, some are wolves, and wolves hunt rabbits, but in some cases you will find rabbits picking on rabbits.
I am not blaming anybody, nor am I reasoning in favor of wolves, or even reasoning at all for that matter. Feel free to contest my observations, but please do not assume I am not arguing for one side or the other.
But please pay me more than 15 dollars a day for my pain and suffering, not to mention people thinking I'm dead after not tweeting or updating facebook for more than 24 hrs!
I do wonder how this would affect the jury selection process though. This isn't *suppose* to have any influence at all I am sure, but what if more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors? Kind of like only pro-death penalty people being allowed on a capital case.
Well, I would still contend the article is focused on helping the victim without confronting the aggressor, and is also assuming the child has a mental condition. Most of the comments here assume there is a Karate Kid type bully picking on someone who just happens to be ugly or who can't swim. Although, I would say the approach the article takes is debatable, and also misleading.
There are always ways out. If a child is having serious problems, they simply should not be there. Parents are 100% responsible for the circumstances in which they place their children, including themselves being the parents. It may not be easy, but you can always change classes, change schools, even change the neighborhood you live in. If the child really is the number one priority, there is always an easy exit the parents can provide.
Now, if the child's parents suck, which is too often the case with troubled children, then it is up to the people around that child to see that, and help. The schools are 100% responsible for the children they teach, and the environment they maintain. Of course, if the school also sucks, which is also too often the case, and the child really is left to his or her own devices, then yes, the child will need proper devices to survive, and they may well not.
But that still doesn't mean exits do not exist. Going postal or suicide are prime examples of exits, and they both happen to require immense amounts of bravery. There are many others that require far less. The problem is with believing there is no way out. If they believed there was, then it would be really easy to find one. But that lack of imagination is precisely the problem.
A lot of angry replies here about blaming the victim, but this article isn't necessarily about blame!! Yes, blame the aggressor, but the cause lies in both.
The bottom-line: There are those with tendencies to bully, and those with tendencies to get bullied. The key here is if you do not have the power to change the behavior of the bully, you have the option to change yourself and no longer be bullied! Brilliant!!
There are a few other things worth mentioning.
1) Bullying can also be the product of circumstance, and not specifically the result of a said bully. It isn't the case where "if there is a bully ==> they will bully". There needs to be more of a "there is bullying ==> who's doing it" approach.
2) Some children really are sissies, and believe it or not, they can get inherently non-bullies to bully them. Sadly, these children often have sissy parents, sissy friends (if any), and are surrounded by sissy teachers. The original article definitely tries to shed light on this sissy factor.
3) There are SO MANY THINGS people can do to prevent bullying. It is so sad to see these situations escalate to the point where the victim commits suicide or decides to go postal in the school cafeteria. When such catastrophes occur, you will find parents of both the bully and the victim who didn't do enough, the friends and family who didn't do enough, the teachers and faculty that didn't do enough, and everyone who watched who didn't do enough. This kind of thing is 120% preventable, and the illusion that these victims succumb to that there is no way out, really is the worst fiction imaginable.
Not knowing where the exits are is how we can all get burned in life. Someone just show them the exits!! There is always a way out. And someone knows about it.
On a related note:
The Secret Advantage Of Being Short
So if we grow taller with age, time will remain constant.
Brilliant!!
This is a perfect example of what I would like to call marketing mathematics: Statistics stacked to make the perfect argument for why you are the next big thing. It's what's used in business plans to convince people to give you money. Well, just look at the survival rate of such startups for proof it's all smoke and mirrors.
On a more relevant note, look at PCs and consoles. It's like saying the PC is the perfect gaming console. Sure, but it's a different market, a different dynamic, and user behavior nor market behavior justifies the extinction of consoles.
Phone gaming is not taking off, even on the iPhone. Real developers aren't able to charge users enough for their product, they aren't able to promote effectively, and Apple hasn't addressed the bottlenecks for any serious production.
Phone gaming is huge in Japan where they have everyone commuting spending an hour plus a day staring at their phones in the train, but like others have suggested, serious gamers are holding DS's and PSP's, while those with lesser interest just play simpler games they can grab for free.
When we are involved in tasks that require full focus, like gaming, it is not necessarily a drawback to have a device that also fully focuses on that task.
