You forgot the bill of rights. You may not have been explicitly rolling it into the Constitution. I for one, do not. This country is based more on the bill of rights than it is on the Constitution.
The point was that she was doing un-interesting work, notably because it was repetitious and far BENEATH *her* intelligence level, i.e. a far less intelligent person could have done it. (Making the point that not all innovations have to come from BRILLIANT people)
Vera Rubin went off to go study rotation when everyone else in the field was studying spectrums. All anyone was talking about was doppler shifts and hydrogen lines and emission spectrums -- looking for the next big thing. However, the field was too fast moving -- it was a fast paced NOW NOW NOW culture and Rubin felt like she was on some crazy treadmill. She decided to go off and study rotation of galaxies -- something thought to be rather banal and un-sexy. [She modestly felt "not smart/capable" enough to keep up with the fast pace of the research going on.] One day she realized that her results did NOT jive with the well-established theories of her time -- that the velocities of matter did not decrease as you moved towards the outside of the galaxy/cloud. All because she felt inept at studying emission lines.
Vera Rubin anecdotes would suggest otherwise. Scientific innovation is sometimes about looking (methodically) at something that no one else is looking at. Something boring and unsexy.
ALOHA.
pwnt.
OMG Computar Science Is Teh Imba! nerf nerf nerf! Pure aloha? Slotted aloha? Omfg, get a clue about networking before chiming in with your two cents? We should lock this AC up in bob's basement. (metcalfe, to specify bobs)
I still have a great many friends who go on the 4 year cycle.
I'm not going to belittle you on slashdot by mocking the number of your "friends" -- but rather point out that inherently, your "friends" are the very antithesis of a random sampling. Also, you chose the word "friends" rather than acquaintances. Think about it.
If you combine sensor nets with any localization algorithm and GHTs, you have a combined storage/detection network. If you add power-aware routing, you basically create a long-lasting (self-detecting) event-storage monitor. The DHT/GHT stuff is fun -- but more importantly -- the projects are producing side research like optimizing DMAC protocols (and even a few at omnidirectional) and breaking TCP/IP assumptions.
There is a hotbed of Sensornet research going on at Yale right now, sparked mostly by two professors from EE and CS -- Saavides and Yang. There's been a flurry of student activity as well.... [My senior/masters thesis was in MobiHoc 04, and they've had papers in InfoCom and elsewhere.]
Are you in law school or AYAAL? You actually made sense..... [you might want to explain what estoppel is next time though, since all of five people understood it, present company included.]
The same number of miles as my your horse. Except your horse is wearing a dress, and a hat, and clogs. And sometimes you have to feed it more hay because the clogs are icky.
For all the claims of "Techno luddite" he isn't talking about that scale. If word processors want to add AI to do predictive work (markov chain type prediction ala itap) that is FINE with me, but enough with the translucent flyaways -- it isn't so terrible to have them, but allow us to disable them.
The problem is not when I fire up word/ooo/staroffice, the problem is when I fire them up when I have 123123 other things running -- if they ran like they were on a 300 mhz celeron [i.e. conservative with resources] the system wouldn't bog down when I'm trying to add a note to some documentation.
NATO was supposed to be the response to the Warsaw pact -- Poland joining NATO had a particularly delicious irony, but also raised the question, "What the hell is NATO's real purpose post USSR? Oh, right, it is a UN that the US has more say in...."
All places where traditional phone networks languished due to the inability to construct them easily. (You try getting a crew of 12 guys to put up telephone poles for hundreds of miles across Finland. Yeah. I thought so.) So when cellular networks arose, they built a cell infrastructure in lieu of a traditional POTS network -- saving dramatically on capital investment. The cell networks were easier to deploy with larger coverage. [You've picked nations that happen to have some of the highest cell-to-people ratios in the world.]
I spent about an hour talking to Ben at the Yahoo! party last week. I can assure you that he is by no means shilling for anyone. His feelings on the matter are pretty strong, and he sells himself on the integrity you mention.
