I own all the Bloom County books. Coincidentally, so does my wife (acquired before we met). So we have some extras. Oddly, I never read BC in the papers, just in the books. I picked up an Outland book once but it was like one of those lame sitcom spinoffs. I think the problem was in trying to hang too much of the comic on Opus's shoulders. --
"With so few genes, it may be the case that the emergent properties of the combinations of genes, as much as the genes themselves, are contributing to our complexity."
Emergent properties is ALL genes do. Think this through:
Genes don't literally MAKE, say, a nose. That is, they aren't out there with trowels and jackhammers building/carving your nose. Genes don't even DIRECT the making of your nose: ("Hey Gene, the nostrils are getting a little far apart, what do we do?").
All genes do is encode proteins. The proteins react with each other and their environments creating byproducts and releasing energies. Anything that emerges is...well, emergent.
You hear a lot of talk about genes "for" different specific features (nose shape, homosexuality, etc) but that's really a technical shorthand. A gene isn't solely responsible for a single feature. When we say a gene is "for" some feature we mean "the presence or absence of this gene can affect the presence or absence of the feature". This sounds like the same thing, but imagine the gene in isolation--it isn't going to produce a nose or "gayness" in a vacuum. A gene "for" homosexuality is a gene that produces a certain protein at a certain time. One of the (undoubtedly many) side-effects of the protein is the modification of a structure in the brain that causes processing to happen differently that causes, etc, etc, etc.
People who are suprised by emergence-y in the field of genetics don't know what they are talking about. However, it's OK to be surprised by the LEVEL of emergence--that is, there's more "interference" among fewer genes than anyone thought. --
"So let's recap: you've taken a perfectly helpful and pleasant response to a useless question, and posted an inflammatory and insulting reply to it."
1) The OP wasn't a question, it was a joke.
2) Your response was pleasant, but not especially helpful. Remember that the original joke wasn't just talking about last night's outage, but about outages in general. Your response then was too specific to be helpful.
3) I've read and re-read tristan's response and I fail to find anything even mildly insulting. On the contrary, he praises Rob and Jeff for continuing to run the site when they clearly aren't making much money for it. Are you insulted that you weren't included?
As for inflammatory--you may well be inflamed by the response, but that's a feature, not a bug. We (the readers) are pretty tired of unexplained (even unremarked on) outages and we are starting to ask WTF is going on. Can you blame us?
--
"Limestone (CaCO3) is a fantastic sink for CO2. If we could find an efficient way to convert the CO2 into limestone or another inert mineral..."
CaCO3 is aka calcium carbonate. So here's what we do:
1) Drink a glass of milk to get a good deposit of calcium on your upper lip ("got calcium?")
2) Breathe normally
CO2 in the air on the way out of your mouth/nose combines with the Ca on your lip to create CaCO2. The extra O is left as an exercise for the student. --
"[Photosynthesis] provides organisms that convert the gas through photosynthesis into useful byproducts, like oxygen."
The other useful byproduct is TREE. CO2 is Carbon plus Oxygen (2 of them). Photosyntesis releases the O, leaving the C behind inside the tree. Since I can't imagine they want things growing inside these smokestacks, I have to wonder where the C is going to go.
The problem with CO2 isn't how to get it out of the air. The problem is where to put it (especially the carbon, since we'd like to keep the oxygen around) once it IS out of the air. All that carbon used to be locked up inside plants/animals (some living, some dead--like coal and oil). I suppose they could scrape the bacteria off every few weeks and put it in an oil barrel, but where do we stack the barrels? Put 'em underground to turn into oil next year?
How about a better idea: stop putting carbon INTO the air?
--
Isn't "p2p" the same as "client/server" in the special case where client==server? So, for instance, HTTP is P2P if I'm running netscape and apache and so are you and we connection to each other? Or does it only count as P2P if it's a single piece of sofware? If so, then I'm announcing Mozpache, a web browser AND server.
"But how do you search," I hear you cry. How do you search NOW? Google, right? Same deal here, just use DynDNS (or whatever) to get the link to stay stable.
