If you followed Bob's 802.11b adventures (which ran off-and-on for about 2-3 months), you know that this is the beginning of what will be a whole series of articles about this supercomputer.
Yes, he is actually going to try to build this thing, and he is going to document and post his progress as well as every single technical snag and kludgey solution.
For the Slashdot crowd, try "Serial Experiments Lain", about a middle-school (?) hacker chick.
Very geeky, very complicated.
Can you get this in the states?
If not, almost any Anime worth seeing can be downloaded via the WinMX P2P network. Install the Japanese patch and search on the Japanese title.
(If you aren't able or willing to do this, then you are no fan and I SHUN you.)
About my shoes...
Yes single income families have it rough. My father supported six of us, and while we may have missed out on some of the finer things in life (like non-powdered milk, storebought toys, etc.), nobody starved.
And likewse my wife and I decided that after our first child, I would be the only one to work. And we're dirt poor. But not starving.
Sorry if I made you feel guilty. 'Twas not my intention.
The rise of capitalism and modern industry took men out of their homes to work; it would have been natural for the same to happent to women. That's what I mean by a correction.
That statement is based on many assumptions that I do not particularly agree with. Capitalism "rose" during the renaissance. I think what you're referring to is the demise of family farms and mass migration to the cities.
In any case, before this happened there was an understood (yes yes, traditional...) division of duties in the family. Men would be more likely to work outside the home, and women more likely to work in it. Regardless of who does what job, I think everyone agreed that both jobs needed to be done. In the case of a family farm, both jobs happen to occur near the same location.
It would be natural for both sexes to work outside the home only if, as you suggest, in-home work was worthless and didn't require doing. That is the main assumption I don't agree with.
If the person who worked at home didn't have anything important to do there, why was he/she there in the fist place? Any society that wastes half their available labor force sitting around the house doing nothing more important than crocheting doilies is at a severe evolutionary disadvantage. The first barbarian tribe with an integrated armed forces would easily overwhelm and crush their neighbors. But that didn't happen. Which suggests to me that whoever was in the home must have been doing something critically important to the survival of the community in order to justify the resources diverted away from moneymaking, hunting, and warfare.
I'm not blaming the women. I don't think I even implied that. (Frankly, I think rampant materialism on the part of both sexes is primarily to blame, but that's a debate for another time.)
I don't see how the quality of daycare will improve by making it cheap and/or free.
At any rate, daycare will never be an adequate replacement for full-time parenting for the following reasons:
1) Daycare centers, in order to be affordable (or in the case of free daycare, efficient) must have the highest child to caregiver ratio possible.
2) Daycare centers are paid to watch your child, not to raise them.
3) Daycare centers are permitted only minimally to discipline a child, either by law or by company policy (to avoid possible trouble with the parent). When children in daycare centers are disciplined, it is usually only because they are violent.
4) Caregivers in daycare centers cannot know a child as intimately as a parent does. Children frequently change daycare centers, and daycare center workers frequently change jobs.
5) Caregivers in daycare centers cannot love a child remotely like a parent can. (Too many kids, not enough time to form an attachment.)
This argument has nothing to do with sexism, though many folks prefer to dismiss it as such. I believe that children need 24-hour attention from someone who knows, loves, and is ultimately responsible for them. That can be a father, mother, grandmother, or whoever. (Actually, why not all three?) Although I think there is no contest that mothers do it best.
I know there are a lot of women (and men) out there who think raising a family is somehow demeaning or beneath them. I think that's really too bad. (What, like working in a corporation is a big ego booster???)
Women only tending to the home and children is the anomaly, so the women's liberation movement was really a correction.
No, in the example you gave, the women did manual labor (farm work, I imagine) as part of their duties to home and family. When people moved off the farm to the city, women simply ceased doing the manual labor part.
I don't see how the women's liberation movement (which for the first time took wives and mothers out of their homes to work) is any kind of correction. One may think it is a good thing (obviously I don't), but it is not a return to any kind of norm.
