Aaaah - manga to the rescue! If nothing else this shows how corrupt and clueless the American media landscape has become. After the obvious abandonment of objective reporting we experienced in the last three years, mixed with fabricated reports, a myopic coverage of world affairs, etc. it is manga that will get me to buy the paper now? Give me a break! If I want manga I either buy a printed copy dedicated to that genre, or buy a DVD, or if I'm really broke resort to eMule and co.
I frankly wonder what PR company issued that one - must be the one that constantly claims that 'suits are back!' - LOL
I just skimmed through most of the irate postings to this thread and can't help but shake my head... seriously, I'm not being facitious. When are geeks going to learn that it is 'hype' that is partly responsible for a healthy chunk of a company's profit margins. Hype is also what drove the dotcom gold rush, but the reasons for the final bursting of the bubble in 2000/2001 are a lot more complicated (read some of Paul Graham's musings on the subject matter) and should not be simply attributed to 'irrational exuberance.'
The same people lamenting about this 'undeserved' hype are the first ones complaining that we're all being outsourced and that it's almost impossible to raise funding for an IT startup these days. So, here's a company that somehow coaxed a VC out of $16 Million (which in turn will create jobs for people like YOU!) and you're bitching and moaning acrimoniously about how you guys did that 4 years ago. If you are really sooooo smart, then go out there and grab a piece of the action! VCs are sitting on huge portfolio funds right now and have no clue what to do with them (well, almost;-) - no wonder we're all getting outsourced, we're simply too clever for our own good! I personally prefer to lose a few IQ points for a mansion on a lake, a bitch red Ferrari, and some more digits in my bank account...
I wished I lived in a world where 'preparing for war' was not a necessity. Actually, I'm NOT a GWB proponent (to say the least), but I also am not a pacifist. Just look at history - the sad truth is that the guys on the other side of the border are always on the lookout to get a leg up on you, and in many cases 'whipe you off the map' (paraphrasing Iran's leader's comment about Israel last week). There's another quote I could have finished my comment with: Speak softely and carry a big stick - Theodor Roosevelt;-)
I am sure that plenty of responses are going to be along the lines of 'this is going to get disabled very soon, so why bother?'. However, I feel compelled to point out that the worst thing we all can do is to simply roll over and accept censorship of any kind. It is important that we do whatever possible to allow Internet audiences in more restricted nations to get a glimpse at the full spectrum (bad and good) of all the information that's out there. Yes, it is an armsrace and yes this workaround will probably not stand for very long.
BUT we need to send repeating signals that information should not be restricted. The reason for that is the unfortunate ability of homo sapiens sapiens to adapt to almost any environment. May this be extreme climate, sparse resources, or supressive political regimes. I bet you that a great majority of Internet surfers in China were probably upset when they first learned about those restrictions - but over time they probably accepted this as 'normal' and happily made due with the information that is presented to them. In some ways we are doing the same here in the U.S. and I make it a point to watch news shows from Europe to counter-balance the often one-sided and myopic reporting I mostly witness on most U.S. news stations/channels.
So, if this can shake up some complacency and re-instill the hunger for freedom to all information, then this is a great little work-around. We all need to get a kick in the keester to sometimes not simply seek a position of maximum comfort and non-conflict. Remember the old expression: If working towards freedom, prepare for war. I'm not quoting this expression to be taken literal here - I'm saying that it's always dangerous to accept the status quo.
Sorry for the rant - I'm getting off the soap box now...
Wow, I actually never heard anyone spell this out in such an articulate manner - thank you for your comment, felt good to know there's another thinking mind out there...
Sorry, but this is not an argument - a guy like GWB shouldn't even have come close enough to making election rigging a feasibility. If you get less than 10% of the votes (which would have happened in a 'real' country populated by minimally educated people) then the necessary volume of fraudulent votes would have not been permissible. I rest my case...
... hehe, in that particular context I could actually have meant Centigrate:-)
At the danger of coming across as an elitist...
on
Fighting FUD with Humor
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
... but most people on this planet AND in this country are pretty stupid, sorry... Case in point: GWB was re-elected! Any country with an average IQ higher than that of the outside temperature (and I'm talking 'fall' here) would have kicked this guy to the curb.