"P2P," sheesh--it's amazing what some people think is amazing. --
www.opticsexpress.com, huh? Sure, maybe you can tell the boss they are "Optics Express" but we all know it's reall "Optic Sex Press". Motto: "Where girls push themselves against your eyeballs" --
Anyone who's ever read the linux-kernel mailing list knows how vindictive and political Linus is. There's nothing he loves more than excluding platforms from HIS kernel (he's very protective of it, he only let's a couple of people submit changes, and even then only if they pay him a royalty).
Also, this problem just came out of the blue. It certainly was never discussed (and re-discussed and re-discussed ad nauseum) over the ISDN patches.
I've been following CowboyNeal's career for years, reading everything he writes, watching all of his movies and eating all of his cooking. Now I finally have a chance to ask him the question that's been burning me up inside: What's Taco really like?
Seriously, can you give us a breakdown of how much time each editor spends actually reading the site they nominally run? Like, time spent clicking on user comments? --
"There's a limited range of materials you can use in them..."
Most consumer goods are made of a limited range of materials as well. Nearly all children's toys, for example, are plastic and/or wood. Besides, why couldn't I fab myself a VCR minus those parts that need to be "handmade" and then install those myself later?
"Fabricators just aren't designed for..."
Here's your basic flaw. No, fabbers aren't designed for that NOW. But what about 20/50/100/150 years from now?
"By trying to make things yourself, you lose these economies of scale. It wouldn't be worth your while trying to cheat Bic out of a few pence by trying to make your own ballpoint pens."
This reads like FUD from the manufacturing industry, circa 2101. Sure, I might lose economies of scale (although dirt, air, water, wood and sunshine are all pretty cheap--not to mention the fact that I might buy my materials from a co-op or something)--but what do I GAIN? I can make a device that works EXACTLY how I design it. I can download Joe's design for a water heater, tweak some parameters and have my own custom machine that exactly meets my needs. The point of fabbers isn't saving money on pens. It's control over the devices in your life. It's also about opening the field of design (if not manufacturing) to everyone, just like the Internet opened up the fields of music, writing and programming.
"Items produced by a fabricator don't have the durability of properly manufactured items."
This almost solely a function of the materials used--which could easily change in the future.
Honestly, your whole post reads like some intelligent-but-fuddy-duddy from the early 70's explaining why this new-fangled "desktop publishing" won't work. "Sure, a computer and a printer are useful for creating a manuscript--but who wants to read dot-matrix?"
--
Why not telecommute? You are unlikely to know the local languages (human or computer) everywhere you go anyway. Just keep the same job but call in from a new location everyday. --
I have worked in places where I thought I was being dismissed merely because of my age. And some of those times I probably was. But looking back, I can see that some of those times I definitely wasn't.
This is clearest now that I'm older (I'm 27). A coworker's teenager or just-out-of-school applicant will come out and say something so totally ridiculous that I almost can't help but laugh. From their expressions it's clear they think I'm dismissing them "just because they are young". But the reality is that they really don't understand and that real understanding will only come with time.
It may be that you are a coding (or admin-ing, or whatever) god. That doesn't mean you understand The Issues: user psychology, social norms, political balances, etc. Here's a perfect example:
From time to time, an email virus erupts on the Internet. Post after post says "if only everybody would turn off feature X". These people have an "immature understanding". It's just a simple fact that you can't get "everybody" to do ANYTHING. You can explain this to an immature (of whatever age, but often pre-20's) person but they will just stare at you blankly and then go on to explain why it would work "if only" everyone would...
If literally no one will listen to you, you should at least consider the possibility that it's because what you are saying isn't worth listening to. If, upon sincere and mature reflection, you still think your idea has merit, ask someone why they are rejecting it. And don't dismiss their answer just because they are old. -- MailOne
Call me Ishmael, but I'm still confused: Is there or is there not an actual connection between Korn the shell and Korn (with a backwards "r") the band? -- MailOne
"...I'll continue to be loud and proud for as long as neccesary."
Considering I've been reading your comments for well over a year (maybe more like two) AND I didn't know you were gay--you can't have been all that "loud and proud". -- MailOne
I can't believe no one has mentioned this hokey 70's invention! I never played it myself so I don't know the "rules" (if such exist), but I've seen the box plenty of times at Goodwill and the like. The cover says something like "The non-competitive game that everyone can enjoy!" -- MailOne
First, I was wrong about the standard keyboard. She only used Dvorak.