No one is afraid of being caught, at least in Cali. Everyone who did, still does - have a phone in their hands, and I've never seen anyone pulled over for cell phone use. Enacting laws that are not enforced is the first step in enabling the sense of "I can get away with it". Be it jaywalking or littering, if there is a law, it should be enforced, and the fines should include the cost of enforcement. Ultimately if the required cost doesn't justify the subsequent fine, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that. If law is about order, then the laws we abide by must be enforceable.
Also, correlation is not causation!! This cannot be emphasized enough. Regardless of whether the science is sound or not, if their results are just at the "correlation" level, then they are NOT VERY SCIENTIFIC. These are guesses with numbers, which is far far far from any proof or truth.
This, under normal defintions of smart, is clearly false.
You are right. I think "wisdom" or "intelligence" may be more of what I was after, but even then, without a specific definition, it is a statement that cannot always hold true anymore. As you rightly point out, speed and processing bandwidth are part of what goes into producing results, and computers are already better than any programmer at that. Although I would say, most if not all "smart" computers take full advantage of their processing upper-hand to compensate for their lack of intelligence... Of course, such "smart" robots are still the product of the craft of a programmer, which brings my contention full circle.
I worry the original author may also have had a different, more specific definition of "curiosity" that wouldn't include the likes of google, etc... in which case I've been had.
If curiosity is a behavior, then it should be pretty straight forward. In fact, depending on how you define "curiosity", then there are already many examples of programs that are curious. Google or Bing or any web crawler is definitely "curious". A satnav that searches for the best route from point A to point B could be "curious"...
A robot is only as smart as its smartest programmer.
And he ultimately addresses the possibility that the entire Universe, including everyone in it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program.
The problem that is often ignored with this and similar claims is the problem of observability as illustrated in areas such as quantum physics, and even economics.
You cannot calculate the behavior of a black box without opening it. If opening it alters the state of its contents, then it may even be impossible. And if you have no means of observation to begin with, then it is downright impossible. Before you can claim you can calculate the next moment in time, you must be able to claim you have observed and know all the variables within the system of interest.
It's a hard sell when you charge more than good p0rn. Online we are consuming content. This site is selling content. And good adult entertainment can always sell for the highest market prices - be it video, print, live, or whatever. If you are more expensive than your rivals on the dark side, you are overpriced. Nothing - nothing tops good porn price-wise for those of us who buy it.
Products don't magically sell themselves and make their creators wealthy or even put bread on the table - the lesson of open source.
But if the ultimate goal of the open source movement is to eventually overtake closed source software, this is damning evidence such a scenario will never happen. At the end of the day, closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives. One could say this also includes those of us working closed source jobs by day and open source projects by night.
Making games sounds fun and forward thinking, but if you imagine implementing such a course you are looking at huge hardware, software, and human resource requirements. Even if all software is open source and free, someone who can teach children how to program is someone who can get a 6 figure income anywhere else... And with the public education system having problems keeping normal talent, counting on them to retain talented teachers is not being very realistic.
But before going high-tech, schools are already undermining creative education all together by cutting music and art classes. Who cares if there are no instruments! Make them sing. Who cares if there are no oil painting supplies.
You don't need money to teach creativity!
Creativity is about extracting one's imagination into the real world. It is about converting your thoughts into something you and others can feel, see, and touch (or taste, if you are cooking). All you need is a 5 dollar recorder to compose a song. A lead pencil and an eraser is enough for a child to draw their own visions of the future for all to see. Just sit them down and force them to be creative. You don't even need to judge their work. In fact, don't judge their work. Just encourage them to work harder.
Most importantly, skills make us happy!
My knowledge has never made me as happy as my skills have.
Now that everyone is thinking different, I am the only one thinking the same.
This is really the fault of the person who decided to keep their assets in a PayPal account. And this isn't the first time? Well, they just don't learn do they.
PayPal can freeze accounts for any number of reasons, of which very few have to do with the owner of the account. If someone pays you with a stolen card or from an account that is suspected to have been compromised, that can trigger a freeze. Their support is notoriously bad, and their instructions for re-enabling your account are always overcomplicated.
Let this be a lesson to anyone who receives money with PayPal.
Money received => withdraw immediately
NEVER HOLD A PAYPAL BALANCE.
Always be ready to redirect payments to a backup account.
Where can I get my brain size measured, and what can I take to make it bigger! Coming soon. Enzyte for gamers.
Watch me stroll through the arcades, as I intimidate you with my BIG head!!