Translation: Dubya's probably going to spend as much as or more than he did last term, which won't do anything good for the economy, and the odds are good that whoever replaces him in four years won't be any better.
Sadly, this can be said about almost any politician. The exceptions are noted (and usually replaced in a term).
Well, here's an idea. Store away every buck you can, build up enough reserves to retire early, and do what you want with all your time. Sure, you'll probably want to give up much of the crap that's giving you transient pleasure, and things might not be as fun for the next 5, 10, 20 years, but the rewards could well be worth it, and you're already working to a level that's unsatisfactory to you. So why not plan ahead, and change it. If you already are, good for you.
Well, to be honest, if there is no usability loss from eye candy that is simply distracting, then I would take eye candy with a net gain in performance. If I take a hit in net performance for the sake of eye candy, I have to question why, especially for a business product.
Of the three, I'd say performance is the least important in our current technological landscape. After all, we have plenty of computing power. But we have been waiting to see sufficient usability or stability improvements in the most common OS for years. I have a 6-month old computer that takes 30 seconds to show some explorer windows, and I can't be bothered to figure out why any more. It wasn't this bad a month or two ago, and if it gets much worse, I'll do my ablutions to MS and reinstall. Sure, it's better than Win95, but that isn't saying much. I'd far rather they fix what's broken than slap on a new coat of paint.
So in that context, where to allocate the development resources, I'd rather they put it to where it's most needed, which is not currently eye candy. Perhaps it is for OS X.
Why and how are two vastly different things, both of which have their uses. Note also that the definition of law includes context. Newton's laws are still quite valid in their context, non-quantum bodies at non-relativistic speeds. Do you honestly think people who calculate how much fuel it takes to fly from LA to NY use Einstein's laws rather than Newton's? I really doubt 1 cup (or less, I'm not going to bother doing the math, twice) really matters to them, especially when they include their safety margin.
You clearly didn't read the definitions. A law is an observation of the natural world, usually (if not always) described in mathematics. Thoeries are attempts to explain why the natural world behaves as it does, and usually consist of a number of laws or mathematical formulas. The theory of relativity, for instance, has e=mc^2, as well as the gravity formulas (that are incredibly close to Newton's in a non-relativistic scope). Also, laws have a context, like Newton's being for non-quantum, non-relativistic bodies, and Einstein's, which were applicable to our observable universe (you don't expect it to work in another one without tweaking, do you?)
Oh, and BTW, the people who hand out Nobel prizes seem to have concluded that Einstein discovered a few laws, too, and used them to develop his theory of relativity. Note the last chapter, and how laws and theories relate.
I am consistently blown away by people who make comments like this:
"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"
Although I'm fine with eye candy (which can enhance usability), I'm not interested in eye candy at the expense of any of the above. Since you used the clothes analogy, I'll give you what I've often seen when you put eye candy first:
Would you wear an Italian suit with the crotch cut out? In public? While riding a motorbike?
Any modification to the interface that hinders your work is bad. That includes obtusely designed text commands, and inconsistent GUIs. the converse is true, too.
In point of fact, gravity is a law (note definition 6). General Relativity and Special Relativity are theories (note definition 5). A crude explanation of the difference between a law and a theory, in scientific parlance, is: Laws describe what is happening, theories attempt to describe why. Those attempts, after the initial few tries, are generally very good. Even the ones I don't agree with are generally well thought out.
The theory here is similar to trying to ban rocks and pointy sticks because you could hurt someone with them. Rather, we prosecute those who do. This is also the case with viruses. I can write one right now, test it on my network at home, even publish some exploit details (think computer security company), and I haven't broken a law. Release it into the wild, though... Mr. Felton is trying to point out that the main components are so ubiqitous that trying to ban an ordered compilation of these components is foolish.
I think a more accurate recipe analogy for what felton is saying is if you found a recipe for making crack that was as easy as making an omlette, and had ingredients that were as common. Like other commonly available drugs, say, alcohol.
I had to read data (apps included, I think) off a 5.25" floppy in a first-world country 5 years ago. I happened to have an old XT sitting around, which was the only thing we could find that would read 5.25" floppies. I also had still-functioning apps and games for it. Now why would you think that a poorer country wouldn't have people doing similar things just a few years later?