Second is this quote: "In 1938...Blackburn first laid hands on a Dvorak keyboard. In only a few years her speed was up to 138 words per minute."
In 1938 this keyboard was clearly mechanical, thus 138 is a mechanical speed. From context it sounds like she never switched to electric so 150/170 are also mechanical speeds.
As for your claim: "A good mechanical typrwriter is a match for a good keyboard."
Have you ever even used a mechanical typewriter? FULLY mechanical? As in it doesn't plug into the wall at all? You are probably thinking of "mechanical" electric keyboards (i.e. dedicated typewriters not attached to a computer, but nonetheless electrically powered). REAL mechanical typewriters are VERY hard to type with.
An electric only requires you to close a relay and then the machine does the work of striking the paper. A mechanical requires you to impart enough force to strike the arm against the paper (a distance of several inches) AND lift the ribbon (and if you are shifting, you have to lift the weight of the carriage with your other pinky). The difference is incredible. I remember as a child trying to learn to type with my mother's mechanical typewriter. I had to quit because I couldn't press the keys hard enough. When I played with an electric in the store I was astounded at the tiny amount of force I needed to use to make the keys go. Also keep in mind that a mechanical requires you to wait for the arms to move out of the way (can also be a problem on the electric, but the distance is smaller) but a computer keyboard has no problem with that.
Conclusion: You made a foolish initial statement that you can no longer sustain. -- MailOne
Slashdot Mirror
I own all the Bloom County books. Coincidentally, so does my wife (acquired before we met). So we have some extras. Oddly, I never read BC in the papers, just in the books. I picked up an Outland book once but it was like one of those lame sitcom spinoffs. I think the problem was in trying to hang too much of the comic on Opus's shoulders.
--
"With so few genes, it may be the case that the emergent properties of the combinations of genes, as much as the genes themselves, are contributing to our complexity."
Emergent properties is ALL genes do. Think this through:
Genes don't literally MAKE, say, a nose. That is, they aren't out there with trowels and jackhammers building/carving your nose. Genes don't even DIRECT the making of your nose: ("Hey Gene, the nostrils are getting a little far apart, what do we do?").
All genes do is encode proteins. The proteins react with each other and their environments creating byproducts and releasing energies. Anything that emerges is...well, emergent.
You hear a lot of talk about genes "for" different specific features (nose shape, homosexuality, etc) but that's really a technical shorthand. A gene isn't solely responsible for a single feature. When we say a gene is "for" some feature we mean "the presence or absence of this gene can affect the presence or absence of the feature". This sounds like the same thing, but imagine the gene in isolation--it isn't going to produce a nose or "gayness" in a vacuum. A gene "for" homosexuality is a gene that produces a certain protein at a certain time. One of the (undoubtedly many) side-effects of the protein is the modification of a structure in the brain that causes processing to happen differently that causes, etc, etc, etc.
People who are suprised by emergence-y in the field of genetics don't know what they are talking about. However, it's OK to be surprised by the LEVEL of emergence--that is, there's more "interference" among fewer genes than anyone thought.
--
"So let's recap: you've taken a perfectly helpful and pleasant response to a useless question, and posted an inflammatory and insulting reply to it."
1) The OP wasn't a question, it was a joke.
2) Your response was pleasant, but not especially helpful. Remember that the original joke wasn't just talking about last night's outage, but about outages in general. Your response then was too specific to be helpful.
3) I've read and re-read tristan's response and I fail to find anything even mildly insulting. On the contrary, he praises Rob and Jeff for continuing to run the site when they clearly aren't making much money for it. Are you insulted that you weren't included?
As for inflammatory--you may well be inflamed by the response, but that's a feature, not a bug. We (the readers) are pretty tired of unexplained (even unremarked on) outages and we are starting to ask WTF is going on. Can you blame us?
--
2001-04-01 13:01:01
How ironic that it would be called a "lameness" filter--it can't tell numbers from caps.
--
"Limestone (CaCO3) is a fantastic sink for CO2. If we could find an efficient way to convert the CO2 into limestone or another inert mineral..."
CaCO3 is aka calcium carbonate. So here's what we do:
1) Drink a glass of milk to get a good deposit of calcium on your upper lip ("got calcium?")
2) Breathe normally
CO2 in the air on the way out of your mouth/nose combines with the Ca on your lip to create CaCO2. The extra O is left as an exercise for the student.
