You think young Americans have early exposure to chaos theory and non-linear systems...
YES, I am sure of that. Some of the concepts of chaos theory and fractals, especially those concepts that can be vividly presented in graphics, are as well understood by today's grade schoolers as atomic theory and rocket engineering were understood by grade schoolers in the 1960s.
Can you name any grade school syllabuses which have chaos theory on them? Fractals?
Which is not to say that today's average youngster (a kid less than 40 years old) have any real grasp of these subjects. It is just that some of these concepts have influenced their world views as those views were being formed (and not as bolt-on additions, which is all that us older guys have to work with). E.g., for those under 30, that some things are fractal (self-similar at every level of scaling) has as much impact on their world view as Newton's third law. So the ancient astrology expression "as above, so below" carries more truthiness for them than it does for us older ones who grew up in a cause and effect (and nothing else) universe.
That "ancient astrology expression" is hardly well-known and obviously has zero to do with fractals. Or sanity. You are joining very far-away dots to draw this picture and it seems rather contrived. One might almost say it's totally made up. Also please explain the phrase "cause and effect (and nothing else) universe". Quantum theory allows for a non-deterministic universe but somehow I don't think you're thinking of this.
which makes them more likely to believe in astrology?
NO! I would not go that far. HOWEVER, youngsters are much less likely to dismiss astrology out of hand, since they are aware that there are other things affecting their world than just cause and effect chains. I think they are much more likely to accept that there are other forms of science (of self-consistent bodies of knowledge) than the cause and effect sciences that are all that classical western thought allows.
Astrology is not self-consistent. It's self-contradictory, provably imprecise and has no evidence to back it up. The "science"-iness of it comes from marketing by astrologers, who are either frauds or braindead morons.
So to correct you, the reason youngsters are less likely to dismiss astrology out of hand is because they're been conned by the name (it ends with "-ology") and by an industry based on people's gullibility.
No. They aren't comparable. Wikipedia has millions of pages of original content. Slashdot is news stories with discussion. Its value is in the ability of the discussion software and quality of the stories linked to.
Because those are the countries whose corrupt inefficient systems lead to bad choices? Incompetence in doing things like collecting taxes is left to go unchallenged. Money is spent on things that aren't needed because politicians are bribed. Services are unfairly provided due to nepotism.
This is actually the most insightful response. Given the utterly ludicrous comparison with Nazi Germany, Tom Perkin's comments have absolutely no merit whatsoever. Best leave this total crap alone.
Not quite. That would depend on how much address space was needed for IO. It could address 4GB minus what was needed for IO, for example graphics memory.
LogMeIn know how many free users there are. They will have seen revenues from converting free users to paid users dwindle. They have decided they do not need them anymore and they can grow their customer base without the "freemium" model. So now they can off-load bandwidth-leeching free users to TeamViewer and focus on providing an even better experience for their paying customers. TeamViewer must spend more on supporting people who have no intention of spending any money. Very astute business and the free users got all the professional service they paid for.
That would be ridiculous on several counts. First, I assume you are not saying "my god gave me these so that trumps everyone on Earth" as that would require proof that a god gave them for that argument to hold weight. The US constitutional rights are a product of US culture. Why should every other country share that same culture?
Lots of people review things for no money (me included). Finding fault is a very important aspect of any review regardless, and actually criticizing something dispels the "payola" accusation for a lot of people. I normally review mountaineering gear that I have bought and used, and my aim is to give a review that I'd have found useful myself. Are the pockets too small on a jacket? Are the boots badly fitting at the heel? Is the compass able to withstand a knock or two? (no it wasn't...!)
You don't see a problem with this? People need to know that some books are not worth buying to save wasting their money. They also need to know what the bad bits of books are, rather than just reading that, hey, everything is OK. To what do we compare your view with to work out what "good" means? Let me give you an example. I ride a bike. I used to get a commercial magazine that would have cycling gear reviews. Bad products would be marked out as such. Now I don't get that magazine anymore but as a member of a cycling organization I get their in-house magazine. It too has gear reviews but as it is a large charitable organization they are trying hard not to be too negative, perhaps because to avoid upsetting a manufacturer. They feel they can take fewer risks than a commercial publication. Whatever the reason, the reviews are useless. Bad point for a piece of gear are kind of papered over and a piece of gear that is only suitable for about 5 people is "OK for some". The biting criticism is missing. This means reviews lack teeth, or at least a reference point. When they review a cycle helmet they will say "this is a good product because it will protect your head". Er, great. And this is better at protecting my head than other helmets...why?
So some may ask "what style of writing does Ben Rothke find poor?" and we'll never know. Some may ask "so what layout of information in a book does Ben Rothke consider confusing?" and we'll never know. One thing is for sure I shan't be bothering to buy the books to find out because there's no incentive from reading these reviews. You realize there are squillions of similar "hey make great content" books out there, right? How does this book fit in with those? Don't know? Then what does your review tell us when we're trying to choose the best one? Think about the cycle helmet example for a second.
