Copying is ALREADY legal, irrespective of the levy. This is the biggest problem with the levy.
Downloading music is NOT illegal. Uploading music IS illegal. Leaving the music sitting around with your file sharing client open is NOT illegal, because you're not actively giving it to someone. It's murky and weird.
If there was a levy on bullets so that we compensated the families of victims of gun crimes, it wouldn't make shooting people legal.
This is one of MANY reasons why the levy is a terrible idea. It gives people the idea that copyright infringement is now both legal and, to an extent, moral. If they've paid up front, why NOT download music?
I pay for all my music. The music has value to me. To charge ME a levy is the height of bad planning. Why should I bother paying for my music in a normal way (like the iTunes music store, for instance) if I've kind of already paid for it through this device tax?
It's a poorly thought out system. I'm all for compensating artists (obviously, if I'm the kind of person that pays for the music at a time where it's so easily acquired for free), but there has to be a better way than over-charging people like me, and under-charging those that download indiscriminately. It's a money grab for an industry and system that are antiquated.
Canada ran budget surpluses for something like THIRTEEN consecutive years. (It ended a few years into a Conservative government. Hmm.)
We have a single payer system. It's not perfect, but I've never been refused service. Our taxes are a bit higher, too. But our overall debt-load is much lower, so the interest payments on the debt aren't crushing us. Even now, when we're on the cusp of having the worst budget deficit in history, our debt is only 53% of GDP. Britain: 103%. USA: 122%. The per-capita debt burden of a Canadian is HALF that of an American.
It's not a perfect system, but I submit that it is a BETTER system. It's a more CONSERVATIVE system. Ultimately, it's a freer system, too. You don't worry about losing your coverage when you leave a job; that keeps your workforce mobile and in control of their own fate. You don't have to worry about your family. People don't worry about going to the doctor and getting treatment instead of wandering around the office spreading disease.
In the American system, a few people get really rich on the backs of people that don't deserve to be treated poorly, and some people can't get or can't afford coverage, so they get sick and end up a burden on their families and a drag on the economy. It is in everyone's best interest to have a healthy populace.
In any case, I hope you guys work it out. I'm sick of worrying about my American friends.
Actually, the cost will only be about $100k for each unit.
In the interview, they say that it should cost about $3000 for someone to buy one for their back yard. That's for the 2-stack American model. Assuming the cost scales linearly (it'll probably actually work out better than that), and that they use 64 stacks for one box at Google, that's $3000 * 32 = $96000. (I'm multiplying by 32 because it's $3000 for two stacks, remember. In before 'u did ur math rong'.)
For 5 units, that's only $400,000, and they'll make back the cost in only 3 years.
These early-adopter units are going to be expensive, and that's just the way it is. Google and eBay will write those off 5 ways from Sunday, claim that they're saving the planet, and recoup the rest of the money in good will and feeling good about themselves.
At my University (University of Alberta), the department is 'Computing Science'. The science of COMPUTING, not computers. The distinction is subtle, but important, as you're noting. 'Computational' science isn't a bad description, though.
It is true that it is a difficult language to learn (and even more to master!)
I would argue that it's impossible to "master", and that the people who have come closest are the people who deliberately limit themselves to a subset of C++. I mean, someone even proved the template declaration system itself is Turing-complete. Contrast to C, which is almost simple enough for the syntax to be taught on the back of a napkin.
I remember about 8 years ago, there was some excitement because someone finally proved that the language specification didn't have a bad recursion in it somewhere, and it was, in fact, possible to write a parser that fully encompassed the full specification.
8 years ago! This language has been around for an awfully long time for them to only just discover that it wasn't BROKEN.
This is why C++ ends up so non-portable. Different companies implement different parts of the specification based on what they think is most important. And we're talking about really smart people here. Say what you want about Microsoft, they've got a bunch of clever dudes working there and an awful lot in the way of resources, and even THEY weren't implementing the full specification.
And Templates, well, like you said, they're a Turing complete language in and of themselves. Ultimately, they're an answer to a question that should NEVER HAVE BEEN ASKED. It's a patch bolted onto the side of C++. Ask even a hard-core C++ fan and they'll admit that a number of the things really interesting about the language are DISCOVERED. They weren't planned, they just cropped up.
The language is brutal. Nobody leverages the whole thing because it's well nigh on impossible, and ultimately unnecessary. I work in the games industry and nobody uses the really esoteric parts of the language. We stick to a well known subset of the language because it's easiest to maintain and modify.
