It seems to me that 95% of games are about killing things, collecting things, or both. I'll save the highest praise for the games that appeal to me as a human being, not as a collection of prejudices.
Think about your favorite games. Even though it may not be obvious, and though it may be wrapped up in cutesy graphics, I'll bet most of them involve killing, and collecting money or some abstraction of money.
This happens to me a lot, and I'm sort of seeing it with new eyes, as I hadn't been using Windows much for a few years. I dislike it. It's one of several things that give me the impression that Windows' behavior is not predictable. It's one thing to have something crash every time you do it - at least you can avoid it - but to have things crash randomly and when you aren't doing anything you feel to be abnormal is very disconcerting.
And I don't necessarily feel like this happens only when I'm "multi-tasking." I try to avoid doing multiple things at once. Though, I do feel like it happens most when I've started an install process and put it in the background. All of the sudden, a tiny box will come up and disappear while I'm typing, and then the computer reboots. This is infuriating. Applications should have their own context. Programs shouldn't be able to interrupt your current context (e.g. editing code) with stuff that pertains to another context (e.g. an installation process). It should perhaps just notify you that some other context has a message for you.
I'm getting tired of the "geeks can't progress to penial insertion" jokes. If not knowing how to bed a woman is bad, then what is good? And what about the female geeks? Should they work on making men have sex with them? Or should they remain on the opposite side of the joke? I suppose they've had over 2000 years experience.
The study itself sounded pretty interesting though - they had various women sit on top of a subwoofer and played different frequencies while asking about their sexual response...
Hmm.. why would a woman want to sit on a huge vibrating box?
Hmm.. I'm afraid I sympathize more with the original poster, since he actually did work and felt emotions about this hardware. I certainly wouldn't want to make something so that it could be destroyed, regardless of the reasons. And if the NSA has to destroy things in order to keep their budget, that makes me suspicious that their budget is too large. And something makes me doubt that the NSA has to re-defend and earn its budget every single year. It's probably more like every 2, or 4, or even more years.
I just installed Windows Server 2003 Enterprise, and when I went to use Internet Explorer to download some drivers, it was even more annoying than it usually is: Server 2003 has some "enhanced security" option enabled for IE, which basically makes it so most or all web sites break. And you get to look at a large "warning! Enhanced IE security is on" message every time you go to a URL. I eventually completely uninstalled this "enhanced security" because it made it impossible for me to get anything done.
Is it just an issue of approaches? I mean, in my (C.S.) programming classes, we learned data structures and algorithms and how to write satisfying solutions to problems. From a "Software Engineering" standpoint, though, those kinds of activities may be irrelevant. The focus there may be on error handling and user interface design, for example.
Yeah, it's related to this idea of "contextual information," like in the application Dashboard (not the Apple one). I think I read that Microsoft wanted to integrate this into Windows, though I don't know if they're doing that anymore. Anyway, the idea is that, whatever you're doing (chatting, writing a document, reading email), your "sidebar" will show you a set of search results that have been deemed related to whatever you're doing. So if you're writing a paragraph about how penguins have been learning to hang-glide, in the sidebar you might see a set of Google Scholar results for penguin hang-gliding, as well as emails and chat transcripts in which you've brainstormed about this project. Whether this is actually a useful presentation of data is something I'm skeptical of, but I think the idea of contextual computing is very interesting. Right now, even though OS X makes it easy to do, using a computer involves manipulating abstractions of low-level representations, such as organizing files into directories, and assuming that "multi-tasking" is a really good idea, even though it causes distraction and is not actually possible for people to do effectively. A computer can multi-task well, but people don't.
If they have ads in your document, maybe they'll be links to Google Scholar searches, rather than products? I find it hard to believe that writing a document would make you want to buy products. Writing documents is a very solitary and "holy" task for most people, I think.
Yeah, I think the quote agrees with you. I think he meant that it isn't technically difficult to freeze eggs. In fact, it seems like he says freezing sperm is more difficult. I think he worded it odd.