I was simplifying -- many don't want to see:
"If your current price is x and your new price is y, and the current sales level is z, your new level of sales will be beta^[alpha* (x-y)] * z". His implication by "exponential" growth is merely superlinear, so to the average person, greater than the ratio one would expect.
Basically, he's saying that "If you sell x songs at 99 cents a song" and that "If you drop the price to 5 cents, you will sell more than 20x songs" -- he claims the growth could be "exponential."
To a certain extent, he's somewhat right. It would substantially lower the bar and you'd have far more impulse buys (and drunk song-buying binges wouldn't hurt as much. Fear the drunken one-click shopping spree!)
However, I am not such a big fan of his idea of taxing PCs. However, the last line of the article is THE MOST INFORMATIVE OF ALL:
Then again, another record-industry type, casually speaking to Pearlman after the talk, had perhaps the most succinct counter suggestion. Why not charge 10 cents, instead of 5, and double the revenue?
These guys don't even get *OLD ESTABLISHED CONCEPTS* let alone "new fangled concepts." Pearlman's response is that if you double the price, you cut the sales by more than half, so you actually DECREASE your revenue.
They just don't get it. [I'm not saying Pearlman is necessarily right with the.05$ price point, but the "industry type" missed the entire point of the talk!]
Thank you. I have a masters in CS from one of those Ivies, and am trying to get into a JD-MBA program. (I have the JD part down....B schools are a bit less forthcoming with admissions) -- I think there is a vacuum of people with actual tech skills that aren't afraid of that PHB label. The best way to fight the system is from within....
Jews: Hollywood, the banking system
Hmm. You forgot that we jews also control the weather. And we gays control the media. Hence, you should also conclude there is a secret cabal of jewish homos that hold all newschannel weatherpersons under constant blackmail, threatning to open our own weather outlets and control the weather. Plus, the gay jewish illuminati members totally fuck with the Mars program.....
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the bill of rights. You may not have been explicitly rolling it into the Constitution. I for one, do not. This country is based more on the bill of rights than it is on the Constitution.
The point was that she was doing un-interesting work, notably because it was repetitious and far BENEATH *her* intelligence level, i.e. a far less intelligent person could have done it. (Making the point that not all innovations have to come from BRILLIANT people)
Vera Rubin went off to go study rotation when everyone else in the field was studying spectrums. All anyone was talking about was doppler shifts and hydrogen lines and emission spectrums -- looking for the next big thing. However, the field was too fast moving -- it was a fast paced NOW NOW NOW culture and Rubin felt like she was on some crazy treadmill. She decided to go off and study rotation of galaxies -- something thought to be rather banal and un-sexy. [She modestly felt "not smart/capable" enough to keep up with the fast pace of the research going on.] One day she realized that her results did NOT jive with the well-established theories of her time -- that the velocities of matter did not decrease as you moved towards the outside of the galaxy/cloud. All because she felt inept at studying emission lines.
Vera Rubin anecdotes would suggest otherwise. Scientific innovation is sometimes about looking (methodically) at something that no one else is looking at. Something boring and unsexy.
What crack are you smoking in your .sig?
Not "almost all Harvard Freshman" were valedictorians. Stop your Ivy bashing.
ALOHA.
pwnt.
OMG Computar Science Is Teh Imba! nerf nerf nerf!
Pure aloha?
Slotted aloha?
Omfg, get a clue about networking before chiming in with your two cents? We should lock this AC up in bob's basement. (metcalfe, to specify bobs)
No 3G network connectivity. No GSM. Less Space than a LaCie BigDisk 1tb firewire drive. L4M3.
I still have a great many friends who go on the 4 year cycle.
I'm not going to belittle you on slashdot by mocking the number of your "friends" -- but rather point out that inherently, your "friends" are the very antithesis of a random sampling. Also, you chose the word "friends" rather than acquaintances. Think about it.
cyril connolly
*whistles*
Shoes? Gah! Sloth! In my day, we didn't have DAYS. And we didn't have FEET. We had to walk to school on bloody stumps! And we were greatful for that!
beta was actually better....