Certainly women did half of the work (if not more), but they almost never left the house or family farm to do so. For that matter, unless he were a tradesman of some sort, neither did the men.
But women going to the office every day and chucking 2 month old infants in prison-like day care centers to be watched by minimum-wage crack addicts is very very recent. I suspect that it is the latter behavior that your essay is meant to justify.
I have heard of cases of full-blown autism (Rainman or worse) being cured completely, if temporarily, by placing the individual in a hyperbaric chamber. Evidently the high air pressure "fixes" them.
I'm not talking about the 1860's notion of race that divides everyone into only three groups. What about Germanic, Celtic, and Italic people in Europe and the US? Lots of cross-breeding going on there.
I also understand that the African-American population in the US is on average a full 1/4 Caucasoid.
When people say there aren't a lot of interracial marriages, I think they're thinking of pairings like Louis Armstrong + Latetia Casta.
No, you don't see a lot of that...
Isn't it funny how often things that Americans call impossible are implemented successfully by other countries.
Japan (where I live) has profitable mass-transit. Near my home are two competing rail lines, JR and Nishitetsu. Nishitetsu (AFAIK) has always been profitable, and JR (now restructured) has returned to profitability.
I don't think they make money on ticket sales, just like San Diego does not. It is easy however to make money from the concentration of people that you have in your major stations. Play Railroad Tycoon, it's the same concept.
For example, Tenjin station (The Nishitetsu hub in Fukuoka) is rented out to advertisers on a daily basis for HUGE sums of money. The whole station goes to one advertiser who puts up gigantic (50-foot) posters in the high-traffic areas. (Today's display was for Boss Coffee. See how well that works?)
Another good way to make money is to build a department store on top of the station. Most big stations in Japan have 7-8 stories of stores above, and 1-2 stories of stores below the train station. Naturally, they're always full of people.
Another good source for creative mass-transit is the Brazillian city of Curitiba. Can't say if it's profitable, but it is successful.
I think I recall reading that the Serbs were able to fool laser-guided bombs and cruise missles by painting huge red and yellow colored squares on the airfields and tanks they wanted to protect. Evidently this screwed up the "signature" of the object (or something like that) so that it didn't look like an airfield or tank.
Christmas requires the smell of pine trees and baked goods.
I made seven gallons of mince in preparation for the holidays, but I can't bake it into anything.
I guess I'll just squat on the tatami mats, eat it all with a really big spoon and sing carols softly to myself. Merry Christmas!
So I went back to school and finished my Japanese degree. Now I work in a Japanese networking company. It's the same work, but doing it all in a foreign language makes it interesting and really really really challenging.
And the loads of Japanese geek culture I'm exposed to keep me coming to work every morning:)
Yup. War is your only recourse if the AI launches a spaceship before you do. You *have* to take over his capitol during the 20-odd turns it takes for the spaceship to arrive, or lose the game.
And taking over such a large city in the heart of the world's most powerful empire usually involves a sneak nuke attack.
All one has to do to take over a city is to park your army next to a different city. The AI will evacuate all nearby cities of defensive units (sometimes they don't even leave a single one!) to defend the one you're standing next to. Switch course and capture the 5 empty enemy cities. Works every time.
Slashdot Mirror
If you followed Bob's 802.11b adventures (which ran off-and-on for about 2-3 months), you know that this is the beginning of what will be a whole series of articles about this supercomputer.
Yes, he is actually going to try to build this thing, and he is going to document and post his progress as well as every single technical snag and kludgey solution.
I can hardly wait!
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these supercomputers??!?!
...I'll get me hat...
My favorite quote from the early days:
"In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
(regarding the great net.kook Serdar Argic)
So... Little girls showing thier underpants is unusual? I reckon you don't have any daughters then. ;)
Seriously, I don't think it was meant as any kind of a turn-on, just as cute realism.
Funny you should mention that.
