Although the CRC book is renowned partly for its math tables, I'm a great fan of the very inexpensive and useful Schaum's Outline of Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables for those. Even though you can find that same information online now, having it on paper can still be very handy.
Here's one that may not exactly be literature but certainly is a classic: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. Among secular books, this is one that can truly change your life. You can read the free condensed version if you must, but instead, I recommend you skip that and get the actual book, which is available at your local public library. Read it, understand it, live it.
Basically, social skills are essential to success in nearly any sphere of life, and if you're truly a nerd, you may be lacking in that department. Even if you do have some basic social skills, the book will help you improve them and, most importantly, will help you really understand where you've been going wrong. Winning friends and influencing people isn't all that complicated, but it may not be obvious to nerds like you and me.
For example, one simple prescription from the book that most folks could benefit from is, "Become genuinely interested in other people." What's so mysterious about that? But how many of us know someone who wants you to be interested in them, but doesn't show any interest in you? (I seem to be surrounded by them.) With that little bit of wisdom, though, you can either become more likeable to people by showing an interest in them, or you can understand why you don't much like someone who's self-absorbed - if you don't already.
I'd like to see copyright law changed to make orphaned works available to the public. A simple way to do that would be to require a periodic registration (with fee) after an initial implicit registration period. For example, works that are over 20 years old would need to be registered every 5 years at a cost of $100 or they would revert to public domain. Then, services which make public domain works available online would be able to access the registry to determine whether an old work is in the public domain.
That sort of thing seems politically feasible because it wouldn't disrupt the powerful corporate interests, yet it would release works into the public domain which have been abandoned or don't generate enough income to justify the registration fee.
What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.
Don't they already have that algorithm up and working here at Slashdot?
So why do you comment on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE here if you don't want the wisdom of Anonymous Coward to be spread far and wide, and to last through the ages?...
Agreed. Don't public employees get pay raises based on objective criteria such as education, tenure, competency test scores, etc.? If so, that might reduce the jealousy factor, but it also excludes consideration of how much one produces, which is inherently subjective. I don't know if this startup is contemplating that sort of thing, but if so, it doesn't sound like a good idea for a startup. Imagine a bunch of startup employees just putting in their time until they get tenure. Doesn't compute.
Good point. If I may expound on that a little, once you post anything to any site, you essentially lose control of it. With social media like Slashdot which allow you to be a Pseudonymous Coward, there's little downside to that. But for sites like Facebook which require you to provide your real name and other real information, you lose something. Whether you gain more than you lose is up to you. For example, making contact with long-lost friends by using your real name on Facebook might be worth the loss of privacy to you.
In my own case, I've created a Facebook account but told it practically nothing about myself. For most folks on Facebook or similar sites, though, it's too late. The sites know what you've told them, and there's not much you can do about it except make full use of whatever privacy settings they deign to give you. And whether such sites honor your requests to remove information, in the absence of any laws compelling them to do so, seemingly is up to them.
Reports of Mark Twain twisting and writhing in his grave have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, the late Mr. Twain has been quite immobile since the most recent reports of his death.
Luckily, my real name is TheloniousToady. I started posting here under my name after another account that used a pseudonym went to negative Karma when I posted some heartfelt opinions about a certain hot subject of Slashorthodoxy. Silly me.
That was early in my posting career here. Now, I know that the heartfelt-ness of any opinion isn't relevant when it conflicts with Slashorthodoxy. The proprietors of this fine site seem to recognize this by giving us the option of easily posting as Anonymous Coward - which, BTW, isn't my real name.
Now, if somebody could just create a system of user moderation that doesn't have any underlying orthodoxy...
This site has turned into the successor to the News of the World.
Coincidentally, putting that one together with the comment above about 3D-printing a wife yields a familiar lyric: "She's the kind of a girl that makes The News of the World / Yes, you could say she was attractively built".
So, presumably, Pam will be printed with polythene.
You're right, social media are addictive. So it's time to log out of Slashdot and get back to spending time with your family and friends during the current Christmas-to-New-Year holiday season.