If you combine sensor nets with any localization algorithm and GHTs, you have a combined storage/detection network. If you add power-aware routing, you basically create a long-lasting (self-detecting) event-storage monitor. The DHT/GHT stuff is fun -- but more importantly -- the projects are producing side research like optimizing DMAC protocols (and even a few at omnidirectional) and breaking TCP/IP assumptions.
There is a hotbed of Sensornet research going on at Yale right now, sparked mostly by two professors from EE and CS -- Saavides and Yang. There's been a flurry of student activity as well.... [My senior/masters thesis was in MobiHoc 04, and they've had papers in InfoCom and elsewhere.]
;)
You should take a look
Sorry. You dont know what you're talking about. OTP = xor.
Google and my freshman year crypto course are your friend.
Are you in law school or AYAAL? You actually made sense..... [you might want to explain what estoppel is next time though, since all of five people understood it, present company included.]
+1 Cogent/Coherent assesment of trend.
Sorry, you said it all so succinctly it left nothing else to be said whatsoever. Shame we cant sticky your post to the top of every Apple thread.
The same number of miles as my your horse. Except your horse is wearing a dress, and a hat, and clogs. And sometimes you have to feed it more hay because the clogs are icky.
For all the claims of "Techno luddite" he isn't talking about that scale. If word processors want to add AI to do predictive work (markov chain type prediction ala itap) that is FINE with me, but enough with the translucent flyaways -- it isn't so terrible to have them, but allow us to disable them.
The problem is not when I fire up word/ooo/staroffice, the problem is when I fire them up when I have 123123 other things running -- if they ran like they were on a 300 mhz celeron [i.e. conservative with resources] the system wouldn't bog down when I'm trying to add a note to some documentation.
....I got your joke. Thanks. I'm almost insulted that my college wasn't targeted.....but then again, Metallica hit us first.
NATO was supposed to be the response to the Warsaw pact -- Poland joining NATO had a particularly delicious irony, but also raised the question, "What the hell is NATO's real purpose post USSR? Oh, right, it is a UN that the US has more say in...."
All places where traditional phone networks languished due to the inability to construct them easily. (You try getting a crew of 12 guys to put up telephone poles for hundreds of miles across Finland. Yeah. I thought so.) So when cellular networks arose, they built a cell infrastructure in lieu of a traditional POTS network -- saving dramatically on capital investment. The cell networks were easier to deploy with larger coverage. [You've picked nations that happen to have some of the highest cell-to-people ratios in the world.]
I spent about an hour talking to Ben at the Yahoo! party last week. I can assure you that he is by no means shilling for anyone. His feelings on the matter are pretty strong, and he sells himself on the integrity you mention.
I was simplifying -- many don't want to see:
"If your current price is x and your new price is y, and the current sales level is z, your new level of sales will be beta^[alpha* (x-y)] * z".
His implication by "exponential" growth is merely superlinear, so to the average person, greater than the ratio one would expect.
To a certain extent, he's somewhat right. It would substantially lower the bar and you'd have far more impulse buys (and drunk song-buying binges wouldn't hurt as much. Fear the drunken one-click shopping spree!)
However, I am not such a big fan of his idea of taxing PCs. However, the last line of the article is THE MOST INFORMATIVE OF ALL:
These guys don't even get *OLD ESTABLISHED CONCEPTS* let alone "new fangled concepts." Pearlman's response is that if you double the price, you cut the sales by more than half, so you actually DECREASE your revenue.
They just don't get it. [I'm not saying Pearlman is necessarily right with the
Thank you. I have a masters in CS from one of those Ivies, and am trying to get into a JD-MBA program. (I have the JD part down....B schools are a bit less forthcoming with admissions) -- I think there is a vacuum of people with actual tech skills that aren't afraid of that PHB label. The best way to fight the system is from within....
Jews: Hollywood, the banking system
Hmm. You forgot that we jews also control the weather. And we gays control the media. Hence, you should also conclude there is a secret cabal of jewish homos that hold all newschannel weatherpersons under constant blackmail, threatning to open our own weather outlets and control the weather. Plus, the gay jewish illuminati members totally fuck with the Mars program.....