Initially, the first game is completely random, but reserachers found that if you chose the play that your opponent chose in the round before, you stand a 70% chance of winning the next round.
Which might work - at least until your opponent deduces your strategy.
I'd love to see some more research done into keyboard layouts... though, for me at least, I'm not interested in migrating away from QWERTY. I am interested in alternative mechanisms by which to capitalise and to enter symbols. For example, I find it infuriating that UK keyboards put the double-quote character above 2 - which, to my mind at least, is far less convenient than where the US puts it above the single quote... but I can't justify (in a modern world with email addresses etc) putting the "at" symbol above 2 either. As a programmer I'd like brackets, braces, single/double quotes and all the standard operators to be available to me in a single keystroke... and I'd particularly like an alternative "shift" which does not need to remain depressed as a modifier - but rather a shift key which when pressed once inverts the case of the next character. While I doubt that such a keyboard would be substantially faster than an standard QWERTY one - I do think it would be far more comfortable to use - and suspect it would dramatically reduce the likelihood of developing RSI by writing code.
You are almost right - the "song" has quite a strange history. As far as I can find out it was originally written by Mary Schmich (possibly of the Chicago Tribune) - and became a popular text wrongly attributed to Kurt Vonnegut.
http://supak.com/sunscreen.htm
Baz Luhrmann (who I presume is the same man responsible for directing Moulin Rouge; Romeo+Juliet and Strictly Ballroom) then took this and set it to music.
QUOTE : Advice is a way to make you feel better about yourself by pretending that other people care about your opinions. [Pop Song - Sunblok 1999] (Full lyrics follow)
When I was in high school I didn't particularly want to be told anything else by anybody. I didn't believe that everyone in class needed the same advice - and I still don't.
Wear sunscreen.
If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.
Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind. You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they've faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine.
Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4 p.m. on some idle Tuesday.
Do one thing every day that scares you.
Sing.
Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours.
Floss.
Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself.
Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how.
Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements.
Stretch.
Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.
Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone.
Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's.
Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or of what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your living room.
Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.
Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly.
Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future.
Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young.
Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel.
Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.
Respect your elders.
Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out.
Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you're 40 it will look 85.
Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a fo
That all sounds quite plausible... I'd suspected my P4-Mobile wasn't a P4-M, but finding info on that wasn't straightforward. Given the 1.5x "rule-of-thumb" from (500 series) P4 "Mobile" to (700 series) P4-M this doesn't justify a replacement. If the 900 series turn out to have a better "rule of thumb" multiplier then one of those might prove worthwhile - but I suppose I just have to wait and see. I see your argument in favour of a 7200RPM drive - though, as I've determined I'm seldom bound by disk IO, I've not considered this worthwhile - until I need more capacity at least. For my purposes, a similar argument applies to RAM... moving from 512Mb to 640Mb had no noticeable effect on performance - so I suspect that the same would be true from 640Mb to 1 or even 2Gb. I think my best move is to hang-tight... the machine is OK for now... I can wait for the next generation to be released in a year or so. Maybe by then I will be able to find one with a display to beat the Inspiron UXGA+ LCD... I'm not a big fan of widescreen - especially when it is supplied at lower resolution than I have at present. I do like the brightness of the most modern designs - and I'd love to move to a 17" high-resolution display!
I was already "mostly aware" of all that... So here is a more concrete question:
I've a 18-24 month old Dell Inspiron 8200 with a 1.9Ghz "Pentium Mobile" processor (x86 Family 15 Model 2 Stepping 4 GenuineIntel ~1894 Mhz) with 640Mb RAM and a 60Gb 5400rpm H/D. I develop on this laptop and would welcome any substantial reduction in compile times; improved compression rates when dealing with large 7-zip archives etc. I realise that the best laptop H/Ds are now 80-100Gb (no great improvement there) and that I am still constricted to 2Gb RAM - maybe with higher IO rates - the modern processors have similar clock speeds - but have an improved architecture. I'd like to know the extent to which these architectural improvements will benefit my computationally demanding tasks. Everyone can tell me that the Centrino processors are "better" - but no-one so far has told me how much better... I'm also unclear if my "Pentium Mobile" should be considered "plain" and compared with the chips now running at ~4Ghz, or if the clock speed of this chip should be compared with the more modern Pentium Ms?
Only recently did I become aware that there was a marked architectural difference between 500 and 700 series CPUs - and I read about distinctions between Pentium mobile and Pentium M chips. While I applaud the move away from correlating the computing capability of a chip with its clock speed, I now find myself (as I suspect the typical man in the street also find themselves) completely unable to compare the relative performances between the various CPU series. I realise that benchmarking is no panacea - but it would be really helpful to see a comprehensive set of benchmarks in order that I can establish a rough idea of the advantages of upgrading before splashing out on a machine with a newer processor. When Mhz mattered a good rule of thumb was that it was only worth considering an upgrade when the new CPU had a clock at least twice as fast as the old one... How should a user make this sort of decision with the new names? Is there any 'good' (unbiased) online material?
I'd be willing to believe that 90% of the time security considerations are trivial, though I hold the opinion that it is difficult to determine, without appropriate consideration, if a particular scenario is in the remaining 10% or not. I'd also contend that it is a bad idea to assume that having considered a security requirement under one set of assumptions that the matter will never benefit from review. In order to perform this periodic review, at least a basic understanding of the currently provisions is essential - and for the limits of a system to be clearly understood and heeded.
I agree that there is a distinction between required provision and beneficial provision. Using the car analogy - yes there are many things I could do which would improve the security of a car... and not all of them are appropriate - that is exactly my point. It is for exactly this reason I contend that security is an ongoing concern and not something for which it is sensible to simply buy a solution and forget the issue. Provision for security needs to be re-assessed whenever the base assumptions change. In some environments it is appropriate to leave a car unlocked for convenience - in others it is worth paying for attended parking or a secure garage. Only by regularly assessing the risks can an acceptable compromise be found.
