The model which has been followed by many has been that of selling services, not product. The service most companies tend to sell is support. So, when you have your packaged Widget, on the shelf - the $75.00 isn't $75.00 for the Widget product, but is instead, say 60 days of free telephone help/support calls - to get it installed/working/etc. Maybe you sell the Widget for $500.00, and include a training course (on video, or in a classroom setting) on how to install and use the widget.
Meantime, you Open Source the Widget under the GPL, and provide it to anyone who asks for it, by whatever means you can to get it to them (in other words, if they don't have an internet connection, maybe you mail them a CD or something). However, by getting it free, they won't get ANY support - at all. They would have to learn how to do it themselves, or seek out someone else and pay them.
Another "service" would be custom mods for individual customers - say a customer wanted you to add feature "x" to the Widget - well, they would have to pay you - oh, say, $25.00 to do that. You add it, and everyone else would get the new mod free. By the same token, that client could get other's mods - so they shouldn't feel indignent about paying you to make the mod.
On top of all this, you may even get free mods sent to you, or updates, or code fixes - since the code would be out there for those enterprising individuals to change, and give those mods back, under the GPL.
These are just a few ideas - I have heard of many more, just look around on the net for them!
TEMPEST is the government's classified standard for securing computers and other devices from Van Eck monitoring. The documents about TEMPEST shielding are classified in such a way, that no one knows exactly how good the govt's Van Eck'ing is, and no one knows what is needed for shielding (how much signal attenuation is needed).
Think of TEMPEST as the govt standard white paper that defines what the minimum acceptable signal levels are that eliminate the possibility of Van Eck monitoring, as well as defining what shielding to use, and how to use it.
Think of Van Eck as just being the technique used to "remote view" (not to be confused with the psychic remote viewing) computer signals (generally video).
This book sounds interesting, to say the least! Any idea if there is an English translation? Is it an out-of-print book?
At any rate, this essay on Bruno by Mr. Brin was a wonderful piece! I had never heard of Bruno before, or of his teachings. My curiosity is now piqued, and I have to learn more...
I think one of the problems that our society has is the thinking that in order for one to know anything, one has to go to college or university to get that piece of paper.
We are even beginning to see it in business, with all of the various certification programs out there now.
I do think that a person should show what they know to a prospective employer, but they should do it in a more "objective" manner - anyone with money and time can get a piece of paper (I have an associates degree, which isn't much - so when I go on an interview, I take a portfolio of past coding work with me, to show what I know).
All this isn't to say you don't learn anything from a college education - it's just to say many things you can pick up on your own, and just because you don't have a degree, if you can demonstrate your skills to an employer via other means, you shouldn't be snubbed (certain things, though, are impossible to pick up on your own, or shouldn't even be tried - like becoming a surgeon, for example, or a large-scale project engineer type, where lives hang in the balance).
Yeah, he's a pre-teener. So I have a bit of hope for him in the future. Overall, he's a good kid, and learns pretty fast. I try to instill the cynicism in him, and show him why you have to question everything and everyone - to make sure you get the right information. I am hoping this sinks in.
I gave him one of my older machines, and I am working on a better machine for him. I am trying to get him net access (his mother is old fashioned, and thinks the net is going to be the end of us all. I have convinced her to let the kid have it, but she only wants it if it is free - well, we can do that now, after a fashion - my big problem is running a phone line to the box, due to the way the house was built, but I am working on that as well).
I have tried to get him interested in programming, but he can't seem to get his mind around the concept of loops yet. Every once in a while, he asks me about it - so I think the interest may be there, I just have to coax it out right...
Sounds like your father has some "power" issues with women. Doesn't want your mother to have a computer business? Doesn't want you to do "smart" things? This seems sad...
I am sorry about your experience with going for a CS major. But don't let this stop you from learning about computers or anything else in life! Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT need to be going after a CS major to learn about computers (whether that be simple stuff to more complex theoretical stuff). I am not saying it isn't a good thing to pursue, but if you can't get into a class or track to learn the interest (for any reason), don't let that stop you from learning about it on your own. Pick up and crack some books open, grab a machine, and go for it. If you really like it, you will know. If you don't, this will become apparent as well.
Let me start off as saying that I am a male. Let me also say that I have been "playing" with computers since I was 10, and maybe longer that that if you count the programming of a couple of toys that I had when I was 7 (a Big Trak and a Brain Buggy).
Anyhow, why am I in this field (specifically programming, not sysadmin)?
Because I grok the machine.
Because when I get "into" it, I am really INTO it. My mind becomes one with the machine - I feel like I am half of it, and it is half of me. Times rolls by, food doesn't matter, and bodily functions are minor annoyances. Hacking at the machine from dusk to dawn, and after - I don't feel tired, I feel ALIVE.
This isn't all, though. When I am not near a computer, I tend to think: "Where is there a computer?", and then marvel at the fact that there is generally a computer somewhere near me. Maybe one that doesn't do much (like a watch or the computer in a microwave oven), but one nonetheless. The machine is ubiquitous, everywhere around us, most of the time taken for granted. I think about those who came before me, and those who will come after - and rejoice at being a part of the process.
Money? I didn't get that when I was a kid coding on my machines - it is more important today, but not a main reason I code.
Job Availability? Once again, it wasn't what drove me as a kid...
Power? Maybe a little - knowing I know how to do something most people find arcane. But it isn't something I pursue (otherwise I would be in management, and not coding).
It isn't these things - what drives me is the synergy of me and the machine, the synthesis of a different state of mind, an almost spiritual union.