--
Just create a well-known URL that runs a CGI to list the contents of your HD.
--
"[Photosynthesis] provides organisms that convert the gas through photosynthesis into useful byproducts, like oxygen."
The other useful byproduct is TREE. CO2 is Carbon plus Oxygen (2 of them). Photosyntesis releases the O, leaving the C behind inside the tree. Since I can't imagine they want things growing inside these smokestacks, I have to wonder where the C is going to go.
The problem with CO2 isn't how to get it out of the air. The problem is where to put it (especially the carbon, since we'd like to keep the oxygen around) once it IS out of the air. All that carbon used to be locked up inside plants/animals (some living, some dead--like coal and oil). I suppose they could scrape the bacteria off every few weeks and put it in an oil barrel, but where do we stack the barrels? Put 'em underground to turn into oil next year?
How about a better idea: stop putting carbon INTO the air?
--
Isn't "p2p" the same as "client/server" in the special case where client==server? So, for instance, HTTP is P2P if I'm running netscape and apache and so are you and we connection to each other? Or does it only count as P2P if it's a single piece of sofware? If so, then I'm announcing Mozpache, a web browser AND server.
"But how do you search," I hear you cry. How do you search NOW? Google, right? Same deal here, just use DynDNS (or whatever) to get the link to stay stable.
"P2P," sheesh--it's amazing what some people think is amazing.
--
If books don't exist in Farenheit 451, what were the "firemen" burning all the time? Grocery lists?
Let's keep the stupid (not to mention incorrect and irrelevant) literary references to a minimum, shall we?
--
www.opticsexpress.com, huh? Sure, maybe you can tell the boss they are "Optics Express" but we all know it's reall "Optic Sex Press". Motto: "Where girls push themselves against your eyeballs"
--
I'd definitely pay for an extra license to sit in this chair with YOU.
--
Anyone who's ever read the linux-kernel mailing list knows how vindictive and political Linus is. There's nothing he loves more than excluding platforms from HIS kernel (he's very protective of it, he only let's a couple of people submit changes, and even then only if they pay him a royalty).
Also, this problem just came out of the blue. It certainly was never discussed (and re-discussed and re-discussed ad nauseum) over the ISDN patches.
Get a grip people.
--
I've been following CowboyNeal's career for years, reading everything he writes, watching all of his movies and eating all of his cooking. Now I finally have a chance to ask him the question that's been burning me up inside: What's Taco really like?
Seriously, can you give us a breakdown of how much time each editor spends actually reading the site they nominally run? Like, time spent clicking on user comments?
--
To me, "napster" sounds like a pseudo-cool nickname for a guy with bad hair. It's the napster! Combin' his hair!
--
"Fabricators are slow. Very slow."
Computers used to be slow too.
"There's a limited range of materials you can use in them..."
Most consumer goods are made of a limited range of materials as well. Nearly all children's toys, for example, are plastic and/or wood. Besides, why couldn't I fab myself a VCR minus those parts that need to be "handmade" and then install those myself later?
"Fabricators just aren't designed for..."
Here's your basic flaw. No, fabbers aren't designed for that NOW. But what about 20/50/100/150 years from now?
"By trying to make things yourself, you lose these economies of scale. It wouldn't be worth your while trying to cheat Bic out of a few pence by trying to make your own ballpoint pens."
This reads like FUD from the manufacturing industry, circa 2101. Sure, I might lose economies of scale (although dirt, air, water, wood and sunshine are all pretty cheap--not to mention the fact that I might buy my materials from a co-op or something)--but what do I GAIN? I can make a device that works EXACTLY how I design it. I can download Joe's design for a water heater, tweak some parameters and have my own custom machine that exactly meets my needs. The point of fabbers isn't saving money on pens. It's control over the devices in your life. It's also about opening the field of design (if not manufacturing) to everyone, just like the Internet opened up the fields of music, writing and programming.
"Items produced by a fabricator don't have the durability of properly manufactured items."
This almost solely a function of the materials used--which could easily change in the future.
Honestly, your whole post reads like some intelligent-but-fuddy-duddy from the early 70's explaining why this new-fangled "desktop publishing" won't work. "Sure, a computer and a printer are useful for creating a manuscript--but who wants to read dot-matrix?"
