U.S. workers average more hours on the job per year than workers in any other industrialized country -- Greenies.
Time to destigmatize leisure time! Being particularly lazy, I've been watching the work phenomenon closely. When I worked at an investment bank, the analysts would routinely put in 80-100 hours per week. A paralegal friend of mine easily put in more. To no effect: they aren't going to retire earlier, they've experienced less life, and the money was eh.
Unless your job is your career (lifer entrepreneurs, artists), I don't see a problem with working 20hrs a week to live. In a resource-rich, modern and enlightened society, there shouldn't be a stigma attached to doing as little labor as possible, especially if that labor is nonessential to your interests. Of course, capitalism doesn't seem to be set up this way... but apparently it's possible to survive in an industrialized culture while doing less work, so long as you're not American:
France & Germany make do with shorter work weeks. Germans are much more productive than either the Japanese or the Americans. They don't spend their time off recuperating so that they can go back to work on Monday, which seems to be the case in the States. And, Not all of the industrialized world has the same balance of work and non-work time that we do in the US.Work Time, Free Time.
In his award-winning "Culture" books, scifi writer Iain M. Banks creates stories in a created a post-plenty universe where all physical needs are satisfied without cost. Difficult to envision, but he does a good job.
Under the truly amazing VPC 6, you can run Linux, Windows, &etc. I had submitted this story a few days ago, but it was rejected -- there's just too much Apple news lately. FWIW:
New for Mac OS X -- Virtual PC 6 from Connectix looks pretty incredible. As Wired says, "You can load DOS, Linux, OS 2, Windows 2000, 95, 98, ME, XP Home and Pro, and of course OS X and Mac OS 9. You can run any combination; RAM is the only limiting factor." Runs under MacOSX and MacOS9, though under MacOSX you can network different instances of VPC together, for filesharing or network programming. VPC 6 also allows you to "undo" -- revert to past sessions, including reboots (you can't do this in the real Windows). Apple and MacNet2 both review it warmly, and
CreativePro says: "I installed Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2 without difficulty, though the drag and drop functionality does not work in Linux." If you're upset because MS Access or MS FrontPage weren't included with Microsoft Office for the Mac, you can run them under VPC. Prices go from $80 to $200. It's also available for windows.
For the halloween party tonight, my bright idea was Undead Emeril -- a monster plastic cleaver, and an apron with BAM! written on it. And lots of blood.
Anybody have any ideas for -- or stories about -- a great Halloween costume? Something along techie lines?
With IE up, hit CMD-; to open preferences. Under "Receiving Files", select "Download Options." Note the checkboxes at the bottom of the panel: Automatically decode MacBinary files / Automatically decode BinHex files. They're both defaulted to "checked" for me.
On the Mac (and probably everywhere else) this is called "post processing" a download. iCab and OmniWeb both offer this too.
In my experience, this functionality has never been a problem, and has existed at least since 8.5 (what I got on the web with). Stuffit (like Winzip for Macs) also does this -- if you download a file like "foo.tar.gz.sit.zip.hqx" it will automatically keep decoding files until it gets to the foo file. It's a convenience, not a security breach.
Sir, I've never found Bush even remotely comparable to myself. I've worked hard all my life, I'm reasonably well-read, I care about people.
I didn't have father's friends buying $35k of stock in my company for $1m. I don't make fun of how death-row prisoners plead for their lives (Bush: "Help me! Heeellp me!"). I haven't spent 40 years as a drunk, and then lie to people and say I'm recovered (there's a video circulating the internet). I don't have people to lever me into safe positions during war (Bush got 1 of 2 remaining spots on the champaign squad, surrounded by other politician's sons. There were 10,000 other applicants for those two places, and Bush's score was the lowest possible passing grade).
Furthermore, Bush can't put himself in his shoes. He doesn't have that level of sophistication or subtlety. He goes where people tell him, and he reads what they put on the teleprompter.
Any normal president is nominally the best-informed human on the planet. He would have been processing information for 11 hours before giving a 2.5 minute speech. Any normal president would have let some information slip into the speech. It's very clear that Bush spent his 11 hours bitching and moaning that there was no workout spa or playstation.
Nobody really wants to be president, ever. Look what they did to Clinton. You become president because you feel compelled to do your part to help America. You become president because you believe you're the best option.
Of the 270 million people in America, I'm sure at least 230 million people are better qualified than Bush.
As for Bush "doing his best," if he had any real leadership ability, he would know how to lead even when there's a lack of information. When people are dying left and right, you give clear concise statements -- you don't offer platitudes and vague promises of eventual retribution.
