If I wanted to coordinate 25 people in real time to solve complex problems under stressful conditions in my free time, I would simply stay later at work.
This happened to me too when I lost my cat this summer. I think it's a pretty common phenomenon and is a function of the fact that "vision" as we perceive it is largely dependent on memory. We only see objects in general terms and our memories fill in the details. My cat was black, and I kept seeing him in dark corners of the room. It's the same effect as when we think we recognize someone and we're sure it's them only to find out it's someone else entirely.
How many of us actually work for eight hours? I know I generally have plenty of time to read Slashdot (ahem) (cough) keep up with new developments during the day.
It's not a completely invalid point. I'm not working on an open source product that competes directly with my own day job, but I might be working on one that competes with your job, and you might be working on one that competes with my job. With two people, it's a coincidence, but with a wide open source community, it's probable. If you're talking about a movement that theoretically changes the distribution model of software as a whole, then everyone with a software job is theoretically affected.
I don't think that will happen. The vast majority of programmers do not work on software that is sold as a boxed product. Most work on internal systems that never see the light of day. Some work for harware vendors whose business model has nothing to do with selling software.
I don't think the effect on the market will be all that great.
If it's anything like their support for their flagship products, Oracle and PeopleSoft don't bother. Anytime we report an issue with our multi-million dollar enterprise implementation, they spend several weeks trying to find some other party to blame. It's your hardware, no it's the network....etc.
The world is not a Greek forum, strict logic is not always the most useful view of the world. From that wikipedia article you enjoy linking so much:
Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.
While the fact that someone is being paid to hold an opinion does not in fact affect the validity of that opinion, anyone who takes that opinion at face value is an idiot. What it affects is how thoroughly one should verify the validity of that opinion. Gowen is making a rational case to thoroughly verify the opinion, not attacking the opinion itself. One is common sense, the other is Ad Hom. If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
I've always wanted an RTS that supported multiple monitors, and it would only require two. Game area on one screen, and map, unit descriptions, menu items, etc. on the other.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Are you suggesting that the President is exempt from the laws that he is required to take care be faithfully executed? That interpretation makes no sense.
I had an interesting discussion with one of my cousins on Easter about the 2nd amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
He felt that the founding fathers were also divided on this issue. He contended that the two clauses are separate, and that militia is not the only context under which we may "keep and bear". I think that we should have the right to own anything man portable, and that an armed populace is a prerequisite to a well regulated militia.
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but to my mind the right to bear arms encompasses several issues:
An armed populace is necessary to form militias to repel invasions, quell domestic disturbance, etc.
Prevention of an aristocracy, as all citizens can bear arms.
Bear arms to enforce your rights
Bear arms to overthrow an illegitimate government if necessary.
What is interesting to note is that the text says "Keep and Bear Arms". Which I would assume means both own (keep) and carry on your person (bear).
Like many others in this discussion, I have observed that women think differently than men. Not better or worse, just different, and perhaps somewhat incompatible. As science and engineering are already so male dominated, there is little incentive to modify the system to make use of women's different thinking patterns. This needs to change if there is to be any progress for women in technical fields.
My wife and I are near polar opposites in the way we think. She has an incredible ability to multi-task. It makes her very good at certain types of activities, however she doesn't have the single minded stubbornness that technical pursuits require. I however, cannot multi-task at all and if someone interrupts me, my brain seg faults.
Another observation I have made is that while I have known many women nerds; (i.e. good at science, math, engineering, what have you) I have met precious few women geeks. By geek I mean the drive to tinker with things, take things apart or break them to figure out how they work. My wife is very smart, but chooses not to become deeply technical. For her there is no emotional reward for figuring things out. (I am speaking of geek type pursuits, she is perfectly capable of exercising logic and reason.) For me there is an emotional reward for taking things apart, fixing things that are broken or generally understanding how things work. Whether this is due to societal expectations or due to brain chemistry is a study worth doing, however as others have said the political climate makes discussion of these topics difficult.
Exeept the Media Research Center is itself biased right. From their home page:
The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias -- and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.
To assume their viewpoint has any validity, you have to agree that the national media has a liberal bias. I think that this just illustrates that one needs to check the viewpoint of whatever you read, before assigning a relative merit value.
More on the MRC from Disinfopedia A well known left leaning informational site.