And, yes, I'll do the same. Honest, I will. I can stop any time. Really, I can.
Maybe I lack "the vision thing", but as someone who uses PayPal and another similar service to accept payments, I don't see them being driven out of business anytime soon by Bitcoin.
I'm currently paying a couple of percent on each transaction, which seems fair for the service my customers and I are receiving. There are lots of alternative services in the payment sphere (I've used two others in the past), and the fact that they all have similar fees and offer similar services makes me think there's already enough competition to have driven the fees down to what's fair for the service they provide.
I think my customers like having an intermediary like PayPal to go to if there is a problem. Also, from this merchant's point of view, the fact that the value of Bitcoin swings so wildly makes it an unattractive basis for payment. So, although Bitcoin may put a little pressure on PayPal and its ilk - which isn't all bad - I can't see it ever replacing them completely. If anything, PayPal, et al, may just eventually begin transferring Bitcoin as a new service. You can bet they're already at least thinking about it.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals! The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals! Brian: You're all different! The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different! Man in crowd: I'm not...
I think the "highway robbery" in this case comes from charging $11,900 for a pistol. Then again, nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head to buy one.
If they pistols don't sell, though, maybe they can figure out how to print 3D gold Krugerrands from lead. In fact, maybe that's why they've already got "lead additive manufacturing engineers".
You're right, it must be one of those. But they're actually doing you a service if you think about it. You see, all conspiracies exist solely to feed the paranoia of conspiracy theorists. Otherwise, there would be nothing for us to be afraid of. And what fun would that be?
Like roads and bridges, government conspiracies actually are built for the public good, but not for the obvious reasons: not for charitable reasons such as gathering data to protect The People, and not even for the cynical reasons of wielding power, making money, or even the sheer fun of doing evil. It's all about entertaining the public by feeding their paranoia. And all of us on Slashdot can be particularly thankful for that in this season of giving.
(Note to humor-challenged moderators: it's a joke, not a troll)
Could well be. I'm looking forward to finding out for myself one day (on CD, though - I don't have a decent turntable.) In my own case, they alienated me by producing both stereo and mono box sets. As a hardcore fan, I'd be willing to be taken for another $300 after having already purchased the full catalog previously on both vinyl and early-issue CDs (which reportedly sound lousy, though I'm used to them so I don't know any different by now). But since they've tried to take me for $300 twice more by issuing two box sets, I've opted out so far.
In the reviews I've read, the mono versions are supposed to be the real thing. Apparently, the mono versions are not just mono but have noticeable mixing differences with the stereo ones. But that seems like more of a novelty to me, so I'd really rather have stereo (such as Beatles stereo is). Anyway, after several years, I still haven't decided between the two so I haven't bought either one. Their loss.
Regarding the newly issued BBC material, if I really want to listen to some lousy Beatles recordings, I can always drag out my old LP of the Hamburg tapes. For free.
The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest.
My cynical interpretation is that they found an excuse to release something that they know is of too-poor quality to really be worth releasing so that they can monetize it among the true hardcore fans who will buy anything. Otherwise, why are they charging $40 for it?
The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.
Even though I'm a hardcore Beatles fan, I never bought the last remastered box-set release. I might do that one day, though, when the price of used copies finally comes down on eBay. Gives me something to look forward to.
Maybe it's time for some copyright holders to start recognizing that certain things should be made freely available, in the interests of culture and historical significance, as opposed to trying to make a buck off of what was a dud back in the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Although the CRC book is renowned partly for its math tables, I'm a great fan of the very inexpensive and useful Schaum's Outline of Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and Tables for those. Even though you can find that same information online now, having it on paper can still be very handy.
Here's one that may not exactly be literature but certainly is a classic: "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. Among secular books, this is one that can truly change your life. You can read the free condensed version if you must, but instead, I recommend you skip that and get the actual book, which is available at your local public library. Read it, understand it, live it.