--
Why not telecommute? You are unlikely to know the local languages (human or computer) everywhere you go anyway. Just keep the same job but call in from a new location everyday.
--
"I've always believed that targetted marketing might actually make advertising useful again..."
It's good!
"This one is scary because people are sending you IMs based on the tunes in your napster share."
And now it's bad!
"Course I don't have IM, and use napster super infrequently, so I guess thats one way to not be annoyed."
Still bad, but now not quite so!
"But frankly if I got junk mail about obscure Who stuff, I'd be happy."
Back to good! Incredible play folks--a full 360 in the course of 4 sentences--not just a "360" that's really a 180, but a literal 360.
--
Get out! That just can't be! 462-mm2? 462-mm2??
Just imagine a card with two of these. It'd be...carry the one....924-mm4!
--
MailOne
I have worked in places where I thought I was being dismissed merely because of my age. And some of those times I probably was. But looking back, I can see that some of those times I definitely wasn't.
This is clearest now that I'm older (I'm 27). A coworker's teenager or just-out-of-school applicant will come out and say something so totally ridiculous that I almost can't help but laugh. From their expressions it's clear they think I'm dismissing them "just because they are young". But the reality is that they really don't understand and that real understanding will only come with time.
It may be that you are a coding (or admin-ing, or whatever) god. That doesn't mean you understand The Issues: user psychology, social norms, political balances, etc. Here's a perfect example:
From time to time, an email virus erupts on the Internet. Post after post says "if only everybody would turn off feature X". These people have an "immature understanding". It's just a simple fact that you can't get "everybody" to do ANYTHING. You can explain this to an immature (of whatever age, but often pre-20's) person but they will just stare at you blankly and then go on to explain why it would work "if only" everyone would...
If literally no one will listen to you, you should at least consider the possibility that it's because what you are saying isn't worth listening to. If, upon sincere and mature reflection, you still think your idea has merit, ask someone why they are rejecting it. And don't dismiss their answer just because they are old.
--
MailOne
Call me Ishmael, but I'm still confused: Is there or is there not an actual connection between Korn the shell and Korn (with a backwards "r") the band?
--
MailOne
"...I'll continue to be loud and proud for as long as neccesary."
Considering I've been reading your comments for well over a year (maybe more like two) AND I didn't know you were gay--you can't have been all that "loud and proud".
--
MailOne
...think "flea circus"
--
MailOne
"Here's a cleaned-up edit of what's been bouncing around your inboxes all day..."
Turn off your javascript! I don't want you reading what's bouncing around MY inbox!
--
MailOne
I can't believe no one has mentioned this hokey 70's invention! I never played it myself so I don't know the "rules" (if such exist), but I've seen the box plenty of times at Goodwill and the like. The cover says something like "The non-competitive game that everyone can enjoy!"
--
MailOne
First, I was wrong about the standard keyboard. She only used Dvorak.
Second is this quote: "In 1938...Blackburn first laid hands on a Dvorak keyboard. In only a few years her speed was up to 138 words per minute."
In 1938 this keyboard was clearly mechanical, thus 138 is a mechanical speed. From context it sounds like she never switched to electric so 150/170 are also mechanical speeds.
As for your claim: "A good mechanical typrwriter is a match for a good keyboard."
Have you ever even used a mechanical typewriter? FULLY mechanical? As in it doesn't plug into the wall at all? You are probably thinking of "mechanical" electric keyboards (i.e. dedicated typewriters not attached to a computer, but nonetheless electrically powered). REAL mechanical typewriters are VERY hard to type with.
An electric only requires you to close a relay and then the machine does the work of striking the paper. A mechanical requires you to impart enough force to strike the arm against the paper (a distance of several inches) AND lift the ribbon (and if you are shifting, you have to lift the weight of the carriage with your other pinky). The difference is incredible. I remember as a child trying to learn to type with my mother's mechanical typewriter. I had to quit because I couldn't press the keys hard enough. When I played with an electric in the store I was astounded at the tiny amount of force I needed to use to make the keys go. Also keep in mind that a mechanical requires you to wait for the arms to move out of the way (can also be a problem on the electric, but the distance is smaller) but a computer keyboard has no problem with that.
Conclusion: You made a foolish initial statement that you can no longer sustain.
--
MailOne