To add to the above arguments, consider this math for a second:
Suppose there exists some finite and extremely small chance (i.e., 1/(7^7^7^7^7^7^7)) that an organism can form where no life existed before. Then suppose there is similar odds that this organism can develop into our human race. Then suppose that there are similar odds that such a being could evolve into something that could live to and withstand the big-bang or some other universal collapse (by jumping to a parallel dimension, whatever....)
I ask you this, would it not have happened already? To me it seems, considering the so-called evolutionary odds, that the odds of us being transplants are significantly higher than the odds of us being the first-of. If God(s) survived such things in the past, surely the organizer of our planet would have a plan for saving us from such destruction. Following this line of thought would lead us to the fact that God must have some physical form (in addition to "spiritual.")
And concerning literal translations of bibilical texts, "organized" is a much more accurate word than "created". Just look up the original roots on that. Colonizing a planet from the ground up using genetic algorithms and starting from an organized plan can be mapped onto biblical texts. The biblical creation account concerns this earth only; the whole part about the stars and moon should be translated as "made them to appear."
And I certainly agree that when looking for a religion, you should seek one that is working for convergence with and support of science. For, assuming there is a God watching, I assure you he understands it all -- he would have to by simple progression over a long period of time. He would think us fools for not taking advantage of the information and tools available.
All this technology in the car and I still can't plug my laptop in and get the report as to why the check-engine light is on, and I still can't swap general parts with my other car. I assume there are marketing reasons for those issues, but isn't there some standards committee who could oppose the situation? Diagnostics software/hardware and interchangeable parts are some useful and well understood computer features, are they not?
I had the surgery 1.5 years ago. I'm unsure on the laser type, but here's some thoughts on the matter. I was a -2 and am now a -0.5 in both eyes. Not only that, but I can't see anything at night perfectly clear with or without correction. I guess that means the area covered was insufficient. All I wanted to do was see the stars at night, and now I can never see them clearly, corrected or uncorrected. What do people do to correct this situation?
WordPerfect allows a simultaneous left and right align on the same line of text. Do you know how many school papers start out with a title on the left and my name on the right? That feature alone has kept me loyal to WordPerfect for twelve years. Of course, the 'Reveal Codes' feature is da bomb. It's a good mix between WYSIWYG and the bit twiddling word processors. I don't know how the average programmer can do without it.
After spending a day designing a hardware interface last week, a coworker and myself were informed from the CTO that we need to learn to "exercise the evolutionary programming model, meaning don't ever develop specs." The problem with that philosophy is blatently obvious in all the products we sell. They have 1) a real weak foundation making the addition of features neigh impossible, 2) a lack of modularization making team work neigh impossible, and 3) nobody knows when the freakin' thing is done. Because of these issues, whenever we hire a new programmer they want to rewrite the software. I can't say that I blame them. Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of taking at least 20% of the development time for the design cycle if not more.
So all I want in life is a couch I can stretch out on, but you know what? They're all too short. What's wrong with a couch where I could kick off the armrest and put it back on again when I felt like it? Or how about stackable couches? Somthing like this: you bring the neighbors couch over and you have stadium seating without having to steal wooden crates.
So here are a few questions I have about ADHD, and I mean no offense; I just want to understand.
1. Did ADHD exist 100 years ago? Did people care 100 years ago?
2. What percentage of people are diagnosed with ADHD?
3. Is there different levels of ADHD? Different advancements? Different Types?
4. Would you say ADHD is over-diagnosed? In other words, I've met a number of people considered ADHD that I would consider perfectly normal.
5. Is ADHD chemical or psychological? Both? Is there a difference?
6. Don't take this wrong, but I admit I've never met ADHD from what I would consider good parents (i.e., teach their children how to work hard and focus long); so the question, how related is ADHD to broken homes, absent parenting, stifled creativity, abuse, general over-disciplen, or the so called spoiled brat situation?
7. I have heard before ADHD is related to stress and/or a lack of exercise on the part of the mother during pregnancy. Has either of these been in a study? Confirmed?
"Really, John Carmack singlehandedly keeps OpenGL alive;"
Uh, anybody purchased a nice CAD program lately that uses DirectX? Or any EDA tool? Or any math tool?
There is an art to managing technical people that makes them feel like their brain is wanted, and their strong, peon-labor back is not the most important part.
Here are some helps:
If you assume you know the market better than your technical people, all you'll do is torque them off. Programmers usually know the software market pretty well. They at least can tell the difference from a quality product and a lame one -- something most business people can't seem to figure out.
If you have to do lame, per-hour contract jobs (ie, SBIR), make sure the people who actually put in the hours get a bit of hourly income in addition to their normal pay. In other words, the management doesn't deserve the Gov's money when I did all the labor for it. And again, nothing motivates people to peon labor like money.
So I have this confusion in my brain. Perhaps someone can help me sort it out. It seems sharing music is significantly different from sharing software.
I give this reason: Throwing out record companies, musicians could still give live concerts and still make good money. What is the equivilent in the software business? What is to motivate a programmer (aside from the love) to write code knowing it will be freely spread across the planet? I'm not talking about expensive/big software packages that require call-in activation or dongles, I'm talking about the kind of little projects I've considered writing on the side for a little extra income.