A friend of mine once said that because the core tenet of C++ is that you don't pay for anything you don't use, ultimately, there's nothing worth paying for.
I've always considered it this way: if your algorithm needs to be analysed for its complexity, it's too complicated. Trash it, start over.
Until you're actually in a position where you need optimisation done, you should be able to quickly identify only a few classes of algorithms: O(n), O(n^2), > O(n^2), O(n^2). In general, anything worse than O(n^2) needs to be rewritten and anything better can be kept. That's it. The higher level compartmentalization will get you pretty far.
After that, only optimise what's necessary. Early optimisation is the root of all evil. ie., If you don't know what's slow and what's not, don't fix things arbitrarily. Figure out what's slow FIRST, then fix THAT. Local maxima in limited instances aren't as important as fine tuning code that's called more often.
To return to the original question, Computing Science (and that's a term I consider important; this is the science of COMPUTING, not COMPUTERS. I can do my computing and algorithmics on a piece of paper if I need to) as taught formally is about forming the basis of what's important to think about. You say you're a physicist, so I'm sure you can understand what I'm talking about on a more general level. There are details and minutia that are important to know very rarely, but you can make jumps and generalisations more quickly because you've learned those details and techniques.
So, if you want to fill in your knowledge gap, I'd pick up three things:
1) a book on general algorithmics. It doesn't have to be big or complicated. Some familiarity with complexity is essential; 2) a book on programming languages. Not *A* language, but one that talks about languages in general; and 3) a book on design. Whether it's a book on UI design specifically, or Donald Norman's 'The Design of Everyday Things' is largely irrelevant. What's important here is that you learn how to think of usability in a fundamental sense. Most CS grads can't even do this, and I think it's a giant waste.
That's the short version, anyway. I suppose there's no replacement for a full education, though. You're not going to be able to fill in a degree's worth of knowledge without doing a degree's worth of work.
I'm surprised that none of the comments that I've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent, which is 16, as it is in many other western nations.
I'll wait for you to think about this briefly....
Right, so it's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex, or DRAW a 16 year old having sex, but it's 100% legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.
They can consent to the ACT, but they can't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.
Even worse, with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal, depending on how young they look, it means that it's possible that you'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts, but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister. (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/)
Asking someone out with no prior indication of interest is obnoxious. It's not sexist, but it's annoying.
Now, if dozens of guys are asking you out, just because you happen to share a common interest with them, the level of obnoxiousness goes up.
Interestingly, most straight guys find even ONE gay man finding them interesting and maybe asking them out tremendously offensive and inappropriate (maybe you don't and just wave it off or accept or whatever -- I don't know anything about you!) but it's easy to find stories about that sort of thing.
If you joined a FOSS project and found out that 98.5% of the programmers were gay and they were constantly hitting on you or making racy remarks that made you uncomfortable, would you be so sanguine, I wonder? Maybe you would. Most guys would quit in frustration.
Unwanted attention is a pain in the ass. I admit, I'm not subject to it (I'm a straight guy, and reality, unlike my example, is not 98.5% gay guys), but my partner often is. She steps carefully and minds what she says, lest she make people think she's more interested than she is, and unintentionally leave herself open to unwanted attention.
The main differences are the point of the websites. People are more likely to go to Microsoft's site for support, not to buy and compare things. People are more apt to go to Apple's site who are curious about its site and purchase something. While Apple does have good support on its website, it only has a few product lines, not a ton of products like MS.
I'm not going to argue with you, per se, but it seems like Apple should have MORE to sell, shouldn't they? I mean, they've got hardware AND software. They've got an OS and iLife and various pro applications. They even sell THIRD PARTY hardware and software on their site. Their online store is just like one of their retail stores. How many products does Microsoft have that they're having trouble keeping their product-line and sales site cohesive?
1) Private copying, as other people have mentioned, is legal. That is, if a friend loans you a CD, you may make a private copy for yourself. They may not, however, make a copy for you.
2) The levy doesn't change the legality of 1) in any way. It doesn't become more illegal or less illegal. As an analogy, imagine that a levy of $500 per bullet was made to compensate next of kin in gun related murders and accidents. The levy doesn't make killing people any more legal, it's just a levy. It's just a way to take a LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' money. People that behave illegally don't care about the levies and profit (or commit evil, however you want to define those terms) beyond the cost imposed on them by the government.