The thing about intellectual property is that it is only expensive for the first copy to be made. After that, the costs are trivial. Physical property doesn't have that behaviour to the same degree. Sure, those steak knives you mentioned in another post can be stamped out, and come along a lot cheaper than if they were hand-crafted, but still have to pay for materials and assembly. And sure, people who are proficient at hand-crafting things can become faster or better at making them, but they also suffer from not being able to transfer those capabilities seamlessly.
But, I can copy a CD losslessly, or with an acceptable degree of lossiness, with almost no effort. And copying the result is even easier.
And therein lies the problems with copyright and intellectual property laws in (I suspect) the majority of people's mind. How much time is sufficient to legally restrict the free transfer of ideas so that the artist/inventor/creator still has incentive to produce, not gouge the people or stifle the creative community in the process?
I think it's safe to say if you can't make money with an idea in the software industry in 5 years, that you never will. And so we give them...12 to 25 years? Do you see a problem with that? Anything they bring to the table is 5 or 10 generations out of date by the time we could use it. That's a synopsis of the whole Unisys/gif/png issue. We actually put effort into abandoning an idea because of what is clearly a poor law. And I suspect that Unisys made more than enough money to pay for their efforts in the compression used by gif within those first 5 years (and doubtless a healthy profit, as well).
The same goes for the copyright issue, more so now with e-books and digitally encoded music. Britney Spears needs 70 years (assuming someone kills her today) to make money on "Oops, I did it again"? Does anyone even listen to it any more? Do you think anyone will in 5 years? Sure, there are some timeless classics from all ages, but most of those were serious hits when they came out, and made plenty in their first few years. More than that, go into any music store, and see how much space is devoted to material produced more than 5 years ago. Not much, if any. That also has a big part to do with RIAA et al, and shows the inherent problems with monopolies and/or anti-competitive practices. (I personally think 12 to 25 years is okay for copyright. Creative ideas are more timeless than technological ones.)
In all these areas, there was another option, which was common over 100 years ago: trade secrets. This had a whole host of problems, and would be almost impossible to use in a digital environment. But that doesn't mean that intellectual property and copyright are without problems, either.
There's also an interesting level of absurdity in saying I can't use something I learned. Who should I pay (and why?) when I quote something interesting that Einstein said, in public, which has been published? How about when I sing a song I like in the shower? Clearly there are some elements of these things which have no inherent value and should be allowed. This was covered by fair use, and is one of the things that the publishers are either ignoring or outright trying to defeat with DRM. Note that the more successful DRM technologies in the last while have given some way to fair use.
Another poster pointed out an idea a step more advanced than yours: Don't sweep at all, don't use a mirror, just have it point straight across. Add an (adjustable) absorption plate for your desired cutting width, and you're set. As for power, I'd have no problem using an extension cord for a mower like this. It's just another kind of electric mower, just quieter.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a Citrix administrator or a web site administrator, but here's two things that might make this simpler on many of the fronts you listed.
1. Make a custom home page for IE on the Citrix Server. Include links to where they enter all these custom IE applications so they can get to them in one click after starting IE.
2. Optional. Disable pretty much every domain but the ones these custom apps are on. A thorough test should verify if they will (currently) work in that configuration.
This might be a better option than using the anonymous option in Citrix, which will mean that they can still use bookmarks (but to what?) and preferences (good for all those passwords), and you will have abuse-tracking logs.
I ran across a page the other day of which your post reminded me. It wanted to install some piece of adware/spyware shit, and IE6 SP2 (I know, install Firefox) actually caught it. Now I got this irritating flashing bar across the top of my web page saying some program wants to install. Click to install, right-click for more options. Well, I don't want to install, so I right-click. Now I have a little menu with 3 options. One is Click to Install (again), and the other two are about the idiot bar. How about an option to not install? So I said "fuck this" and closed the window. Thanks, MS, for the inherently broken design of your ActiveX spyware blocker.
It's actually a good idea, with two missed points.
1. How long does it take to cut the amount of grass found under a typical lawnmower? Or, more precisely, how fast can I push this and still have it cut the lawn? This will be the guide to the wattage of laser you need.
2. You raised this point, but missed the patently obvious (and hopefully not patent-able) solution. How do I keep the laser from harming anything else, including my legs? House it in a lawnmower, and have the beam hit the housing at the perimeter, where the grass usually hits in a normal laser. Of course, there's the discharge hole, but that can be patched. This has the great side-effect of giving you an easy way to adjust the beam's height, as well.