Voters typically know incumbents well and have strong opinions about their performance. Challengers are less familiar and invariably fall short on straightforward comparisons of experience and (in the presidential arena) command of foreign policy. Some voters find themselves conflicted -- dissatisfied with the incumbent yet also wary of the challenger -- and may carry that uncertainty through the final days of the campaign and sometimes right into the voting booth. Among the perpetually conflicted, the attitudes about the incumbent are usually more predictive of these conflicted voters' final decision than their lingering doubts about the challenger. Thus, in the campaign's last hours, we tend to see "undecided" voters "break" for the challenger.
Statistical analysis of previous elections appears to back up this theory.
Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).
Well as a (nominal) christian it seems very unnatural to me. I am not inspired by a christian architects upbringing, nor should the American Taxpayer be required to support his religious leanings. We have a symbol for justice, and she is blind for a reason. Our courts uphold the laws of man, not god, and that's how I would like to keep it.
To be honest with you, I have considered taking up the position of eliminating the tax breaks that religions get on the grounds that giving them requires the Government to determine what is a religion vs. what is a cult. This makes the US Government the de facto and de jure arbiter of what religion is and is not, which to my mind directly contradicts the letter and spirit of the constitution. While religion plays an important societal role, it is not the governments job to promote it.
As you correctly point out there are many positive contributions that religious organizations provide, making this a hard idea to sell.
Slashdot Mirror
Bear in mind the list of recent presidents that were not lawyers:
George W. Bush
George H. W. Bush
Ronald Regan
Jimmy Carter
I dislike the litigious nature of our society as much as the next guy, but non lawyer seems to be a poor choice of filter.
If I wanted to coordinate 25 people in real time to solve complex problems under stressful conditions in my free time, I would simply stay later at work.
This happened to me too when I lost my cat this summer. I think it's a pretty common phenomenon and is a function of the fact that "vision" as we perceive it is largely dependent on memory. We only see objects in general terms and our memories fill in the details. My cat was black, and I kept seeing him in dark corners of the room. It's the same effect as when we think we recognize someone and we're sure it's them only to find out it's someone else entirely.
Base 10 on the box
That's why the manufacturers are filthy liars. When you need to calculate how much space is left in the frame, you better use base 2.
Base 2. Storage numbers using base 10 are for disk manufacturers that are filthy liars.
The NSA is EFF'd.
How many of us actually work for eight hours? I know I generally have plenty of time to read Slashdot (ahem) (cough) keep up with new developments during the day.
That's because they need to pay for the translation into Canadian. :)
It's not a completely invalid point. I'm not working on an open source product that competes directly with my own day job, but I might be working on one that competes with your job, and you might be working on one that competes with my job. With two people, it's a coincidence, but with a wide open source community, it's probable. If you're talking about a movement that theoretically changes the distribution model of software as a whole, then everyone with a software job is theoretically affected.
I don't think that will happen. The vast majority of programmers do not work on software that is sold as a boxed product. Most work on internal systems that never see the light of day. Some work for harware vendors whose business model has nothing to do with selling software.
I don't think the effect on the market will be all that great.
Gambling isn't a zero sum game. See vigorish for why this is so. You pay for the privilege of playing. The house always makes money.
Here's one: During the invasion, why did you elect to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry rather than the Weapons facility at Al Qaqaa?
If it's anything like their support for their flagship products, Oracle and PeopleSoft don't bother. Anytime we report an issue with our multi-million dollar enterprise implementation, they spend several weeks trying to find some other party to blame. It's your hardware, no it's the network....etc.
How do you prove that you didn't give up your account info? What if the banks security is compromised and they claim it was through phishing?
Banks need to make their systems more secure. The fact that it is so easy to commit fraud through phishing is a problem.
From that wikipedia article you enjoy linking so much:
While the fact that someone is being paid to hold an opinion does not in fact affect the validity of that opinion, anyone who takes that opinion at face value is an idiot. What it affects is how thoroughly one should verify the validity of that opinion. Gowen is making a rational case to thoroughly verify the opinion, not attacking the opinion itself. One is common sense, the other is Ad Hom. If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.
Same here. Mechwarrior is one of my favorite series of all time. Would be nice to see a new title that can use all the latest hardware.
It is presumably a reference to the book, "Who Moved My Cheese?"