!?! Non sequitur, surely? The book is written for organizations.
Most organizations who are in a position to enact this stuff (SMEs and upwards) actually do do this already. You can say "oh if they do it then it must be good advice" but it's just obvious. Involve stakeholders early? Well blow me down with a feather. Who would guess that (say) the lead technical documentation writer in my organization might want to be involved early in a website rewrite that involved new docs for our software?
You know what a book is, right? Well a book review is a review of a book. And you know what anodyne is, right? Well an anodyne book review is a book review that is anodyne. And just in case you don't know what anodyne is: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anodyne
Many many professionals long ago abandoned Flash as it became easier to make "pretty" websites with useful dynamic content without it. It was always a nasty piece of technology to work with. So why does the reviewer mention it? Maybe because he's hardly an expert in this field himself? Take this quote: "You will likely find the sites you intuitively return to coincidentally happened to be those very sites that have done it right and have the content you want. "...no shit Sherlock. As if we weren't saying this 15 years ago.
Truth is Ben Rothke writes anodyne book reviews as evidenced by:
I might write some half-conceived ideas and submit them for review and maybe I too can have a "great resource" of my very own? (P.S. Ben - the SEO boost here is free! But I am making it possible to Google for "Ben Rothke underwear scandal" in return)
The first few thousand all signed up within a day or so of each other in this valiant effort to combat trolls IIRC. I actually thought it would work too. Hahaha.
Slashdot Mirror
You think young Americans have early exposure to chaos theory and non-linear systems...
YES, I am sure of that. Some of the concepts of chaos theory and fractals, especially those concepts that can be vividly presented in graphics, are as well understood by today's grade schoolers as atomic theory and rocket engineering were understood by grade schoolers in the 1960s.
Can you name any grade school syllabuses which have chaos theory on them? Fractals?
Which is not to say that today's average youngster (a kid less than 40 years old) have any real grasp of these subjects. It is just that some of these concepts have influenced their world views as those views were being formed (and not as bolt-on additions, which is all that us older guys have to work with). E.g., for those under 30, that some things are fractal (self-similar at every level of scaling) has as much impact on their world view as Newton's third law. So the ancient astrology expression "as above, so below" carries more truthiness for them than it does for us older ones who grew up in a cause and effect (and nothing else) universe.
That "ancient astrology expression" is hardly well-known and obviously has zero to do with fractals. Or sanity. You are joining very far-away dots to draw this picture and it seems rather contrived. One might almost say it's totally made up.
Also please explain the phrase "cause and effect (and nothing else) universe". Quantum theory allows for a non-deterministic universe but somehow I don't think you're thinking of this.
which makes them more likely to believe in astrology?
NO! I would not go that far. HOWEVER, youngsters are much less likely to dismiss astrology out of hand, since they are aware that there are other things affecting their world than just cause and effect chains. I think they are much more likely to accept that there are other forms of science (of self-consistent bodies of knowledge) than the cause and effect sciences that are all that classical western thought allows.
Astrology is not self-consistent. It's self-contradictory, provably imprecise and has no evidence to back it up. The "science"-iness of it comes from marketing by astrologers, who are either frauds or braindead morons.
So to correct you, the reason youngsters are less likely to dismiss astrology out of hand is because they're been conned by the name (it ends with "-ology") and by an industry based on people's gullibility.
You think young Americans have early exposure to chaos theory and non-linear systems which makes them more likely to believe in astrology?
Taxes. The best bit about this is the tax the public pay for that health care ends up less than the money the public pay for the insurance.
No. They aren't comparable. Wikipedia has millions of pages of original content. Slashdot is news stories with discussion. Its value is in the ability of the discussion software and quality of the stories linked to.
It's just a news site. There are loads of others. Calm down.
Because those are the countries whose corrupt inefficient systems lead to bad choices?
Incompetence in doing things like collecting taxes is left to go unchallenged. Money is spent on things that aren't needed because politicians are bribed. Services are unfairly provided due to nepotism.
Would love to know what your thoughts are on this then: http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news...
This says a lot:
http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news...
In translation: the Bletchley Park Trust are doing over the National Museum of Computing.
This is why we write filters though. This is not a unique problem to Slashdot and is solved elsewhere. That is the most annoying thing.
Then again given how badly the sites works on my mobile device, perhaps I should expect poor engineering throughout? :-(
This is a real BBC report. They were filming in the real Bletchley Park. That's definitely the real Jeremy Cooke.
This is actually the most insightful response. Given the utterly ludicrous comparison with Nazi Germany, Tom Perkin's comments have absolutely no merit whatsoever. Best leave this total crap alone.
Oops silly me. I assumed Slashdot code was written at some point in the last 10 years and might have UTF-8 support.
Î'ν ÏÎ ÏÎÏ...ÎΠήÏαν ÎÎÎÎÎ Îα ήμαÏfÏαν ÎÎÎΠμÎÏ...ÏfÎÎή.
