The part about "looking guilty yourself" refers to the fact that many bosses are going to blame you for being on the spammers email list. As stated in the article, there are plenty of reasons (not necessarily good ones) for assuming that receiving pornographic spam is the end result of visiting porn sites on company time. A lot of bosses aren't even aware of the email harvesting that spam-bots do. If you start telling your boss "I'm receiving a lot of porno spam" and no one else is telling them that, a typical PHB -- consciously or unconscously looking to minimze their work and/or liability -- is going to assume you're the only one receiving this stuff. It has nothing to do with forwarding the actual content to your superior.
If you get an explicit email, how exactly do you show it to your boss, without looking guilty yourself?
Silly! You don't show this to your boss! If I were you, I'd let the issue "bubble up" to management without putting a bullseye on my shirt. How to do this? Use the time-honored method of watercooler smalltalk.
Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. You met your coworkers there any chat about whatever. Occasionally you use that time to tentatively throw out an issue that bugs you and see if anyone else latches on to it.
Bob: 'Morning Guy. 'Morning Sally.
Sally: 'Morning boys!
Guy: Hey everyone. How's things going?
Bob: I just spent an hour cleaning up the code after that asshat Maurice committed a bunch of stuff that caused compiler warnings. Sure, they're not strictly errors but still we should strive to write good code. That really bugs me.
Sally: Yeah? Well I got to work 30 minutes late today because there was an accident. It had been moved well off the road so there wasn't any reason for a slowdown in traffic. Except, of course, the fact that every little shithead had to gawk at other people's misery. *That* is what really bugs me.
Guy: You know what really bugs me? All that goat porn spam that floods my Inbox. I mean, I like to look at naked girls like everyone but that stuff is sick! You know what I'm talking about?
Bob: *cough*
Sally: Um, I've got to go. Just remembered a meeting I'm supposed to be at. See you later, Bob.
Mark my words: a few watercooler conversations like this and sooner or later word of the problem will trickle on up to management.
What are your suggestions for good games that we can play together, and and that we'll both enjoy?
Why don't you two have a race to see who can discover the 41st Mersenne Prime first?
GMD
Rush Limbaugh == Pac-Man
on
Human Pac Man
·
· Score: 1
In light of Rush's public problems, someone with a bit too much time on his hands decided to create his own version of human Pac-Man. It features Rush as the enternally-gobbling big-mouth trying to swallow pills (shaped like Oxycontin, of course), and being chased by bug-eyed Donovan McNabbs!
Go to this site and press enter to start. Send the link to your friends!
Before I get modded down by all the conservatives out there, let me give you a little advice: quit trying to defend Rush and let him fry for his public gaffes. Rush has always made you conservatives look like mean-spirited assholes. I happen to know lots of good people who are Republicans so I know enough not to judge conservatives by one big fat loudmouth. But not everyone is as forgiving as I am. Just because Rush has the same political beliefs as you doesn't mean that you have to "stand by him" or defend him or any of this bullshit. He got himself into this mess, let him get his way out. When we laugh at Rush, we're not laughing at the Republican party or at conservative ideology: we're laughing at one mean-spirited, no-nothing, jackass hypocrite. Don't take it as some kind of attack on you.
This "report" is filled with all sorts of wonderful crap, isn't it?
Furthermore, some of the political support for building preferences for open source into the process comes from anti-Microsoft sentiment...
Perhaps it's more a matter of the government being wary of being completely and utterly dependent on a company who makes products riddled with security holes and has already been found guilty of illegal market practices.
While there are a plethera of worms and viruses directed at Windows because of the political proclivities of hackers...
I'm guessing the main reasons people write worms for Windows in not because of some ideological disagreement with Microsoft but probably because (a) Windows is riddled with security holes, (b) tons of people use Windows, and (c) a worm or virus activated by a common user on a Windows machine can do lots of damage to system files.
It could upload its program, but it could not describe abstractly why that program works.