It's a money grab. It's ALWAYS been a money grab. There are artist organizations -- with popular, highly regarded artists -- that oppose the new copyright bills that make it harder for Canadians to enjoy the music that they've legally purchased for themselves. Even if the music has been acquired some other way, many of these artists agree that exposure is more important than making a dollar on each song. Eventually, they'll make the money that they deserve to make, whether that's through touring or donation or what have you.
My iPhone is largely filled with music that I paid for. I have my own reasons for paying for music instead of torrenting it. I feel I've made the right decision, and I don't think that I deserve to be penalized because other people make different decisions. I don't think draconian copyright law and stealing money out of people's pockets is the answer.
The solution is obviously just to write more. I don't write because I have anything to say, I actually just like the physical sensation of putting pen to paper. I like seeing the letters that I leave behind, and I've learned to enjoy my handwriting and make it aesthetic, at least to my own eye. I prefer blank, unlined pages, and a nice gel-ink pen. I've got a leather bound notebook, and while I have nothing at all as interesting to put in it as the great scientists and inventors of years past, I feel like there's a small connection there.
I've never had a problem with spelling, regardless of the medium. Spelling (and reading) were valued extremely highly in my household when I was growing up. My Dad would point out spelling errors in published works with great amusement, and he usually had 2 or 3 books on the go, as well as a magazine and the daily newspaper. In other words, it was an environment of attention to detail with regards to written words.
I've got a lot of muscle memory when it comes to typing; I switched to dvorak about 10 years ago. Looking at the keyboard makes things much harder, so I rely on my muscle memory to get me through the day. In the end, you have to think about the words that you're typing as you type them. It sounds to me like you may be focussed on things at a higher level, ie., the sentence. Slow down a bit and I'm sure it'll come back to you.
Okay, so what I've been able to gather, netbooks are either small machines that aren't very powerful, but make up for it with portability and runtime, or normal sized laptops that are super super cheap and have no other advantages over a regular laptop.
If the latter is the case, why not just call them 'cheap laptops'?
I don't have a netbook, but I understand why you'd want a 7" screen in a super-portable format. As a former sysadmin, that sort of tool would be invaluable. Once you start getting up to 11.6", the utility seems to fall through the floor.
I can't remember the department (or even the professor:P ) but there's a Physics department (Harvard's, perhaps?) where tenure is given if and ONLY if you've created a new field of study. The professor I'm thinking of has a particle or some such thing named after him, and he STILL can't get tenure.
It was published in Scientific American a while back, but I don't have the magazine nearby to check.
Professors want to spend their time researching, not teaching. Most professors didn't get into their fields to teach.
Part of the problem is the question of whether a University is an institution of learning, or an institution of *knowledge creation*. I actually think that the ultimate goal of any University is to produce people capable of CREATING knowledge, rather than just absorbing it. I can teach a dog tricks, but can the dog synthesize their own?
University is a place where a lot of the learning is incumbent on the student; the professor is merely the master of the subject that you can ask questions of.
Most professors don't have education degrees.
Honestly, possibly the hardest lesson of University for me was realizing that I was responsible for my education and learning, and everyone else was just a prop. I nearly failed out learning it.
There's basically one University (and only one) that trains Optometry students in Canada, and that's the University of Waterloo.
If you don't get into U Waterloo, you can apply to go to an American university.
Nearly 100% of the students that study optometry in the US and come back that try to take the certification exam fail. Almost none of the U Waterloo students do.
To be fair, though, big Universities have problems regardless of country. I've seen students literally unable to understand how 2/4 reduces to 1/2 in a University philosophy class. I understand philosophy isn't the sort of thing where you need a lot of math, but come ON.
The only thing I object to in general in education is the reliance on testing to determine if someone knows something. It's more important to be able to leverage and use information than to regurgitate it. If it's actually important, you'll remember it. Tests are the easy way out for too many professors; I think projects, open book exams and papers are the way to go. Tests are as much a test of biology (I don't have a great memory for exams, which is at least in part a biological limitation) as a test of 'intelligence'. I've also known frightfully stupid people that are great on exams because they're so skilled at memorization.:/
If you go to these places, teachers are held in reverence. Giving your teacher or professor gifts is something that you do out of utmost respect. My Mother was born and schooled in Singapore, and believe me when I say that I was driven and put under enormous pressure to do well in school by her. Getting a 'B' was a catastrophe. Getting an 'A' was adequate.
A friend of mine taught English (at the University level) in Korea, and she says the same thing. The students there practically deify teachers -- not even just THEIR teachers. At some point one person accidentally insulted her by insinuating she was a Russian prostitute (long story, suffice to say, Russian prostitutes aren't actually uncommon in Korea for some reason) and was practically crying when he found out she was a professor later and went to apologize to her.