You know, I have wondered about this too - that maybe what activities we did as children influences what we do as adults.
Many business types (you know, "suits", who tend to be very good at business, and maybe management, but balk at anything technical) tend to have played a lot of sports in their youth - maybe that competitiveness is what drives them to be so good at business.
Technical people, however, tend to have been the ones who played with a lot of "geeky" toys - Lego, Tinker Toys, other building toys. They also tend to have read a lot as a child - not just for school, but as entertainment as well, and for learning skills outside of school life.
My GF's little brother hasn't had much in the way of "geeky" pursuits - as a consequence, he says when he gets older he wants to be either a lawyer (!) or a soccer player (!!). Either is fine with me and her, as long as he does well (though we both know he is sure to change his mind at anytime, and the likelyhood of his becoming either is small). The funny thing is, no matter how much I tell him that programming is the best and easiest job in the world (I mean, you get paid to sit and THINK, for the most part!), he doesn't seem interested in it (makes me wonder if you have to have a bit of laziness in you as well as being geeky to enjoy programming). Well, we aren't pushing him in any direction, though a comment he made the other day disturbed me (that TV is better than newspapers, because the TV is always right - ACK!), which makes me wonder if I shouldn't take a more active role in teaching him, lest he become a very screwed up adult.
Anyhow, maybe we should encourage girls to play with "boy" toys. Conversely, maybe we should get boys to learn girls/women's roles as well - so we could end this shit about men fucking up the laundry, and not being able to cook, and doing other "domestic" things - so that when a man and a woman gets together, the woman isn't driven out of her mind by what the man doesn't "get".
Heck, most Americans don't even care about what is going on the other side of town, let alone in another country.
America seem to be the place of universal apathy (IMO), where if it doesn't concern you physically, it is not worth worrying about. As an American, I find this attitude disgusting, discouraging, and most of all, disturbing.
I do my best to educate others I meet on why it is in their best interests to know about their surroundings - alas, many times my teachings fall on deaf ears.
Getting back on topic - I like the comment that was posted about how the people involved in the marriage act toward each other is more important than the ceremony itself. My GF and I are planning on maybe doing our wedding on Halloween. Not original, but fun nonetheless for all involved - and we really love each other. We are not into the whole big ceremony thing either - all it does is drain bank accounts and make a few consultants a bit of money.
Do you have a source for this? I have heard the same thing, but never from a verifiable (or legal) source. No one on any of the real-life cop TV shows (that I know of) has ever challenged this, and I have never heard of anybody challenging this.
I still think I would make a big stink about it, just to harass them a bit, then to make them look foolish. I am a citizen, and I have Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizures. These laws (if that is what they are) which were put on the books to allow cops to do that to your car ARE unconstitutional. But we must fight the "WAR ON DRUGS"!
What if you lived in your car? What if you invoked your right to travel (this, I imagine, opens up a whole different can of worms - not to mention how difficult it is to get, and keep, the manufacturer's statement of origin, at the time of purchase of a vehicle)?
BTW - anyone out there know how you can obtain this piece of paper (the original) back from the leinholder and vehicle registration office? Is it too dificult to bother with (most people buy thier cars on loan, and the right to travel can only be invoked if you are the owner of the property, but with a lein on the vehicle, the leinholder is the owner, plus the state has ownership due to registration, etc)?
I didn't think that the bulb would last forever, but it did last a LONG time - much greater than that of flourescent tubes, which tend to burn out around the electrodes.
Regarding the RF, was this amount of RF any greater than that which is emitted from a monitor? Especially considering how close you sit to one?
I can imagine that if it was very great, it might be a tough sell - but I think what really killed it was probably a combo of the extreme cost (I remember these things were going to be rather costly), as well as probably something (call me a conspiracy theorist) of GE and other bulb companies worrying that such a device could take off, and they axed it in some way. Really I think the cost is what did them in, as well as poor marketing (think about the number of things we use everyday which are bad for our health, but the marketing never mentions any of that).
BTW - who was the company that was making these things - I would like to look up the patents to compare to Tesla's...
Then why is it even mentioned? If hell is not to be feared, why is it a part of the teachings? Certain sects of Christianity DO teach the "fear of hell" (mostly Baptist, and IIRC, SDA's).
I guess you could turn around and say "The fear of hell is not preached, but the love of God!" - once again, I ask why Hell is a part of the teachings?
I do have to say that many of the moral teachings of Christianity are good ones, teachings that are traditionally found in most all other religions as well. However, one thing about Christianity stands out - the rule of "You shall have no other gods before ME" - meaning, that if you do not accept Jesus as God on Earth, and God in Heaven, and the Holy Ghost (the Trinity), that you are doomed to Hell.
Hell is then something to be feared - it is the whole concept of the fear of being left ALONE, without further contact from God, or those in Heaven. Truely, if Hell does exist, this would be a pretty effective punishment - probably ALONE in the DARK, if you want to conjure up primitive fears.
If the whole thing about Hell (and the outs it gives preachers and priests who teach others to fear Hell) was taken away, the system would be much better. Of course, that still wouldn't help take away the patriarchical system which underlies Christianity, but it would be a start.
Maybe I do have a small axe to grind. Maybe I want to have the freedom to worship what I damn well want - whether that be a single God, multiple Gods, myself, or my computer! Without fear of retribution, or eternal "damnation". The amount of what many would call brainwashing by adherents of Christianity is enough for me to look elsewhere...
Of course, subdomain naming! This could work, too, and still allow for short domain names for ad campaigns.