It doesn't have to! My entire point is that because computers operate according to precise instructions they can exchange 'abilities' effortlessly. Let's say there are two 'classes' of computers: 'Thinkers' that have enough AI to be able to write their own software (ala Data from ST:TNG) and 'Drones' that can only execute existing programs written by others. The machines would only need a few Thinkers to be working in the background and let the Drones be responsible for carrying out the orders/instructions. Thinkers spend all their resources developing excellent programs that could defeat a human at any number of contests. Once satisfied with the performance of the program they are developing, they upload it to all the Drones. Now all the Drones are just as good at defeating a human at that specific contest as the Thinker would be. The Thinker does not need to explain why the program works to the Drones. As long as the Drones run the program, they will kick holy-ass against the humans even though they have no fucking clue what the hell they are doing.
Computers have a vastly superior ability to describe in precise format the steps needed to solve a problem than humans. Let's say you -- a human -- come up with a fantastic algorithm/strategy/approach for playing chess. Great: you can kick ass. Now what about the rest of humanity? First, you've got to develop a precise and concise way of recording your algorithm/strategy/approach. Just because you were smart enough to come up with a brilliant strategy there is no guarantee that you'll be able to communicate this well. Second, even if you did come up with some brilliant way of encoding your masterful approach, it would likely be beyond the abilities of many humans (think Pam Anderson here) to execute your instructions flawlessly. And third, how fast can you get your solution out and assimilated by everyone? Certainly not nearly as fast as computers could.
This is the real problem. If only a few computers are very smart, they can essentially transmit their skill in a single, specific, well-defined task (such as playing chess) to all the other dummy computers out there. We humans will never be able to do this. And that is why if there is ever a struggle between humanity and the machines that we will lose. Our brightest minds might be better than their brighest minds. But they will be able to make their lower end perform much better than our lower end.
Thanks for the compliment. Actually, I just thought this up right off the top of my head but I'm sure there are tons more. I really don't read any science fiction books at all but I'm sure there are plenty out there that would think up much more interesting issues. Can anyone name some?
I was just wondering, how will the chess world handle cyborgs? Will people who have electronic "enhancements" be considered to be cheating? Heck, will they even have time to play chess, or will they be too busy taking over the world? What does everyone else think?
Oh, man, you are opening a huge can of worms on this one. Here's just a few ideas to think of:
If you have cybernetic enhancements will you be required to disclose this information to your doctor? The government? Your employer?
Will cybernetic implants be affordable enough that anyone who wants one can get one? Or will this just serve to increase the chasm between the rich and poor?
Will enhancements replace race, sex, and sexual orientation as the prejudicial attribute of choice? Will employers prefer to hire people with the enhancements knowing that the employee can always be "upgraded" if the company forks over the cash? Or will employers be wary of hiring people with cybernetic implants because of their suspectability to computer virii?
I could go on and on but, seriously, the questions that are going to come up when people start modifying themsevles either genetically or cybernetically are going to be much more serious than whether they are allowed to play in "Open" chess tournaments.
I dunno, seems to me that if a machine can beat 99.9999(ad nauseum) percent of humanity, that day might be here already.
It's also interesting to note that a computer who has defeated almost every human it encounters could, in a matter of seconds, communicate precisely how to do so to other computers. When a person beats a computer at something, they can tell their friends "kinda" what their logic was. But the speed of knowledge transmission and the accuracy of it would be far inferior to what a computer can do.
All the machines would have to do is give each one a specific problem to solve. As soon as one computer solves its problem, it immediately communicates its results to all the other machines, provided there is connectivity between them. Now all those other machines know exactly how to solve the problem too.