I think trying to dampen the spin on computer security is a good idea - I just feel that this is an area in which extreme care must be taken with wording. I do not believe that the grotesque flaws we put up with in today's software are inevitable - but I do believe that security risks which accompany the widespread use of ad-hoc software are. I hope that in future the industry is better equipped to supply quality software (which would undoubtedly simplify security) though I'm sorry I don't share your optimism that security problems will be eliminated any time soon. While I realise that this is mere conjecture - aren't we already in the situation where the majority of substantial individual losses as a result of computer security breaches were attributable to social engineering rather than the exploitation of bugs?
I still claim that Secutity is an ongoing process and not something which can be bought off the shelf and forgotten about - I remain steadfast in that opinion. You are right that the weak link in any system is typically the human - however you can't take the human out of the equation. Security has far more to do with understanding risks and managing people than it will ever be about cryptography or algorithmic techniques. Security will only become straightforward and automated when the risk profile is such that extremely basic precautions are sufficient.
Your argument that users do not need to understand security measures if these measures can not be circumvented is nonsense for two reasons. First: every security measure can be circumvented given sufficient determination and resources. Second: Even if the security measures could not be bypassed it would still be important for users to be aware of the level of protection the systems afford. Only in trivial situations will the implications for the security be obvious. In the realm of software there are even curious paradoxes - for example digital signatures can be deemed to either increase or decrease security depending upon perspective. In some circumstances I want my documents to be verifiably tamper-proof - in others I may wish to conceal my identity in order to avoid giving a competitor better intelligence about my company's business plans. Addressing this kind of issue requires a thorough understanding of the problem domain as well as a good grounding in the technical strategies which may be employed.
Your example of car security is interesting. When a yob threw a brick through the rear window of my car (among several other acts of vandalism) last year my car alarm was no use. Until that point I'd assumed that the standard alarm would be sufficient to protect my car on a bustling business park - but the risk profile had been wrongly assessed. CCTV might have prevented this problem... but if it was dark - maybe it would need to be an infra-red night-vision CCTV system. Does there need to be a security guard? Many guards? Patrols with dogs? Prior arrangements with car hire companies to avoid down-time during repairs? At the time I felt it would have been a good idea to have thousand-strong teams of brutal vigilantes... but on reflection I admit that would likely have proved overkill (pardon the pun!). The car alarm does not solve the security problem for cars - far from it! Security for cars requires an ongoing assessment of risk and selection of appropriate mechanisms to mitigate that risk.
You take issue asserting that I claim that "this is a complicated thing" - well I suppose it depends what you think "this" to be. You claim that managers do not have security professionals to decide upon who should be given keys to the door - but that misses the point entirely. A diligent manager will get professional help to secure the building - particularly if it is located in an area where crime is a problem - advice will likely be taken on everything from the type of locks; deadbolts; toughened glass; retractable bollards; security fencing; alarm systems and business cover either from a security firm and/or the police to name but a few - and there is likely a rota for call out in the event of a break in or other emergency... and this will need to be actively managed to ensure cover in spite of sick leave and holidays. Securing an office is also an ongoing process - simply buying some locks is, I'm sad to say, rarely sufficient.
At the risk of you accusing me of being pedantic - no risk increases as a result of bugs and security loopholes being closed in software... all other factors remaining constant (which, rarely they do) risk will only be reduced. You appear to be complaining that your costs are not reduced as you continue to pay for a full time security consultant. The issue here is one of ongoing risk assessment. When risk falls it is prude
That old chestnut - users invite viruses and worms through stupid behaviour: that much is true. If you believe this apparently dumb behaviour is a consequence of some in innate inability (such as a low IQ) then you are a bigger fool than you claim others to be. The reason users take no notice of your warnings is that they couldn't care less - if their actions cause problems then "the computer went wrong" and someone else will have to sort that out. The personal consequences of ignoring warnings about good practice are smaller than the effort and willpower required to act sensibly.
While it is conceivable that women are dissuaded from technical fields by the prevailing culture and alleged sexism in the workplace - I find this argument difficult to believe with respect to IT. In every one of the male dominated workplaces I've encountered I've preferred the equally unjustifiable hypothesis that women tend to have more balanced perspectives - and hence tend to derive less enjoyment from technical toil. I was particularly drawn to the idea that condescending behaviour detracts from the working environment - but I fail to see why this should be an issue for a woman any more than it would be for a man. I can't comment if the distinct typical career paths are primarily cultural or primarily genetic - though I like to think the traits I find attractive in women have a basis stronger than social conditioning!
I feel I have to reply - while your heart seems to be in the right place, your facts appear to be elsewhere!
Re: Security is a state. Securing is a process.
Wrong again! Secure is a state; Securing is the activity of improving security and security is the perpetuation of a secure state.
Re: If you really think that it is impossible for security to happen automatically, ask your self exactly what is it that a security professional can do that it is theoretically impossible to automate.
"Theoretically impossible to automate" is far stronger a constraint than is necessary to justify human involvement. These aspects of security which are extraordinarily difficult to automate relate to the following security tasks - for example:
Explaining to people the importance and relevance of the security measures.
Taking decisions to mitigate risk where tradeoffs must be made between productivity and security.
Identifying real-world business practices which can enhance security without negative effects on legitimate interaction.
Thanks! I didn't previously know that the 80s, 160s and 200s were all part of the same "series" - I guess that fact (coupled with the competitive pricing of the 160Gb and 200Gb models) probably means one of them is my ideal choice.