Another point which you've touched upon is the colour of laser to use. That answer is easy, whatever wavelength grass (and hopefully other plant matter) absorbs. It wouldn't be too hard for someone with the right tools to find out that answer for both living and dead plant matter.
Now, if you could find a wavelength that is safe for grass, and not safe for just about every other plant, you could make a great adjustment to your mower and kill weeds, too. Just adjust it to hit the ground instead of the mower rim.
The table is not solid because it's an agreed reality. The table is solid because your hand cannot pass through it./me needs more eggnog
But, if you drink enough eggnog, you will stop agreeing with our quantum reality, will accept a less preferred quantum state (if you didn't prefer the physical state, you wouldn't drink so much eggnog;), and will then swear that your hand passed right through the table when you tried to use it for support. So how is this theory wrong?
There was no point in starting a panic and sensationalizing the story at this point/
I call BS. Remember a few (2 or 3) years back when reporting on West Nile Virus was all the rage? I remember hearing, in Canada!, that a whole 5 people had died of West Nile Virus in Connecticut about midway through the season. Yet any view of the statistics showed that you were likelier to die of the flu than you were of West Nile. That didn't keep all the major media outlets from scaremongering for two years, though.
I suspect the bigger reason is that the media has reported a number of these previously, both before and after the final results are in, leading to two results. First, people have no interest whatsoever anymore, before the final results come in. Second, reporting before the final results looked like blatant scaremongering, pissing off the viewership. And until one of thses hits, that's unlikely to change.
Never doubt the media's willingness to do anything to build their market. You'll rarely be disappointed.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I had a low opinion of this astronaut, or any other. They all have my highest regard. I'm somewhat less impressed with the space shuttle engineers. Their product was impressive, but maybe too impressive. I think they went too far, too fast against the KISS principle, giving ultimately predictable results. We are still stuck with space capsules as the best option for lobbing humans into space. Hopefully we find a better option, and soon, but for now the Russians have the most advanced, stable technology. And it's older than the shuttle.
Slashdot Mirror
Realizing that you are depressed 90% of the time only spells deeper depression.
Wow, I'd feel better if I realized I was only depressed 90% of the time.
Translation:
Dubya's probably going to spend as much as or more than he did last term, which won't do anything good for the economy, and the odds are good that whoever replaces him in four years won't be any better.
Sadly, this can be said about almost any politician. The exceptions are noted (and usually replaced in a term).
Well, here's an idea. Store away every buck you can, build up enough reserves to retire early, and do what you want with all your time. Sure, you'll probably want to give up much of the crap that's giving you transient pleasure, and things might not be as fun for the next 5, 10, 20 years, but the rewards could well be worth it, and you're already working to a level that's unsatisfactory to you. So why not plan ahead, and change it. If you already are, good for you.
Well, to be honest, if there is no usability loss from eye candy that is simply distracting, then I would take eye candy with a net gain in performance. If I take a hit in net performance for the sake of eye candy, I have to question why, especially for a business product.
Of the three, I'd say performance is the least important in our current technological landscape. After all, we have plenty of computing power. But we have been waiting to see sufficient usability or stability improvements in the most common OS for years. I have a 6-month old computer that takes 30 seconds to show some explorer windows, and I can't be bothered to figure out why any more. It wasn't this bad a month or two ago, and if it gets much worse, I'll do my ablutions to MS and reinstall. Sure, it's better than Win95, but that isn't saying much. I'd far rather they fix what's broken than slap on a new coat of paint.
So in that context, where to allocate the development resources, I'd rather they put it to where it's most needed, which is not currently eye candy. Perhaps it is for OS X.
Why and how are two vastly different things, both of which have their uses. Note also that the definition of law includes context. Newton's laws are still quite valid in their context, non-quantum bodies at non-relativistic speeds. Do you honestly think people who calculate how much fuel it takes to fly from LA to NY use Einstein's laws rather than Newton's? I really doubt 1 cup (or less, I'm not going to bother doing the math, twice) really matters to them, especially when they include their safety margin.
You clearly didn't read the definitions. A law is an observation of the natural world, usually (if not always) described in mathematics. Thoeries are attempts to explain why the natural world behaves as it does, and usually consist of a number of laws or mathematical formulas. The theory of relativity, for instance, has e=mc^2, as well as the gravity formulas (that are incredibly close to Newton's in a non-relativistic scope). Also, laws have a context, like Newton's being for non-quantum, non-relativistic bodies, and Einstein's, which were applicable to our observable universe (you don't expect it to work in another one without tweaking, do you?)