I've read it hypothesized (in Nation of Rebels) that the United States was able to reliably provide for the basic needs of most individuals (the bottom level(s) in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) through free-market capitalism. It seems to me that since that threshold was passed (in the 1940s-50s, I believe), perhaps we've been living (collectively, separately, perhaps in a dipolar manner) somewhere between totally rejecting society since it provides little means for connection (especially through advertisements, cars, and the sprawl and isolation assumed by a life in the suburbs) and fulfillment, and using the free-market economy (even without our realizing it) in order to extend the capability of money to make us happy beyond just ensuring our survival. An example of this would be purchasing organic food because it's somehow associated by the purchaser with intelligence or care -- something they think they'd like to be. The book seems to argue that this is proof that the entire notion of being dissatisfied with American society is (perhaps fatally) flawed and indeed equal in terms to the product-lusty life anyone else in America leads. In one important way, I disagree. I think that most people who have a problem with America generally have some idea that something about it doesn't satisfy them -- they just don't necessarily know what that "something" is, nor do they know what to do about it, or even where to look. The result, it seems to me, is violence. Never-ending loathing of one thing or another. Everything has to be divided up into "cool," "not cool," "conformist," "not conformist," and so on. The truth as it seems to me is that conformity and individuality (in this context) have no strict definition that anyone is happy with, and more importantly, that "being individual" is a task that has no rules or tests to make sure it's beinf performed properly. I think what's missing is real connection -- love.
If you understand how to love yourself, how life is connected, and then therefore see the pain and happiness in other people, you can say "yes" and "no" to anything without a complex inner dialogue.
You can see this disconnect and fighting in the rejection of religion (usually along with a strong emphasis on the mind and thinking). But notice that the disenchantment with society in general is mirrored in that with (most) religions: don't believe in God -> religion is bullshit -> better off alone. But religion is a wrapper around spirituality -- understanding life and being connected with it. I've found this to be very valuable (via Buddhism).
I'd just clarify that "pleasure" as used here is what you feel when you think you've found something that will get rid of your current "bad" feelings.
You shouldn't hate your bad feelings. If you're sad, if you're hurting, that's you asking yourself for help. You should listen to yourself. Sometimes life hurts. Sometimes we're disappointed or bored or scared. Just allow yourself to feel what's inside you; don't fight it -- you need it, like seeds need compost to grow into flowers. If you can understand your pain, you'll understand what you need and what makes you happy, and nobody can take that away.
Re:Its a matter of perspective
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That reminded me of something I read in a book I have. Apparently it's in another book I've looked at online!:
There's a favorite letter of mine from a Nobel Prize winner named George Wald, who is a biologist at Harvard. He wrote it in response to an argument about the starting of a Nobel laureate sperm bank. Some irate feminist wrote into the paper saying, "Sperm banks, they should have an egg bank. Why just sperm?" He says:
You're right, Pauline. It takes an egg as well as a sperm to start a Nobel laureate. Everyone of them has had a mother as well as a father. Say all you want of fathers, their contribution to conception Is really rather small.
Nobel laureates aside, there isn't much technically in the way of starting an egg bank. There are some problems but nothing so hard as involved in the other kinds of breeder reactors.
But think of a man so vain as to insist on getting a superior egg from an egg bank. Then he has to fertilize it. And when it's fertilized, where does he go with it, To his wife? "Here, dear," you can hear him saying, "I just got this superior egg from an egg bank and just fertilized it myself. Will you take care of it?" "I've got eggs of my own to worry about," she replies. "You know what you can do with your superior egg. Go rent a womb, and while you're at it, you better rent a room too."
You see, it just won't work. For the truth is that what one really needs is not Nobel laureates but love. How do you think one gets to be a Nobel laureate? Wanting love, that's how. Wanting it so bad one works all the time and ends up a Nobel laureate. It's a consolation prize.
What matters is love. Forget sperm banks and egg banks. Banks and love are incompatible. If you don't know that, you don't know bankers. So just practice loving. Love a Russian. You'd be surprised how easy it is, and how it will brighten up your morning. Love whales, Iranians, Vietnamese, not just here but everywhere. When you've gotten really good you can even try loving some of our politicians."
Good points.. Are there distributions that differ in this regard? I mean, are there some that have lenient security settings? I doubt that making Linux usable would require bad security, so hopefully this isn't the case!
But they wouldn't have write access to stuff in/bin. Users usually shouldn't have write access to anything outside ~, so there shouldn't be a system crash unless there is permission escalation.
How else do you explain the sudden amount of creativity and motivation that Microsoft is having with its interface?
I wonder if Microsoft doesn't ape what it apes in order to sate the desire of users to try out other platforms? I suppose that is a standard way to compete, but it seems like it comes from a desire to simply retain and gain customers rather than from a desire to provide truly better interfaces and features.
Apparently, according to Logitech, users of this new mouse will either:
1. Sit at their computer and stare at the lights on their mouse until they light up, rather than watching for the actual content on the screen.