Yeah, I always thought Qix rocked and was surprised that it wasn't a bigger hit. Man, the sense of accomplishment you got whenever you finished building your tower of little skinny blocks with the Fast Draw and then finish with an inch worth of Slow Draw and seal off a huge fuckin' chunk of the screen in that wonderful brown color. "Boo-yeah! How do you like 'dat you little twirly motherfuckin' freak?" you'd shout at the top of your lungs, paying no mind to all the other kids staring and laughing at you. They were busy wasting their quarters blowing up a bunch of sorry-assed goofy-lookin' aliens that didn't have the sense to not fly right into your lasers. With Qix you had an adversary who danced around erracticly. You didn't quite understand what the hell it was thinking but as long as it seemed happy and kept out of your hair, you were content to let it do its thing. And then, when you least expected it that pretty, colorful entity would come oughta nowhere and smack your ass down to the pavement. Hmmm, kinda reminds me of this girl I used to date...
Anyhow, the point is that this game was considerably different than everything else in the arcades and I was always surprised that it didn't get more recognition. And why didn't girls play it more? I thought girls liked non-violent crap. I can see them not wanting to have Sinistar screaming "Beware: I live!" at the top of its lungs at them. But they should have gone nuts over Qix.
Talking about tentacle games, I thought it was kind of interesting that some of these games actually let you "play" the monster! Take a look at this page about 3/4 down the page where it talks about the Eden game. Most hentai games feature you trying to save women from monsters or at least being an innocent bystander. But in the Eden game you are playing "the bad guy" and are really required to perform the act. I don't know exactly how much control over what the monster does (e.g., where you put your tentacles) but this seems to be a radically different area of fantasy/role-playing then most videogames.
"The Elegant Universe" is about string theory, sure... but rather than being as accurate and descriptive as possible, they opt to squander three hours on needless (and logically irrelevant) special effects.
I found not only the special effects distracting and annoying but even the flashy way they filmed non-SPFX scenes. They even tried to do funny things with the editing of the interviews with the professors!
I happen to know one of the string theorists who appeared on the show. I was talking with him about what he thought of the finished product a few days after the final episode was shown. Both he and I agreed that while the rapid-fire editing and SPFX were not to our liking, we were both impressed that someone at least spent a fair chunk of dough to make this show. And he told me that he was hearing that a lot of kids (I assume he meant younger kids -- not college students) liked the show and that it got them interested in string theory.
We could certainly debate whether those kids actually learned anything or whether they were just dazzled by the pretty pictures but I have to say that it's been quite awhile since anyone put up a chunk of dough to make a program about science. The show may not have been to my liking but if it can at least make people think that we're doing interesting and exciting stuff, perhaps it does serve an important purpose. I guess it all comes down to who their target audience is. And with Nova these days, one can never really be sure.
But seriously, try listening to a book, the news, learning a language on disc, using public transportation, riding a bike (45 miles a day is totally doable)...
When referring to "doable" athletic feats, please keep in mind this *is* slashdot we're talking about.
Studies also indicate that cell-phone use is unfairly singled out as it is generally less of a safety factor than other things drivers are known to do. (IIRC, adjusting the radio/changing tapes or CDs was #1. Others included eating, checking maps, shaving, getting distracted by kids or pets.) Cell phones aren't worse, just more visible.
Nobody spends 45 minutes adjusting the radio. Cellphones cause a problem because they distract the driver for an extended period of time.
Ah, but it takes many single irate letters to create the loud cry you speak of.
You're right, of course. Still, I think unless you can get some guarantee from others to 'match' your letters, I think you are wasting your time. It sounds like the original questioner has already resigned himself to the fact that he has neither the time or desire to organize some kind of protest to the ISP. I can sympathize -- I'd do the same thing in his place. My original message was a response to sweetooth who seemed to suggest that writing a letter to the ISP was going to somehow improve the greater common good.
My opinion is that you should either put some effort into massing an organized response to the ISP or you should just drop it. I think the idea of sending a letter and telling yourself that you did "the right thing" because other people are going to do the same is delusional.
Hopefully this ISP isn't the only cable provider in town. Sure, he can switch to DSL. But why should he have to change his method of receiving internet traffic?