Oh, and BTW, the people who hand out Nobel prizes seem to have concluded that Einstein discovered a few laws, too, and used them to develop his theory of relativity. Note the last chapter, and how laws and theories relate.
I am consistently blown away by people who make comments like this:
"Am I one of the only ones who prefers usability, stability, and performance... to eye candy?"
Although I'm fine with eye candy (which can enhance usability), I'm not interested in eye candy at the expense of any of the above. Since you used the clothes analogy, I'll give you what I've often seen when you put eye candy first:
Would you wear an Italian suit with the crotch cut out? In public? While riding a motorbike?
Any modification to the interface that hinders your work is bad. That includes obtusely designed text commands, and inconsistent GUIs. the converse is true, too.
Blondes don't know how to use handcuffs. That's the guy's job...
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit?
A: A bucket.
In point of fact, gravity is a law (note definition 6). General Relativity and Special Relativity are theories (note definition 5). A crude explanation of the difference between a law and a theory, in scientific parlance, is: Laws describe what is happening, theories attempt to describe why. Those attempts, after the initial few tries, are generally very good. Even the ones I don't agree with are generally well thought out.
If there was a Bible, paid for by the schools, provided to the students, I'd be okay with that.
The theory here is similar to trying to ban rocks and pointy sticks because you could hurt someone with them. Rather, we prosecute those who do. This is also the case with viruses. I can write one right now, test it on my network at home, even publish some exploit details (think computer security company), and I haven't broken a law. Release it into the wild, though... Mr. Felton is trying to point out that the main components are so ubiqitous that trying to ban an ordered compilation of these components is foolish.
I think a more accurate recipe analogy for what felton is saying is if you found a recipe for making crack that was as easy as making an omlette, and had ingredients that were as common. Like other commonly available drugs, say, alcohol.
I had to read data (apps included, I think) off a 5.25" floppy in a first-world country 5 years ago. I happened to have an old XT sitting around, which was the only thing we could find that would read 5.25" floppies. I also had still-functioning apps and games for it. Now why would you think that a poorer country wouldn't have people doing similar things just a few years later?
The thing about intellectual property is that it is only expensive for the first copy to be made. After that, the costs are trivial. Physical property doesn't have that behaviour to the same degree. Sure, those steak knives you mentioned in another post can be stamped out, and come along a lot cheaper than if they were hand-crafted, but still have to pay for materials and assembly. And sure, people who are proficient at hand-crafting things can become faster or better at making them, but they also suffer from not being able to transfer those capabilities seamlessly.
But, I can copy a CD losslessly, or with an acceptable degree of lossiness, with almost no effort. And copying the result is even easier.
And therein lies the problems with copyright and intellectual property laws in (I suspect) the majority of people's mind. How much time is sufficient to legally restrict the free transfer of ideas so that the artist/inventor/creator still has incentive to produce, not gouge the people or stifle the creative community in the process?
I think it's safe to say if you can't make money with an idea in the software industry in 5 years, that you never will. And so we give them...12 to 25 years? Do you see a problem with that? Anything they bring to the table is 5 or 10 generations out of date by the time we could use it. That's a synopsis of the whole Unisys/gif/png issue. We actually put effort into abandoning an idea because of what is clearly a poor law. And I suspect that Unisys made more than enough money to pay for their efforts in the compression used by gif within those first 5 years (and doubtless a healthy profit, as well).
The same goes for the copyright issue, more so now with e-books and digitally encoded music. Britney Spears needs 70 years (assuming someone kills her today) to make money on "Oops, I did it again"? Does anyone even listen to it any more? Do you think anyone will in 5 years? Sure, there are some timeless classics from all ages, but most of those were serious hits when they came out, and made plenty in their first few years. More than that, go into any music store, and see how much space is devoted to material produced more than 5 years ago. Not much, if any. That also has a big part to do with RIAA et al, and shows the inherent problems with monopolies and/or anti-competitive practices. (I personally think 12 to 25 years is okay for copyright. Creative ideas are more timeless than technological ones.)
In all these areas, there was another option, which was common over 100 years ago: trade secrets. This had a whole host of problems, and would be almost impossible to use in a digital environment. But that doesn't mean that intellectual property and copyright are without problems, either.