Hmmm - Your drive is "only" 80Gb... Can anyone comment on the Barracuda drives with larger capacities. I'm in the market to buy a new hard disk but realise I'm quite out of touch with which brands to buy these days (the last time I bought a desktop H/D as a separate package it was 17Gb and considered obscenely "top of the range!") I notice that the Barracuda drives have capacities up-to at least 250Gb (at relatively little extra cost over the basic models.) I am not particularly concerned about performance (i.e. I/O speed) as I intend to use this new drive to stash archives which would otherwise languish on misplaced CDs. [80Gb would do for now - I can justify buying up-to 0.5Tb!] I am primarily concerned about reliability, however, and remain quite sensitive to cost per gigabyte. Are the Barracuda drives similarly reliable across the capacity range? Can anyone point me at independent reviews or data concerning relative reliabilities of Seagate; Western-Digital; Maxtor; IBM/Hitachi mid-to-large capacity "cheap" IDE drives?
While I realise that MYSQL is a viable back end DBMS on windows, I would like to know if there is any provision to use an ODBC data source and store data in different DBMS - such as SQLServer, DB2, Oracle etc. ? If not in version 2.18, then is this planned for any future release?
Darn, if you think I've not given you much to disagree with then you should start being more eccentric in your claims - damn-it!:-)
I admitted that subtlety of language might explain some differences in opinion. When I look up evolution in my dictionary the most appropriate definition says "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." I understand that ascribing to the theory of evolution requires a presumption that no substantial changes occur between successive generations throughout history.
Suggesting "external" factors which may have influenced speciation does not require me to stoop so low as to suggest anything supernatural. For example, while I've no desire to suggest that I personally believe even this suggestion, what precludes the possibility that an irreproducible cosmic event scrambled DNA on earth giving rise to various species groups? For example, this sort of external event (or events) might explain puzzling gaps in the fossil record. Such a discovery could plausibly refute evolution as the primary explanation for the diversity of life on earth (which, lets face it, is what people hot under the collar are concerned about!) It is difficult to criticise your reluctance to hypothesise - and your caution against considering possibilities for which you've no experience or evidence... however, I would like to suggest that it is equally questionable to assume that every species on earth will arise gradually and naturally in any environment that will support life - we also have scant evidence for that.
You made my own point wonderfully when you stated "My current theories can explain what I see without adding a unicorn to it." This tacitly admits that theories explain a subset of observations and that it is nigh impossible to move from interesting theories to facts. There is no benefit in presenting a theory as a fact - only in presenting hypotheses as theories... The sticker should be seen as a complement to scientific reasoning... however it was intended.
According to my sister (a teacher) most children have a fetish for adhesive labels. If we can use this preoccupation to encourage the voracious reading of scientific textbooks in schools maybe this would prove an own-goal for the creationists?
I admit my post might have been seen as provocative - but (in my opinion) it wasn't without focus.
In "Part #1" I was not attempting to raise the question of trusting the accuracy of observation, but rather to make a more substantial distinction between observation and fact. Facts are true for all time. It is a fact that many hammers have fallen - it is not a fact that hammers fall... it is, at best, only a theory. Note that while there are many interesting questions about the trustworthiness of human observations - this was not my objection. I hoped I had made a case that premature generalisation is wrong-thinking.
In "part #2" - I was not intending to disagree that naturally occuring mutations of a genome _can_ cause speciation, but rather that it is far from _proven_ that this has been the mechanism by which our planet came to be populated by many species - or that it is the only mechanism possible. I contest your claim that "The" theory of evolution and the origin of species are separate... to my mind, the idea that all species arise gradually is the most important aspect of both. While I find most alternative hypotheses laughable at best, this doesn't mean I should accept as a fact that "evolution" as it is understood today has been the one and only mechanism of historic speciation. In my opinion evolution is a credible theory with substantial evidential support... but it is not a (known) fact.
I disagree that the theory of evolution (i.e. that all species have arisen gradually) is reasonably testable. Your plan to track DNA in animals certainly promises to generate evidence, but it offers no proof that external factors have not played a part in speciation on earth. Even if you were to grow an animal of every known species from a soup of the right chemicals I would contest that you still haven't proven that this explains our history - only the history of those animals you grew and studied.
While we're almost on the same page (where we draw a distinction between Evolution and a theory of evolution by naural selection) there are still differences of opinion. I remain convinced that it is reasonable to question evolution (by any mechanism) based upon the currently available evidence. I admit, however, that where we differ may be just in the subtleties of language... In order for me to be comfortable with the phrase "evolution is a fact" I would need to be convinced that the sole mechanism of speciation on earth has been gradual. I've seen no irrefutable evidence for this... while I've no evidence to the contrary either, this is why I insist evolution - irrespective of particular mechanism - can only be a theory.
Scientists should be most proud of theories. A "theory" is a plausible explanation accompanied by a body of verifiable evidence which has withstood intellectual scrutiny. A "fact", to my mind at least, this has far less value. A stated "fact" is an appeal that I accept the potentially specious beliefs of another person. Maybe we should make the facetious suggestion that one of two labels be applied to all disputed reasoning - "X is a theory and not a fact" - or - "X is an unverifiable hypothesis and not a theory let alone a fact." [OK - I'm just trying to encourage the use of more sticky labels to enhance my dividends!]
While I'm no creationist, and while I concur with your explanations of scientific theory and law - I am far from convinced by your explanation of "fact". Specifically with your gravitation example I'm compelled to disagree. If you said that it was a fact that the specific hammer you just dropped fell to the ground, that would be OK, but you are making a lot of assumptions if you want to suggest that every hammer I drop will fall to the ground too. For example, I may be standing under a large electromagnet when I drop the hammer, or maybe the hammer I'm holding is already resting on a table. The hammer example for gravity is an observation - nothing more - certainly not a fact that can be assumed of all hammers or all environments.