Also, I'm sure the people who drop this ISP because of the SMTP problem is insignificant to the users that don't give a crap. The days of "The Customer is Always Right" are long gone. I'm constantly amazed that people still seem to think that a single irate letter is gonna change anything. It takes a loud cry from many people to get these lethargic corporation to see the error of their ways (or at least get off their buts and do something).
Now, if you can show this ISP some real proof that their approach harms a signficant portion of their user base AND doesn't cut down on the spam problem anyhow, then you might have a shot of getting the ISP to change their policy. Otherwise, I think this poor guy is better off trying to figure out a work-around.
This person's blog was just about their life and battle with some disease. While I wouldn't have found it all too exciting under normal circumstances, I appreciate the fact that I was able to get useful information from it when the need was there.
Yeah, that can be helpful. I, myself, had a battle with severe disease a few years ago and have written a detailed website about it in the hopes that it will help people. But I never made it public.
Why? A number of reasons, all of which reflect my lack of faith in humanity as a whole. One, I am still single. And if I meet some young lady one night and ask her for a date I don't want her going home, doing a search on my name and finding this big website talking about a very awful disease. The fact that I no longer have this disease is of little consultation. She doesn't know any of my good qualities yet but she knows all about my battle with Disease X in painstaking detail. Stuff I wouldn't share with her on a first date. In time I'd tell her all about it -- just not until she gets to know more about me. Second, I'm worried about what employeers would think if they see I have a history of severe illness. I'm sure if some company wasn't sure whether they were going to hire you, something like this could tip the scale against you. Again, the fact that I no longer suffer from this disease is irrelvant -- employeers are not going to take a lot of time researching the illness and trying to see whether this is any chance of relapse or related illness, they'll just assume the worst.
I just felt that it would bring too much personal harm to me to advertise my illness. I still have the webpages. And when people ask me for advice (my name is "out there" in the right circles), I point them to my pages. But I just don't trust human beings enough to read my pages and take them as a dissemination of knowledge and a story of struggle and perserverance. I'm just worried they will read too much into it.
Microsoft surely has the better money-making model, but people interested in open source are usually more interested in the quality of software.
You mean OSS people are more interested in furthering their own personal reputation and glory. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But there's way too much OSS that gets released with the disclaimer "Hey, this is free software -- you get what you pay for" for me to agree with you that quality is more important to the OSS folks than those who will get fired if they screw up coding.
The more accurate comparison between OSS and Microsoft is that of academia versus industry. In academia you can work on what you want (provided you can get some funding for it) and the results of your work are peer-reviewed. In industry you give up a lot of freedom to do what you want but you get a much bigger paycheck.
We need not, nor care not, about the opinions of the world regarding our existance, relevance, or lack thereof of both.
Well, I suppose that is one way to look at it. However, I think many people who are fans of open-source software would like to see more people (i.e., people other than the tech-elite) benefit from it. I'd really like to install Linux on my mom's PC. It would certainly save me the effort of having to fix things whenever Outlook Express executes some malicious code or trying to restore the registry (or some other adminstration-level file) after something went wrong. But right now a lot of the open source software isn't really designed for the naive, basic user and I don't think she can "handle it". Yes, it's true that we aren't "required" to be accepted. But if we were accepted by more people, that would mean that more people would benefit from the efforts of the OSS coders. And the increased competition might spur Microsoft to start producing quality software for a change.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't discount the "opinions of the world". While we shouldn't plunge into depression if our efforts are largely overlooked by "the masses", I think a lot of good could come out of more widespread acceptance.
Guys, relax. The article clearly states that this study was done on MICE and not HUMANS!! They're just making a guess that people detect pheromones through their nose, too -- they don't know this.