While the secret service will make strong recommendations, Bush always has the final word on such things.
While it's not Bush's style to act independently, you're right that the CIC gets the last word. In the grand scheme of things, he's merely an asset being moved around the table. If you subscribe to the belief that Bush knows what's happening, then he knows he's a pawn too.
At least he's come to grips with the fact that women work in this country...
LOL.:) Anyway -- if I need a list of the professions of people who were killed, I'll watch Katie Couric filling dead air. What a babe. Bush's 2.5 minute address should have contained something meaningful.
FWIW -- the CNN talking heads mentioned that Bush frequently blinks back tears.
They mentioned instances where cabinet appointees, &etc., when relating the hardships of their youths during newsconferences ("I was a sharecropper...") -- Bush would be clearly moved and on the verge of tears.
We will save lives and a lot of pain if we can be mature in our assessment of our leadership.
Giuliani is a much better leader than Bush, by any measure. Bush is not effective -- this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Being mindlessly patriotic and pretending that Bush was useful will hurt America in the long term.
"Running and hiding" are okay -- the president doesn't really have a say in this. When there's an emergency, he's a pawn who is moved here and there as a show.
The real problem with Bush is much bigger. After 11 hours, Bush went on the air with his big address to the nation. He had nothing but platitudes ("We're gonna get these folks." (that was from his florida speech)) or inane lists of who was harmed, ("Firement, Police men, Business men and women, Mothers, Fathers...").
Compare and contrast with even the lowest of the elected officials in NYC. The fire commissioner was incredibly eloquent. Giuliani became the voice of the nation, answering questions and providing information.
Face it: if the president needs 2 hours of preparation to be able to read 120 words off a teleprompter, he's simply not able to communicate effectively during an emergency. Deficiencies like this usually cause delays, confusion, pain, and needless deaths.
Bush's communication problems in this context have been brought up before. He needs some more edumacation.
As I understand it, the Nostradamus quote was that the "new city in the new wold" would be destroyed by "the middle eastern prince" in the year 2000. Saw it on a PBS special about Nostradamus.
You save billions -- since you don't have to do the R&D, hire all the talent, build the factories and labs. You also have zero risk -- it's not you fighting for your life against Intel.
As for embedded processors -- you won't suffer, because Motorola accounts for a monstrous amount of those. Chances are you've used 15 motorola products today already.
As for computer chips -- Motorola has been ahead of Intel for years. No secret that risc is better than cisc. Intel chips are faster, but they're the size of a shoe-box, they sound like DC 10's, and you can saute mushrooms with their waste heat. Motorola chips are small, fanless, and you can just about run them off a clock battery. If you haven't switched already, then it can't be bothering you too much.
Re:And this is a good thing?
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I recall when when QT first came to windows.
Just after MS ripped off key Quicktime code from a 3rd party consultant (litigated, settled), it emerged that Quicktime for Windows was facing unusual, suspicious performance and compatibility problems sourced in the Windows OS itself. I believe that MS's shenanigans with QT were brought up again during the MS monopoly trial.
Apple conscientiously produces good software, so its problems on Windows weren't due necessarily from bad coding. The whole situation brings to mind how MS used incompatibilities to crush DR-DOS (and IBM to crush a chip maker before that). Of course, shortly after all this, the windows Mediaplayer made its debut.
So, going by this particular conspiracy theory, you bought into MS's crap hook, line, and sinker. Remember, Apple owns a massive chunk of hollywood because of the quality of its tools. On the one hand, MS has a good reason for helping you overlook this core fact.
On the other hand, Apple has to work overtime to produce cool new products because so many people hate the very idea of Apple's existence: they won't release substandard software if they can help it.
If it gets more than 5 hits in a day, the chip melts and the CF server mails itself to Bogota so it can forget its problems in mountains of happy dust.
For better performance than Cold Fusion, hack Apache into a gameboy and connect to local provider via a very tight string.
Flash says: "windmills,iron, steel, computers, telephones, electricity, lots of great drugs, atomic energy / bomb, rockets, you might be able to think of a few more."
Chris says: "SCIENCE didn't give us those things; ENGINEERING did."
Flash says: If you're going to go semantic on me... ENGINEERING didn't give us those things. Unskilled labor built windmills. Blacksmiths made iron. WWII codebreakers built computers. Bell built telephones. Portuguese ditch diggers would dam the Strait of Gibraltar [is this a reference to the Nazi project in Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle?].
Sorry, but academics exists for a reason. When the scientists are done exploring a new area, then the craftsmen (engineers) come in and start hitting their thumbs with hammers. That is the way it's always been.