Your claim that it is a fact that a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species is even more suspect. I agree that there is a massive body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and that there is scant reasonable evidence in support of other explanations. This does not make "evolution a fact." Specifically I find a number of problems with jumping to such a conclusion. The least contentious objection I can raise here is that evolution is a theory about the origin of species and not a theory about the mutation in existing creatures. For example, I see it possible for a reasonable person to believe the outcome of "speciation" experiments and to accept that observations about creatures in the wild do not conflict with the theory but to reject the idea that evolution explains how today's creatures emerged. Despite my own belief that those who hold an opinion contrary to evolution probably do so as a result of poor analytical reasoning - this doesn't make evolutionary theory a fact, any more than a falling hammer proves either Newton or Einstein presented facts about gravitation.
My own feeling on the matter is that the judge was wrong to order the stickers removed. I would have preferred to require additional stickers - one for each scientific theory - stating that they too are not facts. Just let me buy shares in that self-adhesive label company first!
You're absolutely right - we share a common sense of priority - sadly the phone manufacturers do not... I've a good idea why not.
A couple of years ago I splashed out on a Nokia 8310 having spent several years on the familiar treadmill where no phone would physically last a whole year. Flimsy designs left me with broken aerials; cracked screens and batteries which lost contact with the phone if they managed to retain charge for a whole day. In contrast the 8310 has proved a solid performer - it still retains charge for a week (making/receiving very few calls) and save a few minor scratches remains "as new". The phone is conveniently small, lightweight - and has all but one feature I need today. The missing feature: wireless hands-free for my car to allow me to legally make or receive calls when sitting in a queue of traffic... even if I didn't think of the phone before I set off. The only serious contender seems to be the Nokia 6230 - which (as far as I can tell) is both larger and has a shorter battery life.
Bluetooth has been available for years and I assumed 24 months of development would allow me to choose a phone and car kit with ease to replace my 8310... I was amazed. The new ranges have shorter battery lives, are more bulky and only a select few support blue-tooth... progress? I suspect I would find a camera useful on some occasions - and I think the idea of transferring personal documents on an MMC card is neat, but it doesn't justify an increase in size or weight, nor will I accept a decrease in battery life. I am left cold by colour screens and would swap the "GUI" interface for the old-fashioned one I'm familiar with in an instant.
Like yourself, I'd love to integrate my mobile's phonebook with my landline phone, but I suspect this desire isn't shared by the mobile networks, and hence (by way of commercial pressure) not shared by phone manufacturers either. I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses my mobile to make calls when I'm home merely because I can't be bothered to re-enter a phone number... an open interface to the mobile phonebook would likely threaten this revenue.
I doubt any grammar checker would have caught either of your complaints.
The grammar checker in Word 2003 certainly doesn't notice anything wrong with the offending sentence. Rather than this being seen as a reason to preclude grammar checking in Open Office, this should be treated as an opportunity for open source to offer significant practical advantage to ordinary users with a grammar checker which alerts weary authors to this sort of unintentional gibberish. That feature alone would make switching worthwhile for the common (wo)man!
Is it too much to ask to be literate enough to write a grammatically correct sentence?
Please, may I also be blessed to receive only the considered texts of the careful and educated?
Spellcheckers are fine, to an extent; everyone makes typos. However, there is no excuse (besides being a small child who's learning) for being unable to compose a coherent, grammatically-correct thought, and for something important, take time to edit.
The issue isn't the ability of the author to understand grammar - or of the unwillingness to "edit" - but rather one of productivity. The texts I receive which have been written with the aid of automated grammar checking are more legible than those without. As far as I am concerned, this is justification enough. I believe automated grammar checking and style verification offers significant advantages to many users!
P.S. Do try to remove your head from your anus before ranting at a tangent. P.P.S. For clarity, I'd consider breaking your last sentence into two or more.:-)
Thank you! I'm by no means a graphic artist, but every few months I find I need to draw a diagram for a document, or a simple logo, or a form of some sort or other. Back in the late 80s/early 90s I used RISCOS and "!Draw" which I found to be awesome. I move to SUNOS, then SOLARIS, then Linux before finally requiring Windows (don't ask) as my primary platform - and until today I have been extremely unimpressed with the options for vector graphics. Until you mentioned InkScape I'd done everything from battling with XFig and Latex to being confused by Adobe Illustrator - which was serious overkill for a simple letterhead design. Inkscape already seems to meet my needs - the first program, commercial or otherwise, I've found in the last 15 years since !Draw which deserves this acolade. I think Sourceforge should promote this project more actively - it deserves to be project of the month or something in order to raise awareness.
Slashdot Mirror
Initially, the first game is completely random, but reserachers found that if you chose the play that your opponent chose in the round before, you stand a 70% chance of winning the next round.
Which might work - at least until your opponent deduces your strategy.
I'd love to see some more research done into keyboard layouts... though, for me at least, I'm not interested in migrating away from QWERTY. I am interested in alternative mechanisms by which to capitalise and to enter symbols. For example, I find it infuriating that UK keyboards put the double-quote character above 2 - which, to my mind at least, is far less convenient than where the US puts it above the single quote... but I can't justify (in a modern world with email addresses etc) putting the "at" symbol above 2 either. As a programmer I'd like brackets, braces, single/double quotes and all the standard operators to be available to me in a single keystroke... and I'd particularly like an alternative "shift" which does not need to remain depressed as a modifier - but rather a shift key which when pressed once inverts the case of the next character. While I doubt that such a keyboard would be substantially faster than an standard QWERTY one - I do think it would be far more comfortable to use - and suspect it would dramatically reduce the likelihood of developing RSI by writing code.