Still, you would think that they would only want to show the corporate name, allowing you to link down to the product you want. From a marketing perspective, it might get you a sale you wouldn't otherwise get (a person is looking for a new Ford Ranger, for instance, but then, coming through the main page, sees the link to "check out" the Ford Expedition)...
I know I am looking at it from a nerd perspective, and not that of the general public. Still, I really can't understand why people can't "get" hierarchical structures (after all, that is what this is).
I mean, you would think that if you told someone (who didn't know about directory structures and stored everything at the root level) that what they were doing was akin to piling all of thier papers on a desk, instead of organizing the various papers into folders in a filing cabinet by drawer, that they would get a clue.
But no! They don't! They look at you blankly! Even when whacked up with a clue stick by the likes of Apple and M$ (calling directories and subdirectories, folders and sub-folders, on a desktop), they would understand - still nothing!
Even in everyday life, these same clueless folks use the hierarchical structure of nation, state, county, city, street, house - but as soon as such a structure pops up on a machine, they go stupid!
Maybe they will all eat KFC and die from a coronary (actually, I love KFC - fat and all. I just don't like stupid people).
Hell, I saw on COPS (the stupid Fox TV show) a scene where one cop thought a house was on fire, and went to a window (a large, expensive, multi-pane window, at that), and began busting it out with his nightstick. The old lady came to the door to see what was going on, they told her that her house was on fire, and she needed to leave. Well, she exited the house, but almost immediately after, it was found that the house that was on fire was NEXT DOOR.
Needless to say, this was a pretty funny episode of COPS (I am still waiting for one where a guy gets pulled over, asked to search his car, he says no, get a warrant, then waits around. After they get the warrant, they do the search, and find nothing - then he sues the SHIT out of them)...
Tesla researched and studied many different forms of resonance, both electrical (the most famous form being a "Tesla" coil) and mechanical. Basically, all he did was create a mechanical oscillator tuned to the resonant frequency of the building. Just like when an opera singer shatters a wineglass by singing at the resonant frequency of the glass, a building can be toppled as well by the same method.
Tesla made the statement a few times that he could break the earth with properly timed explosions placed over the globe (whether this could really be done is unknown, but in theory, it could).
You speak of him holding globes of electricity - I believe you may be thinking of some of the old woodcuts of him in his lab, maybe with some spectators. If you look into his researches and patents, you will find that he invented glass globes which glowed, brightly - these were really similar to neon/flourescent lights. He basically set up large steel plates on either side of the room, and passed high frequency/high voltage AC through them. The globes were probably filled with argon or something similar, which glowed in the presence of the electrical field.
It is said he did something similar with a room - made it glow from within with no apparent source. Many famous scientists and experimenters from the day commented on these demostrations in their writings - these demos weren't fakeries!
What is most amusing is one of the light bulbs that Tesla created - he basically had an evacuated lamp, with a small wire run up in the center through a glass tube, with a small copper sphere on the end (all inside the evactuated bulb). The inside of the bulb was coated with a material that would flouresce in the presence of high frequency AC. He would hook that wire up to one of his coils, and the lamp would glow brilliantly - with only one terminal.
Basically the terminal inside the lamp was an antenna, the RF generated by the HF source would excite the flourescent material, causing it to glow. Because there was no arcing or such, the lamp would last a LONG time, but it never caught on...
Fast forward 100 years...
In the late 1980's-early 1990's, a company (I can't remember the company name) came out with a lightbulb EXACTLY like Tesla's, with the exception that the RF source was built into the base. Basically, the lamp could screw into a normal lamp socket, and be switched on. The bulb was being marketed as being able to last over 20 YEARS befor needing replacement. Supposedly, the bulb cost $50.00 or so, but for a 20 year bulb, it would be worth it.
Needless to say, I haven't seen this bulb at the grocery store.
The closest thing I have seen, is a brand of flourescent light bulbs that are very bright (a 30 watt flourescent bulb looks like a 100 watt incandescent bulb), and not too expensive (around 30 bucks). They supposedly last 5-6 years, which is pretty good for the money, given what you save on electricity.
I doubt we will ever see the RF bulb, though. If people bought only those bulbs, that didn't burn out - why, the rich CEOs of light bulb companies would go poor!
If you read the patents, you will find that what he was actually trying to harness was the difference in potential between the upper atmosphere and ground. Many of his other patents deal with using a similar system as an antenna for both radio transmission and power distribution (think of it as a VERY tall Wardenclyff tower).
I believe the the Smithsonian funded Langley and his experiments with flight over the Potomac - on the one manned flight test, the plane was caught in a cable on the launch platform and nosedived into the river. Futher funding was rejected.
It has been sugested (though I haven't seen anything to back this up) that had the cable not caught, the plane would have flown (not sure on how it was controlled or what). I do know that smaller scale models made by Langley prior to the full scale test flew perfectly (and some of these models were pretty big!)...
Because information access was low. Yes, this might seem to be a funny response, but bear with me...
Way back when (which isn't really that long ago, and indeed, much of this can be found today, amazingly enough), people were told that once they got married, if they did anything outside of the marriage, or if they got divorced, they would be excommunicated or they would "burn in hell" for all eternity. These people thus had fear placed into them - fear that there would be no communtity support for them anymore or that they would suffer after they died. Tell this to people who will believe it, on various facets of life ("You will be damned if you read that!" or "You will burn in hell if you work on Sunday!"), keep the sheep inline, and thus, ignorant of facts at large.