Basically, social skills are essential to success in nearly any sphere of life, and if you're truly a nerd, you may be lacking in that department. Even if you do have some basic social skills, the book will help you improve them and, most importantly, will help you really understand where you've been going wrong. Winning friends and influencing people isn't all that complicated, but it may not be obvious to nerds like you and me.
For example, one simple prescription from the book that most folks could benefit from is, "Become genuinely interested in other people." What's so mysterious about that? But how many of us know someone who wants you to be interested in them, but doesn't show any interest in you? (I seem to be surrounded by them.) With that little bit of wisdom, though, you can either become more likeable to people by showing an interest in them, or you can understand why you don't much like someone who's self-absorbed - if you don't already.
I'd like to see copyright law changed to make orphaned works available to the public. A simple way to do that would be to require a periodic registration (with fee) after an initial implicit registration period. For example, works that are over 20 years old would need to be registered every 5 years at a cost of $100 or they would revert to public domain. Then, services which make public domain works available online would be able to access the registry to determine whether an old work is in the public domain.
That sort of thing seems politically feasible because it wouldn't disrupt the powerful corporate interests, yet it would release works into the public domain which have been abandoned or don't generate enough income to justify the registration fee.
Reports of her death have been greatly exaggerated.
(The original Twain quote probably is still under copyright, but that was "fair use", wasn't it?)
What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.
Don't they already have that algorithm up and working here at Slashdot?
So why do you comment on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE here if you don't want the wisdom of Anonymous Coward to be spread far and wide, and to last through the ages?...
Agreed. Don't public employees get pay raises based on objective criteria such as education, tenure, competency test scores, etc.? If so, that might reduce the jealousy factor, but it also excludes consideration of how much one produces, which is inherently subjective. I don't know if this startup is contemplating that sort of thing, but if so, it doesn't sound like a good idea for a startup. Imagine a bunch of startup employees just putting in their time until they get tenure. Doesn't compute.
It reportedly is even popular among professional politicians, one of whom now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The only way to win this game is not to play.
Good point. If I may expound on that a little, once you post anything to any site, you essentially lose control of it. With social media like Slashdot which allow you to be a Pseudonymous Coward, there's little downside to that. But for sites like Facebook which require you to provide your real name and other real information, you lose something. Whether you gain more than you lose is up to you. For example, making contact with long-lost friends by using your real name on Facebook might be worth the loss of privacy to you.
In my own case, I've created a Facebook account but told it practically nothing about myself. For most folks on Facebook or similar sites, though, it's too late. The sites know what you've told them, and there's not much you can do about it except make full use of whatever privacy settings they deign to give you. And whether such sites honor your requests to remove information, in the absence of any laws compelling them to do so, seemingly is up to them.
You simply cannot secure all the infrastructure in this country.
I dunno...rather than just roll over and play dead on this one, let's spend a trillion dollars on a pilot program and find out. ;-)
Reports of Mark Twain twisting and writhing in his grave have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, the late Mr. Twain has been quite immobile since the most recent reports of his death.
Luckily, my real name is TheloniousToady. I started posting here under my name after another account that used a pseudonym went to negative Karma when I posted some heartfelt opinions about a certain hot subject of Slashorthodoxy. Silly me.
That was early in my posting career here. Now, I know that the heartfelt-ness of any opinion isn't relevant when it conflicts with Slashorthodoxy. The proprietors of this fine site seem to recognize this by giving us the option of easily posting as Anonymous Coward - which, BTW, isn't my real name.
Now, if somebody could just create a system of user moderation that doesn't have any underlying orthodoxy...
This site has turned into the successor to the News of the World.
Coincidentally, putting that one together with the comment above about 3D-printing a wife yields a familiar lyric: "She's the kind of a girl that makes The News of the World / Yes, you could say she was attractively built".
So, presumably, Pam will be printed with polythene.
My attention span is too short to read that comment.
Your ingenious technique for not drowning in useless data is much more cost-effective than anything the NSA will come up with.