You are almost right - the "song" has quite a strange history. As far as I can find out it was originally written by Mary Schmich (possibly of the Chicago Tribune) - and became a popular text wrongly attributed to Kurt Vonnegut.
h tm
http://supak.com/sunscreen.htm
Baz Luhrmann (who I presume is the same man responsible for directing Moulin Rouge; Romeo+Juliet and Strictly Ballroom) then took this and set it to music.
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~songhurs/every.
I've always been a fan of the track - if ever I was forced to do karaoke at gunpoint I'd choose this - assuming someone would help me with the chorus!
QUOTE : Advice is a way to make you feel better about yourself by pretending that other people care about your opinions. [Pop Song - Sunblok 1999] (Full lyrics follow)
When I was in high school I didn't particularly want to be told anything else by anybody. I didn't believe that everyone in class needed the same advice - and I still don't.
Wear sunscreen.
If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now.
Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth. Oh, never mind. You will not understand the power and beauty of your youth until they've faded. But trust me, in 20 years, you'll look back at photos of yourself and recall in a way you can't grasp now how much possibility lay before you and how fabulous you really looked. You are not as fat as you imagine.
Don't worry about the future. Or worry, but know that worrying is as effective as trying to solve an algebra equation by chewing bubble gum. The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind, the kind that blindside you at 4 p.m. on some idle Tuesday.
Do one thing every day that scares you.
Sing.
Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless with yours.
Floss.
Don't waste your time on jealousy. Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and, in the end, it's only with yourself.
Remember compliments you receive. Forget the insults. If you succeed in doing this, tell me how.
Keep your old love letters. Throw away your old bank statements.
Stretch.
Don't feel guilty if you don't know what you want to do with your life. The most interesting people I know didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.
Get plenty of calcium. Be kind to your knees. You'll miss them when they're gone.
Maybe you'll marry, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll have children, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll divorce at 40, maybe you'll dance the funky chicken on your 75th wedding anniversary. Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody else's.
Enjoy your body. Use it every way you can. Don't be afraid of it or of what other people think of it. It's the greatest instrument you'll ever own.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your living room.
Read the directions, even if you don't follow them.
Do not read beauty magazines. They will only make you feel ugly.
Get to know your parents. You never know when they'll be gone for good. Be nice to your siblings. They're your best link to your past and the people most likely to stick with you in the future.
Understand that friends come and go, but with a precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle, because the older you get, the more you need the people who knew you when you were young.
Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard. Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft. Travel.
Accept certain inalienable truths: Prices will rise. Politicians will philander. You, too, will get old. And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young, prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.
Respect your elders.
Don't expect anyone else to support you. Maybe you have a trust fund. Maybe you'll have a wealthy spouse. But you never know when either one might run out.
Don't mess too much with your hair or by the time you're 40 it will look 85.
Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a fo
That all sounds quite plausible... I'd suspected my P4-Mobile wasn't a P4-M, but finding info on that wasn't straightforward.
Given the 1.5x "rule-of-thumb" from (500 series) P4 "Mobile" to (700 series) P4-M this doesn't justify a replacement. If the 900 series turn out to have a better "rule of thumb" multiplier then one of those might prove worthwhile - but I suppose I just have to wait and see.
I see your argument in favour of a 7200RPM drive - though, as I've determined I'm seldom bound by disk IO, I've not considered this worthwhile - until I need more capacity at least. For my purposes, a similar argument applies to RAM... moving from 512Mb to 640Mb had no noticeable effect on performance - so I suspect that the same would be true from 640Mb to 1 or even 2Gb.
I think my best move is to hang-tight... the machine is OK for now... I can wait for the next generation to be released in a year or so. Maybe by then I will be able to find one with a display to beat the Inspiron UXGA+ LCD... I'm not a big fan of widescreen - especially when it is supplied at lower resolution than I have at present. I do like the brightness of the most modern designs - and I'd love to move to a 17" high-resolution display!
I was already "mostly aware" of all that... So here is a more concrete question:
I've a 18-24 month old Dell Inspiron 8200 with a 1.9Ghz "Pentium Mobile" processor (x86 Family 15 Model 2 Stepping 4 GenuineIntel ~1894 Mhz) with 640Mb RAM and a 60Gb 5400rpm H/D. I develop on this laptop and would welcome any substantial reduction in compile times; improved compression rates when dealing with large 7-zip archives etc. I realise that the best laptop H/Ds are now 80-100Gb (no great improvement there) and that I am still constricted to 2Gb RAM - maybe with higher IO rates - the modern processors have similar clock speeds - but have an improved architecture. I'd like to know the extent to which these architectural improvements will benefit my computationally demanding tasks. Everyone can tell me that the Centrino processors are "better" - but no-one so far has told me how much better... I'm also unclear if my "Pentium Mobile" should be considered "plain" and compared with the chips now running at ~4Ghz, or if the clock speed of this chip should be compared with the more modern Pentium Ms?
Only recently did I become aware that there was a marked architectural difference between 500 and 700 series CPUs - and I read about distinctions between Pentium mobile and Pentium M chips. While I applaud the move away from correlating the computing capability of a chip with its clock speed, I now find myself (as I suspect the typical man in the street also find themselves) completely unable to compare the relative performances between the various CPU series.