I am aware that engineers believe they are incredibly special and full of special unique specialness. That's their perogative. They take work from science / academics, munge it up, and pass it on to other people. It's difficult and important work, sure, but I wouldn't go executing all the scientists just yet.
Thanks for pointing out GWBush's science advisor -- I was truly wondering. Based on the White House press release, it doesn't look like Bush did anything more than parrot the Kyoto accord dissenters. That is, it reads like what every conservative pundit says on the topic.
All those Republican pundits who point out how the Kyoto accord would harm the US economy are secretly hoping for the worst. They are heavily invested in life-rafts, sunscreen and sombreros.
I know for a fact that GWBush is building a big fresh-air bubble dome so his daughters will have something to breathe in the next decade. Soon I'll be able to buy into the Bush biosphere, too. I'm patenting a melanoma home treatment kit.
When science saves lives in the operating room, makes faster processors, bounces Buffy episodes off of satellites into your living room -- you believe in science. When science says something about global warming, scientists are suddenly "full of sh*t."
Here are some things science (in general) has given us:
windmills
iron, steel
computers
telephones
electricity
lots of great drugs
atomic energy / bomb
rockets
you might be able to think of a few more.
Here's one more thing 'science' would like you to consider: global warming is an issue.
On NPR there was a story about how the Kyoto accord is based on a broad study. 200 scientists throughout the world cooperated on writing it, gathering evidence. Then the paper was peer-reviewed by 200 other scientists (who live to look smart by obliterating other academics).
If you've ever seen three math professors trying to figure out how to get into a car, you know how alternately indecisive and uncooperative that sort of personality can be. 400 people of this sort agree decisively that global warming is a result of human activity, and is a serious issue. When the story goes to press, reporters call up one of the five scientists in america who don't agree with the study to get an opposing viewpoint.
It's not about FUD, politics, or whatever. GWBush says it's bad science, but he also said, "The role of the executive branch of government is to interpret law," and "I invented the word 'misunderstanding.'" And has he even assigned a science advisor yet!?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't get to the site,
/. reposts the story.
That's okay. You can try again tomorrow, when
U.S. workers average more hours on the job per year than workers in any other industrialized country -- Greenies.
Time to destigmatize leisure time! Being particularly lazy, I've been watching the work phenomenon closely. When I worked at an investment bank, the analysts would routinely put in 80-100 hours per week. A paralegal friend of mine easily put in more. To no effect: they aren't going to retire earlier, they've experienced less life, and the money was eh.
Unless your job is your career (lifer entrepreneurs, artists), I don't see a problem with working 20hrs a week to live. In a resource-rich, modern and enlightened society, there shouldn't be a stigma attached to doing as little labor as possible, especially if that labor is nonessential to your interests. Of course, capitalism doesn't seem to be set up this way... but apparently it's possible to survive in an industrialized culture while doing less work, so long as you're not American:
France & Germany make do with shorter work weeks. Germans are much more productive than either the Japanese or the Americans. They don't spend their time off recuperating so that they can go back to work on Monday, which seems to be the case in the States. And, Not all of the industrialized world has the same balance of work and non-work time that we do in the US. Work Time, Free Time.
A hasty Google search has more info on this topic.
In his award-winning "Culture" books, scifi writer Iain M. Banks creates stories in a created a post-plenty universe where all physical needs are satisfied without cost. Difficult to envision, but he does a good job.
Under the truly amazing VPC 6, you can run Linux, Windows, &etc. I had submitted this story a few days ago, but it was rejected -- there's just too much Apple news lately. FWIW:
New for Mac OS X -- Virtual PC 6 from Connectix looks pretty incredible. As Wired says, "You can load DOS, Linux, OS 2, Windows 2000, 95, 98, ME, XP Home and Pro, and of course OS X and Mac OS 9. You can run any combination; RAM is the only limiting factor." Runs under MacOSX and MacOS9, though under MacOSX you can network different instances of VPC together, for filesharing or network programming. VPC 6 also allows you to "undo" -- revert to past sessions, including reboots (you can't do this in the real Windows). Apple and MacNet2 both review it warmly, and
CreativePro says: "I installed Red Hat Linux 7.1 and 7.2 without difficulty, though the drag and drop functionality does not work in Linux." If you're upset because MS Access or MS FrontPage weren't included with Microsoft Office for the Mac, you can run them under VPC. Prices go from $80 to $200. It's also available for windows.
For the halloween party tonight, my bright idea was Undead Emeril -- a monster plastic cleaver, and an apron with BAM! written on it. And lots of blood.