The bucho of my department, a 50-year old guy with only half his teeth, has a Totoro screen saver. I'm looking at it right now.
For the Slashdot crowd, try "Serial Experiments Lain", about a middle-school (?) hacker chick.
Very geeky, very complicated.
Can you get this in the states?
If not, almost any Anime worth seeing can be downloaded via the WinMX P2P network. Install the Japanese patch and search on the Japanese title.
(If you aren't able or willing to do this, then you are no fan and I SHUN you.)
Miyazaki's newest film, "Sen to Chihiro no Kami Kakushi". Just came out in Japan. I think the English title is "Spirited Away" or something like that.
I saw it in the theater. Absolutely spactacular.
Starving? What?
About my shoes...
Yes single income families have it rough. My father supported six of us, and while we may have missed out on some of the finer things in life (like non-powdered milk, storebought toys, etc.), nobody starved.
And likewse my wife and I decided that after our first child, I would be the only one to work. And we're dirt poor. But not starving.
Sorry if I made you feel guilty. 'Twas not my intention.
The rise of capitalism and modern industry took men out of their homes to work; it would have been natural for the same to happent to women. That's what I mean by a correction.
That statement is based on many assumptions that I do not particularly agree with. Capitalism "rose" during the renaissance. I think what you're referring to is the demise of family farms and mass migration to the cities.
In any case, before this happened there was an understood (yes yes, traditional...) division of duties in the family. Men would be more likely to work outside the home, and women more likely to work in it. Regardless of who does what job, I think everyone agreed that both jobs needed to be done. In the case of a family farm, both jobs happen to occur near the same location.
It would be natural for both sexes to work outside the home only if, as you suggest, in-home work was worthless and didn't require doing. That is the main assumption I don't agree with.
If the person who worked at home didn't have anything important to do there, why was he/she there in the fist place? Any society that wastes half their available labor force sitting around the house doing nothing more important than crocheting doilies is at a severe evolutionary disadvantage. The first barbarian tribe with an integrated armed forces would easily overwhelm and crush their neighbors. But that didn't happen. Which suggests to me that whoever was in the home must have been doing something critically important to the survival of the community in order to justify the resources diverted away from moneymaking, hunting, and warfare.
I'm not blaming the women. I don't think I even implied that. (Frankly, I think rampant materialism on the part of both sexes is primarily to blame, but that's a debate for another time.)
I don't see how the quality of daycare will improve by making it cheap and/or free.
At any rate, daycare will never be an adequate replacement for full-time parenting for the following reasons:
1) Daycare centers, in order to be affordable (or in the case of free daycare, efficient) must have the highest child to caregiver ratio possible.
2) Daycare centers are paid to watch your child, not to raise them.
3) Daycare centers are permitted only minimally to discipline a child, either by law or by company policy (to avoid possible trouble with the parent). When children in daycare centers are disciplined, it is usually only because they are violent.
4) Caregivers in daycare centers cannot know a child as intimately as a parent does. Children frequently change daycare centers, and daycare center workers frequently change jobs.
5) Caregivers in daycare centers cannot love a child remotely like a parent can. (Too many kids, not enough time to form an attachment.)
This argument has nothing to do with sexism, though many folks prefer to dismiss it as such. I believe that children need 24-hour attention from someone who knows, loves, and is ultimately responsible for them. That can be a father, mother, grandmother, or whoever. (Actually, why not all three?) Although I think there is no contest that mothers do it best.
I know there are a lot of women (and men) out there who think raising a family is somehow demeaning or beneath them. I think that's really too bad. (What, like working in a corporation is a big ego booster???)
Women only tending to the home and children is the anomaly, so the women's liberation movement was really a correction.
No, in the example you gave, the women did manual labor (farm work, I imagine) as part of their duties to home and family. When people moved off the farm to the city, women simply ceased doing the manual labor part.
