True. But I have a friend who is trying to get her husband to have a vasectomy. I bet this would be a much easier sell. Especially if it comes up after the vasectomy argument.
I guess it depends on your perspective.
I've never wanted kids anyway, so I think I'd rather get snipped in one go than have to go in every 6 months to get my nads zapped with ultrasound.
and learned not a damned thing. Classic marketecture speak.
I don't think it's marketecture -- I think it' trying to point out some issues which most of us have never really thought about in terms of cloud computing.
Admittedly, I couldn't read through the entire article in one go, but I am going to go back and try to finish it.
The thesis seems to be something along the lines of: everyone thinks that with cloud computing if you keep throwing resources at the problem, scalability is something which sorts itself out.
The reality seems to be that as companies do that, they find themselves using proportionally more resources, and then they hit a wall where scalability tips over, and they get less additional benefit per additional resource. Which seems to be contrary to what everyone believes about cloud computing.
That seems to happen because the traditional apps everyone is trying to scale with cloud computing don't necessarily benefit from that kind of scaling. It looks like that for a while, and then it falls apart, and people need to figure out how to fix it -- you end up with a hot mess that doesn't even remotely do what you need it to.
At least, that' my best high-level grokking. But, I don't claim to grok with fullness.:-P
Most modern warheads are in the mid-kiloton range, actually (at least in the US).
Yeah, I looked that up subsequently to posting it. I just remember from back in the early 80's when everyone was afraid some idiot was going to blow us up and constantly hearing the word megaton -- I just assumed that had stayed the same. Haven't kept current on nuclear bombs.:-P
Still, kilotons is still a pretty freaking big boom.
You can still buy explosives for agricultural, artistic and even personal uses in most states. I dated someone who used explosives to form sculptures out of scraps of rusty metal and she had a permit and used all of her explosives inside.
Wow. You dated Tank Girl -- I'm duly impressed.;-)
Some of us have the nice license on our walls allowing us to explode things... it is a nice license to have
I understand that some people are licensed, and for good reason (I hope). But the poster made it sound like everyone and their uncle have scads of explosives just laying about in their sheds.
P.S.: My woman of choice did make me a black cloak, took pictures of me wearing it and then photoshopped it to make it look as an invisibility cloak. True story.
Sorry, I guess my implicit qualification of "excluding geek girls" should have been more explicit -- we were, after all, discussing the lay public.
Your lay public are dumber than mine if they can't understand these words:
Kickass Invisibility Cloak
*laugh* Well, those three words in combination have a very high geek appeal. But, I can think of a lot of people (who have cleared the "does it bark test") who wouldn't read the article.
A larger percent of the populace knows what a solar panel is, and would be interested in reading the article. "Kickass Invisibility Cloak" has either bad movie review, or Dungeons & Dragons written all over it. The non-geek people will pretty much eschew that one.:-P
However, I invite you to try some real world testing -- go to a bar, and try using the words "kickass invisibility cloak" as part of any pickup strategy with a woman of your choice. 'Cuz you're getting into the "I put on my robe and wizard hat" territory.;-)
Please explain to me why the title of this news post is "New Metamaterial Means More Efficient Solar Cells" instead of "New Metamaterial Means Kickass Invisibility Cloak"?
Well, because the scientists announce it, and what it can do with a bunch of examples. The reporting media reads it, and scratches their head, and picks the only one in the list they understand, and that they think their readers will understand -- everyone knows what a solar panel.
See, when you're reporting to the lay public, you have to use words they understand. Because if you start throwing around words like super-lensing, they don't know WTF you're on about. As a result, they won't read your article.
Seriously, do you make it a point to use the most technical gibberish you can muster when communicating with normal humans? If you don't, then you've answered your own question... if you do, chances are the people you meet think you're a wanker, and you should think about changing that.:-P
However, as the material merely guides the light rather than lengthening its wavelength, it would cause x-rays to be concentrated onto your retina which may not be the effect you were after.
Or, instead of focusing on it being "x-ray" you focus on getting the same effect with different wavelengths.
As I recall there were some Sony cameras a couple of years ago then had a "night vision" mode. Turned out that certain fabrics (ie. swimsuits) became effectively transparent when that was enabled during the day.