I foresee a day where information is given freely all over the world. Anti-competition contracts will be done away. The patents will be individual/team events, not company events. Companies will resemble schools more than the current sorry state of legalized piggy-backing. I believe I can program with the best of them, don't you? How stifling it is to have a company bring me to a new level, inspire in me great ideas, and then try to own them for up to a year after my termination! "You've brought me this far -- give me a chance to take it and run." But no, they're worried they can't compete. The business folk don't believe they can compete, yet hire me because I'm some ignoramus, some blinded programmer with no business sense. Cowards. It's mere laziness, with a tad bit of greed. Such peon labor does exist, though if a company doesn't want my brain, I'll go work somewhere else. This does not concern me though; I believe God will give me good original ideas in my time. I hope all of us believe that. We are not stuck in some lame rut of being controlled by the business gods. My plan is this: I just don't sign the contract. So far employers have valued me more than that. You should try it.
With that in mind, I've tried to picture a world where the average company would use open-source software and hire a programmer to add a needed module to it. In that motif, though, I struggle to see the motivation for a lot of the necessary software on the market. How can I reconcile that motif with the advantages of free intellectual property?
As for you record companies, you are used to spreading lots of information all over the place. The internet has the same purpose, why not compete? Challenge the data format. Give out higher quality than the internet can give, and you will make money. Your current position consists of making money through the free ride of occasional talent. And these days it seems the 'talent' portion is often forgotten. Do you call that integrity? Morally right? That is so much worse than downloading the few favorite songs without purchasing them -- a few minutes of a recorded event in history. You record companies have no right to preach morals -- spare me the hypocrisy please.
I would use their stats stuff. It seems to run quite fast. Go look at their demo on their web site. Their key is to to put cgi strings in image tags, but be careful: I'm pretty sure they have a patent on that.
So here is some crap that appearently gets taught in most business schools: "Good quality isn't what sells, we just need to be slightly better than the competition." and "Good quality isn't what sells -- our customers liked our so-and-so product so they will buy the rest of our products."
Take for instance, MyComputer.com. I worked there once. The management had this great idea that we should quit targeting our niche (Superstats) and build all these other e-commerce products that everyone would want because they liked Superstats. Except that our e-commerce products were way over simplified (from the "wizard" school of management) and, hence, sucked, and nobody was impressed. And then one day they fired 100 people who were working on e-commerce junk.
Slashdot Mirror
To add to the above arguments, consider this math for a second:
Suppose there exists some finite and extremely small chance (i.e., 1/(7^7^7^7^7^7^7)) that an organism can form where no life existed before. Then suppose there is similar odds that this organism can develop into our human race. Then suppose that there are similar odds that such a being could evolve into something that could live to and withstand the big-bang or some other universal collapse (by jumping to a parallel dimension, whatever....)
I ask you this, would it not have happened already? To me it seems, considering the so-called evolutionary odds, that the odds of us being transplants are significantly higher than the odds of us being the first-of. If God(s) survived such things in the past, surely the organizer of our planet would have a plan for saving us from such destruction. Following this line of thought would lead us to the fact that God must have some physical form (in addition to "spiritual.")
And concerning literal translations of bibilical texts, "organized" is a much more accurate word than "created". Just look up the original roots on that. Colonizing a planet from the ground up using genetic algorithms and starting from an organized plan can be mapped onto biblical texts. The biblical creation account concerns this earth only; the whole part about the stars and moon should be translated as "made them to appear."
And I certainly agree that when looking for a religion, you should seek one that is working for convergence with and support of science. For, assuming there is a God watching, I assure you he understands it all -- he would have to by simple progression over a long period of time. He would think us fools for not taking advantage of the information and tools available.
All this technology in the car and I still can't plug my laptop in and get the report as to why the check-engine light is on, and I still can't swap general parts with my other car. I assume there are marketing reasons for those issues, but isn't there some standards committee who could oppose the situation? Diagnostics software/hardware and interchangeable parts are some useful and well understood computer features, are they not?
I had the surgery 1.5 years ago. I'm unsure on the laser type, but here's some thoughts on the matter. I was a -2 and am now a -0.5 in both eyes. Not only that, but I can't see anything at night perfectly clear with or without correction. I guess that means the area covered was insufficient. All I wanted to do was see the stars at night, and now I can never see them clearly, corrected or uncorrected. What do people do to correct this situation?
WordPerfect allows a simultaneous left and right align on the same line of text. Do you know how many school papers start out with a title on the left and my name on the right? That feature alone has kept me loyal to WordPerfect for twelve years. Of course, the 'Reveal Codes' feature is da bomb. It's a good mix between WYSIWYG and the bit twiddling word processors. I don't know how the average programmer can do without it.