When books and other forms of information became cheap enough and widely available, people began to educate themselves, and learn what was really going on. People began to learn that Divorce really wouldn't send them to hell - heck, hell might not even exist - and, waitaminute - Christianity isn't the ONLY religion - you mean there are others?!
Thus, fear began to subside (though there are still a lot of people who do fear damnation - crazy enough). Now, with the internet, information is available extremely cheaply, and a LOT of it. This has those fundamentalists and others who want control over the masses running scared - for they realize their grip is loosening, and that the people will think for themselves once given the chance.
But that still doesn't stop them from giving out statistics with no information or sources to back them up.
BTW - I have been so long with my fiance/GF that I feel like I am married anyhow - a piece of paper and a ring won't change my views on the whole thing or how I feel one bit. I think that love and trust should be in any relationship long before marriage. You can marry two people who hate each other, but that ain't going to mean the relationship will last. Also, what is wrong with a divorce, anyhow - I can see the argument on the effect on kids in the marriage, but if the couple has no kids, what is the problem? It is just a legal proceeding for breaking a contract, right?
If his children are not his property, then the converse must be true - your children are not your property, either. Since "our" children are not "our" property, they are thus free "men". Being free, they have rights to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness", just like other free men.
Therefore, based on this logic, these children, these free men, should have the right to decide for themselves of what they see. Otherwise you will be binding free men with chains of oppression !
I am only saying this because we, as a society, seem to think that there is this magical age of 18 in which a child becomes an adult, and thus a free man, who can decide what, where, and when (withing certain limits) they can see. Of course, I don't have any delusions that you will agree with me, so don't even bother replying...
Why? Because, let's say that instead of nudity being shown on the page (albeit with warnings), what if pentagrams were shown (they probably are, but not having seen this page, I can only guess)?
The point is this woman probably would still have been ostracized. It wasn't the nudity that was causing the problem, it was the expression of thoughts and information that the majority of the community thought should be supressed. It wasn't as if she were teaching Wicca in the classroom (which would be just as wrong as Xtians doing the same, separation of church and state, and all).
She was simply presenting a different view - something many people don't want others to see - because it might lead to thought, and we all know that free thinking leads to loss of power for those "in charge"...
Companies who feel that for every product they create, they must have a domain name for!
Let's say Ford needs to talk about their car, the Mustang. Many companies today do this (I am not saying Ford has done this, I really don't know - but many companies have - movie studios and food distributors come to mind):
http://www.mustang.com/
or
http://www.fordmustang.com/
or something similar. They create domain names based on the product or brand. They should do the following, and it would free up quite a bit of domain space:
Then in their ads on TV and whatnot, just reference the fordmotorcompany.com address - with links to the appropriate sections.
Many movie studios allocate a domain name for each movie they release (I think Sony may be an exception - I could be wrong here), and food distributors/makers tend to have a domain per product, like:
http://www.dorritos.com/
rather than:
http://www.fritolay.com/chips/dorritos/
Certain companies I can see would need to have more than one domain, like chain restaurants:
http://www.pizzahut.com/ http://www.kfc.com/ h ttp://www.tacobell.com/
These are much easier to remember than something like:
http://www.triconglobal.com/kfc/
Mainly because most people have no clue as to who Tricon Global is (though if they mentioned it more in ads and in the restaurants, people would). Chain restaurants tend to have parent companies with names completely different from the chain, for some reason.
Grits is thought of as a southern dish by most other Americans (by southern, I mean those states of the south, which include Louisianna, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and quite a few others. Look up info on the Civil War in America, to find out the other traditional "southern" states).
It is made out of coarsly ground corn, mixed with boiling water, and a touch of butter added. It is similar to the ground wheat variety, which over here is made by Nabisco and is called "Cream o' Wheat". Both are considered breakfast cereals. Both are rather "gritty" (in the crunchy texture sense), hence the name.
None of this explains why you would want to pour it down your pants (since the water IS boiling hot) - but, hey, I can't understand the fascination with petrifying Natalie Portman, either...
However, I can understand your confusion. Consider it mutual. Many Americans (myself included) wonder over the Brits fascination with kidney pie, as well as with the various ways of preparing eel (and monkfish!).
And usually, they don't mean "tolerate", they mean "condone".
I, for one, mean tolerate - not condone. I don't believe you have to condone my view, nor do I have to condone yours.
I am not sure what moral issues there are to sexuality - it is something that was given to us by the god(s)/godess(es), for procreation - but it is obvious that this is not it's only purpose. It also feels good (otherwise it wouldn't be any good for procreation), and if done right with proper birth control methods, can be used as a form of showing love.
Your experience with sex outside of marriage is probably warped. Regardless of sexual orientation (which you seem to want to bring up, but it really doesn't logically matter), two people have to love one another in order to be successful as a couple, married or not. Too often, we see people get married too soon, rather than living together, in a monogamous and trusting relationship (with no outside partners), to make sure they are right for one another.
Do I believe there is a problem with people having sex willy-nilly, with whomever, whenever? Yes - this is a problem. Sex is not love, and these people need help to see this. But sex can be used to express love.
We are discussing sex, and this is good - even though you and I have opposing viewpoints (or slightly diverging).
As far a logical morality - maybe I should have said consistent morality. However, I equate consistency with being logical, hence my wording. But consistency is what I was meaning...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a programmer, not a businessperson, so...
