not sure if there is a point in replying to an "anonymous _coward_"
Your point is well taken, but that is certainly not what I am suggesting, my wording perhaps was poor.
It seems there is no good way to express the benefits of having a family without it being distorted by someone.
So to sum up, if perhaps you have the ability and the desire to work, but not the purpose, a family may give you purpose.
But for those that wouldn't do something for someone else, no matter how important that person is to you (like a wife or your kids) then I would not suggest you start a family.
This guy seems to have gotten somewhere, he's quit certain activites that waste time, he's even asked an extremely critical audience here on/. what he can do, so he shows desire for change, and I expressed one of the things in my life that caused me to change the most and had a huge impact on my productivity, having a family...
Get married, you won't have trouble getting work done the rest of your life.
This may sound like a joke at first, but I am serious, having a wife around will eventually lead to kids and a person that will always expect more out of you than you feel like giving, eventually you just end of up changing out of your wife's sheer will.
Again, this may sound like a joke, but having mouths to feed makes you the best worker in the world. I was making minimum wage when I had my first child, and it got me to see college as something serious.
Then, while in college, I was the only one in 40 people in my group that took everything seriously, I had an internship my second semester, I took summer classes, I worked all night at learning to code and design, I got hired half way through school, my last year of school I started freelancing, now (aside from time spent on slashdot and reading news) am quite productive on a daily basis and have a growing business.
The real secret is being able to take the future seriously. First you take the first month seriously, as that is when rent is due, then you take a year seriously as you deal with taxes and find out how much you've made (or didn't make). Then you realize, "I am going to be 80 years old some day"
When you finally see that you will be 80, then you take your health seriously. Visit some old folks that are in constant pain, I have, they all wish they had taken better care of themselves. ( for a geek, it means stretching, good posture, no caffine and exercise).
When you really, really truly believe that your every day actions have a long term effect, then a light blinks on you and you see that the few extra hours you spent coding instead of surfing (there is a thing called information addiction...) actually do move you forward in life. And that the few hours you wasted, move you backwards.
Debt makes you realize this as well. I have business debt, my first year was not profitable at all, I spend $50 a month in interest on it, it will be paid off in 2 years, but now I see that $50 a month is $600 a year, and if I had saved that starting 20 years ago (at the age of 8) I would have $12,000 + interest in the bank, and that would have gotten me through the lean times in my business.
A real important lesson to learn is by accepting wise advice as much as you would experience. Experience is a bad way to learn. For example, an old man that has chronic back pain told me to take care of my back because "you don't want to have pain like I have" Well, if I didn't change my life around every day, without having the experince of pain pushing me to make those small decisions easier, then I will end up where he was, and feel like a total fool for it when it happens.
Just take a current or past experience of how you wasted your time and didn't apply your self, and extend it into the future. Then you will see where your failure to work will lead you.
I hope the best for you, I work hard, but it is always a struggle to continue working with games and news a click away. Also, 10 minutes of work is more than no work at all... do small bites at a time, don't expect the world right away, you may find that after a few small bites, you want to finish your meal.....
I read you are from Canada, but I heard the most convincing conspiracy theory yesterday, that Mr. B*sh and who ever else on the know has purposely decimated the economy (of course Mr. Cl*nton got us on the right "borrow till you puke" road of finances) for the very reason of making the military look more appealing to a jobless society...
I perceive the US's economy is tied enough to our northly neighbors to effect your economy as well... think twice before jumping on board to a gun toting job... Unless your gov't doesn't plan on going to war ever, it may not be a good career move... getting dead to grab oil isn't what I'd call a worthy expenditure of time, but if you are already in, good luck.
Yah, but I don't think Freud was right about anything, least of all women... So obviously all the fighting and glory hounding has nothing to do with getting a wife... I think it's something like love and compassion and charm...
But I could be wrong, maybe I'll ask my wife what she liked about me before we got married..
Me: Honey did you marry me because I was the best programmer in the company? Or because I was kind and sweet to you and gave you flowers?
Wife: Duh... #2 silly...
Me: So it had nothing to do with my strutting and high testosterone levels?
Wife: Hah! You are so funny!
Me: No, really, I am told by people that are much smarter than I am, they even write "scientific research papers" on this, that my ability to gain your attention with my competitive edge over the other guys is what makes me smart and add "great contributions" to society...
Wife: Pffft! You can be such a dork sometimes.
Me: So do you think I will loose my competive edge, lack drive and sink into anonymity because I am married?
Wife: [obviously very pissed] You are sleeping on the couch tonight bub, you can work on being a genius there.
That only effects those women who's men are concerned with how much of the cake they eat...
An actual bigger depressant of a wife's sex drive is the husband... a mental mirror and corrective decision making by the husband can clear this up of course...
If all you are basing your research on is 280 very specific people in very specific fields to determine what "genius" is then your research is pretty faulty simply on the basis of your definitions and limited scope of subjects...