On a serious note: in GUI design one constantly works around the 'stupidity' of people - they are really not that smart out there... look at the chaos that reigns the world - does this look like the work of educated, smart, sophisticated people to you?
Mate, 7 years is a darn long time to dangle a carrot in front of your face (have been working for startups a few times in Silicon Valley). My advice: put your resume out there and start interviewing. The best ammunition for your potential 're-evaluation' meeting with your manager is a better offer from a competing company. The question you always MUST bring up and which most people for some reason never seem to remember when discussing a raise is the average cost of finding a replacement for yourself, which I believe borders around $10k - no kidding. That's all the effort, time, labor, and money spent on interviewing, background checking, lost productivity, etc. It's a LOT cheaper for them to keep you on and pay you a few grant more a year. If they don't even want to do that they really don't value you as an employee very much and you should look for greener turf.
The other option of course is that you really really suck in your job and they just don't have the heart to fire you - LOL - if that's true you might want to look for a new profession.
There's an old saying that goes: to a man with a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed to solve any financial woes? So many projects have started on a free basis and there is an old addage in marketing that stipulates that it is very hard to hike prices after selling something for less before (or giving it away for free). I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably (and less annoyingly). How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two a month you have access to a wealth of information you are interested in. This would be a bit like 'packaging' in the cable industry (just it would be better structured). For the hard core among us there might be a a-la-carte menu they could choose from and pay a certain amount per site. I know this sounds a bit strange at first, but it's just a matter of 'redistribution' of funds and cutting out the middle man. Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere down the line? Of course some of us buy into it and we spend dollars that get rerouted back to the sites we access for 'free'. It's a very annoying way to make money (who likes advertising after all - and how much energy to we exert to rid us of it?) and it doesn't seem to work very well, meaning you need to cluster bomb the online population to achieve an effect.
Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
It is a hard call as to whether some of the early high SPF sunscreens do more harm than good, since the reaction happens in the presence of a lot of sunlight which would do damage anyway - and it does have a bit to do with particle size due to the relatively high surface area.
Well, the article I referenced indicates that since the introduction and widespread use of sunscreens in particular in Australia the occurance of skin cancers and melinoma has increased rapidly. That research also takes in consideration the ozone hole issue and increased exposure due to the use of sunscreens. Something appears to be fish here. Again, it is actually not the TiO2 that seems to cause the creation of free radicals, it's some other chemical (mentioned in the article). I will do some research into the doping you mentioned though - sounds very interesting - thanks for the pointer!:-)
It is not intelligent design - we can work out the rules and find out what is happening. Things like the behaviour of very small titanium dioxide particles on the skin are very well understood (which is why the most recent sunscreens have TiO2 particles doped in a similar way to silicon semiconductors).
Since you appear to be interested in the subject matter - there is a great page on the toxicity of suncreens in the U.S. - it's not directly related to TitaniumDioxide or Zincoxide, but to other chemicals used to absorb radiation energy. Many of them are carcinogenic and cause more harm than good in the long run. Admitedly, this has nothing to do with the particle size, but I thought I throw it in...
Okay, without any detailed research into the subject we can probably safely assume the following:
Nanoparticles are very very easily absorbed through the skin and through breathing.
Nanoparticles might, due to its size, bind differently and more aggressively with certain organic molecules in your body.
It is still unclear what the 'toxicity level' for nanoparticles would be. Bear in mind that 'natural' size particles react/bind differently and the toxicity level might be a lot less based on a particular rate/volume of absorbtion.
It is also unclear if nanoparticles would be properly recognized by your body's immune system and processed out. For that reason, like sun radiation, there might be 'accumulative damage' that is basically growing linearly.
The toxicity of one nanosubstance will surely be NO indication of the toxicity of another, even if the substances are related. On that scale, anything and everything can happen...
I'm not a biochemist (INABC - LOL), but I think there are common sense assumptions which should serve to structure a discussion on this. In the end there will have to be lab testing, as much as we all hate it.