You're right, social media are addictive. So it's time to log out of Slashdot and get back to spending time with your family and friends during the current Christmas-to-New-Year holiday season.
And, yes, I'll do the same. Honest, I will. I can stop any time. Really, I can.
Maybe I lack "the vision thing", but as someone who uses PayPal and another similar service to accept payments, I don't see them being driven out of business anytime soon by Bitcoin.
I'm currently paying a couple of percent on each transaction, which seems fair for the service my customers and I are receiving. There are lots of alternative services in the payment sphere (I've used two others in the past), and the fact that they all have similar fees and offer similar services makes me think there's already enough competition to have driven the fees down to what's fair for the service they provide.
I think my customers like having an intermediary like PayPal to go to if there is a problem. Also, from this merchant's point of view, the fact that the value of Bitcoin swings so wildly makes it an unattractive basis for payment. So, although Bitcoin may put a little pressure on PayPal and its ilk - which isn't all bad - I can't see it ever replacing them completely. If anything, PayPal, et al, may just eventually begin transferring Bitcoin as a new service. You can bet they're already at least thinking about it.
Maybe they should come up with a uniform, like beatniks. Berets and sunglasses, Man.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
Your English teacher called. She wants me to tell you that "wan'ts" isn't a word.
Why a four-year-old child could understand that post. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it.
Who said anything about faking gold? I had assumed that the 3D printer folks would put into practice what we alchemists have known for centuries.
(sorry, just another lame joke; those of you who didn't get it need not respond.)
I think the "highway robbery" in this case comes from charging $11,900 for a pistol. Then again, nobody is putting a gun to anybody's head to buy one.
If they pistols don't sell, though, maybe they can figure out how to print 3D gold Krugerrands from lead. In fact, maybe that's why they've already got "lead additive manufacturing engineers".
You're right, it must be one of those. But they're actually doing you a service if you think about it. You see, all conspiracies exist solely to feed the paranoia of conspiracy theorists. Otherwise, there would be nothing for us to be afraid of. And what fun would that be?
Like roads and bridges, government conspiracies actually are built for the public good, but not for the obvious reasons: not for charitable reasons such as gathering data to protect The People, and not even for the cynical reasons of wielding power, making money, or even the sheer fun of doing evil. It's all about entertaining the public by feeding their paranoia. And all of us on Slashdot can be particularly thankful for that in this season of giving.
(Note to humor-challenged moderators: it's a joke, not a troll)
Could well be. I'm looking forward to finding out for myself one day (on CD, though - I don't have a decent turntable.) In my own case, they alienated me by producing both stereo and mono box sets. As a hardcore fan, I'd be willing to be taken for another $300 after having already purchased the full catalog previously on both vinyl and early-issue CDs (which reportedly sound lousy, though I'm used to them so I don't know any different by now). But since they've tried to take me for $300 twice more by issuing two box sets, I've opted out so far.
In the reviews I've read, the mono versions are supposed to be the real thing. Apparently, the mono versions are not just mono but have noticeable mixing differences with the stereo ones. But that seems like more of a novelty to me, so I'd really rather have stereo (such as Beatles stereo is). Anyway, after several years, I still haven't decided between the two so I haven't bought either one. Their loss.
Regarding the newly issued BBC material, if I really want to listen to some lousy Beatles recordings, I can always drag out my old LP of the Hamburg tapes. For free.
It lacks one central feature of a true fiat currency: potentially unlimited supply.
The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest.
My cynical interpretation is that they found an excuse to release something that they know is of too-poor quality to really be worth releasing so that they can monetize it among the true hardcore fans who will buy anything. Otherwise, why are they charging $40 for it?
The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.
Even though I'm a hardcore Beatles fan, I never bought the last remastered box-set release. I might do that one day, though, when the price of used copies finally comes down on eBay. Gives me something to look forward to.
Maybe it's time for some copyright holders to start recognizing that certain things should be made freely available, in the interests of culture and historical significance, as opposed to trying to make a buck off of what was a dud back in the day.
Agreed. I guess they just don't think that way.