I realise that benchmarking is no panacea - but it would be really helpful to see a comprehensive set of benchmarks in order that I can establish a rough idea of the advantages of upgrading before splashing out on a machine with a newer processor. When Mhz mattered a good rule of thumb was that it was only worth considering an upgrade when the new CPU had a clock at least twice as fast as the old one... How should a user make this sort of decision with the new names? Is there any 'good' (unbiased) online material?
I'd be willing to believe that 90% of the time security considerations are trivial, though I hold the opinion that it is difficult to determine, without appropriate consideration, if a particular scenario is in the remaining 10% or not. I'd also contend that it is a bad idea to assume that having considered a security requirement under one set of assumptions that the matter will never benefit from review. In order to perform this periodic review, at least a basic understanding of the currently provisions is essential - and for the limits of a system to be clearly understood and heeded.
I agree that there is a distinction between required provision and beneficial provision. Using the car analogy - yes there are many things I could do which would improve the security of a car... and not all of them are appropriate - that is exactly my point. It is for exactly this reason I contend that security is an ongoing concern and not something for which it is sensible to simply buy a solution and forget the issue. Provision for security needs to be re-assessed whenever the base assumptions change. In some environments it is appropriate to leave a car unlocked for convenience - in others it is worth paying for attended parking or a secure garage. Only by regularly assessing the risks can an acceptable compromise be found.
I think trying to dampen the spin on computer security is a good idea - I just feel that this is an area in which extreme care must be taken with wording. I do not believe that the grotesque flaws we put up with in today's software are inevitable - but I do believe that security risks which accompany the widespread use of ad-hoc software are. I hope that in future the industry is better equipped to supply quality software (which would undoubtedly simplify security) though I'm sorry I don't share your optimism that security problems will be eliminated any time soon. While I realise that this is mere conjecture - aren't we already in the situation where the majority of substantial individual losses as a result of computer security breaches were attributable to social engineering rather than the exploitation of bugs?
I feel you are replying cross-purposes.
I still claim that Secutity is an ongoing process and not something which can be bought off the shelf and forgotten about - I remain steadfast in that opinion. You are right that the weak link in any system is typically the human - however you can't take the human out of the equation. Security has far more to do with understanding risks and managing people than it will ever be about cryptography or algorithmic techniques. Security will only become straightforward and automated when the risk profile is such that extremely basic precautions are sufficient.
Your argument that users do not need to understand security measures if these measures can not be circumvented is nonsense for two reasons. First: every security measure can be circumvented given sufficient determination and resources. Second: Even if the security measures could not be bypassed it would still be important for users to be aware of the level of protection the systems afford. Only in trivial situations will the implications for the security be obvious. In the realm of software there are even curious paradoxes - for example digital signatures can be deemed to either increase or decrease security depending upon perspective. In some circumstances I want my documents to be verifiably tamper-proof - in others I may wish to conceal my identity in order to avoid giving a competitor better intelligence about my company's business plans. Addressing this kind of issue requires a thorough understanding of the problem domain as well as a good grounding in the technical strategies which may be employed.
Your example of car security is interesting. When a yob threw a brick through the rear window of my car (among several other acts of vandalism) last year my car alarm was no use. Until that point I'd assumed that the standard alarm would be sufficient to protect my car on a bustling business park - but the risk profile had been wrongly assessed. CCTV might have prevented this problem... but if it was dark - maybe it would need to be an infra-red night-vision CCTV system. Does there need to be a security guard? Many guards? Patrols with dogs? Prior arrangements with car hire companies to avoid down-time during repairs? At the time I felt it would have been a good idea to have thousand-strong teams of brutal vigilantes... but on reflection I admit that would likely have proved overkill (pardon the pun!). The car alarm does not solve the security problem for cars - far from it! Security for cars requires an ongoing assessment of risk and selection of appropriate mechanisms to mitigate that risk.
You take issue asserting that I claim that "this is a complicated thing" - well I suppose it depends what you think "this" to be. You claim that managers do not have security professionals to decide upon who should be given keys to the door - but that misses the point entirely. A diligent manager will get professional help to secure the building - particularly if it is located in an area where crime is a problem - advice will likely be taken on everything from the type of locks; deadbolts; toughened glass; retractable bollards; security fencing; alarm systems and business cover either from a security firm and/or the police to name but a few - and there is likely a rota for call out in the event of a break in or other emergency... and this will need to be actively managed to ensure cover in spite of sick leave and holidays. Securing an office is also an ongoing process - simply buying some locks is, I'm sad to say, rarely sufficient.
At the risk of you accusing me of being pedantic - no risk increases as a result of bugs and security loopholes being closed in software... all other factors remaining constant (which, rarely they do) risk will only be reduced. You appear to be complaining that your costs are not reduced as you continue to pay for a full time security consultant. The issue here is one of ongoing risk assessment. When risk falls it is prude
That old chestnut - users invite viruses and worms through stupid behaviour: that much is true. If you believe this apparently dumb behaviour is a consequence of some in innate inability (such as a low IQ) then you are a bigger fool than you claim others to be. The reason users take no notice of your warnings is that they couldn't care less - if their actions cause problems then "the computer went wrong" and someone else will have to sort that out. The personal consequences of ignoring warnings about good practice are smaller than the effort and willpower required to act sensibly.
While it is conceivable that women are dissuaded from technical fields by the prevailing culture and alleged sexism in the workplace - I find this argument difficult to believe with respect to IT. In every one of the male dominated workplaces I've encountered I've preferred the equally unjustifiable hypothesis that women tend to have more balanced perspectives - and hence tend to derive less enjoyment from technical toil. I was particularly drawn to the idea that condescending behaviour detracts from the working environment - but I fail to see why this should be an issue for a woman any more than it would be for a man. I can't comment if the distinct typical career paths are primarily cultural or primarily genetic - though I like to think the traits I find attractive in women have a basis stronger than social conditioning!
