I'm sorry. Your "words of wisdom" became cliches about thirty years ago. The rest of the world has moved on. Yeah, plenty of people still worship at the altar of consumerism but as wealth has spread people have learned that being wealthy isn't the only thing they need to be happy.
It seems your study of eastern philosophy hasn't done much for your egoism. You are negatively defining your self against the other, "I'm not that." Guess what? You are that. Until you deal with it you'll be trapped in that little ego you hate so much.
Lots of pictures but not a lot of text... If he removed the screenshots, he could have fit it all on one page! Of course some people *LOVE* screenshots. So, I guess you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Damn you, Tom!
In about 75 years when this might actually be possible... Of course we'll all be immortal by then. So I should have some time to play with him at least until I piss him off and sets me on fire.
"You seem to have missed a vital detail here - you chose that reaction."
False. Nobody chooses a reaction. The person reacting may have failed to cultivate the possibility of reacting differently, but that's, uh, different.
That reaction is also nominally no less legitimate than the reaction the person wearing the supposedly non-conformist clothes intended to provoke.
"The suit is completely meaningless."
Also, false. It's a social fact that someone who dresses in a way opposed to those in authority is making an anti-authoritarian statement. That's generally why it is repressed by those in authority. I don't care whether the person *meant* to make the statement. If they meant something different, then their choice of clothing is polysemic. The "real" meaning is not necessarily the one a person intends.
Why does this matter? Because business is, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the position, social. People are not simply functions or cogs or whatever metaphor you want to use. Anyone who makes an anti-authoritarian statement by their dress is saying that they don't work well in teams and don't take orders very well (eventually we all take orders even if we don't want to call them that). This matters to a greater or lesser degree, as I said above, depending on the job, but it does matter in business.
I realize people who are supposed to be objective (scientists, engineers, etc) tend to discount the social context (usually when it is convenient), but it does matter (and I don't mean "Oh, unfortunately..."). How someone behaves tells you objective facts about them that are relevant to how they will perform as a part of a business. Granted, it may not tell you anything about their ability to code, but that's not the only fact to consider when hiring. When you are trying to sell something that's probably the time when social skills matter most.
Now, if someone gets better service because of how they dress (whether it's a beautiful woman or a guy in a suit), that's totally different. Those people are just trying to curry favor (a date, a fat tip, etc) from the powerful. That may seem similar to selling, but it's different and a whole different response.
Nice post. Just one nitpick: "Or do people in southern california and in large cities enjoy a 1-hr commute to work?". I take public transportation to work, as I have all of my life, and it takes me 45 minutes to go about 5 miles. I sometimes think about giving up on it since it is grossly inefficient for me. I am sure on the whole it is more efficient, but the decision that is usually being made is 45 minutes vs. 15 minutes, not short-term gain vs. long-term gain. Admittedly, there are some secondary benefits (e.g. you can read, do work, etc), but most people after working ten or twelve hours just want to go home.
So what are these quantum properties, ontologically speaking? Probability waves? But what is a probability wave? It must be something physical because it does work but what kind of being does probability have? Are probabilities just as "real" as "actualities"? Weird.
It can also be damn near impossible to prove that you are not the person the government thinks that you are. Anyone who has tried to get off of a "No-Fly" knows what I'm talking about.
The government should be forced to reimburse people found to be innocent or people should have the right to sue.
Is the transition between gas and plasma a phase transition of the same kind? I wonder if this research would help with fusion? I imagine there is a lot more going than a simple phase transition (e.g. gravitational and electromagnetic effects) but it might be one part of the puzzle.
I disagree. I was going to buy a PS3, but now I refuse. It's not just the rootkit issue. Sony is always trying to lock people into it's proprietary formats and maintain absolute control over content. For example, Sony claims that they support Blu-ray because it is technologically superior to HD-DVD but I bet it has more to do with the fact that it has invasive DRM that violates the right to Fair Use. I suppose the fact that they invented it doesn't hurt either, but that just makes it even worse. I could almost stand the DRM, but this is just too much. I don't trust them anymore.