Not quite. That would depend on how much address space was needed for IO. It could address 4GB minus what was needed for IO, for example graphics memory.
LogMeIn know how many free users there are. They will have seen revenues from converting free users to paid users dwindle. They have decided they do not need them anymore and they can grow their customer base without the "freemium" model.
So now they can off-load bandwidth-leeching free users to TeamViewer and focus on providing an even better experience for their paying customers. TeamViewer must spend more on supporting people who have no intention of spending any money.
Very astute business and the free users got all the professional service they paid for.
That would be ridiculous on several counts. First, I assume you are not saying "my god gave me these so that trumps everyone on Earth" as that would require proof that a god gave them for that argument to hold weight.
The US constitutional rights are a product of US culture. Why should every other country share that same culture?
Lots of people review things for no money (me included). Finding fault is a very important aspect of any review regardless, and actually criticizing something dispels the "payola" accusation for a lot of people.
I normally review mountaineering gear that I have bought and used, and my aim is to give a review that I'd have found useful myself. Are the pockets too small on a jacket? Are the boots badly fitting at the heel? Is the compass able to withstand a knock or two? (no it wasn't...!)
You don't see a problem with this? People need to know that some books are not worth buying to save wasting their money. They also need to know what the bad bits of books are, rather than just reading that, hey, everything is OK. To what do we compare your view with to work out what "good" means?
Let me give you an example. I ride a bike. I used to get a commercial magazine that would have cycling gear reviews. Bad products would be marked out as such. Now I don't get that magazine anymore but as a member of a cycling organization I get their in-house magazine. It too has gear reviews but as it is a large charitable organization they are trying hard not to be too negative, perhaps because to avoid upsetting a manufacturer. They feel they can take fewer risks than a commercial publication.
Whatever the reason, the reviews are useless. Bad point for a piece of gear are kind of papered over and a piece of gear that is only suitable for about 5 people is "OK for some". The biting criticism is missing. This means reviews lack teeth, or at least a reference point. When they review a cycle helmet they will say "this is a good product because it will protect your head". Er, great. And this is better at protecting my head than other helmets...why?
So some may ask "what style of writing does Ben Rothke find poor?" and we'll never know. Some may ask "so what layout of information in a book does Ben Rothke consider confusing?" and we'll never know. One thing is for sure I shan't be bothering to buy the books to find out because there's no incentive from reading these reviews.
You realize there are squillions of similar "hey make great content" books out there, right? How does this book fit in with those? Don't know? Then what does your review tell us when we're trying to choose the best one? Think about the cycle helmet example for a second.
!?! Non sequitur, surely? The book is written for organizations.
Most organizations who are in a position to enact this stuff (SMEs and upwards) actually do do this already. You can say "oh if they do it then it must be good advice" but it's just obvious.
Involve stakeholders early? Well blow me down with a feather. Who would guess that (say) the lead technical documentation writer in my organization might want to be involved early in a website rewrite that involved new docs for our software?
True. The rest of it was about stating the obvious however, so maybe no one felt obliged to comment on it?
I do mean Ben Rothke underwear scandal. :)
That's precisely it. You get two gold stars!
You know what a book is, right? Well a book review is a review of a book. And you know what anodyne is, right? Well an anodyne book review is a book review that is anodyne.
And just in case you don't know what anodyne is: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=anodyne
Many many professionals long ago abandoned Flash as it became easier to make "pretty" websites with useful dynamic content without it. It was always a nasty piece of technology to work with.
So why does the reviewer mention it? Maybe because he's hardly an expert in this field himself?
Take this quote: "You will likely find the sites you intuitively return to coincidentally happened to be those very sites that have done it right and have the content you want. "...no shit Sherlock. As if we weren't saying this 15 years ago.
Truth is Ben Rothke writes anodyne book reviews as evidenced by:
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/465/rothke/job-reconnaissance-using-hacking-skills-to-win-the-job-hunt-game
"...a great resource to help you get there."
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/451/rothke/digital-forensics-processing-and-procedures-meeting-the-requirements-of-iso-17020-iso-17025-iso-27001-and-best-practice-requirements
"...will prove to be an invaluable resource."
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/449/rothke/information-security-governance-simplified-from-the-boardroom-to-the-keyboard
"...a great resource."
http://www.rsaconference.com/blogs/444/rothke/fisma-compliance-handbook
"...a great resource to use."
I might write some half-conceived ideas and submit them for review and maybe I too can have a "great resource" of my very own?
(P.S. Ben - the SEO boost here is free! But I am making it possible to Google for "Ben Rothke underwear scandal" in return)
I kind of miss the hot grits and petrified Natalie Portman. Kind of. I also miss chicken pox.
The first few thousand all signed up within a day or so of each other in this valiant effort to combat trolls IIRC. I actually thought it would work too. Hahaha.