That's not going to let you look through solids and the like, but in term of how the old "x-ray specs" in comics were sold --- that might get you there.
That saves you from focusing actual x-rays on your eyes.:-P
I do believe the market is fairly powerful. I just think that the market is never going to be entirely free, so presuming that it is is rather idiotic.
I believe it's powerful, but I don't believe it's ever been free, and it's not necessarily impartial and benevolent like everyone seems to ascribe to it.
Since everyone is trying to manipulate it, it doesn't necessarily have optimal results -- sometimes, not even good. A lot of people assume that whatever solution the market arrives at is ultimately the "correct" one.
I believe we're arguing the same essential point.;-)
The "free market" hasn't been defiled, it's just a fantasy.
I didn't say defiled -- I said deified. They mean very different things.
My problem is that there seems to be a widespread spouting of "oh, the market will find a solution, and that will be the best one".
As you say, the "market" is a hypothetical construct used to explain how it all works -- the problem is, people talk about it reverentially as if it's some deity which we must all serve and which has our best interests at heart.
I think the "free market" is bullshit, and all of the laissez-faire economists out there are basically saying we should let corporate greed rule the world. Because, that's basically the result. It's an economic model, but only applicable in a vacuum.
There are no perfectly spherical monopole ducks.:-P
Why do people continue to insist that 'nothing' is a viable choice in the *marketplace*?
For the same reason people continue to say such annoying things as "the free market will find a solution" to environmental and social problems.
The "free market" has become deified, but a system which operates on corporate greed doesn't "solve" problems. It only means that if there's a buck to be made, someone will try it.
However, the biggest advantage they have over the *AAs is that they give you compelling reason to use their products. And hey guess what! The consumers love them for it.
ixnay on the appyhay ustomerscay -- people on Slahdot don't want to hear about that, you're just going to reopen the "but it won't run flash" screed again.
"Someone pointless to include that caveat when it is already known that they don't"
What is it that you think that you know?
It's a little hard to tell because the sentence is horribly constructed -- I assume he meant "somewhat" instead of "someone". That, and maybe one too many pronouns to not be confusingly ambiguous.
I believe he is more or less saying that since Cuba is known not to have a decent standard of living, saying they've managed to have a decent standard of living and be environmentally sustainable is kind of pointless.
The average Cuban is quite poor, and the rural people live a much more agrarian lifestyle than in most "developed" nations. The US embargo greatly limits how much trade they can have with other countries, so some things are scarce. At present, something like 60% of Cuba's GDP is generated via tourism related industries.
There is a lot of poverty in Cuba, so he's got a certain point. It is, however, the most beautiful place I've ever been and the locals are really friendly. It's also a very safe place to go as a tourist if you're from a country that allows it -- unlike Mexico and the Dominican Republic, Cuba doesn't suffer from wide-ranging lawlessness and crime.
I'd rather read about other people's processes than anything else. If you find key management as trite then perhaps you don't understand what being a nerd entails.
Well, for me I solved this with a more general "stuff management" scenario. I've long since given up and bought a messenger bag (aka man purse). I've decided the occasional smart ass remark from some tool I don't know is far outweighed by the utility of the damned thing.
I've always carried a back-pack or a satchel, and this is actually the best form factor I've found for daily stuff. Between keys (on a 'biner, tucked into pants or backpack), cell phone, iPod, wallet, glasses case, ID badges for work (and possibly for the client), possibly a water bottle, occasionally my camera and/or Tom Tom... well, one just carries a tremendous amount of stuff on a daily basis -- not just keys. Frankly, I don't know how I'd carry all that shit without the messenger bag. I've had one (actually, I think I'm on my second) since about '03 or so.
If I'm at work I've got my laptop bag with all of its own associated payload and usually lunch to bring -- and that usually represents a lot of stuff. This being Slashdot, I'm sure there are other nomads out there.
If I'm on vacation, I switch to a full-on back-pack carrying my camera gear and all of my "keep handy" crap. Camera days change to another sling style camera bag for easy access.