Culturally, there's a massive difference. The people that come to North America are driven to succeed, yes, but it holds even for families that have been here for a couple generations.
You're asking an impossible task; the burden of proof is on the person trying to claim there IS a difference between the races. Proving a negative can't be done. It's why you can't PROVE the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
I agree in general with your statement, though. Hitler made the trains run on time, and he was apparently quite the military strategist (at least until he decided that a two front war involving Russia in the winter was a grand idea.) If he had been wrong about absolutely everything, he wouldn't have been able to do any of the terrible things he did.:/
AND both the US and Canada have jurisdictions (Quebec and Louisiana, I believe) that work off the French code, which ISN'T a common law system. Such a serious pain.
Because, frankly, if people are smart, they'll take the money and put it in their bank accounts and wait for everything to blow over. The only problem is that it won't blow over if they wait and don't spend.
It's the problem with living in a heavily consumer-driven society.
There's a time for people to save, and a time for people to spend. You SAVE when you have a bit of extra money. Sure, spend a bit of it as well, but sock away some for a rainy day, because a rainy day will surely come at some point. People overspent when they actually had NO money, so now they're in a big hole. Giving them taxbreaks right now will certainly mean that money goes to paying off debts.
This stimulus -- in my mind -- will partly kick free of the people that can't help you right now. You make sure that they've got roads to drive on and healthcare and all the things they need while they work and pay off their debts and return to solvency. Meanwhile, you've gotten some other people to come in and do some (necessary, hopefully) work. Now they have a bit of extra cash that they can spend.
The Economy is part psych experiment. To get people to spend, you need them to feel that they've got enough MARGIN to spend their money. They need to feel that their house is worth something, their job is secure, and that their investments or retirement fund or whatever is safe and growing. Without those requirements being met, people squirrel away their money because even the most short sighted of them realize that they're gonna need SOMETHING to live on in the future.
Actually, this is still logically intractable. The best you can do is run it and wait for it to fail. If it doesn't fail, all you've shown is that...it didn't happen to fail. That isn't to say that it WOULDN'T have failed if you had run it for one more cycle, just that in your test space, you didn't get it to fail.
Short form: try to prove that something DOESN'T fail is trying to prove a negative, which doesn't work.
This is what you were getting at, obviously. I just wanted to clear it up for other people.:)
Your comment about identity theft got me thinking:
Is it harder to steal someone's identity when it's well known to be theirs?
I mean, if my picture is on the internet, and everyone knows my full name and basically where I live and what I do for a living, how easy is it for someone to come and steal my identity in a way that I can't refute? Instead of spending years untangling the thread and trying to convince the legal system that *I'm* me, and someone else ISN'T, maybe I can just point to the preponderance of evidence that I am who I say I am.
Is this the same sort of thing that we strive for with using OSS in voting machines? By exposing everything, have we actually tightened security? If my SIN (or SSN) is available on the internet on my facebook page, next to all those pictures of me from the time I was 8 years old to the present, does anyone really have a hope of stealing my identity?
I suppose identity theft normally works by stealing essential bits of your identity and using them from the shadows, but in a system where a bright light is shone on all the little dark spots, would it be possible anymore? Hmm.
(I do, actually, understand the desire for privacy for certain things; the adage that if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't worry is retarded. The next time someone asks that of you, ask how many times a week they have sex, or what the results of their last prostate exam was. Just because there's nothing illegal or actually embarrassing about the information doesn't mean that it isn't worth keeping secret.)
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I used to read the Opera newsgroups. They've got their own newsserver and everything, and those guys really know their stuff. I don't know anything about the IRC client, but if you go on their forums, you're sure to find what you're looking for. Hope that helps.
No, you do sound like a fanboi. I don't care about adblock. Ads just don't bother me in the least. I actually can't stand Firefox. There are enough things that are annoying about it that I only use it on occasionally for compatibility reasons. Actually, make that 'used'. I'm using Chrome right now as my 'compatibility' browser. I'm still using Opera on Windows as my main browser. I use Safari on my Mac, because Opera sucks for OS X.:/ (Similarly, Safari sucks on Windows.:/)
Slashdot Mirror
Copying is ALREADY legal, irrespective of the levy. This is the biggest problem with the levy.
Downloading music is NOT illegal. Uploading music IS illegal. Leaving the music sitting around with your file sharing client open is NOT illegal, because you're not actively giving it to someone. It's murky and weird.