It is a motivational book about dealing with change, and is frequently used by managers. It's been around for a while, so it's not the next big thing.
I've always wanted an RTS that supported multiple monitors, and it would only require two. Game area on one screen, and map, unit descriptions, menu items, etc. on the other.
US Constitution
Article II, Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Are you suggesting that the President is exempt from the laws that he is required to take care be faithfully executed? That interpretation makes no sense.
Try a USB to PS2 controller adaptor.
I got myself one of these Less than 15 bucks, works like a champ.
PC gaming has never been better, best of both worlds.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
He felt that the founding fathers were also divided on this issue. He contended that the two clauses are separate, and that militia is not the only context under which we may "keep and bear". I think that we should have the right to own anything man portable, and that an armed populace is a prerequisite to a well regulated militia.
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but to my mind the right to bear arms encompasses several issues:
An armed populace is necessary to form militias to repel invasions, quell domestic disturbance, etc.
Prevention of an aristocracy, as all citizens can bear arms.
Bear arms to enforce your rights
Bear arms to overthrow an illegitimate government if necessary.
What is interesting to note is that the text says "Keep and Bear Arms". Which I would assume means both own (keep) and carry on your person (bear).
> when peering through your navel, with your head shoved far up your ass.
Now I finally understand where the term "navel gazing" comes from.
Like many others in this discussion, I have observed that women think differently than men. Not better or worse, just different, and perhaps somewhat incompatible. As science and engineering are already so male dominated, there is little incentive to modify the system to make use of women's different thinking patterns. This needs to change if there is to be any progress for women in technical fields.
My wife and I are near polar opposites in the way we think. She has an incredible ability to multi-task. It makes her very good at certain types of activities, however she doesn't have the single minded stubbornness that technical pursuits require. I however, cannot multi-task at all and if someone interrupts me, my brain seg faults.
Another observation I have made is that while I have known many women nerds; (i.e. good at science, math, engineering, what have you) I have met precious few women geeks. By geek I mean the drive to tinker with things, take things apart or break them to figure out how they work. My wife is very smart, but chooses not to become deeply technical. For her there is no emotional reward for figuring things out. (I am speaking of geek type pursuits, she is perfectly capable of exercising logic and reason.) For me there is an emotional reward for taking things apart, fixing things that are broken or generally understanding how things work. Whether this is due to societal expectations or due to brain chemistry is a study worth doing, however as others have said the political climate makes discussion of these topics difficult.
Exeept the Media Research Center is itself biased right. From their home page:
The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias -- and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.
To assume their viewpoint has any validity, you have to agree that the national media has a liberal bias. I think that this just illustrates that one needs to check the viewpoint of whatever you read, before assigning a relative merit value.
More on the MRC from Disinfopedia A well known left leaning informational site.
This undecided breaking in a 2:1 ratio theory comes from this analysis at the Mystery Pollster:
The Incumbent Rule
A good quote from the link:
Voters typically know incumbents well and have strong opinions about their performance. Challengers are less familiar and invariably fall short on straightforward comparisons of experience and (in the presidential arena) command of foreign policy. Some voters find themselves conflicted -- dissatisfied with the incumbent yet also wary of the challenger -- and may carry that uncertainty through the final days of the campaign and sometimes right into the voting booth. Among the perpetually conflicted, the attitudes about the incumbent are usually more predictive of these conflicted voters' final decision than their lingering doubts about the challenger. Thus, in the campaign's last hours, we tend to see "undecided" voters "break" for the challenger.
Statistical analysis of previous elections appears to back up this theory.
Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).
Well as a (nominal) christian it seems very unnatural to me. I am not inspired by a christian architects upbringing, nor should the American Taxpayer be required to support his religious leanings. We have a symbol for justice, and she is blind for a reason. Our courts uphold the laws of man, not god, and that's how I would like to keep it.
To be honest with you, I have considered taking up the position of eliminating the tax breaks that religions get on the grounds that giving them requires the Government to determine what is a religion vs. what is a cult. This makes the US Government the de facto and de jure arbiter of what religion is and is not, which to my mind directly contradicts the letter and spirit of the constitution. While religion plays an important societal role, it is not the governments job to promote it.
As you correctly point out there are many positive contributions that religious organizations provide, making this a hard idea to sell.