Anybody have any ideas for -- or stories about -- a great Halloween costume? Something along techie lines?
Yes. I am on board now, having learned what the real problem is. Thanks!
On the Mac (and probably everywhere else) this is called "post processing" a download. iCab and OmniWeb both offer this too.
In my experience, this functionality has never been a problem, and has existed at least since 8.5 (what I got on the web with). Stuffit (like Winzip for Macs) also does this -- if you download a file like "foo.tar.gz.sit.zip.hqx" it will automatically keep decoding files until it gets to the foo file. It's a convenience, not a security breach.
Simply. This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read.
;)
Don't be so hard on yourself.
Sir, I've never found Bush even remotely comparable to myself. I've worked hard all my life, I'm reasonably well-read, I care about people.
I didn't have father's friends buying $35k of stock in my company for $1m. I don't make fun of how death-row prisoners plead for their lives (Bush: "Help me! Heeellp me!"). I haven't spent 40 years as a drunk, and then lie to people and say I'm recovered (there's a video circulating the internet). I don't have people to lever me into safe positions during war (Bush got 1 of 2 remaining spots on the champaign squad, surrounded by other politician's sons. There were 10,000 other applicants for those two places, and Bush's score was the lowest possible passing grade).
Furthermore, Bush can't put himself in his shoes. He doesn't have that level of sophistication or subtlety. He goes where people tell him, and he reads what they put on the teleprompter.
Any normal president is nominally the best-informed human on the planet. He would have been processing information for 11 hours before giving a 2.5 minute speech. Any normal president would have let some information slip into the speech. It's very clear that Bush spent his 11 hours bitching and moaning that there was no workout spa or playstation.
Nobody really wants to be president, ever. Look what they did to Clinton. You become president because you feel compelled to do your part to help America. You become president because you believe you're the best option.
Of the 270 million people in America, I'm sure at least 230 million people are better qualified than Bush.
As for Bush "doing his best," if he had any real leadership ability, he would know how to lead even when there's a lack of information. When people are dying left and right, you give clear concise statements -- you don't offer platitudes and vague promises of eventual retribution.
While the secret service will make strong recommendations, Bush always has the final word on such things.
:) Anyway -- if I need a list of the professions of people who were killed, I'll watch Katie Couric filling dead air. What a babe. Bush's 2.5 minute address should have contained something meaningful.
While it's not Bush's style to act independently, you're right that the CIC gets the last word. In the grand scheme of things, he's merely an asset being moved around the table. If you subscribe to the belief that Bush knows what's happening, then he knows he's a pawn too.
At least he's come to grips with the fact that women work in this country...
LOL.
FWIW -- the CNN talking heads mentioned that Bush frequently blinks back tears.
They mentioned instances where cabinet appointees, &etc., when relating the hardships of their youths during newsconferences ("I was a sharecropper...") -- Bush would be clearly moved and on the verge of tears.
We will save lives and a lot of pain if we can be mature in our assessment of our leadership.
Giuliani is a much better leader than Bush, by any measure. Bush is not effective -- this is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Being mindlessly patriotic and pretending that Bush was useful will hurt America in the long term.
There's a reason Bush lost the popular vote.
"Running and hiding" are okay -- the president doesn't really have a say in this. When there's an emergency, he's a pawn who is moved here and there as a show.
The real problem with Bush is much bigger. After 11 hours, Bush went on the air with his big address to the nation. He had nothing but platitudes ("We're gonna get these folks." (that was from his florida speech)) or inane lists of who was harmed, ("Firement, Police men, Business men and women, Mothers, Fathers...").
Compare and contrast with even the lowest of the elected officials in NYC. The fire commissioner was incredibly eloquent. Giuliani became the voice of the nation, answering questions and providing information.
Face it: if the president needs 2 hours of preparation to be able to read 120 words off a teleprompter, he's simply not able to communicate effectively during an emergency. Deficiencies like this usually cause delays, confusion, pain, and needless deaths.
Bush's communication problems in this context have been brought up before. He needs some more edumacation.
In support of this point is an NPR story about the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
They are governed by an international management team rather than Saddam Hussein.
For the Kurds, the oil/food swap works fine. Go into a supermarket, you can get Ben & Jerry's and pay for it with your debit card.
Only in areas managed by Saddam Hussein do you find babies dying of malnutrition.
As I understand it, the Nostradamus quote was that the "new city in the new wold" would be destroyed by "the middle eastern prince" in the year 2000. Saw it on a PBS special about Nostradamus.
Take it or leave it.