If there was a levy on bullets so that we compensated the families of victims of gun crimes, it wouldn't make shooting people legal.
This is one of MANY reasons why the levy is a terrible idea. It gives people the idea that copyright infringement is now both legal and, to an extent, moral. If they've paid up front, why NOT download music?
I pay for all my music. The music has value to me. To charge ME a levy is the height of bad planning. Why should I bother paying for my music in a normal way (like the iTunes music store, for instance) if I've kind of already paid for it through this device tax?
It's a poorly thought out system. I'm all for compensating artists (obviously, if I'm the kind of person that pays for the music at a time where it's so easily acquired for free), but there has to be a better way than over-charging people like me, and under-charging those that download indiscriminately. It's a money grab for an industry and system that are antiquated.
Canada ran budget surpluses for something like THIRTEEN consecutive years. (It ended a few years into a Conservative government. Hmm.)
We have a single payer system. It's not perfect, but I've never been refused service. Our taxes are a bit higher, too. But our overall debt-load is much lower, so the interest payments on the debt aren't crushing us. Even now, when we're on the cusp of having the worst budget deficit in history, our debt is only 53% of GDP. Britain: 103%. USA: 122%. The per-capita debt burden of a Canadian is HALF that of an American.
It's not a perfect system, but I submit that it is a BETTER system. It's a more CONSERVATIVE system. Ultimately, it's a freer system, too. You don't worry about losing your coverage when you leave a job; that keeps your workforce mobile and in control of their own fate. You don't have to worry about your family. People don't worry about going to the doctor and getting treatment instead of wandering around the office spreading disease.
In the American system, a few people get really rich on the backs of people that don't deserve to be treated poorly, and some people can't get or can't afford coverage, so they get sick and end up a burden on their families and a drag on the economy. It is in everyone's best interest to have a healthy populace.
In any case, I hope you guys work it out. I'm sick of worrying about my American friends.
Hah, nice. I did my math right and THEN wrong. Well done, me! :)
Either way, the basis is correct; just add another 9 months to it. :)
Actually, the cost will only be about $100k for each unit.
In the interview, they say that it should cost about $3000 for someone to buy one for their back yard. That's for the 2-stack American model. Assuming the cost scales linearly (it'll probably actually work out better than that), and that they use 64 stacks for one box at Google, that's $3000 * 32 = $96000. (I'm multiplying by 32 because it's $3000 for two stacks, remember. In before 'u did ur math rong'.)
For 5 units, that's only $400,000, and they'll make back the cost in only 3 years.
These early-adopter units are going to be expensive, and that's just the way it is. Google and eBay will write those off 5 ways from Sunday, claim that they're saving the planet, and recoup the rest of the money in good will and feeling good about themselves.
At my University (University of Alberta), the department is 'Computing Science'. The science of COMPUTING, not computers. The distinction is subtle, but important, as you're noting. 'Computational' science isn't a bad description, though.
It is true that it is a difficult language to learn (and even more to master!)
I would argue that it's impossible to "master", and that the people who have come closest are the people who deliberately limit themselves to a subset of C++. I mean, someone even proved the template declaration system itself is Turing-complete. Contrast to C, which is almost simple enough for the syntax to be taught on the back of a napkin.
I remember about 8 years ago, there was some excitement because someone finally proved that the language specification didn't have a bad recursion in it somewhere, and it was, in fact, possible to write a parser that fully encompassed the full specification.
8 years ago! This language has been around for an awfully long time for them to only just discover that it wasn't BROKEN.
This is why C++ ends up so non-portable. Different companies implement different parts of the specification based on what they think is most important. And we're talking about really smart people here. Say what you want about Microsoft, they've got a bunch of clever dudes working there and an awful lot in the way of resources, and even THEY weren't implementing the full specification.
And Templates, well, like you said, they're a Turing complete language in and of themselves. Ultimately, they're an answer to a question that should NEVER HAVE BEEN ASKED. It's a patch bolted onto the side of C++. Ask even a hard-core C++ fan and they'll admit that a number of the things really interesting about the language are DISCOVERED. They weren't planned, they just cropped up.
The language is brutal. Nobody leverages the whole thing because it's well nigh on impossible, and ultimately unnecessary. I work in the games industry and nobody uses the really esoteric parts of the language. We stick to a well known subset of the language because it's easiest to maintain and modify.
A friend of mine once said that because the core tenet of C++ is that you don't pay for anything you don't use, ultimately, there's nothing worth paying for.