This really should be labeled "Genius's of the past that were so socially abnormal and the only life they had was their research soon discovered greater happiness in being married and therefore spent less time at the office."
"Scientific productivity indeed fades with age," Dr Kanazawa says
Like when your 80 you can't think as well... this is somehow news?
"Scientists rather quickly desist (from their careers) after their marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to make great scientific contributions later in their lives," says Dr Kanazawa.
I can hardly say there is enough proof to show this, since only 1/4 of 280 scientist that got married had any change in discoveries after marriage. (that is their data from the article) How is there any correlation between that percentage and reality? How are they deciding what a "great contribution" is? This is ubsurd.
For all we know only those 70 even got married out of the bunch...
I'd like a time warp machine to see the proof that somehow if those scientists had not gotten married that they would have discovered anything new that by this research would be considered "great achievements". Me quitting coffee is a great achievment and Bill the idiot savant that can understand the universe isn't listed in the 280...
I am going to have to research his article, but the only way you can use all 280 in this project is if all 280 got married. If half didn't then your data is not conclusive. If half that got married had crappy marriages, your data is not conclusive. If half that got married got divorced while still in their prime, the data is not conclusive. Think of all the variables involved...
Maybe I just believe a little too much in the scientific method, but where is the control group here? 280 people, each with probably a radically different experience with women many possibly in different fields of expertise.
Of course even a more laughable aspect of this, that by all indications from the article there are no genius women scientists...
Heck, what if one guy lived on a cot at the observatory, but when he got married moved back to his home state and didn't have access to the materials... all of a sudden he isn't a genius anymore? These people's research is total bunk...
Dr Kanazawa theorises after a man settles down, the testosterone level falls, as does his creative output.
Ok people, beware, testosterone has been declared to affect "genius". I'm sure the most geekified of the slashdotters can figure out the consquences of that statement...
..do the quick thing and greatly increase the chance of $uccess now, or to do the correct thing and avoid pain later (assuming there is money to pay for the pain later)?
I have the same problem. It is very rare that I can sit down and do things the absolutely perfect way the first time.
So what I learned from a very successful business owner (has done software for IBM, TRW, Motorola, etc...) and one of my best clients, is that you do the quick and dirty every time to start it off. Then 3 to 6 months after you get version 1 done, start from scratch.
Mainly because as you are doing the Q&D, you want the speed and flexibility of crappy code to get features tested and useability refined. Then when you know what you want, after months of Q&D, then you go for creating what you now know is the best features/usability but with good solid code.
I've heard clients complain about most excellent programmers that engineer the crap out of their code, do everything right, and their code is solid and immaculate.
hehe, yes and these programmers are always late with their code, stuck on their own ideas and are unable to change their perfect code to add new features.
The happy medium I have found is that I maintain a good solid methodogly so that my code is never super crappy, as this is hell to go back over. It takes extra time, but not as much time as documenting and setting up pefect objects on every corner of the project.
I am sure most programmers have some sort of degreee of quality standard they won't drop below no matter how short the deadline.
Right now I am working on an Content Management System that is based on some purchased code. But the current code is pure trash and filth. But I chose to change the big things first. And keep a long term perspective on features vs nice code base. When I explain this to the clients, they tend to appreciate the method of quick code and then clean/redo after the design phase is completed, it just makes sense to the money guys....
With my FTP radio station, I have 3,000 + stations and they each play one song over and over. And if you have the right software you can even record that song as you listen to it, just like on FM... It's just a lot easier...
So why make a bother with webcasters with their puny 3 and 4 channel stations with only 128k streams, when you can come to my FTP radio station and get 1mb streams and keep the songs?
All you need is a full duplex audio card and you can record the streams with any basic audio software anyways.. this is all very silly..
Re:Who was the interviewer? I smell a rat.
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
hehe, they asked or stated (some weren't questions) only 5 things. They left out about 40 - 50 of the other questions like -
USA TODAY: The general geek population on slashdot seems to think you are a complete megalomaniac and make crummy software, how would your respond to that?
Bill: You have to look at this in a cost analysis understanding of innovative perspectives on the issue of technological returns on intellectual profit margins related to personal benefits surrounding the whole issue. Besides they are just a bunch of geeks, who cares what they think anyways?
USA TODAY: How do really expect to out sell free software?
Bill: You are really missing the point, windows is has the innovative process oriented goal approach to creating productive applications for developing real and lasting investment based and task oreinted production models, Linux doesn't come anywhere close to that kind of obfiscated dispersmentary monetary returns, it's like saying OS/2 is better than windows.
USA TODAY: Are you really out of touch with reality, or do you think people like buggy, expensive software?