Having everything in one "ready bag" is actually kind of nice, and it frees up your hands and pockets for other more immediate things.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it depends on your perspective.
I've never wanted kids anyway, so I think I'd rather get snipped in one go than have to go in every 6 months to get my nads zapped with ultrasound.
I'm just saying.
Some people actually believe that he's the final Earthly authority.
I believe Papal Infallibility is inherent to Catholic doctrine.
I think this falls into the "life being stranger than art" category.
I don't think it's marketecture -- I think it' trying to point out some issues which most of us have never really thought about in terms of cloud computing.
Admittedly, I couldn't read through the entire article in one go, but I am going to go back and try to finish it.
The thesis seems to be something along the lines of: everyone thinks that with cloud computing if you keep throwing resources at the problem, scalability is something which sorts itself out.
The reality seems to be that as companies do that, they find themselves using proportionally more resources, and then they hit a wall where scalability tips over, and they get less additional benefit per additional resource. Which seems to be contrary to what everyone believes about cloud computing.
That seems to happen because the traditional apps everyone is trying to scale with cloud computing don't necessarily benefit from that kind of scaling. It looks like that for a while, and then it falls apart, and people need to figure out how to fix it -- you end up with a hot mess that doesn't even remotely do what you need it to.
At least, that' my best high-level grokking. But, I don't claim to grok with fullness. :-P
Yeah, I looked that up subsequently to posting it. I just remember from back in the early 80's when everyone was afraid some idiot was going to blow us up and constantly hearing the word megaton -- I just assumed that had stayed the same. Haven't kept current on nuclear bombs. :-P
Still, kilotons is still a pretty freaking big boom.
Wow. You dated Tank Girl -- I'm duly impressed. ;-)
I guess I would agree that having the right confers upon you the right to defend that right.
I just hadn't extrapolated that to explosives. When I was growing up, we couldn't even buy firecrackers. :-P
To answer my own question ... here is a link.
The NYT has the images so wrapped up in javascript, plugins, and whatnot that noscript didn't let me get to it. :-P
So, I skimmed TFA, and I don't see any pics. Clicked on several links, nothing.
I'd actually like to see this, it sounds pretty cool -- does anyone have a link which actually has images in it?
I understand that some people are licensed, and for good reason (I hope). But the poster made it sound like everyone and their uncle have scads of explosives just laying about in their sheds.
Why am I afraid that you're not joking about this? What, y'all just go down to Explosives 'R US and load up on TNT?
Sorry, I guess my implicit qualification of "excluding geek girls" should have been more explicit -- we were, after all, discussing the lay public.
I'm sure, however, you still get my point. :-P
Cheers
Given a sufficiently large blast, sure -- assuming the theory is sound in the first place.
But, since modern warheads are now measured in megatons, where are you going to find millions of pounds of conventional explosives??
*laugh* Well, those three words in combination have a very high geek appeal. But, I can think of a lot of people (who have cleared the "does it bark test") who wouldn't read the article.
A larger percent of the populace knows what a solar panel is, and would be interested in reading the article. "Kickass Invisibility Cloak" has either bad movie review, or Dungeons & Dragons written all over it. The non-geek people will pretty much eschew that one. :-P
However, I invite you to try some real world testing -- go to a bar, and try using the words "kickass invisibility cloak" as part of any pickup strategy with a woman of your choice. 'Cuz you're getting into the "I put on my robe and wizard hat" territory. ;-)
Well, because the scientists announce it, and what it can do with a bunch of examples. The reporting media reads it, and scratches their head, and picks the only one in the list they understand, and that they think their readers will understand -- everyone knows what a solar panel.
See, when you're reporting to the lay public, you have to use words they understand. Because if you start throwing around words like super-lensing, they don't know WTF you're on about. As a result, they won't read your article.
Seriously, do you make it a point to use the most technical gibberish you can muster when communicating with normal humans? If you don't, then you've answered your own question ... if you do, chances are the people you meet think you're a wanker, and you should think about changing that. :-P
Or, instead of focusing on it being "x-ray" you focus on getting the same effect with different wavelengths.