The worst thing Sony ever did was get involved in creating content. It has seriously damaged their ability to innovate on the hardware side and lead them to make some seriously misguided business decisions.
about the performance numbers. Those numbers are going disappear as soon as some marketing monkey from Microsoft sees this article. Now Microsoft will never release real numbers again. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.
I'm not an OSS zealot, but it's obvious even to me why proprietary software companies hate it. It's not because OSS is so much better or less buggy. Most OSS stuff I have seen isn't better or less buggy (most, not all). The real business problem is that it puts a floor under the value proposition of software sales. It is the combination of quality and being free. Being free isn't enough (and frankly most companies don't care that they get the source code). Nobody wants crap even if it is free. So the combination of being decent quality and being free set a lower limit to what proprietary companies can offer. It forces them to innovate or it forces them to lower their prices. So more money goes to the R&D pile (or marketing pile, if they really can't compete) instead of the profits pile and their stock suffers for it, at least initially. It gives consumers the ability to say: "Why should I buy your hideously expensive software and be locked into you for years when I can get this software that is Good Enough(tm) for free?" OSS might be a problem for software companies but it is good for consumers.
If this policy were in place before Iraq II, would Iraq now be a radioactive crater? I'm sure some of you wouldn't mind, but I think it would have been a truly horrible tragedy. And, just think, how would we know whether the act was justified? A nuke would completely wipe out any evidence. This policy would lower the barrier to deployment of nuclear weapons and I don't trust the Bush Administration, or any other administration that acts as recklessly as they do, enough to condone the lowering of such a barrier. This is insanity.
Hmm... Completely unfounded claims, people throwing money around like it's going out of style, CEOs that are better at marketing than engineering, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah...
The market won't be grossly distorted, because there is only one customer for these companies (even if it is a really big customer) and that's not much of a market but I can still see that we are going to be flushing a lot of tax payer money down the toilet in the near future.
Uh, you are aware "indict" has more than one meaning, right? I was saying that these conservative Christians own religion tells them that they are doing wrong but they still do it.
"That you are not catholic or neccessarily believe in God shows in your understanding of the "new testament is the fulfilment of the old testament and falls pretty much on the side of those who oppose the death penalty"".
I had intended to say something more rude in this post due to your disdainful tone, but I'll just say that I never claimed that the New Testament washed anything away. I merely said it fulfilled it (i.e. continued and added to the tradition to make it complete.) You apparently have mistaken what I said for the populist, hippie version of Christianity that says all that matters is love, which in one sense is true but not in the sense they mean it. Anyhow, I won't belabor the point, but, in the future, you may want to read what is actually written, rather than falling back on stereotypes, before you get all uppity.
Of course, if you are Catholic, nobody is innocent, and they therefore quite correctly oppose the death penalty. Not that I'm Catholic, or even necessarily believe in god, but I can respect intellectual honesty.
Even apart from the guilt/innocence question, if these Republicans support the death penalty, they do not understand redemption or divine love and exact revenge rather than dispense justice. Their own religion indicts them.
P.S. Don't bother quoting the Old Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament according to many Christians and the New Testament falls pretty much on the side of those who oppose the death penalty. That may be offensive to Jews, but don't blame me. Talk to the Christians about it.
And the only way to do that is to introduce competing "drives" that wax and wane relative to internal or external conditions. This will distract its "focus". You can avoid (not resolve) the Turing paradox by this method. In this sense a kernel for an OS is a better model for intelligence than a microprocessor.
BTW, nice explanation of Godel's incompleteness theorems.
now might be a good time to sell it. I don't Google is worth that much, but I'm not a stockbroker so what do I know? When this thing pops its going to drop like a rock. It's better to make a profit now rather than be locked out when the selling frenzy starts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. Your "words of wisdom" became cliches about thirty years ago. The rest of the world has moved on. Yeah, plenty of people still worship at the altar of consumerism but as wealth has spread people have learned that being wealthy isn't the only thing they need to be happy.