I've always considered it this way: if your algorithm needs to be analysed for its complexity, it's too complicated. Trash it, start over.
Until you're actually in a position where you need optimisation done, you should be able to quickly identify only a few classes of algorithms: O(n), O(n^2), > O(n^2), O(n^2). In general, anything worse than O(n^2) needs to be rewritten and anything better can be kept. That's it. The higher level compartmentalization will get you pretty far.
After that, only optimise what's necessary. Early optimisation is the root of all evil. ie., If you don't know what's slow and what's not, don't fix things arbitrarily. Figure out what's slow FIRST, then fix THAT. Local maxima in limited instances aren't as important as fine tuning code that's called more often.
To return to the original question, Computing Science (and that's a term I consider important; this is the science of COMPUTING, not COMPUTERS. I can do my computing and algorithmics on a piece of paper if I need to) as taught formally is about forming the basis of what's important to think about. You say you're a physicist, so I'm sure you can understand what I'm talking about on a more general level. There are details and minutia that are important to know very rarely, but you can make jumps and generalisations more quickly because you've learned those details and techniques.
So, if you want to fill in your knowledge gap, I'd pick up three things:
1) a book on general algorithmics. It doesn't have to be big or complicated. Some familiarity with complexity is essential;
2) a book on programming languages. Not *A* language, but one that talks about languages in general; and
3) a book on design. Whether it's a book on UI design specifically, or Donald Norman's 'The Design of Everyday Things' is largely irrelevant. What's important here is that you learn how to think of usability in a fundamental sense. Most CS grads can't even do this, and I think it's a giant waste.
That's the short version, anyway. I suppose there's no replacement for a full education, though. You're not going to be able to fill in a degree's worth of knowledge without doing a degree's worth of work.
I'm surprised that none of the comments that I've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent, which is 16, as it is in many other western nations.
I'll wait for you to think about this briefly. ...
Right, so it's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex, or DRAW a 16 year old having sex, but it's 100% legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.
They can consent to the ACT, but they can't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.
Even worse, with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal, depending on how young they look, it means that it's possible that you'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts, but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister.
(http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/)
How's THAT for internal consistency?
Asking someone out with no prior indication of interest is obnoxious. It's not sexist, but it's annoying.
Now, if dozens of guys are asking you out, just because you happen to share a common interest with them, the level of obnoxiousness goes up.
Interestingly, most straight guys find even ONE gay man finding them interesting and maybe asking them out tremendously offensive and inappropriate (maybe you don't and just wave it off or accept or whatever -- I don't know anything about you!) but it's easy to find stories about that sort of thing.
If you joined a FOSS project and found out that 98.5% of the programmers were gay and they were constantly hitting on you or making racy remarks that made you uncomfortable, would you be so sanguine, I wonder? Maybe you would. Most guys would quit in frustration.
Unwanted attention is a pain in the ass. I admit, I'm not subject to it (I'm a straight guy, and reality, unlike my example, is not 98.5% gay guys), but my partner often is. She steps carefully and minds what she says, lest she make people think she's more interested than she is, and unintentionally leave herself open to unwanted attention.
The main differences are the point of the websites. People are more likely to go to Microsoft's site for support, not to buy and compare things. People are more apt to go to Apple's site who are curious about its site and purchase something. While Apple does have good support on its website, it only has a few product lines, not a ton of products like MS.
I'm not going to argue with you, per se, but it seems like Apple should have MORE to sell, shouldn't they? I mean, they've got hardware AND software. They've got an OS and iLife and various pro applications. They even sell THIRD PARTY hardware and software on their site. Their online store is just like one of their retail stores. How many products does Microsoft have that they're having trouble keeping their product-line and sales site cohesive?
Two problems with this article:
1) Private copying, as other people have mentioned, is legal. That is, if a friend loans you a CD, you may make a private copy for yourself. They may not, however, make a copy for you.
2) The levy doesn't change the legality of 1) in any way. It doesn't become more illegal or less illegal. As an analogy, imagine that a levy of $500 per bullet was made to compensate next of kin in gun related murders and accidents. The levy doesn't make killing people any more legal, it's just a levy. It's just a way to take a LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' money. People that behave illegally don't care about the levies and profit (or commit evil, however you want to define those terms) beyond the cost imposed on them by the government.