After spending a day designing a hardware interface last week, a coworker and myself were informed from the CTO that we need to learn to "exercise the evolutionary programming model, meaning don't ever develop specs." The problem with that philosophy is blatently obvious in all the products we sell. They have 1) a real weak foundation making the addition of features neigh impossible, 2) a lack of modularization making team work neigh impossible, and 3) nobody knows when the freakin' thing is done. Because of these issues, whenever we hire a new programmer they want to rewrite the software. I can't say that I blame them. Needless to say, I'm a huge fan of taking at least 20% of the development time for the design cycle if not more.
So all I want in life is a couch I can stretch out on, but you know what? They're all too short. What's wrong with a couch where I could kick off the armrest and put it back on again when I felt like it? Or how about stackable couches? Somthing like this: you bring the neighbors couch over and you have stadium seating without having to steal wooden crates.
So here are a few questions I have about ADHD, and I mean no offense; I just want to understand.
1. Did ADHD exist 100 years ago? Did people care 100 years ago?
2. What percentage of people are diagnosed with ADHD?
3. Is there different levels of ADHD? Different advancements? Different Types?
4. Would you say ADHD is over-diagnosed? In other words, I've met a number of people considered ADHD that I would consider perfectly normal.
5. Is ADHD chemical or psychological? Both? Is there a difference?
6. Don't take this wrong, but I admit I've never met ADHD from what I would consider good parents (i.e., teach their children how to work hard and focus long); so the question, how related is ADHD to broken homes, absent parenting, stifled creativity, abuse, general over-disciplen, or the so called spoiled brat situation?
7. I have heard before ADHD is related to stress and/or a lack of exercise on the part of the mother during pregnancy. Has either of these been in a study? Confirmed?
"Really, John Carmack singlehandedly keeps OpenGL alive;" Uh, anybody purchased a nice CAD program lately that uses DirectX? Or any EDA tool? Or any math tool?
There is an art to managing technical people that makes them feel like their brain is wanted, and their strong, peon-labor back is not the most important part.
Here are some helps:
If you assume you know the market better than your technical people, all you'll do is torque them off. Programmers usually know the software market pretty well. They at least can tell the difference from a quality product and a lame one -- something most business people can't seem to figure out.
If you have to do lame, per-hour contract jobs (ie, SBIR), make sure the people who actually put in the hours get a bit of hourly income in addition to their normal pay. In other words, the management doesn't deserve the Gov's money when I did all the labor for it. And again, nothing motivates people to peon labor like money.
So I have this confusion in my brain. Perhaps someone can help me sort it out. It seems sharing music is significantly different from sharing software.
I give this reason: Throwing out record companies, musicians could still give live concerts and still make good money. What is the equivilent in the software business? What is to motivate a programmer (aside from the love) to write code knowing it will be freely spread across the planet? I'm not talking about expensive/big software packages that require call-in activation or dongles, I'm talking about the kind of little projects I've considered writing on the side for a little extra income.
I foresee a day where information is given freely all over the world. Anti-competition contracts will be done away. The patents will be individual/team events, not company events. Companies will resemble schools more than the current sorry state of legalized piggy-backing. I believe I can program with the best of them, don't you? How stifling it is to have a company bring me to a new level, inspire in me great ideas, and then try to own them for up to a year after my termination! "You've brought me this far -- give me a chance to take it and run." But no, they're worried they can't compete. The business folk don't believe they can compete, yet hire me because I'm some ignoramus, some blinded programmer with no business sense. Cowards. It's mere laziness, with a tad bit of greed. Such peon labor does exist, though if a company doesn't want my brain, I'll go work somewhere else. This does not concern me though; I believe God will give me good original ideas in my time. I hope all of us believe that. We are not stuck in some lame rut of being controlled by the business gods. My plan is this: I just don't sign the contract. So far employers have valued me more than that. You should try it.
With that in mind, I've tried to picture a world where the average company would use open-source software and hire a programmer to add a needed module to it. In that motif, though, I struggle to see the motivation for a lot of the necessary software on the market. How can I reconcile that motif with the advantages of free intellectual property?
As for you record companies, you are used to spreading lots of information all over the place. The internet has the same purpose, why not compete? Challenge the data format. Give out higher quality than the internet can give, and you will make money. Your current position consists of making money through the free ride of occasional talent. And these days it seems the 'talent' portion is often forgotten. Do you call that integrity? Morally right? That is so much worse than downloading the few favorite songs without purchasing them -- a few minutes of a recorded event in history. You record companies have no right to preach morals -- spare me the hypocrisy please.
I would use their stats stuff. It seems to run quite fast. Go look at their demo on their web site. Their key is to to put cgi strings in image tags, but be careful: I'm pretty sure they have a patent on that.
So here is some crap that appearently gets taught in most business schools: "Good quality isn't what sells, we just need to be slightly better than the competition." and "Good quality isn't what sells -- our customers liked our so-and-so product so they will buy the rest of our products."
Take for instance, MyComputer.com. I worked there once. The management had this great idea that we should quit targeting our niche (Superstats) and build all these other e-commerce products that everyone would want because they liked Superstats. Except that our e-commerce products were way over simplified (from the "wizard" school of management) and, hence, sucked, and nobody was impressed. And then one day they fired 100 people who were working on e-commerce junk.