Bill: If you look at it from our perspective, there really aren't any bugs in our software, we should be politically correct here and call them "underappreciated features lacking proper activation evironments". For example, let's say you are writing a really scathing email about your boss and he comes up behind you while you are writing, you would really appreciate a good BSOD at that moment, but most of the time the BSOD is activated at inopportune times, like when you are almost finished with a 300 page report. If users really understood the value of a good BSOD, they would use it more wisely. But because of the general lack of understanding of the purpose of the BSOD, it's mistakenly refered to as a "bug", when it's not a bad thing at all.
USA Today: What about the rampant virus spreading and security holes in Outlook?
Bill: Need I remind you that if it wasn't for Microsoft, there wouldn't be the booming Anti-Virus software market like there is today, you can thank us personally for that.
I guess what is silly about your statement is that this was a fully legitimate claim, the lady wasn't asking for anything except to get her medical bills paid, $20,000. Which is absolutely a pittance for McDonalds and they're reasoning was, "we don't care about this person"
The jury, a group of "people" not "Big Brother Government", which you would love to blame for this "misdeed of justice". Think about that, it was the people living in her city that saw what McDonalds was doing, they were the ones that called foul.
It will be interesting when you find something like a car part burns out in your car, and 5,000 other people also had this part burn out, so it's obviously defective, but because you have no help, you just get taken for $3,000 to fix something that was defective, when the car company should have paid for it. (check out the plenum gasket on the 1999 Durangos and also their front CV joints)
Corporations like McDonalds are consistently making decisions that make them money at the expense of their customers.
A woman sued McDonalds for medical payments because she got burned from their product. It was a totally legitimate lawsuit.
If you didn't know this, in the states, if you don't keep your sidewalk clean in the winter, and someone slips on the snow/ice, it's your fault for not keeping it clean. I could get sued for a year's worth of salary to pay for just the medical bill, yet you cry foul when a person is awarded a just amount against a huge company. Punitive damages are for the sake of "punishing" McDonalds, do you really think they got an unfair punishment? 2 days worth of coffee sales?
But don't go crying to the government
She didn't, she took them to court and faced them her self. It's obvious you don't live in America, the government doesn't help you like that here...
if it bothers you that McDonald's coffee is served too hot then buy it somewhere else
Have you read anything about this court case? Her lawsuit was over medical bills from 3rd degree burns. It had nothing to do with "coffee preference". So get over it.
frivolous lawsuits: those are lawsuits that have no real validity to them. Given the facts of the McDonald's case, I think it qualifies.
12 fully competent people that McDonalds' lawyers helped choose to be allowed on the jury, with all the facts presented in front of them, disagree with you.
You on the otherhand were not there, have obviously not read much about the court case and are in complete disagreement, and probably got your initial opinion from TV news which consistently paints lawsuit victories against corporations for the small person as a "bad" thing and gross miscariage of justice.
If your opinion is to be taken seriously, what "evidence" do you show to back up your opinion?
I don't want to call any names, but you need to really read about this before saying something so unintelligent.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
Think for a second, then say to yourself - "Yes, the coffee was way too hot. And, yes the lady was even reasonable about here request. And, yes, McDonalds needed a slap in the face. And, yes, now I know that McD's makes 2.7 MILLION ON COFFEE IN TWO DAYS."
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
Wake up and smell the coffee... This lawsuit was the perfect example of the people protecting the people from greedy and heartless corporations... Let me clarify for you.
YOU:
I seriously doubt the woman who got burned could legitimately claim ignorance of the coffee's temperature...
REALITY:
Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup.
I am sure if I thought my coffee would cause _third degree burns_ that I would place it between my legs.
YOU:
So chances are very good that the woman is either a liar or a moron.
REALITY:
She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting.
YOU:
Sorry, but the McDonald's coffee ruling was pure bullshit no matter how you slice it.
REALITY:
The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
I am in a lawsuit, and I've paid 4 MONTHS worth of my own income just to stay alive in it, McDonalds only had to pay 2 days of ONLY COFFEE SALES!! Maybe you need to be in a frivilous lawsuit to see the real difference here.
REALITY:
Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
YOU:
The legal system has no business protecting people from their own idiocy, especially when it's at the expense of others.
REALITY:
Coffee that causes 3rd degree burns is dangerous. period.
Re:Possible v Probable...
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
Of course its possible given huge investment to change this in the medium term (5+ years) but not in the short term at a reasonable cost.
Yes, and this will happen. So considering that we can safely assume that this technology (the idea of a tracking device in every product, NOT RFID specifically) will get better, more effective, better range, then it should be law that -
1. All products be labeled clearly that it has an RFID (or similar device)
2. The tag is easily removed after purchasing the item.
Regardless of current technilogical or economical constraints on the system
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
No loopholes so long as you're talking about radio- none whatsoever.
What if they were able to focus the beam (radio, or whatever form of radiation is allowed) using some kind of smart antanne, that could extend the communication range based on where the direction came from the reader unit.