You save billions -- since you don't have to do the R&D, hire all the talent, build the factories and labs. You also have zero risk -- it's not you fighting for your life against Intel.
As for embedded processors -- you won't suffer, because Motorola accounts for a monstrous amount of those. Chances are you've used 15 motorola products today already.
As for computer chips -- Motorola has been ahead of Intel for years. No secret that risc is better than cisc. Intel chips are faster, but they're the size of a shoe-box, they sound like DC 10's, and you can saute mushrooms with their waste heat. Motorola chips are small, fanless, and you can just about run them off a clock battery. If you haven't switched already, then it can't be bothering you too much.
I recall when when QT first came to windows.
Just after MS ripped off key Quicktime code from a 3rd party consultant (litigated, settled), it emerged that Quicktime for Windows was facing unusual, suspicious performance and compatibility problems sourced in the Windows OS itself. I believe that MS's shenanigans with QT were brought up again during the MS monopoly trial.
Apple conscientiously produces good software, so its problems on Windows weren't due necessarily from bad coding. The whole situation brings to mind how MS used incompatibilities to crush DR-DOS (and IBM to crush a chip maker before that). Of course, shortly after all this, the windows Mediaplayer made its debut.
So, going by this particular conspiracy theory, you bought into MS's crap hook, line, and sinker. Remember, Apple owns a massive chunk of hollywood because of the quality of its tools. On the one hand, MS has a good reason for helping you overlook this core fact.
On the other hand, Apple has to work overtime to produce cool new products because so many people hate the very idea of Apple's existence: they won't release substandard software if they can help it.
The link shows this to be a Cold Fusion page.
If it gets more than 5 hits in a day, the chip melts and the CF server mails itself to Bogota so it can forget its problems in mountains of happy dust.
For better performance than Cold Fusion, hack Apache into a gameboy and connect to local provider via a very tight string.
Flash says: "windmills,iron, steel, computers, telephones, electricity, lots of great drugs, atomic energy / bomb, rockets, you might be able to think of a few more."
Chris says: "SCIENCE didn't give us those things; ENGINEERING did."
Flash says: If you're going to go semantic on me... ENGINEERING didn't give us those things. Unskilled labor built windmills. Blacksmiths made iron. WWII codebreakers built computers. Bell built telephones. Portuguese ditch diggers would dam the Strait of Gibraltar [is this a reference to the Nazi project in Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle?].
Sorry, but academics exists for a reason. When the scientists are done exploring a new area, then the craftsmen (engineers) come in and start hitting their thumbs with hammers. That is the way it's always been.
I am aware that engineers believe they are incredibly special and full of special unique specialness. That's their perogative. They take work from science / academics, munge it up, and pass it on to other people. It's difficult and important work, sure, but I wouldn't go executing all the scientists just yet.
Thanks for pointing out GWBush's science advisor -- I was truly wondering. Based on the White House press release, it doesn't look like Bush did anything more than parrot the Kyoto accord dissenters. That is, it reads like what every conservative pundit says on the topic.
All those Republican pundits who point out how the Kyoto accord would harm the US economy are secretly hoping for the worst. They are heavily invested in life-rafts, sunscreen and sombreros.
I know for a fact that GWBush is building a big fresh-air bubble dome so his daughters will have something to breathe in the next decade. Soon I'll be able to buy into the Bush biosphere, too. I'm patenting a melanoma home treatment kit.
Gallows humor.
When science saves lives in the operating room, makes faster processors, bounces Buffy episodes off of satellites into your living room -- you believe in science. When science says something about global warming, scientists are suddenly "full of sh*t."
Here are some things science (in general) has given us: windmills
iron, steel
computers
telephones
electricity
lots of great drugs
atomic energy / bomb
rockets
you might be able to think of a few more.
Here's one more thing 'science' would like you to consider: global warming is an issue.
On NPR there was a story about how the Kyoto accord is based on a broad study. 200 scientists throughout the world cooperated on writing it, gathering evidence. Then the paper was peer-reviewed by 200 other scientists (who live to look smart by obliterating other academics).
If you've ever seen three math professors trying to figure out how to get into a car, you know how alternately indecisive and uncooperative that sort of personality can be. 400 people of this sort agree decisively that global warming is a result of human activity, and is a serious issue. When the story goes to press, reporters call up one of the five scientists in america who don't agree with the study to get an opposing viewpoint.
It's not about FUD, politics, or whatever. GWBush says it's bad science, but he also said, "The role of the executive branch of government is to interpret law," and "I invented the word 'misunderstanding.'" And has he even assigned a science advisor yet!?