Obviously Apple is taking risks and is spending bucks to position their iTunes/iPod infrastructure as a new media distribution network. You want to hook into that? Well, you're going to have to pay a price - of course! That's the nature of business - you take it while you can - and as much as possible while you're at it! There will always be companies complaining about exorbitant fees, and yes, it might cut out some of the smaller players, but unfortunately the world of business is not about fairness. The trick is to get in early and make a bundle being one of the first to leverage this emerging market. Just my 2 cents...
If Apple is able to assemble enough top-notch TV programming for iTunes, it could prove vexing to cable operators like Comcast. In the past, cable operators have faced pressure by politicians and consumer groups to offer individual channels "a la carte," rather than forcing all subscribers to pay for large packages of programming that most don't watch in their entirety.
Okay, I've been using Macs since the 80s (yes, you read correctly) and have been exclusively on Windows from between 1994 - 2004 (I'm a J2EE engineer). Last year, I belatetly hopped onto the OS X bandwagon and the only thing that keeps my Windows boxes at home running are dozens of apps that I have accumulated in the last decade. I know that I could replace most of my apps with Mac apps, but sometimes they don't support my workflow or I cannot interchange. With that said however (and with this not supposed to be turning emotional;-) I must concede that my Windows days are limited. It has already started with iPods, Cinema displays, etc.. and my next system for sure will be an G5 or G6 (whenever it'll be released) - I happen to know Unix very well, so OS X simply rules for me. Finally, with the video iPod a new era in online video is being spearheaded (see yesterday's/. thread on the topic) and Quicktime is going to be the future. That will allow me to distribute my little shorts to millions of iPods all over the world - something Windows is lightyears away from doing. Finally, on the development front - I'm already 1/2 the time developing on a G4 and hopefully Windows is going to quietly go away in the remainder of this decade.
During some news report I actually heard that it was closer to around 8-10% - they're a lot more honest in Europe in how they count people without employment. Basically, in Europe:
Good points, but the point I am making is that we are both living in countries that have the nasty habit of meddling in the affairs of oil producing countries. That leads to a lot of enemies among the impoverished population of those nations, which in turn tends to result in terrorism, particularly when mixed with fanatic religious beliefs. Or in other words: Here we are signing away our civil liberties piece by piece whilst filling up our HUM-Vs and SUVs at the pump. We 'should' be leading a national movement to discover/develop alternative energy sources and pertinent technologies. Instead we accept the status quo and attempt nail down the gate, not realizing that we are locking ourselves in at the same time. Or in even simpler terms: we are directing a huge amount of energy into the wrong direction. The end result will be less freedom for more oil, which is sad, because we really do not need that much oil if we try to curb our excessive consumption, use energy more efficiently, and finally put more money and thought into alternative energies (and I am talking about the entire gamut here - cold fusion, wind power, ocean power, limited nuclear power, solar power, etc..). Anyway, it's a huge discussion and it's not all black and white, but in the end I believe that even the staunchest critic of my world view should be able to concede that we are currently doing a terrible job of energy consumption.
Okay, it's a joke, and I know that a large part of the Canadian population lives in urban areas - BUT, having said that: why would a country like Canada resort to such drastic measures? To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, 'Who would give up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty nor security.' I live here in the U.S. and am disgusted by all the increasing trickle of loss in civil liberties. One of these days we're going to wake up and it's Big Brother - we're really getting dangerously close. If Bin Laden wanted to destroy our 'way of living' - well, I hate to say that he already succeeded.
Michael
You actually might be better off - there are plenty of opportunities out there for talented contractors these days, especially senior people. The money is better, but you need to probably incorporate yourself to properly 'play the system' IYKWIM;-) Bottomline is that you can probably make up to 30% more/year being a consultants, but bear in mind that you also need to buy your own health insurance, pay for your own 401k etc. So, don't be timid when negotiating your rate - if you have been making $100k/year in salary you probably should ask for at least $60/hr as a consultant, otherwise you're probably just break even or even wind up not making much more. BTW, that estimate consider approx. 3 months of no work per year. Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
Aaaah - manga to the rescue! If nothing else this shows how corrupt and clueless the American media landscape has become. After the obvious abandonment of objective reporting we experienced in the last three years, mixed with fabricated reports, a myopic coverage of world affairs, etc. it is manga that will get me to buy the paper now? Give me a break! If I want manga I either buy a printed copy dedicated to that genre, or buy a DVD, or if I'm really broke resort to eMule and co.