I have no idea off hand how this could be done, but I have lots of creative ideas to start on making something that could accomplish this.
Also, I don't recall there being any legal limit to the size of the antenna, which means that a mile long antenna could be embbedded in clothing like a shirt, unlikely, but possible. This could certainly be done in winter coats.
The point I am making is that yes, with all your knowledge of the limitations, you still lack one this, the knowledge of what will be discovered tomorrow. Even though you seem to understand all the limitations of RFID, you aren't able to predict future enhancements to the system, regardless of the fact that they use radio or some other form of communication. What if quantum radio was used? Ever heard of it? It doesn't exist yet that I know of, but you can't say it won't tommorrow.
So the issue at hand is that there should not be any manner of embedded tracking device, regardless of the technical limitations it has, unless the product is
1. Labeled clearly that it has an RFID
2. The tag is easily removed after purchasing the item.
These 2 items address all future advancements past your own ability to understand present technology and any future technology that will inevitably come about.
There will be better power sources and they will communicate farther, there is no doubt about this. 100 years ago there was no communication like this at all, and even 10 years from now we can't imagine what will be available...
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
So you are trying to say because the mobile phone only reaches 1 -2 miles that you can't go almost _anywhere_ where there's lots of people and use your phone? Of course not... so why, just because the RFID tag's "current" limit is alot smaller, do you think RFIDs will not be trackable in the same area as cellphones? Because there isn't a cell system yet setup to track such small areas? Is that it?
Go back ten years, point to a cellphone that is anywhere near the size they are now and say that size has anything to do with power and ability. Things are getting smaller and more powerful. Could you really say to someone in the 80s, that in 20 years you could talk through a phone the size of your TV remote through a satellite in space, from anywhere on the planet?
Look at batteries, there's micro engines they have now that can run 300 times the power of a normal battery, tell me you could have predicted that. The battery industry has been claiming only certain abilities for years, probably just to keep sales up...
No one can say they understand enough physics to conclusively say "passive RFID tags will never reach a communication limit of 100 feet." simply because too many other things have been created where someone said "it couldn't be done cause of physics."
You can't see the future any better than I can, but all I have to do is look into the past, where everyone that has said "it can't be done" was wrong.
One thing I will concede, if RFID tags can't do 100 feet passively, then something else that does exactly what RFIDs do, will do it, it will just have a different name.
Re:Active v Passive...
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
ok, great. What's to say the cost of production on a more advanced RFID won't happen in one year?
No matter what evidence is shown at this point in time to prove how limited these things are, does _not_ prove anything for RFID tags on the market for next year. Physics or not, someone will find a new material for the antanae, make cheap batteries, make a more accurate reciever, dramatically cut the price of production, etc... and then all the arguments for June 27th, 2003 are completely irrelevant.
A good example is cell-phones, tell me that a cellphone small enough to fit into a pair of sunglasses will never happen. Then tell me that passive RFID tags will never be able to communicate farther than 10 feet...
It's funny, the scientists with the most knowledge tend to be the most skeptical about what is possible...
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
I'm not expert, but I do recall everyone saying a few years back that cellphones would only work so good because of antane deficiences.... then a few years later some people come up with a _smaller_ antanae system that works better than the current one... so I arguments regarding the limitations on these tags are practically moot.
If the industry wants a longer range passive RFID tag at 4 watts, someone will make it happen at some point in the future... Determining legislation on evidence of this nature only makes it more difficult to prove a danger if the current set of devices are limited, without taking into account technilogical advances that can never be predicted...
The last thing I want is my kids to have shoes that can be tracked by freaks with scanners. Even if it is 5 - 10 years away...
What is to say they won't make a passive tag that can be read by a reader at 4 watts from 100 feet by next year... many things have been declared impossible until they were done...
Under the huge sheets of frozen ice at the NORTH POLE the blazingly brilliant scientists at NASA have found more ice.
NASA Scientist: Who would of thought there would be ice at the North Pole? Let alone MORE ice under that? Wow! This is an incredible scientific acheivement.
this story is developing...
In other news burnt, charred and otherwise blackened rocks have been found to exist on the sun side of Mercury, developing...
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
True.. but if using smart shelves the store will know that the item has been removed from the shelf and now is no-longer in range of a scanner... this should cause an alert as that is not normal behaviour.
Based on the research of the RFID org that is fighting this (and I can't find the link now but I got if from a recent RFID posting on/.) The range of RFID tags can be up to 40 feet.
Technology always get's better and more efficient, not the otherway around, so I am going to safely assume that presently this range is greater, and if not now will be in the coming years.
With this assumption, every item in a walmart store could be triangulated and tracked in 3D space dynamically throughout the whole store all the time, and if a tag dies, the exact location and time will be known and the appropriate security camera will have the perpitrator on tape, even if not directly, indirectly as that person comes into view from a camera close by.