The model which has been followed by many has been that of selling services, not product. The service most companies tend to sell is support. So, when you have your packaged Widget, on the shelf - the $75.00 isn't $75.00 for the Widget product, but is instead, say 60 days of free telephone help/support calls - to get it installed/working/etc. Maybe you sell the Widget for $500.00, and include a training course (on video, or in a classroom setting) on how to install and use the widget.
Meantime, you Open Source the Widget under the GPL, and provide it to anyone who asks for it, by whatever means you can to get it to them (in other words, if they don't have an internet connection, maybe you mail them a CD or something). However, by getting it free, they won't get ANY support - at all. They would have to learn how to do it themselves, or seek out someone else and pay them.
Another "service" would be custom mods for individual customers - say a customer wanted you to add feature "x" to the Widget - well, they would have to pay you - oh, say, $25.00 to do that. You add it, and everyone else would get the new mod free. By the same token, that client could get other's mods - so they shouldn't feel indignent about paying you to make the mod.
On top of all this, you may even get free mods sent to you, or updates, or code fixes - since the code would be out there for those enterprising individuals to change, and give those mods back, under the GPL.
These are just a few ideas - I have heard of many more, just look around on the net for them!
TEMPEST is the government's classified standard for securing computers and other devices from Van Eck monitoring. The documents about TEMPEST shielding are classified in such a way, that no one knows exactly how good the govt's Van Eck'ing is, and no one knows what is needed for shielding (how much signal attenuation is needed).
Think of TEMPEST as the govt standard white paper that defines what the minimum acceptable signal levels are that eliminate the possibility of Van Eck monitoring, as well as defining what shielding to use, and how to use it.
Think of Van Eck as just being the technique used to "remote view" (not to be confused with the psychic remote viewing) computer signals (generally video).
This book sounds interesting, to say the least! Any idea if there is an English translation? Is it an out-of-print book?
At any rate, this essay on Bruno by Mr. Brin was a wonderful piece! I had never heard of Bruno before, or of his teachings. My curiosity is now piqued, and I have to learn more...
I think one of the problems that our society has is the thinking that in order for one to know anything, one has to go to college or university to get that piece of paper.
We are even beginning to see it in business, with all of the various certification programs out there now.
I do think that a person should show what they know to a prospective employer, but they should do it in a more "objective" manner - anyone with money and time can get a piece of paper (I have an associates degree, which isn't much - so when I go on an interview, I take a portfolio of past coding work with me, to show what I know).
All this isn't to say you don't learn anything from a college education - it's just to say many things you can pick up on your own, and just because you don't have a degree, if you can demonstrate your skills to an employer via other means, you shouldn't be snubbed (certain things, though, are impossible to pick up on your own, or shouldn't even be tried - like becoming a surgeon, for example, or a large-scale project engineer type, where lives hang in the balance).
Yeah, he's a pre-teener. So I have a bit of hope for him in the future. Overall, he's a good kid, and learns pretty fast. I try to instill the cynicism in him, and show him why you have to question everything and everyone - to make sure you get the right information. I am hoping this sinks in.
I gave him one of my older machines, and I am working on a better machine for him. I am trying to get him net access (his mother is old fashioned, and thinks the net is going to be the end of us all. I have convinced her to let the kid have it, but she only wants it if it is free - well, we can do that now, after a fashion - my big problem is running a phone line to the box, due to the way the house was built, but I am working on that as well).
I have tried to get him interested in programming, but he can't seem to get his mind around the concept of loops yet. Every once in a while, he asks me about it - so I think the interest may be there, I just have to coax it out right...
Sounds like your father has some "power" issues with women. Doesn't want your mother to have a computer business? Doesn't want you to do "smart" things? This seems sad...
I am sorry about your experience with going for a CS major. But don't let this stop you from learning about computers or anything else in life! Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT need to be going after a CS major to learn about computers (whether that be simple stuff to more complex theoretical stuff). I am not saying it isn't a good thing to pursue, but if you can't get into a class or track to learn the interest (for any reason), don't let that stop you from learning about it on your own. Pick up and crack some books open, grab a machine, and go for it. If you really like it, you will know. If you don't, this will become apparent as well.
Let me start off as saying that I am a male. Let me also say that I have been "playing" with computers since I was 10, and maybe longer that that if you count the programming of a couple of toys that I had when I was 7 (a Big Trak and a Brain Buggy).
Anyhow, why am I in this field (specifically programming, not sysadmin)?
Because I grok the machine.
Because when I get "into" it, I am really INTO it. My mind becomes one with the machine - I feel like I am half of it, and it is half of me. Times rolls by, food doesn't matter, and bodily functions are minor annoyances. Hacking at the machine from dusk to dawn, and after - I don't feel tired, I feel ALIVE.
This isn't all, though. When I am not near a computer, I tend to think: "Where is there a computer?", and then marvel at the fact that there is generally a computer somewhere near me. Maybe one that doesn't do much (like a watch or the computer in a microwave oven), but one nonetheless. The machine is ubiquitous, everywhere around us, most of the time taken for granted. I think about those who came before me, and those who will come after - and rejoice at being a part of the process.
Money? I didn't get that when I was a kid coding on my machines - it is more important today, but not a main reason I code.
Job Availability? Once again, it wasn't what drove me as a kid...
Power? Maybe a little - knowing I know how to do something most people find arcane. But it isn't something I pursue (otherwise I would be in management, and not coding).
It isn't these things - what drives me is the synergy of me and the machine, the synthesis of a different state of mind, an almost spiritual union.
You know, I have wondered about this too - that maybe what activities we did as children influences what we do as adults.