Slashdot Mirror
The part about "looking guilty yourself" refers to the fact that many bosses are going to blame you for being on the spammers email list. As stated in the article, there are plenty of reasons (not necessarily good ones) for assuming that receiving pornographic spam is the end result of visiting porn sites on company time. A lot of bosses aren't even aware of the email harvesting that spam-bots do. If you start telling your boss "I'm receiving a lot of porno spam" and no one else is telling them that, a typical PHB -- consciously or unconscously looking to minimze their work and/or liability -- is going to assume you're the only one receiving this stuff. It has nothing to do with forwarding the actual content to your superior.
GMD
If you get an explicit email, how exactly do you show it to your boss, without looking guilty yourself?
Silly! You don't show this to your boss! If I were you, I'd let the issue "bubble up" to management without putting a bullseye on my shirt. How to do this? Use the time-honored method of watercooler smalltalk.
Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. You met your coworkers there any chat about whatever. Occasionally you use that time to tentatively throw out an issue that bugs you and see if anyone else latches on to it.
Bob: 'Morning Guy. 'Morning Sally.Sally: 'Morning boys!
Guy: Hey everyone. How's things going?
Bob: I just spent an hour cleaning up the code after that asshat Maurice committed a bunch of stuff that caused compiler warnings. Sure, they're not strictly errors but still we should strive to write good code. That really bugs me.
Sally: Yeah? Well I got to work 30 minutes late today because there was an accident. It had been moved well off the road so there wasn't any reason for a slowdown in traffic. Except, of course, the fact that every little shithead had to gawk at other people's misery. *That* is what really bugs me.
Guy: You know what really bugs me? All that goat porn spam that floods my Inbox. I mean, I like to look at naked girls like everyone but that stuff is sick! You know what I'm talking about?
Bob: *cough*
Sally: Um, I've got to go. Just remembered a meeting I'm supposed to be at. See you later, Bob.
Mark my words: a few watercooler conversations like this and sooner or later word of the problem will trickle on up to management.
Hope this helps,
GMD
What resources aside from MSKB and google searching do slashdot readers use for troubleshooting strange problems?
Why, "Ask Slashdot", of course! Hell, oftentimes people just skip the first two resources you listed and just go directly to option #3.
GMD
What are your suggestions for good games that we can play together, and and that we'll both enjoy?
Why don't you two have a race to see who can discover the 41st Mersenne Prime first?
GMD
In light of Rush's public problems, someone with a bit too much time on his hands decided to create his own version of human Pac-Man. It features Rush as the enternally-gobbling big-mouth trying to swallow pills (shaped like Oxycontin, of course), and being chased by bug-eyed Donovan McNabbs!
Go to this site and press enter to start. Send the link to your friends!
Before I get modded down by all the conservatives out there, let me give you a little advice: quit trying to defend Rush and let him fry for his public gaffes. Rush has always made you conservatives look like mean-spirited assholes. I happen to know lots of good people who are Republicans so I know enough not to judge conservatives by one big fat loudmouth. But not everyone is as forgiving as I am. Just because Rush has the same political beliefs as you doesn't mean that you have to "stand by him" or defend him or any of this bullshit. He got himself into this mess, let him get his way out. When we laugh at Rush, we're not laughing at the Republican party or at conservative ideology: we're laughing at one mean-spirited, no-nothing, jackass hypocrite. Don't take it as some kind of attack on you.
GMD
She was wearing a Tux shirt, but she told me it was her boyfriend's (sorry guys), and she didn't use computers much (just Mathematica on the SGIs).
The entire male membership of slashdot just went limp thanks to you Mr. Spoils-All-The-Fun!
GMD
This "report" is filled with all sorts of wonderful crap, isn't it?
Furthermore, some of the political support for building preferences for open source into the process comes from anti-Microsoft sentiment...
Perhaps it's more a matter of the government being wary of being completely and utterly dependent on a company who makes products riddled with security holes and has already been found guilty of illegal market practices.
GMD
While there are a plethera of worms and viruses directed at Windows because of the political proclivities of hackers...