I don't see how the women's liberation movement (which for the first time took wives and mothers out of their homes to work) is any kind of correction. One may think it is a good thing (obviously I don't), but it is not a return to any kind of norm.
That essay is misleading.
Certainly women did half of the work (if not more), but they almost never left the house or family farm to do so. For that matter, unless he were a tradesman of some sort, neither did the men.
But women going to the office every day and chucking 2 month old infants in prison-like day care centers to be watched by minimum-wage crack addicts is very very recent. I suspect that it is the latter behavior that your essay is meant to justify.
Go ahead, mod me down. I'm at karma cap.
But a lot of successful intelligent men marry models, actresses, and strippers.
Often several of them in a row!
Politicians will evolve into pineapples.
I have proof.
I have heard of cases of full-blown autism (Rainman or worse) being cured completely, if temporarily, by placing the individual in a hyperbaric chamber. Evidently the high air pressure "fixes" them.
Just what the heck is that about??
But there are a lot of interracial marriages.
I'm not talking about the 1860's notion of race that divides everyone into only three groups. What about Germanic, Celtic, and Italic people in Europe and the US? Lots of cross-breeding going on there.
I also understand that the African-American population in the US is on average a full 1/4 Caucasoid.
When people say there aren't a lot of interracial marriages, I think they're thinking of pairings like Louis Armstrong + Latetia Casta.
No, you don't see a lot of that...
Isn't it funny how often things that Americans call impossible are implemented successfully by other countries.
Japan (where I live) has profitable mass-transit. Near my home are two competing rail lines, JR and Nishitetsu. Nishitetsu (AFAIK) has always been profitable, and JR (now restructured) has returned to profitability.
I don't think they make money on ticket sales, just like San Diego does not. It is easy however to make money from the concentration of people that you have in your major stations. Play Railroad Tycoon, it's the same concept.
For example, Tenjin station (The Nishitetsu hub in Fukuoka) is rented out to advertisers on a daily basis for HUGE sums of money. The whole station goes to one advertiser who puts up gigantic (50-foot) posters in the high-traffic areas. (Today's display was for Boss Coffee. See how well that works?)
Another good way to make money is to build a department store on top of the station. Most big stations in Japan have 7-8 stories of stores above, and 1-2 stories of stores below the train station. Naturally, they're always full of people.
Another good source for creative mass-transit is the Brazillian city of Curitiba. Can't say if it's profitable, but it is successful.
Damn, I just spent all my moderator points :(
+1! Insightful!
That tactic worked pretty well with nukes in "Total Annihilation".
England doesn't have skunks. Skunks are indigenous to America.
I think I recall reading that the Serbs were able to fool laser-guided bombs and cruise missles by painting huge red and yellow colored squares on the airfields and tanks they wanted to protect. Evidently this screwed up the "signature" of the object (or something like that) so that it didn't look like an airfield or tank.
The two things I can't get in Japan.
Christmas requires the smell of pine trees and baked goods.
I made seven gallons of mince in preparation for the holidays, but I can't bake it into anything.
I guess I'll just squat on the tatami mats, eat it all with a really big spoon and sing carols softly to myself. Merry Christmas!
I burned out on computing about three years ago.
:)
So I went back to school and finished my Japanese degree. Now I work in a Japanese networking company. It's the same work, but doing it all in a foreign language makes it interesting and really really really challenging.
And the loads of Japanese geek culture I'm exposed to keep me coming to work every morning
Yup. War is your only recourse if the AI launches a spaceship before you do. You *have* to take over his capitol during the 20-odd turns it takes for the spaceship to arrive, or lose the game.
And taking over such a large city in the heart of the world's most powerful empire usually involves a sneak nuke attack.
I agree. The CTP AI is tragically stupid.
All one has to do to take over a city is to park your army next to a different city. The AI will evacuate all nearby cities of defensive units (sometimes they don't even leave a single one!) to defend the one you're standing next to. Switch course and capture the 5 empty enemy cities. Works every time.