- or -
2. Sit on their bed and watch the lights on their mouse instead of reading, sleeping, leaving their bedroom, rubbing one out, or whatever the user planned on doing when they decided to stop being a "user" for a while.
Like many people, something inside me said "oo, mail light!" But after thinking about it, blinky lights for email on a mouse are unnecessary and keep your mind unnecessarily busy. So do ten buttons, for that matter.
Supporting Windows is a tough decision for me. Apart from money-ability, it is true that most people use Windows. I'd argue that the decision to use Windows at home is largely a result of ignorance on the part of consumers, but if I'm going to try and bring something good into peoples' lives, it's hard for me to actually say "no" to Windows. However, I acknowledge that the continued support of Windows by software developers must be a major reason that Windows continues to exist and be the major consumer operating system. So, my decision is hard, though I'd prefer not to develop for Windows at all. Interestingly, Windows was last on my list for platforms I'd like to support on my new application (behind OS X and Linux), and only because of the acknowledged market-share.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that 95% of games are about killing things, collecting things, or both. I'll save the highest praise for the games that appeal to me as a human being, not as a collection of prejudices.
Think about your favorite games. Even though it may not be obvious, and though it may be wrapped up in cutesy graphics, I'll bet most of them involve killing, and collecting money or some abstraction of money.
This happens to me a lot, and I'm sort of seeing it with new eyes, as I hadn't been using Windows much for a few years. I dislike it. It's one of several things that give me the impression that Windows' behavior is not predictable. It's one thing to have something crash every time you do it - at least you can avoid it - but to have things crash randomly and when you aren't doing anything you feel to be abnormal is very disconcerting.
And I don't necessarily feel like this happens only when I'm "multi-tasking." I try to avoid doing multiple things at once. Though, I do feel like it happens most when I've started an install process and put it in the background. All of the sudden, a tiny box will come up and disappear while I'm typing, and then the computer reboots. This is infuriating. Applications should have their own context. Programs shouldn't be able to interrupt your current context (e.g. editing code) with stuff that pertains to another context (e.g. an installation process). It should perhaps just notify you that some other context has a message for you.
I'm getting tired of the "geeks can't progress to penial insertion" jokes. If not knowing how to bed a woman is bad, then what is good? And what about the female geeks? Should they work on making men have sex with them? Or should they remain on the opposite side of the joke? I suppose they've had over 2000 years experience.
Hmm.. why would a woman want to sit on a huge vibrating box?
I just installed Windows Server 2003 Enterprise, and when I went to use Internet Explorer to download some drivers, it was even more annoying than it usually is: Server 2003 has some "enhanced security" option enabled for IE, which basically makes it so most or all web sites break. And you get to look at a large "warning! Enhanced IE security is on" message every time you go to a URL. I eventually completely uninstalled this "enhanced security" because it made it impossible for me to get anything done.
Is it just an issue of approaches? I mean, in my (C.S.) programming classes, we learned data structures and algorithms and how to write satisfying solutions to problems. From a "Software Engineering" standpoint, though, those kinds of activities may be irrelevant. The focus there may be on error handling and user interface design, for example.
It absorbs it, but where does it go?
Yeah, it's related to this idea of "contextual information," like in the application Dashboard (not the Apple one). I think I read that Microsoft wanted to integrate this into Windows, though I don't know if they're doing that anymore. Anyway, the idea is that, whatever you're doing (chatting, writing a document, reading email), your "sidebar" will show you a set of search results that have been deemed related to whatever you're doing. So if you're writing a paragraph about how penguins have been learning to hang-glide, in the sidebar you might see a set of Google Scholar results for penguin hang-gliding, as well as emails and chat transcripts in which you've brainstormed about this project. Whether this is actually a useful presentation of data is something I'm skeptical of, but I think the idea of contextual computing is very interesting. Right now, even though OS X makes it easy to do, using a computer involves manipulating abstractions of low-level representations, such as organizing files into directories, and assuming that "multi-tasking" is a really good idea, even though it causes distraction and is not actually possible for people to do effectively. A computer can multi-task well, but people don't.
If they have ads in your document, maybe they'll be links to Google Scholar searches, rather than products? I find it hard to believe that writing a document would make you want to buy products. Writing documents is a very solitary and "holy" task for most people, I think.
Just a reminder that Mono has ASP.NET. You can get an Apache plugin too.
From AJAX to moon shots with no intermediate steps.. you must be a programmer.