It seems your study of eastern philosophy hasn't done much for your egoism. You are negatively defining your self against the other, "I'm not that." Guess what? You are that. Until you deal with it you'll be trapped in that little ego you hate so much.
Lots of pictures but not a lot of text... If he removed the screenshots, he could have fit it all on one page! Of course some people *LOVE* screenshots. So, I guess you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Damn you, Tom!
I want one with a rocket belt.
the reference on Linux Kernel Mailing List didn't being down Slashdot, but the reference on Slashdot brought down LKML. Shocking, I say!
In about 75 years when this might actually be possible... Of course we'll all be immortal by then. So I should have some time to play with him at least until I piss him off and sets me on fire.
"You seem to have missed a vital detail here - you chose that reaction."
False. Nobody chooses a reaction. The person reacting may have failed to cultivate the possibility of reacting differently, but that's, uh, different.
That reaction is also nominally no less legitimate than the reaction the person wearing the supposedly non-conformist clothes intended to provoke.
"The suit is completely meaningless."
Also, false. It's a social fact that someone who dresses in a way opposed to those in authority is making an anti-authoritarian statement. That's generally why it is repressed by those in authority. I don't care whether the person *meant* to make the statement. If they meant something different, then their choice of clothing is polysemic. The "real" meaning is not necessarily the one a person intends.
Why does this matter? Because business is, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the position, social. People are not simply functions or cogs or whatever metaphor you want to use. Anyone who makes an anti-authoritarian statement by their dress is saying that they don't work well in teams and don't take orders very well (eventually we all take orders even if we don't want to call them that). This matters to a greater or lesser degree, as I said above, depending on the job, but it does matter in business.
I realize people who are supposed to be objective (scientists, engineers, etc) tend to discount the social context (usually when it is convenient), but it does matter (and I don't mean "Oh, unfortunately..."). How someone behaves tells you objective facts about them that are relevant to how they will perform as a part of a business. Granted, it may not tell you anything about their ability to code, but that's not the only fact to consider when hiring. When you are trying to sell something that's probably the time when social skills matter most.
Now, if someone gets better service because of how they dress (whether it's a beautiful woman or a guy in a suit), that's totally different. Those people are just trying to curry favor (a date, a fat tip, etc) from the powerful. That may seem similar to selling, but it's different and a whole different response.
Nice post. Just one nitpick: "Or do people in southern california and in large cities enjoy a 1-hr commute to work?". I take public transportation to work, as I have all of my life, and it takes me 45 minutes to go about 5 miles. I sometimes think about giving up on it since it is grossly inefficient for me. I am sure on the whole it is more efficient, but the decision that is usually being made is 45 minutes vs. 15 minutes, not short-term gain vs. long-term gain. Admittedly, there are some secondary benefits (e.g. you can read, do work, etc), but most people after working ten or twelve hours just want to go home.
So what are these quantum properties, ontologically speaking? Probability waves? But what is a probability wave? It must be something physical because it does work but what kind of being does probability have? Are probabilities just as "real" as "actualities"? Weird.
It can also be damn near impossible to prove that you are not the person the government thinks that you are. Anyone who has tried to get off of a "No-Fly" knows what I'm talking about.
The government should be forced to reimburse people found to be innocent or people should have the right to sue.
Is the transition between gas and plasma a phase transition of the same kind? I wonder if this research would help with fusion? I imagine there is a lot more going than a simple phase transition (e.g. gravitational and electromagnetic effects) but it might be one part of the puzzle.
iPod Videos and Xbox 360s... Two articles right after each other and both of them puff pieces. Lame.
I disagree. I was going to buy a PS3, but now I refuse. It's not just the rootkit issue. Sony is always trying to lock people into it's proprietary formats and maintain absolute control over content. For example, Sony claims that they support Blu-ray because it is technologically superior to HD-DVD but I bet it has more to do with the fact that it has invasive DRM that violates the right to Fair Use. I suppose the fact that they invented it doesn't hurt either, but that just makes it even worse. I could almost stand the DRM, but this is just too much. I don't trust them anymore.