Shoplifting and disabling an RFID tag are 2 different things, but my assumption is that if you disable the tag before buying it (not just blocking the signal) then you may be damaging the store's property...
I'd say go to the store, get as many items as you can find with the tags, bring them to the register, find out they are tagged, make a big stink, talk to the manager and complain viciously, would be a better approach that just shielding the tags... that way they'd know we don't like the tags..
Slashdot Mirror
Bill is that you? I didn't know you had a puppet on slashdot!
not sure if there is a point in replying to an "anonymous _coward_"
/. what he can do, so he shows desire for change, and I expressed one of the things in my life that caused me to change the most and had a huge impact on my productivity, having a family...
Your point is well taken, but that is certainly not what I am suggesting, my wording perhaps was poor.
It seems there is no good way to express the benefits of having a family without it being distorted by someone.
So to sum up, if perhaps you have the ability and the desire to work, but not the purpose, a family may give you purpose.
But for those that wouldn't do something for someone else, no matter how important that person is to you (like a wife or your kids) then I would not suggest you start a family.
This guy seems to have gotten somewhere, he's quit certain activites that waste time, he's even asked an extremely critical audience here on
-v
Get married, you won't have trouble getting work done the rest of your life.
This may sound like a joke at first, but I am serious, having a wife around will eventually lead to kids and a person that will always expect more out of you than you feel like giving, eventually you just end of up changing out of your wife's sheer will.
Again, this may sound like a joke, but having mouths to feed makes you the best worker in the world. I was making minimum wage when I had my first child, and it got me to see college as something serious.
Then, while in college, I was the only one in 40 people in my group that took everything seriously, I had an internship my second semester, I took summer classes, I worked all night at learning to code and design, I got hired half way through school, my last year of school I started freelancing, now (aside from time spent on slashdot and reading news) am quite productive on a daily basis and have a growing business.
The real secret is being able to take the future seriously. First you take the first month seriously, as that is when rent is due, then you take a year seriously as you deal with taxes and find out how much you've made (or didn't make). Then you realize, "I am going to be 80 years old some day"
When you finally see that you will be 80, then you take your health seriously. Visit some old folks that are in constant pain, I have, they all wish they had taken better care of themselves. ( for a geek, it means stretching, good posture, no caffine and exercise).
When you really, really truly believe that your every day actions have a long term effect, then a light blinks on you and you see that the few extra hours you spent coding instead of surfing (there is a thing called information addiction...) actually do move you forward in life. And that the few hours you wasted, move you backwards.
Debt makes you realize this as well. I have business debt, my first year was not profitable at all, I spend $50 a month in interest on it, it will be paid off in 2 years, but now I see that $50 a month is $600 a year, and if I had saved that starting 20 years ago (at the age of 8) I would have $12,000 + interest in the bank, and that would have gotten me through the lean times in my business.
A real important lesson to learn is by accepting wise advice as much as you would experience. Experience is a bad way to learn. For example, an old man that has chronic back pain told me to take care of my back because "you don't want to have pain like I have" Well, if I didn't change my life around every day, without having the experince of pain pushing me to make those small decisions easier, then I will end up where he was, and feel like a total fool for it when it happens.
Just take a current or past experience of how you wasted your time and didn't apply your self, and extend it into the future. Then you will see where your failure to work will lead you.
I hope the best for you, I work hard, but it is always a struggle to continue working with games and news a click away. Also, 10 minutes of work is more than no work at all... do small bites at a time, don't expect the world right away, you may find that after a few small bites, you want to finish your meal.....
-v
I perceive the US's economy is tied enough to our northly neighbors to effect your economy as well... think twice before jumping on board to a gun toting job... Unless your gov't doesn't plan on going to war ever, it may not be a good career move... getting dead to grab oil isn't what I'd call a worthy expenditure of time, but if you are already in, good luck.
$1.83? Is it worth that much?
They have babies and retire early... or the husband becomes the mom...
Hey! You are doing great! You have ZERO bugs in your program! Amazing, how do you do it?
Yah, but I don't think Freud was right about anything, least of all women... So obviously all the fighting and glory hounding has nothing to do with getting a wife... I think it's something like love and compassion and charm...
But I could be wrong, maybe I'll ask my wife what she liked about me before we got married..
Me: Honey did you marry me because I was the best programmer in the company? Or because I was kind and sweet to you and gave you flowers?
Wife: Duh... #2 silly...
Me: So it had nothing to do with my strutting and high testosterone levels?
Wife: Hah! You are so funny!
Me: No, really, I am told by people that are much smarter than I am, they even write "scientific research papers" on this, that my ability to gain your attention with my competitive edge over the other guys is what makes me smart and add "great contributions" to society...
Wife: Pffft! You can be such a dork sometimes.
Me: So do you think I will loose my competive edge, lack drive and sink into anonymity because I am married?