There's also an interesting level of absurdity in saying I can't use something I learned. Who should I pay (and why?) when I quote something interesting that Einstein said, in public, which has been published? How about when I sing a song I like in the shower? Clearly there are some elements of these things which have no inherent value and should be allowed. This was covered by fair use, and is one of the things that the publishers are either ignoring or outright trying to defeat with DRM. Note that the more successful DRM technologies in the last while have given some way to fair use.
Back666Back: Two-backed Beast
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Another poster pointed out an idea a step more advanced than yours: Don't sweep at all, don't use a mirror, just have it point straight across. Add an (adjustable) absorption plate for your desired cutting width, and you're set. As for power, I'd have no problem using an extension cord for a mower like this. It's just another kind of electric mower, just quieter.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a Citrix administrator or a web site administrator, but here's two things that might make this simpler on many of the fronts you listed.
1. Make a custom home page for IE on the Citrix Server. Include links to where they enter all these custom IE applications so they can get to them in one click after starting IE.
2. Optional. Disable pretty much every domain but the ones these custom apps are on. A thorough test should verify if they will (currently) work in that configuration.
This might be a better option than using the anonymous option in Citrix, which will mean that they can still use bookmarks (but to what?) and preferences (good for all those passwords), and you will have abuse-tracking logs.
I ran across a page the other day of which your post reminded me. It wanted to install some piece of adware/spyware shit, and IE6 SP2 (I know, install Firefox) actually caught it. Now I got this irritating flashing bar across the top of my web page saying some program wants to install. Click to install, right-click for more options. Well, I don't want to install, so I right-click. Now I have a little menu with 3 options. One is Click to Install (again), and the other two are about the idiot bar. How about an option to not install? So I said "fuck this" and closed the window. Thanks, MS, for the inherently broken design of your ActiveX spyware blocker.
It's actually a good idea, with two missed points.
1. How long does it take to cut the amount of grass found under a typical lawnmower? Or, more precisely, how fast can I push this and still have it cut the lawn? This will be the guide to the wattage of laser you need.
2. You raised this point, but missed the patently obvious (and hopefully not patent-able) solution. How do I keep the laser from harming anything else, including my legs? House it in a lawnmower, and have the beam hit the housing at the perimeter, where the grass usually hits in a normal laser. Of course, there's the discharge hole, but that can be patched. This has the great side-effect of giving you an easy way to adjust the beam's height, as well.
Another point which you've touched upon is the colour of laser to use. That answer is easy, whatever wavelength grass (and hopefully other plant matter) absorbs. It wouldn't be too hard for someone with the right tools to find out that answer for both living and dead plant matter.
Now, if you could find a wavelength that is safe for grass, and not safe for just about every other plant, you could make a great adjustment to your mower and kill weeds, too. Just adjust it to hit the ground instead of the mower rim.
Only if that is the only colour it reflected. A shirt that reflected pretty much any (visible) colour you threw at it would look...white.
The table is not solid because it's an agreed reality. The table is solid because your hand cannot pass through it. /me needs more eggnog
;), and will then swear that your hand passed right through the table when you tried to use it for support. So how is this theory wrong?
But, if you drink enough eggnog, you will stop agreeing with our quantum reality, will accept a less preferred quantum state (if you didn't prefer the physical state, you wouldn't drink so much eggnog
There was no point in starting a panic and sensationalizing the story at this point/
I call BS. Remember a few (2 or 3) years back when reporting on West Nile Virus was all the rage? I remember hearing, in Canada!, that a whole 5 people had died of West Nile Virus in Connecticut about midway through the season. Yet any view of the statistics showed that you were likelier to die of the flu than you were of West Nile. That didn't keep all the major media outlets from scaremongering for two years, though.
I suspect the bigger reason is that the media has reported a number of these previously, both before and after the final results are in, leading to two results. First, people have no interest whatsoever anymore, before the final results come in. Second, reporting before the final results looked like blatant scaremongering, pissing off the viewership. And until one of thses hits, that's unlikely to change.
Never doubt the media's willingness to do anything to build their market. You'll rarely be disappointed.
Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
Hey, this is Slashdot. We'll correct you even if you're right!
Sorry if I gave the impression that I had a low opinion of this astronaut, or any other. They all have my highest regard. I'm somewhat less impressed with the space shuttle engineers. Their product was impressive, but maybe too impressive. I think they went too far, too fast against the KISS principle, giving ultimately predictable results. We are still stuck with space capsules as the best option for lobbing humans into space. Hopefully we find a better option, and soon, but for now the Russians have the most advanced, stable technology. And it's older than the shuttle.