As I recall there were some Sony cameras a couple of years ago then had a "night vision" mode. Turned out that certain fabrics (ie. swimsuits) became effectively transparent when that was enabled during the day.
That's not going to let you look through solids and the like, but in term of how the old "x-ray specs" in comics were sold --- that might get you there.
That saves you from focusing actual x-rays on your eyes. :-P
Cheer
It happens. No foul.
I believe it's powerful, but I don't believe it's ever been free, and it's not necessarily impartial and benevolent like everyone seems to ascribe to it.
Since everyone is trying to manipulate it, it doesn't necessarily have optimal results -- sometimes, not even good. A lot of people assume that whatever solution the market arrives at is ultimately the "correct" one.
I believe we're arguing the same essential point. ;-)
Cheers
I didn't say defiled -- I said deified. They mean very different things.
My problem is that there seems to be a widespread spouting of "oh, the market will find a solution, and that will be the best one".
As you say, the "market" is a hypothetical construct used to explain how it all works -- the problem is, people talk about it reverentially as if it's some deity which we must all serve and which has our best interests at heart.
I think the "free market" is bullshit, and all of the laissez-faire economists out there are basically saying we should let corporate greed rule the world. Because, that's basically the result. It's an economic model, but only applicable in a vacuum.
There are no perfectly spherical monopole ducks. :-P
Cheers
So, all those kids with epi-pens are now criminals?
For the same reason people continue to say such annoying things as "the free market will find a solution" to environmental and social problems.
The "free market" has become deified, but a system which operates on corporate greed doesn't "solve" problems. It only means that if there's a buck to be made, someone will try it.
ixnay on the appyhay ustomerscay -- people on Slahdot don't want to hear about that, you're just going to reopen the "but it won't run flash" screed again.
Customers say fuck it, cancel cable subscription en masse, rediscover books and the great outdoors.
Can someone get Ted Nugent riled up about these guys? I think the gun-toting crowd needs to have a run-in with the IP lockdown-the-world crowd.
It's a little hard to tell because the sentence is horribly constructed -- I assume he meant "somewhat" instead of "someone". That, and maybe one too many pronouns to not be confusingly ambiguous.
I believe he is more or less saying that since Cuba is known not to have a decent standard of living, saying they've managed to have a decent standard of living and be environmentally sustainable is kind of pointless.
The average Cuban is quite poor, and the rural people live a much more agrarian lifestyle than in most "developed" nations. The US embargo greatly limits how much trade they can have with other countries, so some things are scarce. At present, something like 60% of Cuba's GDP is generated via tourism related industries.
There is a lot of poverty in Cuba, so he's got a certain point. It is, however, the most beautiful place I've ever been and the locals are really friendly. It's also a very safe place to go as a tourist if you're from a country that allows it -- unlike Mexico and the Dominican Republic, Cuba doesn't suffer from wide-ranging lawlessness and crime.
In the US you do ... that's literally the first thing in the Miranda rights that get read to you when you get arrested.
Anybody who has ever watched TV knows that. :-P
Well, for me I solved this with a more general "stuff management" scenario. I've long since given up and bought a messenger bag (aka man purse). I've decided the occasional smart ass remark from some tool I don't know is far outweighed by the utility of the damned thing.
I've always carried a back-pack or a satchel, and this is actually the best form factor I've found for daily stuff. Between keys (on a 'biner, tucked into pants or backpack), cell phone, iPod, wallet, glasses case, ID badges for work (and possibly for the client), possibly a water bottle, occasionally my camera and/or Tom Tom ... well, one just carries a tremendous amount of stuff on a daily basis -- not just keys. Frankly, I don't know how I'd carry all that shit without the messenger bag. I've had one (actually, I think I'm on my second) since about '03 or so.
If I'm at work I've got my laptop bag with all of its own associated payload and usually lunch to bring -- and that usually represents a lot of stuff. This being Slashdot, I'm sure there are other nomads out there.
If I'm on vacation, I switch to a full-on back-pack carrying my camera gear and all of my "keep handy" crap. Camera days change to another sling style camera bag for easy access.
Having everything in one "ready bag" is actually kind of nice, and it frees up your hands and pockets for other more immediate things.