;-)
(so am I
Yeah, I think the quote agrees with you. I think he meant that it isn't technically difficult to freeze eggs. In fact, it seems like he says freezing sperm is more difficult. I think he worded it odd.
I've read it hypothesized (in Nation of Rebels) that the United States was able to reliably provide for the basic needs of most individuals (the bottom level(s) in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) through free-market capitalism. It seems to me that since that threshold was passed (in the 1940s-50s, I believe), perhaps we've been living (collectively, separately, perhaps in a dipolar manner) somewhere between totally rejecting society since it provides little means for connection (especially through advertisements, cars, and the sprawl and isolation assumed by a life in the suburbs) and fulfillment, and using the free-market economy (even without our realizing it) in order to extend the capability of money to make us happy beyond just ensuring our survival. An example of this would be purchasing organic food because it's somehow associated by the purchaser with intelligence or care -- something they think they'd like to be. The book seems to argue that this is proof that the entire notion of being dissatisfied with American society is (perhaps fatally) flawed and indeed equal in terms to the product-lusty life anyone else in America leads. In one important way, I disagree. I think that most people who have a problem with America generally have some idea that something about it doesn't satisfy them -- they just don't necessarily know what that "something" is, nor do they know what to do about it, or even where to look. The result, it seems to me, is violence. Never-ending loathing of one thing or another. Everything has to be divided up into "cool," "not cool," "conformist," "not conformist," and so on. The truth as it seems to me is that conformity and individuality (in this context) have no strict definition that anyone is happy with, and more importantly, that "being individual" is a task that has no rules or tests to make sure it's beinf performed properly. I think what's missing is real connection -- love.
If you understand how to love yourself, how life is connected, and then therefore see the pain and happiness in other people, you can say "yes" and "no" to anything without a complex inner dialogue.
You can see this disconnect and fighting in the rejection of religion (usually along with a strong emphasis on the mind and thinking). But notice that the disenchantment with society in general is mirrored in that with (most) religions: don't believe in God -> religion is bullshit -> better off alone. But religion is a wrapper around spirituality -- understanding life and being connected with it. I've found this to be very valuable (via Buddhism).
I'd just clarify that "pleasure" as used here is what you feel when you think you've found something that will get rid of your current "bad" feelings.
You shouldn't hate your bad feelings. If you're sad, if you're hurting, that's you asking yourself for help. You should listen to yourself. Sometimes life hurts. Sometimes we're disappointed or bored or scared. Just allow yourself to feel what's inside you; don't fight it -- you need it, like seeds need compost to grow into flowers. If you can understand your pain, you'll understand what you need and what makes you happy, and nobody can take that away.
from: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/jk8p/jk8p_01.ht
Good points.. Are there distributions that differ in this regard? I mean, are there some that have lenient security settings? I doubt that making Linux usable would require bad security, so hopefully this isn't the case!
But they wouldn't have write access to stuff in /bin. Users usually shouldn't have write access to anything outside ~, so there shouldn't be a system crash unless there is permission escalation.
I wonder if Microsoft doesn't ape what it apes in order to sate the desire of users to try out other platforms? I suppose that is a standard way to compete, but it seems like it comes from a desire to simply retain and gain customers rather than from a desire to provide truly better interfaces and features.
Apparently, according to Logitech, users of this new mouse will either:
1. Sit at their computer and stare at the lights on their mouse until they light up, rather than watching for the actual content on the screen.
- or -
2. Sit on their bed and watch the lights on their mouse instead of reading, sleeping, leaving their bedroom, rubbing one out, or whatever the user planned on doing when they decided to stop being a "user" for a while.
Like many people, something inside me said "oo, mail light!" But after thinking about it, blinky lights for email on a mouse are unnecessary and keep your mind unnecessarily busy. So do ten buttons, for that matter.
It also sleeps and turns off when your computer sleeps and turns off.
Supporting Windows is a tough decision for me. Apart from money-ability, it is true that most people use Windows. I'd argue that the decision to use Windows at home is largely a result of ignorance on the part of consumers, but if I'm going to try and bring something good into peoples' lives, it's hard for me to actually say "no" to Windows. However, I acknowledge that the continued support of Windows by software developers must be a major reason that Windows continues to exist and be the major consumer operating system. So, my decision is hard, though I'd prefer not to develop for Windows at all. Interestingly, Windows was last on my list for platforms I'd like to support on my new application (behind OS X and Linux), and only because of the acknowledged market-share.