Many business types (you know, "suits", who tend to be very good at business, and maybe management, but balk at anything technical) tend to have played a lot of sports in their youth - maybe that competitiveness is what drives them to be so good at business.
Technical people, however, tend to have been the ones who played with a lot of "geeky" toys - Lego, Tinker Toys, other building toys. They also tend to have read a lot as a child - not just for school, but as entertainment as well, and for learning skills outside of school life.
My GF's little brother hasn't had much in the way of "geeky" pursuits - as a consequence, he says when he gets older he wants to be either a lawyer (!) or a soccer player (!!). Either is fine with me and her, as long as he does well (though we both know he is sure to change his mind at anytime, and the likelyhood of his becoming either is small). The funny thing is, no matter how much I tell him that programming is the best and easiest job in the world (I mean, you get paid to sit and THINK, for the most part!), he doesn't seem interested in it (makes me wonder if you have to have a bit of laziness in you as well as being geeky to enjoy programming). Well, we aren't pushing him in any direction, though a comment he made the other day disturbed me (that TV is better than newspapers, because the TV is always right - ACK!), which makes me wonder if I shouldn't take a more active role in teaching him, lest he become a very screwed up adult.
Anyhow, maybe we should encourage girls to play with "boy" toys. Conversely, maybe we should get boys to learn girls/women's roles as well - so we could end this shit about men fucking up the laundry, and not being able to cook, and doing other "domestic" things - so that when a man and a woman gets together, the woman isn't driven out of her mind by what the man doesn't "get".
Check out Frag Island - a Java FPS, that if only had gone all the way...
Heck, most Americans don't even care about what is going on the other side of town, let alone in another country.
America seem to be the place of universal apathy (IMO), where if it doesn't concern you physically, it is not worth worrying about. As an American, I find this attitude disgusting, discouraging, and most of all, disturbing.
I do my best to educate others I meet on why it is in their best interests to know about their surroundings - alas, many times my teachings fall on deaf ears.
Getting back on topic - I like the comment that was posted about how the people involved in the marriage act toward each other is more important than the ceremony itself. My GF and I are planning on maybe doing our wedding on Halloween. Not original, but fun nonetheless for all involved - and we really love each other. We are not into the whole big ceremony thing either - all it does is drain bank accounts and make a few consultants a bit of money.
Do you have a source for this? I have heard the same thing, but never from a verifiable (or legal) source. No one on any of the real-life cop TV shows (that I know of) has ever challenged this, and I have never heard of anybody challenging this.
I still think I would make a big stink about it, just to harass them a bit, then to make them look foolish. I am a citizen, and I have Constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizures. These laws (if that is what they are) which were put on the books to allow cops to do that to your car ARE unconstitutional. But we must fight the "WAR ON DRUGS"!
What if you lived in your car? What if you invoked your right to travel (this, I imagine, opens up a whole different can of worms - not to mention how difficult it is to get, and keep, the manufacturer's statement of origin, at the time of purchase of a vehicle)?
BTW - anyone out there know how you can obtain this piece of paper (the original) back from the leinholder and vehicle registration office? Is it too dificult to bother with (most people buy thier cars on loan, and the right to travel can only be invoked if you are the owner of the property, but with a lein on the vehicle, the leinholder is the owner, plus the state has ownership due to registration, etc)?
I didn't think that the bulb would last forever, but it did last a LONG time - much greater than that of flourescent tubes, which tend to burn out around the electrodes.
Regarding the RF, was this amount of RF any greater than that which is emitted from a monitor? Especially considering how close you sit to one?
I can imagine that if it was very great, it might be a tough sell - but I think what really killed it was probably a combo of the extreme cost (I remember these things were going to be rather costly), as well as probably something (call me a conspiracy theorist) of GE and other bulb companies worrying that such a device could take off, and they axed it in some way. Really I think the cost is what did them in, as well as poor marketing (think about the number of things we use everyday which are bad for our health, but the marketing never mentions any of that).
BTW - who was the company that was making these things - I would like to look up the patents to compare to Tesla's...
Then why is it even mentioned? If hell is not to be feared, why is it a part of the teachings? Certain sects of Christianity DO teach the "fear of hell" (mostly Baptist, and IIRC, SDA's).
I guess you could turn around and say "The fear of hell is not preached, but the love of God!" - once again, I ask why Hell is a part of the teachings?
I do have to say that many of the moral teachings of Christianity are good ones, teachings that are traditionally found in most all other religions as well. However, one thing about Christianity stands out - the rule of "You shall have no other gods before ME" - meaning, that if you do not accept Jesus as God on Earth, and God in Heaven, and the Holy Ghost (the Trinity), that you are doomed to Hell.
Hell is then something to be feared - it is the whole concept of the fear of being left ALONE, without further contact from God, or those in Heaven. Truely, if Hell does exist, this would be a pretty effective punishment - probably ALONE in the DARK, if you want to conjure up primitive fears.
If the whole thing about Hell (and the outs it gives preachers and priests who teach others to fear Hell) was taken away, the system would be much better. Of course, that still wouldn't help take away the patriarchical system which underlies Christianity, but it would be a start.
Maybe I do have a small axe to grind. Maybe I want to have the freedom to worship what I damn well want - whether that be a single God, multiple Gods, myself, or my computer! Without fear of retribution, or eternal "damnation". The amount of what many would call brainwashing by adherents of Christianity is enough for me to look elsewhere...
Of course, subdomain naming! This could work, too, and still allow for short domain names for ad campaigns.