I frankly wonder what PR company issued that one - must be the one that constantly claims that 'suits are back!' - LOL
I just skimmed through most of the irate postings to this thread and can't help but shake my head... seriously, I'm not being facitious. When are geeks going to learn that it is 'hype' that is partly responsible for a healthy chunk of a company's profit margins. Hype is also what drove the dotcom gold rush, but the reasons for the final bursting of the bubble in 2000/2001 are a lot more complicated (read some of Paul Graham's musings on the subject matter) and should not be simply attributed to 'irrational exuberance.' ;-) - no wonder we're all getting outsourced, we're simply too clever for our own good! I personally prefer to lose a few IQ points for a mansion on a lake, a bitch red Ferrari, and some more digits in my bank account...
The same people lamenting about this 'undeserved' hype are the first ones complaining that we're all being outsourced and that it's almost impossible to raise funding for an IT startup these days. So, here's a company that somehow coaxed a VC out of $16 Million (which in turn will create jobs for people like YOU!) and you're bitching and moaning acrimoniously about how you guys did that 4 years ago. If you are really sooooo smart, then go out there and grab a piece of the action! VCs are sitting on huge portfolio funds right now and have no clue what to do with them (well, almost
I wished I lived in a world where 'preparing for war' was not a necessity. Actually, I'm NOT a GWB proponent (to say the least), but I also am not a pacifist. Just look at history - the sad truth is that the guys on the other side of the border are always on the lookout to get a leg up on you, and in many cases 'whipe you off the map' (paraphrasing Iran's leader's comment about Israel last week). There's another quote I could have finished my comment with: Speak softely and carry a big stick - Theodor Roosevelt ;-)
BUT we need to send repeating signals that information should not be restricted. The reason for that is the unfortunate ability of homo sapiens sapiens to adapt to almost any environment. May this be extreme climate, sparse resources, or supressive political regimes. I bet you that a great majority of Internet surfers in China were probably upset when they first learned about those restrictions - but over time they probably accepted this as 'normal' and happily made due with the information that is presented to them. In some ways we are doing the same here in the U.S. and I make it a point to watch news shows from Europe to counter-balance the often one-sided and myopic reporting I mostly witness on most U.S. news stations/channels.
So, if this can shake up some complacency and re-instill the hunger for freedom to all information, then this is a great little work-around. We all need to get a kick in the keester to sometimes not simply seek a position of maximum comfort and non-conflict. Remember the old expression: If working towards freedom, prepare for war. I'm not quoting this expression to be taken literal here - I'm saying that it's always dangerous to accept the status quo.
Sorry for the rant - I'm getting off the soap box now...
Dude, are you a lawyer?? LOL - sorry, your excerpt reads like a patent claim...
... of course I meant 'Celcius' - looks like I belong into the 'lower percentile' after all - LOL!!
Wow, I actually never heard anyone spell this out in such an articulate manner - thank you for your comment, felt good to know there's another thinking mind out there...
Sorry, but this is not an argument - a guy like GWB shouldn't even have come close enough to making election rigging a feasibility. If you get less than 10% of the votes (which would have happened in a 'real' country populated by minimally educated people) then the necessary volume of fraudulent votes would have not been permissible. I rest my case...
... hehe, in that particular context I could actually have meant Centigrate :-)
... but most people on this planet AND in this country are pretty stupid, sorry... Case in point: GWB was re-elected! Any country with an average IQ higher than that of the outside temperature (and I'm talking 'fall' here) would have kicked this guy to the curb.
On a serious note: in GUI design one constantly works around the 'stupidity' of people - they are really not that smart out there... look at the chaos that reigns the world - does this look like the work of educated, smart, sophisticated people to you?
The other option of course is that you really really suck in your job and they just don't have the heart to fire you - LOL - if that's true you might want to look for a new profession.
Good luck!