I'm guessing the main reasons people write worms for Windows in not because of some ideological disagreement with Microsoft but probably because (a) Windows is riddled with security holes, (b) tons of people use Windows, and (c) a worm or virus activated by a common user on a Windows machine can do lots of damage to system files.
GMD
I thought BSD was dying. I could swear I read that somewhere...
GMD
It could upload its program, but it could not describe abstractly why that program works.
It doesn't have to! My entire point is that because computers operate according to precise instructions they can exchange 'abilities' effortlessly. Let's say there are two 'classes' of computers: 'Thinkers' that have enough AI to be able to write their own software (ala Data from ST:TNG) and 'Drones' that can only execute existing programs written by others. The machines would only need a few Thinkers to be working in the background and let the Drones be responsible for carrying out the orders/instructions. Thinkers spend all their resources developing excellent programs that could defeat a human at any number of contests. Once satisfied with the performance of the program they are developing, they upload it to all the Drones. Now all the Drones are just as good at defeating a human at that specific contest as the Thinker would be. The Thinker does not need to explain why the program works to the Drones. As long as the Drones run the program, they will kick holy-ass against the humans even though they have no fucking clue what the hell they are doing.
Computers have a vastly superior ability to describe in precise format the steps needed to solve a problem than humans. Let's say you -- a human -- come up with a fantastic algorithm/strategy/approach for playing chess. Great: you can kick ass. Now what about the rest of humanity? First, you've got to develop a precise and concise way of recording your algorithm/strategy/approach. Just because you were smart enough to come up with a brilliant strategy there is no guarantee that you'll be able to communicate this well. Second, even if you did come up with some brilliant way of encoding your masterful approach, it would likely be beyond the abilities of many humans (think Pam Anderson here) to execute your instructions flawlessly. And third, how fast can you get your solution out and assimilated by everyone? Certainly not nearly as fast as computers could.
This is the real problem. If only a few computers are very smart, they can essentially transmit their skill in a single, specific, well-defined task (such as playing chess) to all the other dummy computers out there. We humans will never be able to do this. And that is why if there is ever a struggle between humanity and the machines that we will lose. Our brightest minds might be better than their brighest minds. But they will be able to make their lower end perform much better than our lower end.
GMD
Thanks for the compliment. Actually, I just thought this up right off the top of my head but I'm sure there are tons more. I really don't read any science fiction books at all but I'm sure there are plenty out there that would think up much more interesting issues. Can anyone name some?
GMD
I was just wondering, how will the chess world handle cyborgs? Will people who have electronic "enhancements" be considered to be cheating? Heck, will they even have time to play chess, or will they be too busy taking over the world? What does everyone else think?
Oh, man, you are opening a huge can of worms on this one. Here's just a few ideas to think of:
I could go on and on but, seriously, the questions that are going to come up when people start modifying themsevles either genetically or cybernetically are going to be much more serious than whether they are allowed to play in "Open" chess tournaments.
GMD
I dunno, seems to me that if a machine can beat 99.9999(ad nauseum) percent of humanity, that day might be here already.
It's also interesting to note that a computer who has defeated almost every human it encounters could, in a matter of seconds, communicate precisely how to do so to other computers. When a person beats a computer at something, they can tell their friends "kinda" what their logic was. But the speed of knowledge transmission and the accuracy of it would be far inferior to what a computer can do.
All the machines would have to do is give each one a specific problem to solve. As soon as one computer solves its problem, it immediately communicates its results to all the other machines, provided there is connectivity between them. Now all those other machines know exactly how to solve the problem too.