Still, you would think that they would only want to show the corporate name, allowing you to link down to the product you want. From a marketing perspective, it might get you a sale you wouldn't otherwise get (a person is looking for a new Ford Ranger, for instance, but then, coming through the main page, sees the link to "check out" the Ford Expedition)...
I know I am looking at it from a nerd perspective, and not that of the general public. Still, I really can't understand why people can't "get" hierarchical structures (after all, that is what this is).
I mean, you would think that if you told someone (who didn't know about directory structures and stored everything at the root level) that what they were doing was akin to piling all of thier papers on a desk, instead of organizing the various papers into folders in a filing cabinet by drawer, that they would get a clue.
But no! They don't! They look at you blankly! Even when whacked up with a clue stick by the likes of Apple and M$ (calling directories and subdirectories, folders and sub-folders, on a desktop), they would understand - still nothing!
Even in everyday life, these same clueless folks use the hierarchical structure of nation, state, county, city, street, house - but as soon as such a structure pops up on a machine, they go stupid!
Maybe they will all eat KFC and die from a coronary (actually, I love KFC - fat and all. I just don't like stupid people).
Hell, I saw on COPS (the stupid Fox TV show) a scene where one cop thought a house was on fire, and went to a window (a large, expensive, multi-pane window, at that), and began busting it out with his nightstick. The old lady came to the door to see what was going on, they told her that her house was on fire, and she needed to leave. Well, she exited the house, but almost immediately after, it was found that the house that was on fire was NEXT DOOR.
Needless to say, this was a pretty funny episode of COPS (I am still waiting for one where a guy gets pulled over, asked to search his car, he says no, get a warrant, then waits around. After they get the warrant, they do the search, and find nothing - then he sues the SHIT out of them)...
Well, I think this one will be moderated down...
This is true!
Tesla researched and studied many different forms of resonance, both electrical (the most famous form being a "Tesla" coil) and mechanical. Basically, all he did was create a mechanical oscillator tuned to the resonant frequency of the building. Just like when an opera singer shatters a wineglass by singing at the resonant frequency of the glass, a building can be toppled as well by the same method.
Tesla made the statement a few times that he could break the earth with properly timed explosions placed over the globe (whether this could really be done is unknown, but in theory, it could).
You speak of him holding globes of electricity - I believe you may be thinking of some of the old woodcuts of him in his lab, maybe with some spectators. If you look into his researches and patents, you will find that he invented glass globes which glowed, brightly - these were really similar to neon/flourescent lights. He basically set up large steel plates on either side of the room, and passed high frequency/high voltage AC through them. The globes were probably filled with argon or something similar, which glowed in the presence of the electrical field.
It is said he did something similar with a room - made it glow from within with no apparent source. Many famous scientists and experimenters from the day commented on these demostrations in their writings - these demos weren't fakeries!
What is most amusing is one of the light bulbs that Tesla created - he basically had an evacuated lamp, with a small wire run up in the center through a glass tube, with a small copper sphere on the end (all inside the evactuated bulb). The inside of the bulb was coated with a material that would flouresce in the presence of high frequency AC. He would hook that wire up to one of his coils, and the lamp would glow brilliantly - with only one terminal.
Basically the terminal inside the lamp was an antenna, the RF generated by the HF source would excite the flourescent material, causing it to glow. Because there was no arcing or such, the lamp would last a LONG time, but it never caught on...
Fast forward 100 years...
In the late 1980's-early 1990's, a company (I can't remember the company name) came out with a lightbulb EXACTLY like Tesla's, with the exception that the RF source was built into the base. Basically, the lamp could screw into a normal lamp socket, and be switched on. The bulb was being marketed as being able to last over 20 YEARS befor needing replacement. Supposedly, the bulb cost $50.00 or so, but for a 20 year bulb, it would be worth it.
Needless to say, I haven't seen this bulb at the grocery store.
The closest thing I have seen, is a brand of flourescent light bulbs that are very bright (a 30 watt flourescent bulb looks like a 100 watt incandescent bulb), and not too expensive (around 30 bucks). They supposedly last 5-6 years, which is pretty good for the money, given what you save on electricity.
I doubt we will ever see the RF bulb, though. If people bought only those bulbs, that didn't burn out - why, the rich CEOs of light bulb companies would go poor!
If you read the patents, you will find that what he was actually trying to harness was the difference in potential between the upper atmosphere and ground. Many of his other patents deal with using a similar system as an antenna for both radio transmission and power distribution (think of it as a VERY tall Wardenclyff tower).
Didn't this have something to do with Langley?
I believe the the Smithsonian funded Langley and his experiments with flight over the Potomac - on the one manned flight test, the plane was caught in a cable on the launch platform and nosedived into the river. Futher funding was rejected.
It has been sugested (though I haven't seen anything to back this up) that had the cable not caught, the plane would have flown (not sure on how it was controlled or what). I do know that smaller scale models made by Langley prior to the full scale test flew perfectly (and some of these models were pretty big!)...
Because information access was low. Yes, this might seem to be a funny response, but bear with me...
Way back when (which isn't really that long ago, and indeed, much of this can be found today, amazingly enough), people were told that once they got married, if they did anything outside of the marriage, or if they got divorced, they would be excommunicated or they would "burn in hell" for all eternity. These people thus had fear placed into them - fear that there would be no communtity support for them anymore or that they would suffer after they died. Tell this to people who will believe it, on various facets of life ("You will be damned if you read that!" or "You will burn in hell if you work on Sunday!"), keep the sheep inline, and thus, ignorant of facts at large.