Wife: [obviously very pissed] You are sleeping on the couch tonight bub, you can work on being a genius there.
An actual bigger depressant of a wife's sex drive is the husband... a mental mirror and corrective decision making by the husband can clear this up of course...
This really should be labeled "Genius's of the past that were so socially abnormal and the only life they had was their research soon discovered greater happiness in being married and therefore spent less time at the office."
"Scientific productivity indeed fades with age," Dr Kanazawa says
Like when your 80 you can't think as well... this is somehow news?
"Scientists rather quickly desist (from their careers) after their marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to make great scientific contributions later in their lives," says Dr Kanazawa.
I can hardly say there is enough proof to show this, since only 1/4 of 280 scientist that got married had any change in discoveries after marriage. (that is their data from the article) How is there any correlation between that percentage and reality? How are they deciding what a "great contribution" is? This is ubsurd.
For all we know only those 70 even got married out of the bunch...
I'd like a time warp machine to see the proof that somehow if those scientists had not gotten married that they would have discovered anything new that by this research would be considered "great achievements". Me quitting coffee is a great achievment and Bill the idiot savant that can understand the universe isn't listed in the 280...
I am going to have to research his article, but the only way you can use all 280 in this project is if all 280 got married. If half didn't then your data is not conclusive. If half that got married had crappy marriages, your data is not conclusive. If half that got married got divorced while still in their prime, the data is not conclusive. Think of all the variables involved...
Maybe I just believe a little too much in the scientific method, but where is the control group here? 280 people, each with probably a radically different experience with women many possibly in different fields of expertise.
Of course even a more laughable aspect of this, that by all indications from the article there are no genius women scientists...
Heck, what if one guy lived on a cot at the observatory, but when he got married moved back to his home state and didn't have access to the materials... all of a sudden he isn't a genius anymore? These people's research is total bunk...
Dr Kanazawa theorises after a man settles down, the testosterone level falls, as does his creative output.
Ok people, beware, testosterone has been declared to affect "genius". I'm sure the most geekified of the slashdotters can figure out the consquences of that statement...
I have the same problem. It is very rare that I can sit down and do things the absolutely perfect way the first time.
So what I learned from a very successful business owner (has done software for IBM, TRW, Motorola, etc...) and one of my best clients, is that you do the quick and dirty every time to start it off. Then 3 to 6 months after you get version 1 done, start from scratch.
Mainly because as you are doing the Q&D, you want the speed and flexibility of crappy code to get features tested and useability refined. Then when you know what you want, after months of Q&D, then you go for creating what you now know is the best features/usability but with good solid code.
I've heard clients complain about most excellent programmers that engineer the crap out of their code, do everything right, and their code is solid and immaculate.
hehe, yes and these programmers are always late with their code, stuck on their own ideas and are unable to change their perfect code to add new features.
The happy medium I have found is that I maintain a good solid methodogly so that my code is never super crappy, as this is hell to go back over. It takes extra time, but not as much time as documenting and setting up pefect objects on every corner of the project.
I am sure most programmers have some sort of degreee of quality standard they won't drop below no matter how short the deadline.
Right now I am working on an Content Management System that is based on some purchased code. But the current code is pure trash and filth. But I chose to change the big things first. And keep a long term perspective on features vs nice code base. When I explain this to the clients, they tend to appreciate the method of quick code and then clean/redo after the design phase is completed, it just makes sense to the money guys....
Really what is the difference?
With my FTP radio station, I have 3,000 + stations and they each play one song over and over. And if you have the right software you can even record that song as you listen to it, just like on FM... It's just a lot easier...
So why make a bother with webcasters with their puny 3 and 4 channel stations with only 128k streams, when you can come to my FTP radio station and get 1mb streams and keep the songs?
All you need is a full duplex audio card and you can record the streams with any basic audio software anyways.. this is all very silly..
No, but thanks for asking anyways...
USA TODAY: The general geek population on slashdot seems to think you are a complete megalomaniac and make crummy software, how would your respond to that?
Bill: You have to look at this in a cost analysis understanding of innovative perspectives on the issue of technological returns on intellectual profit margins related to personal benefits surrounding the whole issue. Besides they are just a bunch of geeks, who cares what they think anyways?
USA TODAY: How do really expect to out sell free software?
Bill: You are really missing the point, windows is has the innovative process oriented goal approach to creating productive applications for developing real and lasting investment based and task oreinted production models, Linux doesn't come anywhere close to that kind of obfiscated dispersmentary monetary returns, it's like saying OS/2 is better than windows.
USA TODAY: Are you really out of touch with reality, or do you think people like buggy, expensive software?
Bill: If you look at it from our perspective, there really aren't any bugs in our software, we should be politically correct here and call them "underappreciated features lacking proper activation evironments". For example, let's say you are writing a really scathing email about your boss and he comes up behind you while you are writing, you would really appreciate a good BSOD at that moment, but most of the time the BSOD is activated at inopportune times, like when you are almost finished with a 300 page report. If users really understood the value of a good BSOD, they would use it more wisely. But because of the general lack of understanding of the purpose of the BSOD, it's mistakenly refered to as a "bug", when it's not a bad thing at all.