It's a money grab. It's ALWAYS been a money grab. There are artist organizations -- with popular, highly regarded artists -- that oppose the new copyright bills that make it harder for Canadians to enjoy the music that they've legally purchased for themselves. Even if the music has been acquired some other way, many of these artists agree that exposure is more important than making a dollar on each song. Eventually, they'll make the money that they deserve to make, whether that's through touring or donation or what have you.
My iPhone is largely filled with music that I paid for. I have my own reasons for paying for music instead of torrenting it. I feel I've made the right decision, and I don't think that I deserve to be penalized because other people make different decisions. I don't think draconian copyright law and stealing money out of people's pockets is the answer.
The solution is obviously just to write more. I don't write because I have anything to say, I actually just like the physical sensation of putting pen to paper. I like seeing the letters that I leave behind, and I've learned to enjoy my handwriting and make it aesthetic, at least to my own eye. I prefer blank, unlined pages, and a nice gel-ink pen. I've got a leather bound notebook, and while I have nothing at all as interesting to put in it as the great scientists and inventors of years past, I feel like there's a small connection there.
I've never had a problem with spelling, regardless of the medium. Spelling (and reading) were valued extremely highly in my household when I was growing up. My Dad would point out spelling errors in published works with great amusement, and he usually had 2 or 3 books on the go, as well as a magazine and the daily newspaper. In other words, it was an environment of attention to detail with regards to written words.
I've got a lot of muscle memory when it comes to typing; I switched to dvorak about 10 years ago. Looking at the keyboard makes things much harder, so I rely on my muscle memory to get me through the day. In the end, you have to think about the words that you're typing as you type them. It sounds to me like you may be focussed on things at a higher level, ie., the sentence. Slow down a bit and I'm sure it'll come back to you.
Okay, so what I've been able to gather, netbooks are either small machines that aren't very powerful, but make up for it with portability and runtime, or normal sized laptops that are super super cheap and have no other advantages over a regular laptop.
If the latter is the case, why not just call them 'cheap laptops'?
I don't have a netbook, but I understand why you'd want a 7" screen in a super-portable format. As a former sysadmin, that sort of tool would be invaluable. Once you start getting up to 11.6", the utility seems to fall through the floor.
Am I missing the point somewhere?
I can't remember the department (or even the professor :P ) but there's a Physics department (Harvard's, perhaps?) where tenure is given if and ONLY if you've created a new field of study. The professor I'm thinking of has a particle or some such thing named after him, and he STILL can't get tenure.
It was published in Scientific American a while back, but I don't have the magazine nearby to check.
Professors want to spend their time researching, not teaching. Most professors didn't get into their fields to teach.
Part of the problem is the question of whether a University is an institution of learning, or an institution of *knowledge creation*. I actually think that the ultimate goal of any University is to produce people capable of CREATING knowledge, rather than just absorbing it. I can teach a dog tricks, but can the dog synthesize their own?
University is a place where a lot of the learning is incumbent on the student; the professor is merely the master of the subject that you can ask questions of.
Most professors don't have education degrees.
Honestly, possibly the hardest lesson of University for me was realizing that I was responsible for my education and learning, and everyone else was just a prop. I nearly failed out learning it.
There's basically one University (and only one) that trains Optometry students in Canada, and that's the University of Waterloo.
If you don't get into U Waterloo, you can apply to go to an American university.
Nearly 100% of the students that study optometry in the US and come back that try to take the certification exam fail. Almost none of the U Waterloo students do.
To be fair, though, big Universities have problems regardless of country. I've seen students literally unable to understand how 2/4 reduces to 1/2 in a University philosophy class. I understand philosophy isn't the sort of thing where you need a lot of math, but come ON.
The only thing I object to in general in education is the reliance on testing to determine if someone knows something. It's more important to be able to leverage and use information than to regurgitate it. If it's actually important, you'll remember it. Tests are the easy way out for too many professors; I think projects, open book exams and papers are the way to go. Tests are as much a test of biology (I don't have a great memory for exams, which is at least in part a biological limitation) as a test of 'intelligence'. I've also known frightfully stupid people that are great on exams because they're so skilled at memorization. :/
Well, yes and no.
If you go to these places, teachers are held in reverence. Giving your teacher or professor gifts is something that you do out of utmost respect. My Mother was born and schooled in Singapore, and believe me when I say that I was driven and put under enormous pressure to do well in school by her. Getting a 'B' was a catastrophe. Getting an 'A' was adequate.
A friend of mine taught English (at the University level) in Korea, and she says the same thing. The students there practically deify teachers -- not even just THEIR teachers. At some point one person accidentally insulted her by insinuating she was a Russian prostitute (long story, suffice to say, Russian prostitutes aren't actually uncommon in Korea for some reason) and was practically crying when he found out she was a professor later and went to apologize to her.