When books and other forms of information became cheap enough and widely available, people began to educate themselves, and learn what was really going on. People began to learn that Divorce really wouldn't send them to hell - heck, hell might not even exist - and, waitaminute - Christianity isn't the ONLY religion - you mean there are others?!
Thus, fear began to subside (though there are still a lot of people who do fear damnation - crazy enough). Now, with the internet, information is available extremely cheaply, and a LOT of it. This has those fundamentalists and others who want control over the masses running scared - for they realize their grip is loosening, and that the people will think for themselves once given the chance.
But that still doesn't stop them from giving out statistics with no information or sources to back them up.
BTW - I have been so long with my fiance/GF that I feel like I am married anyhow - a piece of paper and a ring won't change my views on the whole thing or how I feel one bit. I think that love and trust should be in any relationship long before marriage. You can marry two people who hate each other, but that ain't going to mean the relationship will last. Also, what is wrong with a divorce, anyhow - I can see the argument on the effect on kids in the marriage, but if the couple has no kids, what is the problem? It is just a legal proceeding for breaking a contract, right?
If his children are not his property, then the converse must be true - your children are not your property, either. Since "our" children are not "our" property, they are thus free "men". Being free, they have rights to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness", just like other free men.
Therefore, based on this logic, these children, these free men, should have the right to decide for themselves of what they see. Otherwise you will be binding free men with chains of oppression !
I am only saying this because we, as a society, seem to think that there is this magical age of 18 in which a child becomes an adult, and thus a free man, who can decide what, where, and when (withing certain limits) they can see. Of course, I don't have any delusions that you will agree with me, so don't even bother replying...
Why? Because, let's say that instead of nudity being shown on the page (albeit with warnings), what if pentagrams were shown (they probably are, but not having seen this page, I can only guess)?
The point is this woman probably would still have been ostracized. It wasn't the nudity that was causing the problem, it was the expression of thoughts and information that the majority of the community thought should be supressed. It wasn't as if she were teaching Wicca in the classroom (which would be just as wrong as Xtians doing the same, separation of church and state, and all).
She was simply presenting a different view - something many people don't want others to see - because it might lead to thought, and we all know that free thinking leads to loss of power for those "in charge"...
Companies who feel that for every product they create, they must have a domain name for!
n g/
h ttp://www.tacobell.com/
Let's say Ford needs to talk about their car, the Mustang. Many companies today do this (I am not saying Ford has done this, I really don't know - but many companies have - movie studios and food distributors come to mind):
http://www.mustang.com/
or
http://www.fordmustang.com/
or something similar. They create domain names based on the product or brand. They should do the following, and it would free up quite a bit of domain space:
http://www.fordmotorcompany.com/ford/auto/musta
Then in their ads on TV and whatnot, just reference the fordmotorcompany.com address - with links to the appropriate sections.
Many movie studios allocate a domain name for each movie they release (I think Sony may be an exception - I could be wrong here), and food distributors/makers tend to have a domain per product, like:
http://www.dorritos.com/
rather than:
http://www.fritolay.com/chips/dorritos/
Certain companies I can see would need to have more than one domain, like chain restaurants:
http://www.pizzahut.com/
http://www.kfc.com/
These are much easier to remember than something like:
http://www.triconglobal.com/kfc/
Mainly because most people have no clue as to who Tricon Global is (though if they mentioned it more in ads and in the restaurants, people would). Chain restaurants tend to have parent companies with names completely different from the chain, for some reason.
However, I would want:
http://www.kfc.com/xtracrispy/wings/
Rather than:
http://www.xtracrispywings.com/
Does anyone else here agree with me?
Grits is thought of as a southern dish by most other Americans (by southern, I mean those states of the south, which include Louisianna, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and quite a few others. Look up info on the Civil War in America, to find out the other traditional "southern" states).
It is made out of coarsly ground corn, mixed with boiling water, and a touch of butter added. It is similar to the ground wheat variety, which over here is made by Nabisco and is called "Cream o' Wheat". Both are considered breakfast cereals. Both are rather "gritty" (in the crunchy texture sense), hence the name.
None of this explains why you would want to pour it down your pants (since the water IS boiling hot) - but, hey, I can't understand the fascination with petrifying Natalie Portman, either...
However, I can understand your confusion. Consider it mutual. Many Americans (myself included) wonder over the Brits fascination with kidney pie, as well as with the various ways of preparing eel (and monkfish!).
And usually, they don't mean "tolerate", they mean "condone".
I, for one, mean tolerate - not condone. I don't believe you have to condone my view, nor do I have to condone yours.
I am not sure what moral issues there are to sexuality - it is something that was given to us by the god(s)/godess(es), for procreation - but it is obvious that this is not it's only purpose. It also feels good (otherwise it wouldn't be any good for procreation), and if done right with proper birth control methods, can be used as a form of showing love.
Your experience with sex outside of marriage is probably warped. Regardless of sexual orientation (which you seem to want to bring up, but it really doesn't logically matter), two people have to love one another in order to be successful as a couple, married or not. Too often, we see people get married too soon, rather than living together, in a monogamous and trusting relationship (with no outside partners), to make sure they are right for one another.
Do I believe there is a problem with people having sex willy-nilly, with whomever, whenever? Yes - this is a problem. Sex is not love, and these people need help to see this. But sex can be used to express love.
We are discussing sex, and this is good - even though you and I have opposing viewpoints (or slightly diverging).
As far a logical morality - maybe I should have said consistent morality. However, I equate consistency with being logical, hence my wording. But consistency is what I was meaning...