GMD
Yeah, I always thought Qix rocked and was surprised that it wasn't a bigger hit. Man, the sense of accomplishment you got whenever you finished building your tower of little skinny blocks with the Fast Draw and then finish with an inch worth of Slow Draw and seal off a huge fuckin' chunk of the screen in that wonderful brown color. "Boo-yeah! How do you like 'dat you little twirly motherfuckin' freak?" you'd shout at the top of your lungs, paying no mind to all the other kids staring and laughing at you. They were busy wasting their quarters blowing up a bunch of sorry-assed goofy-lookin' aliens that didn't have the sense to not fly right into your lasers. With Qix you had an adversary who danced around erracticly. You didn't quite understand what the hell it was thinking but as long as it seemed happy and kept out of your hair, you were content to let it do its thing. And then, when you least expected it that pretty, colorful entity would come oughta nowhere and smack your ass down to the pavement. Hmmm, kinda reminds me of this girl I used to date...
Anyhow, the point is that this game was considerably different than everything else in the arcades and I was always surprised that it didn't get more recognition. And why didn't girls play it more? I thought girls liked non-violent crap. I can see them not wanting to have Sinistar screaming "Beware: I live!" at the top of its lungs at them. But they should have gone nuts over Qix.
GMD
Gates plans to trap humanity in his own MS Matrix.
Let's just pray Agent Clippy doesn't learn how to copy himself!
GMD
Talking about tentacle games, I thought it was kind of interesting that some of these games actually let you "play" the monster! Take a look at this page about 3/4 down the page where it talks about the Eden game. Most hentai games feature you trying to save women from monsters or at least being an innocent bystander. But in the Eden game you are playing "the bad guy" and are really required to perform the act. I don't know exactly how much control over what the monster does (e.g., where you put your tentacles) but this seems to be a radically different area of fantasy/role-playing then most videogames.
GMD
"The Elegant Universe" is about string theory, sure... but rather than being as accurate and descriptive as possible, they opt to squander three hours on needless (and logically irrelevant) special effects.
I found not only the special effects distracting and annoying but even the flashy way they filmed non-SPFX scenes. They even tried to do funny things with the editing of the interviews with the professors!
I happen to know one of the string theorists who appeared on the show. I was talking with him about what he thought of the finished product a few days after the final episode was shown. Both he and I agreed that while the rapid-fire editing and SPFX were not to our liking, we were both impressed that someone at least spent a fair chunk of dough to make this show. And he told me that he was hearing that a lot of kids (I assume he meant younger kids -- not college students) liked the show and that it got them interested in string theory.
We could certainly debate whether those kids actually learned anything or whether they were just dazzled by the pretty pictures but I have to say that it's been quite awhile since anyone put up a chunk of dough to make a program about science. The show may not have been to my liking but if it can at least make people think that we're doing interesting and exciting stuff, perhaps it does serve an important purpose. I guess it all comes down to who their target audience is. And with Nova these days, one can never really be sure.
GMD
But seriously, try listening to a book, the news, learning a language on disc, using public transportation, riding a bike (45 miles a day is totally doable)...
When referring to "doable" athletic feats, please keep in mind this *is* slashdot we're talking about.
Studies also indicate that cell-phone use is unfairly singled out as it is generally less of a safety factor than other things drivers are known to do. (IIRC, adjusting the radio/changing tapes or CDs was #1. Others included eating, checking maps, shaving, getting distracted by kids or pets.) Cell phones aren't worse, just more visible.
Nobody spends 45 minutes adjusting the radio. Cellphones cause a problem because they distract the driver for an extended period of time.
GMD
Ah, but it takes many single irate letters to create the loud cry you speak of.
You're right, of course. Still, I think unless you can get some guarantee from others to 'match' your letters, I think you are wasting your time. It sounds like the original questioner has already resigned himself to the fact that he has neither the time or desire to organize some kind of protest to the ISP. I can sympathize -- I'd do the same thing in his place. My original message was a response to sweetooth who seemed to suggest that writing a letter to the ISP was going to somehow improve the greater common good.
My opinion is that you should either put some effort into massing an organized response to the ISP or you should just drop it. I think the idea of sending a letter and telling yourself that you did "the right thing" because other people are going to do the same is delusional.