USA Today: What about the rampant virus spreading and security holes in Outlook?
Bill: Need I remind you that if it wasn't for Microsoft, there wouldn't be the booming Anti-Virus software market like there is today, you can thank us personally for that.
The jury, a group of "people" not "Big Brother Government", which you would love to blame for this "misdeed of justice". Think about that, it was the people living in her city that saw what McDonalds was doing, they were the ones that called foul.
It will be interesting when you find something like a car part burns out in your car, and 5,000 other people also had this part burn out, so it's obviously defective, but because you have no help, you just get taken for $3,000 to fix something that was defective, when the car company should have paid for it. (check out the plenum gasket on the 1999 Durangos and also their front CV joints)
Corporations like McDonalds are consistently making decisions that make them money at the expense of their customers.
A woman sued McDonalds for medical payments because she got burned from their product. It was a totally legitimate lawsuit.
If you didn't know this, in the states, if you don't keep your sidewalk clean in the winter, and someone slips on the snow/ice, it's your fault for not keeping it clean. I could get sued for a year's worth of salary to pay for just the medical bill, yet you cry foul when a person is awarded a just amount against a huge company. Punitive damages are for the sake of "punishing" McDonalds, do you really think they got an unfair punishment? 2 days worth of coffee sales?
But don't go crying to the government
She didn't, she took them to court and faced them her self. It's obvious you don't live in America, the government doesn't help you like that here...
if it bothers you that McDonald's coffee is served too hot then buy it somewhere else
Have you read anything about this court case? Her lawsuit was over medical bills from 3rd degree burns. It had nothing to do with "coffee preference". So get over it.
frivolous lawsuits: those are lawsuits that have no real validity to them. Given the facts of the McDonald's case, I think it qualifies.
12 fully competent people that McDonalds' lawyers helped choose to be allowed on the jury, with all the facts presented in front of them, disagree with you.
You on the otherhand were not there, have obviously not read much about the court case and are in complete disagreement, and probably got your initial opinion from TV news which consistently paints lawsuit victories against corporations for the small person as a "bad" thing and gross miscariage of justice.
If your opinion is to be taken seriously, what "evidence" do you show to back up your opinion?
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
Think for a second, then say to yourself - "Yes, the coffee was way too hot. And, yes the lady was even reasonable about here request. And, yes, McDonalds needed a slap in the face. And, yes, now I know that McD's makes 2.7 MILLION ON COFFEE IN TWO DAYS."
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
Wake up and smell the coffee... This lawsuit was the perfect example of the people protecting the people from greedy and heartless corporations... Let me clarify for you.
YOU:
I seriously doubt the woman who got burned could legitimately claim ignorance of the coffee's temperature...
REALITY:
Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup.
I am sure if I thought my coffee would cause _third degree burns_ that I would place it between my legs.
YOU:
So chances are very good that the woman is either a liar or a moron.
REALITY:
She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting.
YOU:
Sorry, but the McDonald's coffee ruling was pure bullshit no matter how you slice it.
REALITY:
The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
I am in a lawsuit, and I've paid 4 MONTHS worth of my own income just to stay alive in it, McDonalds only had to pay 2 days of ONLY COFFEE SALES!! Maybe you need to be in a frivilous lawsuit to see the real difference here.
REALITY:
Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
YOU:
The legal system has no business protecting people from their own idiocy, especially when it's at the expense of others.
REALITY:
Coffee that causes 3rd degree burns is dangerous. period.
Yes, and this will happen. So considering that we can safely assume that this technology (the idea of a tracking device in every product, NOT RFID specifically) will get better, more effective, better range, then it should be law that -
1. All products be labeled clearly that it has an RFID (or similar device)
2. The tag is easily removed after purchasing the item.
Regardless of current technilogical or economical constraints on the system
What if they were able to focus the beam (radio, or whatever form of radiation is allowed) using some kind of smart antanne, that could extend the communication range based on where the direction came from the reader unit.
I have no idea off hand how this could be done, but I have lots of creative ideas to start on making something that could accomplish this.
Also, I don't recall there being any legal limit to the size of the antenna, which means that a mile long antenna could be embbedded in clothing like a shirt, unlikely, but possible. This could certainly be done in winter coats.
The point I am making is that yes, with all your knowledge of the limitations, you still lack one this, the knowledge of what will be discovered tomorrow. Even though you seem to understand all the limitations of RFID, you aren't able to predict future enhancements to the system, regardless of the fact that they use radio or some other form of communication. What if quantum radio was used? Ever heard of it? It doesn't exist yet that I know of, but you can't say it won't tommorrow.