Culturally, there's a massive difference. The people that come to North America are driven to succeed, yes, but it holds even for families that have been here for a couple generations.
You're asking an impossible task; the burden of proof is on the person trying to claim there IS a difference between the races. Proving a negative can't be done. It's why you can't PROVE the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.
I agree in general with your statement, though. Hitler made the trains run on time, and he was apparently quite the military strategist (at least until he decided that a two front war involving Russia in the winter was a grand idea.) If he had been wrong about absolutely everything, he wouldn't have been able to do any of the terrible things he did. :/
AND both the US and Canada have jurisdictions (Quebec and Louisiana, I believe) that work off the French code, which ISN'T a common law system. Such a serious pain.
Because, frankly, if people are smart, they'll take the money and put it in their bank accounts and wait for everything to blow over. The only problem is that it won't blow over if they wait and don't spend.
It's the problem with living in a heavily consumer-driven society.
There's a time for people to save, and a time for people to spend. You SAVE when you have a bit of extra money. Sure, spend a bit of it as well, but sock away some for a rainy day, because a rainy day will surely come at some point. People overspent when they actually had NO money, so now they're in a big hole. Giving them taxbreaks right now will certainly mean that money goes to paying off debts.
This stimulus -- in my mind -- will partly kick free of the people that can't help you right now. You make sure that they've got roads to drive on and healthcare and all the things they need while they work and pay off their debts and return to solvency. Meanwhile, you've gotten some other people to come in and do some (necessary, hopefully) work. Now they have a bit of extra cash that they can spend.
The Economy is part psych experiment. To get people to spend, you need them to feel that they've got enough MARGIN to spend their money. They need to feel that their house is worth something, their job is secure, and that their investments or retirement fund or whatever is safe and growing. Without those requirements being met, people squirrel away their money because even the most short sighted of them realize that they're gonna need SOMETHING to live on in the future.
Actually, this is still logically intractable. The best you can do is run it and wait for it to fail. If it doesn't fail, all you've shown is that...it didn't happen to fail. That isn't to say that it WOULDN'T have failed if you had run it for one more cycle, just that in your test space, you didn't get it to fail.
Short form: try to prove that something DOESN'T fail is trying to prove a negative, which doesn't work.
This is what you were getting at, obviously. I just wanted to clear it up for other people. :)
Your comment about identity theft got me thinking:
Is it harder to steal someone's identity when it's well known to be theirs?
I mean, if my picture is on the internet, and everyone knows my full name and basically where I live and what I do for a living, how easy is it for someone to come and steal my identity in a way that I can't refute? Instead of spending years untangling the thread and trying to convince the legal system that *I'm* me, and someone else ISN'T, maybe I can just point to the preponderance of evidence that I am who I say I am.
Is this the same sort of thing that we strive for with using OSS in voting machines? By exposing everything, have we actually tightened security? If my SIN (or SSN) is available on the internet on my facebook page, next to all those pictures of me from the time I was 8 years old to the present, does anyone really have a hope of stealing my identity?
I suppose identity theft normally works by stealing essential bits of your identity and using them from the shadows, but in a system where a bright light is shone on all the little dark spots, would it be possible anymore? Hmm.
(I do, actually, understand the desire for privacy for certain things; the adage that if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't worry is retarded. The next time someone asks that of you, ask how many times a week they have sex, or what the results of their last prostate exam was. Just because there's nothing illegal or actually embarrassing about the information doesn't mean that it isn't worth keeping secret.)
I used to read the Opera newsgroups. They've got their own newsserver and everything, and those guys really know their stuff. I don't know anything about the IRC client, but if you go on their forums, you're sure to find what you're looking for. Hope that helps.
I concur. I hate the Windows version of Safari, but it's my primary browser at home (especially with Safari Stand, and glims installed).
I'm largely switching to Chrome, with Opera as my more recreational browser. (I keep my work and recreation browsing separate.)
No, you do sound like a fanboi. I don't care about adblock. Ads just don't bother me in the least. I actually can't stand Firefox. There are enough things that are annoying about it that I only use it on occasionally for compatibility reasons. Actually, make that 'used'. I'm using Chrome right now as my 'compatibility' browser. I'm still using Opera on Windows as my main browser. I use Safari on my Mac, because Opera sucks for OS X. :/ :/)
(Similarly, Safari sucks on Windows.