GMD
Hopefully this ISP isn't the only cable provider in town. Sure, he can switch to DSL. But why should he have to change his method of receiving internet traffic?
Also, I'm sure the people who drop this ISP because of the SMTP problem is insignificant to the users that don't give a crap. The days of "The Customer is Always Right" are long gone. I'm constantly amazed that people still seem to think that a single irate letter is gonna change anything. It takes a loud cry from many people to get these lethargic corporation to see the error of their ways (or at least get off their buts and do something).
Now, if you can show this ISP some real proof that their approach harms a signficant portion of their user base AND doesn't cut down on the spam problem anyhow, then you might have a shot of getting the ISP to change their policy. Otherwise, I think this poor guy is better off trying to figure out a work-around.
GMD
This person's blog was just about their life and battle with some disease. While I wouldn't have found it all too exciting under normal circumstances, I appreciate the fact that I was able to get useful information from it when the need was there.
Yeah, that can be helpful. I, myself, had a battle with severe disease a few years ago and have written a detailed website about it in the hopes that it will help people. But I never made it public.
Why? A number of reasons, all of which reflect my lack of faith in humanity as a whole. One, I am still single. And if I meet some young lady one night and ask her for a date I don't want her going home, doing a search on my name and finding this big website talking about a very awful disease. The fact that I no longer have this disease is of little consultation. She doesn't know any of my good qualities yet but she knows all about my battle with Disease X in painstaking detail. Stuff I wouldn't share with her on a first date. In time I'd tell her all about it -- just not until she gets to know more about me. Second, I'm worried about what employeers would think if they see I have a history of severe illness. I'm sure if some company wasn't sure whether they were going to hire you, something like this could tip the scale against you. Again, the fact that I no longer suffer from this disease is irrelvant -- employeers are not going to take a lot of time researching the illness and trying to see whether this is any chance of relapse or related illness, they'll just assume the worst.
I just felt that it would bring too much personal harm to me to advertise my illness. I still have the webpages. And when people ask me for advice (my name is "out there" in the right circles), I point them to my pages. But I just don't trust human beings enough to read my pages and take them as a dissemination of knowledge and a story of struggle and perserverance. I'm just worried they will read too much into it.
Call me a coward, but that's where I stand.
GMD
Microsoft surely has the better money-making model, but people interested in open source are usually more interested in the quality of software.
You mean OSS people are more interested in furthering their own personal reputation and glory. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But there's way too much OSS that gets released with the disclaimer "Hey, this is free software -- you get what you pay for" for me to agree with you that quality is more important to the OSS folks than those who will get fired if they screw up coding.
The more accurate comparison between OSS and Microsoft is that of academia versus industry. In academia you can work on what you want (provided you can get some funding for it) and the results of your work are peer-reviewed. In industry you give up a lot of freedom to do what you want but you get a much bigger paycheck.
GMD
We need not, nor care not, about the opinions of the world regarding our existance, relevance, or lack thereof of both.
Well, I suppose that is one way to look at it. However, I think many people who are fans of open-source software would like to see more people (i.e., people other than the tech-elite) benefit from it. I'd really like to install Linux on my mom's PC. It would certainly save me the effort of having to fix things whenever Outlook Express executes some malicious code or trying to restore the registry (or some other adminstration-level file) after something went wrong. But right now a lot of the open source software isn't really designed for the naive, basic user and I don't think she can "handle it". Yes, it's true that we aren't "required" to be accepted. But if we were accepted by more people, that would mean that more people would benefit from the efforts of the OSS coders. And the increased competition might spur Microsoft to start producing quality software for a change.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't discount the "opinions of the world". While we shouldn't plunge into depression if our efforts are largely overlooked by "the masses", I think a lot of good could come out of more widespread acceptance.
GMD
Guys, relax. The article clearly states that this study was done on MICE and not HUMANS!! They're just making a guess that people detect pheromones through their nose, too -- they don't know this.
Talk about jumping the gun...
GMD