Re: Security is a state. Securing is a process.
Wrong again! Secure is a state; Securing is the activity of improving security and security is the perpetuation of a secure state.
Re: If you really think that it is impossible for security to happen automatically, ask your self exactly what is it that a security professional can do that it is theoretically impossible to automate.
"Theoretically impossible to automate" is far stronger a constraint than is necessary to justify human involvement. These aspects of security which are extraordinarily difficult to automate relate to the following security tasks - for example:
Thanks! I didn't previously know that the 80s, 160s and 200s were all part of the same "series" - I guess that fact (coupled with the competitive pricing of the 160Gb and 200Gb models) probably means one of them is my ideal choice.
Hmmm - Your drive is "only" 80Gb... Can anyone comment on the Barracuda drives with larger capacities. I'm in the market to buy a new hard disk but realise I'm quite out of touch with which brands to buy these days (the last time I bought a desktop H/D as a separate package it was 17Gb and considered obscenely "top of the range!") I notice that the Barracuda drives have capacities up-to at least 250Gb (at relatively little extra cost over the basic models.) I am not particularly concerned about performance (i.e. I/O speed) as I intend to use this new drive to stash archives which would otherwise languish on misplaced CDs. [80Gb would do for now - I can justify buying up-to 0.5Tb!] I am primarily concerned about reliability, however, and remain quite sensitive to cost per gigabyte. Are the Barracuda drives similarly reliable across the capacity range? Can anyone point me at independent reviews or data concerning relative reliabilities of Seagate; Western-Digital; Maxtor; IBM/Hitachi mid-to-large capacity "cheap" IDE drives?
While I realise that MYSQL is a viable back end DBMS on windows, I would like to know if there is any provision to use an ODBC data source and store data in different DBMS - such as SQLServer, DB2, Oracle etc. ? If not in version 2.18, then is this planned for any future release?
Darn, if you think I've not given you much to disagree with then you should start being more eccentric in your claims - damn-it! :-)
I admitted that subtlety of language might explain some differences in opinion. When I look up evolution in my dictionary the most appropriate definition says "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." I understand that ascribing to the theory of evolution requires a presumption that no substantial changes occur between successive generations throughout history.
Suggesting "external" factors which may have influenced speciation does not require me to stoop so low as to suggest anything supernatural. For example, while I've no desire to suggest that I personally believe even this suggestion, what precludes the possibility that an irreproducible cosmic event scrambled DNA on earth giving rise to various species groups? For example, this sort of external event (or events) might explain puzzling gaps in the fossil record. Such a discovery could plausibly refute evolution as the primary explanation for the diversity of life on earth (which, lets face it, is what people hot under the collar are concerned about!) It is difficult to criticise your reluctance to hypothesise - and your caution against considering possibilities for which you've no experience or evidence... however, I would like to suggest that it is equally questionable to assume that every species on earth will arise gradually and naturally in any environment that will support life - we also have scant evidence for that.
You made my own point wonderfully when you stated "My current theories can explain what I see without adding a unicorn to it." This tacitly admits that theories explain a subset of observations and that it is nigh impossible to move from interesting theories to facts. There is no benefit in presenting a theory as a fact - only in presenting hypotheses as theories... The sticker should be seen as a complement to scientific reasoning... however it was intended.
I too would prefer more stickers.
According to my sister (a teacher) most children have a fetish for adhesive labels. If we can use this preoccupation to encourage the voracious reading of scientific textbooks in schools maybe this would prove an own-goal for the creationists?
I admit my post might have been seen as provocative - but (in my opinion) it wasn't without focus.
In "Part #1" I was not attempting to raise the question of trusting the accuracy of observation, but rather to make a more substantial distinction between observation and fact. Facts are true for all time. It is a fact that many hammers have fallen - it is not a fact that hammers fall... it is, at best, only a theory. Note that while there are many interesting questions about the trustworthiness of human observations - this was not my objection. I hoped I had made a case that premature generalisation is wrong-thinking.
In "part #2" - I was not intending to disagree that naturally occuring mutations of a genome _can_ cause speciation, but rather that it is far from _proven_ that this has been the mechanism by which our planet came to be populated by many species - or that it is the only mechanism possible. I contest your claim that "The" theory of evolution and the origin of species are separate... to my mind, the idea that all species arise gradually is the most important aspect of both. While I find most alternative hypotheses laughable at best, this doesn't mean I should accept as a fact that "evolution" as it is understood today has been the one and only mechanism of historic speciation. In my opinion evolution is a credible theory with substantial evidential support... but it is not a (known) fact.
I disagree that the theory of evolution (i.e. that all species have arisen gradually) is reasonably testable. Your plan to track DNA in animals certainly promises to generate evidence, but it offers no proof that external factors have not played a part in speciation on earth. Even if you were to grow an animal of every known species from a soup of the right chemicals I would contest that you still haven't proven that this explains our history - only the history of those animals you grew and studied.
While we're almost on the same page (where we draw a distinction between Evolution and a theory of evolution by naural selection) there are still differences of opinion. I remain convinced that it is reasonable to question evolution (by any mechanism) based upon the currently available evidence. I admit, however, that where we differ may be just in the subtleties of language... In order for me to be comfortable with the phrase "evolution is a fact" I would need to be convinced that the sole mechanism of speciation on earth has been gradual. I've seen no irrefutable evidence for this... while I've no evidence to the contrary either, this is why I insist evolution - irrespective of particular mechanism - can only be a theory.