The worst thing Sony ever did was get involved in creating content. It has seriously damaged their ability to innovate on the hardware side and lead them to make some seriously misguided business decisions.
about the performance numbers. Those numbers are going disappear as soon as some marketing monkey from Microsoft sees this article. Now Microsoft will never release real numbers again. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.
I'm not an OSS zealot, but it's obvious even to me why proprietary software companies hate it. It's not because OSS is so much better or less buggy. Most OSS stuff I have seen isn't better or less buggy (most, not all). The real business problem is that it puts a floor under the value proposition of software sales. It is the combination of quality and being free. Being free isn't enough (and frankly most companies don't care that they get the source code). Nobody wants crap even if it is free. So the combination of being decent quality and being free set a lower limit to what proprietary companies can offer. It forces them to innovate or it forces them to lower their prices. So more money goes to the R&D pile (or marketing pile, if they really can't compete) instead of the profits pile and their stock suffers for it, at least initially. It gives consumers the ability to say: "Why should I buy your hideously expensive software and be locked into you for years when I can get this software that is Good Enough(tm) for free?" OSS might be a problem for software companies but it is good for consumers.
Well, Channels are dead but "Pull" isn't. It lives on as RSS, but that's neither here nor there.
If this policy were in place before Iraq II, would Iraq now be a radioactive crater? I'm sure some of you wouldn't mind, but I think it would have been a truly horrible tragedy. And, just think, how would we know whether the act was justified? A nuke would completely wipe out any evidence. This policy would lower the barrier to deployment of nuclear weapons and I don't trust the Bush Administration, or any other administration that acts as recklessly as they do, enough to condone the lowering of such a barrier. This is insanity.
Hmm... Completely unfounded claims, people throwing money around like it's going out of style, CEOs that are better at marketing than engineering, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah...
The market won't be grossly distorted, because there is only one customer for these companies (even if it is a really big customer) and that's not much of a market but I can still see that we are going to be flushing a lot of tax payer money down the toilet in the near future.
I'm impressed. Apology accepted. Thanks.
Uh, you are aware "indict" has more than one meaning, right? I was saying that these conservative Christians own religion tells them that they are doing wrong but they still do it.
"That you are not catholic or neccessarily believe in God shows in your understanding of the "new testament is the fulfilment of the old testament and falls pretty much on the side of those who oppose the death penalty"".
I had intended to say something more rude in this post due to your disdainful tone, but I'll just say that I never claimed that the New Testament washed anything away. I merely said it fulfilled it (i.e. continued and added to the tradition to make it complete.) You apparently have mistaken what I said for the populist, hippie version of Christianity that says all that matters is love, which in one sense is true but not in the sense they mean it. Anyhow, I won't belabor the point, but, in the future, you may want to read what is actually written, rather than falling back on stereotypes, before you get all uppity.
Of course, if you are Catholic, nobody is innocent, and they therefore quite correctly oppose the death penalty. Not that I'm Catholic, or even necessarily believe in god, but I can respect intellectual honesty.
Even apart from the guilt/innocence question, if these Republicans support the death penalty, they do not understand redemption or divine love and exact revenge rather than dispense justice. Their own religion indicts them.
P.S. Don't bother quoting the Old Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament according to many Christians and the New Testament falls pretty much on the side of those who oppose the death penalty. That may be offensive to Jews, but don't blame me. Talk to the Christians about it.
And the only way to do that is to introduce competing "drives" that wax and wane relative to internal or external conditions. This will distract its "focus". You can avoid (not resolve) the Turing paradox by this method. In this sense a kernel for an OS is a better model for intelligence than a microprocessor.
BTW, nice explanation of Godel's incompleteness theorems.
Who voted for it? I want to know where I should send money to make sure they don't get re-elected.
but I bet all it says is: Don't use your real email address on Slashdot.
now might be a good time to sell it. I don't Google is worth that much, but I'm not a stockbroker so what do I know? When this thing pops its going to drop like a rock. It's better to make a profit now rather than be locked out when the selling frenzy starts.