So the issue at hand is that there should not be any manner of embedded tracking device, regardless of the technical limitations it has, unless the product is
1. Labeled clearly that it has an RFID
2. The tag is easily removed after purchasing the item.
These 2 items address all future advancements past your own ability to understand present technology and any future technology that will inevitably come about.
There will be better power sources and they will communicate farther, there is no doubt about this. 100 years ago there was no communication like this at all, and even 10 years from now we can't imagine what will be available...
So you are trying to say because the mobile phone only reaches 1 -2 miles that you can't go almost _anywhere_ where there's lots of people and use your phone? Of course not... so why, just because the RFID tag's "current" limit is alot smaller, do you think RFIDs will not be trackable in the same area as cellphones? Because there isn't a cell system yet setup to track such small areas? Is that it?
Go back ten years, point to a cellphone that is anywhere near the size they are now and say that size has anything to do with power and ability. Things are getting smaller and more powerful. Could you really say to someone in the 80s, that in 20 years you could talk through a phone the size of your TV remote through a satellite in space, from anywhere on the planet?
Look at batteries, there's micro engines they have now that can run 300 times the power of a normal battery, tell me you could have predicted that. The battery industry has been claiming only certain abilities for years, probably just to keep sales up...
No one can say they understand enough physics to conclusively say "passive RFID tags will never reach a communication limit of 100 feet." simply because too many other things have been created where someone said "it couldn't be done cause of physics."
You can't see the future any better than I can, but all I have to do is look into the past, where everyone that has said "it can't be done" was wrong.
One thing I will concede, if RFID tags can't do 100 feet passively, then something else that does exactly what RFIDs do, will do it, it will just have a different name.
ok, great. What's to say the cost of production on a more advanced RFID won't happen in one year?
No matter what evidence is shown at this point in time to prove how limited these things are, does _not_ prove anything for RFID tags on the market for next year. Physics or not, someone will find a new material for the antanae, make cheap batteries, make a more accurate reciever, dramatically cut the price of production, etc... and then all the arguments for June 27th, 2003 are completely irrelevant.
A good example is cell-phones, tell me that a cellphone small enough to fit into a pair of sunglasses will never happen. Then tell me that passive RFID tags will never be able to communicate farther than 10 feet...
It's funny, the scientists with the most knowledge tend to be the most skeptical about what is possible...
I'm not expert, but I do recall everyone saying a few years back that cellphones would only work so good because of antane deficiences.... then a few years later some people come up with a _smaller_ antanae system that works better than the current one... so I arguments regarding the limitations on these tags are practically moot.
If the industry wants a longer range passive RFID tag at 4 watts, someone will make it happen at some point in the future... Determining legislation on evidence of this nature only makes it more difficult to prove a danger if the current set of devices are limited, without taking into account technilogical advances that can never be predicted...
The last thing I want is my kids to have shoes that can be tracked by freaks with scanners. Even if it is 5 - 10 years away...
What is to say they won't make a passive tag that can be read by a reader at 4 watts from 100 feet by next year... many things have been declared impossible until they were done...
NEWS FLASH:
Under the huge sheets of frozen ice at the NORTH POLE the blazingly brilliant scientists at NASA have found more ice.
NASA Scientist: Who would of thought there would be ice at the North Pole? Let alone MORE ice under that? Wow! This is an incredible scientific acheivement.
this story is developing...
In other news burnt, charred and otherwise blackened rocks have been found to exist on the sun side of Mercury, developing...
Based on the research of the RFID org that is fighting this (and I can't find the link now but I got if from a recent RFID posting on /.) The range of RFID tags can be up to 40 feet.
Technology always get's better and more efficient, not the otherway around, so I am going to safely assume that presently this range is greater, and if not now will be in the coming years.
With this assumption, every item in a walmart store could be triangulated and tracked in 3D space dynamically throughout the whole store all the time, and if a tag dies, the exact location and time will be known and the appropriate security camera will have the perpitrator on tape, even if not directly, indirectly as that person comes into view from a camera close by.
Shoplifting and disabling an RFID tag are 2 different things, but my assumption is that if you disable the tag before buying it (not just blocking the signal) then you may be damaging the store's property...
I'd say go to the store, get as many items as you can find with the tags, bring them to the register, find out they are tagged, make a big stink, talk to the manager and complain viciously, would be a better approach that just shielding the tags... that way they'd know we don't like the tags..
Bah... this is just regurgitated quicktime VR, which is hypercard with nice video...
Is this really any different from a web page with the links on the side instead of in the video?
Bob: Hey, hit stop! Rewind, rewind, click there, click there!
Fred: I'm tryin, I'm tryin dernit!
Bob: No, no, not there, forward forward, No, stop, backup, backup, click now click now before the link disappears in the next scene! AGGGH!
(*Dislaimer: this is a joke, I didn't even read the article*)