Scientists should be most proud of theories. A "theory" is a plausible explanation accompanied by a body of verifiable evidence which has withstood intellectual scrutiny. A "fact", to my mind at least, this has far less value. A stated "fact" is an appeal that I accept the potentially specious beliefs of another person. Maybe we should make the facetious suggestion that one of two labels be applied to all disputed reasoning - "X is a theory and not a fact" - or - "X is an unverifiable hypothesis and not a theory let alone a fact." [OK - I'm just trying to encourage the use of more sticky labels to enhance my dividends!]
While I'm no creationist, and while I concur with your explanations of scientific theory and law - I am far from convinced by your explanation of "fact". Specifically with your gravitation example I'm compelled to disagree. If you said that it was a fact that the specific hammer you just dropped fell to the ground, that would be OK, but you are making a lot of assumptions if you want to suggest that every hammer I drop will fall to the ground too. For example, I may be standing under a large electromagnet when I drop the hammer, or maybe the hammer I'm holding is already resting on a table. The hammer example for gravity is an observation - nothing more - certainly not a fact that can be assumed of all hammers or all environments.
Your claim that it is a fact that a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species is even more suspect. I agree that there is a massive body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution and that there is scant reasonable evidence in support of other explanations. This does not make "evolution a fact." Specifically I find a number of problems with jumping to such a conclusion. The least contentious objection I can raise here is that evolution is a theory about the origin of species and not a theory about the mutation in existing creatures. For example, I see it possible for a reasonable person to believe the outcome of "speciation" experiments and to accept that observations about creatures in the wild do not conflict with the theory but to reject the idea that evolution explains how today's creatures emerged. Despite my own belief that those who hold an opinion contrary to evolution probably do so as a result of poor analytical reasoning - this doesn't make evolutionary theory a fact, any more than a falling hammer proves either Newton or Einstein presented facts about gravitation.
My own feeling on the matter is that the judge was wrong to order the stickers removed. I would have preferred to require additional stickers - one for each scientific theory - stating that they too are not facts. Just let me buy shares in that self-adhesive label company first!
You're absolutely right - we share a common sense of priority - sadly the phone manufacturers do not... I've a good idea why not.
A couple of years ago I splashed out on a Nokia 8310 having spent several years on the familiar treadmill where no phone would physically last a whole year. Flimsy designs left me with broken aerials; cracked screens and batteries which lost contact with the phone if they managed to retain charge for a whole day. In contrast the 8310 has proved a solid performer - it still retains charge for a week (making/receiving very few calls) and save a few minor scratches remains "as new". The phone is conveniently small, lightweight - and has all but one feature I need today. The missing feature: wireless hands-free for my car to allow me to legally make or receive calls when sitting in a queue of traffic... even if I didn't think of the phone before I set off. The only serious contender seems to be the Nokia 6230 - which (as far as I can tell) is both larger and has a shorter battery life.
Bluetooth has been available for years and I assumed 24 months of development would allow me to choose a phone and car kit with ease to replace my 8310... I was amazed. The new ranges have shorter battery lives, are more bulky and only a select few support blue-tooth... progress? I suspect I would find a camera useful on some occasions - and I think the idea of transferring personal documents on an MMC card is neat, but it doesn't justify an increase in size or weight, nor will I accept a decrease in battery life. I am left cold by colour screens and would swap the "GUI" interface for the old-fashioned one I'm familiar with in an instant.
Like yourself, I'd love to integrate my mobile's phonebook with my landline phone, but I suspect this desire isn't shared by the mobile networks, and hence (by way of commercial pressure) not shared by phone manufacturers either. I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses my mobile to make calls when I'm home merely because I can't be bothered to re-enter a phone number... an open interface to the mobile phonebook would likely threaten this revenue.
I doubt any grammar checker would have caught either of your complaints.
The grammar checker in Word 2003 certainly doesn't notice anything wrong with the offending sentence. Rather than this being seen as a reason to preclude grammar checking in Open Office, this should be treated as an opportunity for open source to offer significant practical advantage to ordinary users with a grammar checker which alerts weary authors to this sort of unintentional gibberish. That feature alone would make switching worthwhile for the common (wo)man!
Is it too much to ask to be literate enough to write a grammatically correct sentence?
:-)
Please, may I also be blessed to receive only the considered texts of the careful and educated?
Spellcheckers are fine, to an extent; everyone makes typos. However, there is no excuse (besides being a small child who's learning) for being unable to compose a coherent, grammatically-correct thought, and for something important, take time to edit.
The issue isn't the ability of the author to understand grammar - or of the unwillingness to "edit" - but rather one of productivity. The texts I receive which have been written with the aid of automated grammar checking are more legible than those without. As far as I am concerned, this is justification enough. I believe automated grammar checking and style verification offers significant advantages to many users!
P.S. Do try to remove your head from your anus before ranting at a tangent.
P.P.S. For clarity, I'd consider breaking your last sentence into two or more.
It is clearly impossible to review SpamAssasin because there is insufficient conflict of interest.
CF the Stock analyst.
Any news about a grammar/style checking tool?
Thank you! I'm by no means a graphic artist, but every few months I find I need to draw a diagram for a document, or a simple logo, or a form of some sort or other. Back in the late 80s/early 90s I used RISCOS and "!Draw" which I found to be awesome. I move to SUNOS, then SOLARIS, then Linux before finally requiring Windows (don't ask) as my primary platform - and until today I have been extremely unimpressed with the options for vector graphics. Until you mentioned InkScape I'd done everything from battling with XFig and Latex to being confused by Adobe Illustrator - which was serious overkill for a simple letterhead design. Inkscape already seems to meet my needs - the first program, commercial or otherwise, I've found in the last 15 years since !Draw which deserves this acolade. I think Sourceforge should promote this project more actively - it deserves to be project of the month or something in order to raise awareness.