There's an old saying that goes: to a man with a hammer every problem tends to look like a nail. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but why is it always the process of 'creating an artificial desire to buy products we are unaware of' (i.e. advertising) that is supposed to solve any financial woes? So many projects have started on a free basis and there is an old addage in marketing that stipulates that it is very hard to hike prices after selling something for less before (or giving it away for free). I think the key here is that online businesses and organizations must find some way to get compensated properly and more reliably (and less annoyingly). How about one would buy a monthly 'pass' that would permit you access to 100 sites of a certain type and for a dollar or two a month you have access to a wealth of information you are interested in. This would be a bit like 'packaging' in the cable industry (just it would be better structured). For the hard core among us there might be a a-la-carte menu they could choose from and pay a certain amount per site. I know this sounds a bit strange at first, but it's just a matter of 'redistribution' of funds and cutting out the middle man.
Do you think that all that advertising you see (or try to ignore so fervently) does not result into proceeds somewhere down the line? Of course some of us buy into it and we spend dollars that get rerouted back to the sites we access for 'free'. It's a very annoying way to make money (who likes advertising after all - and how much energy to we exert to rid us of it?) and it doesn't seem to work very well, meaning you need to cluster bomb the online population to achieve an effect.
Just imagine for a second if there were hundreds of high quality sites that were advertising free and that you could access. OR, if you refuse, access them for 'free' and look at the advertising. I really believe that could be a wonderful compromise. Any intelligent thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
It is a hard call as to whether some of the early high SPF sunscreens do more harm than good, since the reaction happens in the presence of a lot of sunlight which would do damage anyway - and it does have a bit to do with particle size due to the relatively high surface area.
:-)
Well, the article I referenced indicates that since the introduction and widespread use of sunscreens in particular in Australia the occurance of skin cancers and melinoma has increased rapidly. That research also takes in consideration the ozone hole issue and increased exposure due to the use of sunscreens. Something appears to be fish here. Again, it is actually not the TiO2 that seems to cause the creation of free radicals, it's some other chemical (mentioned in the article). I will do some research into the doping you mentioned though - sounds very interesting - thanks for the pointer!
It is not intelligent design - we can work out the rules and find out what is happening. Things like the behaviour of very small titanium dioxide particles on the skin are very well understood (which is why the most recent sunscreens have TiO2 particles doped in a similar way to silicon semiconductors).
Since you appear to be interested in the subject matter - there is a great page on the toxicity of suncreens in the U.S. - it's not directly related to TitaniumDioxide or Zincoxide, but to other chemicals used to absorb radiation energy. Many of them are carcinogenic and cause more harm than good in the long run. Admitedly, this has nothing to do with the particle size, but I thought I throw it in...
I'm not a biochemist (INABC - LOL), but I think there are common sense assumptions which should serve to structure a discussion on this. In the end there will have to be lab testing, as much as we all hate it.
Obviously Apple is taking risks and is spending bucks to position their iTunes/iPod infrastructure as a new media distribution network. You want to hook into that? Well, you're going to have to pay a price - of course! That's the nature of business - you take it while you can - and as much as possible while you're at it! There will always be companies complaining about exorbitant fees, and yes, it might cut out some of the smaller players, but unfortunately the world of business is not about fairness. The trick is to get in early and make a bundle being one of the first to leverage this emerging market. Just my 2 cents...
If Apple is able to assemble enough top-notch TV programming for iTunes, it could prove vexing to cable operators like Comcast. In the past, cable operators have faced pressure by politicians and consumer groups to offer individual channels "a la carte," rather than forcing all subscribers to pay for large packages of programming that most don't watch in their entirety.
Oh yeah, baby - paypack is a bitch!!!
Okay, I've been using Macs since the 80s (yes, you read correctly) and have been exclusively on Windows from between 1994 - 2004 (I'm a J2EE engineer). Last year, I belatetly hopped onto the OS X bandwagon and the only thing that keeps my Windows boxes at home running are dozens of apps that I have accumulated in the last decade. I know that I could replace most of my apps with Mac apps, but sometimes they don't support my workflow or I cannot interchange. With that said however (and with this not supposed to be turning emotional ;-) I must concede that my Windows days are limited. It has already started with iPods, Cinema displays, etc.. and my next system for sure will be an G5 or G6 (whenever it'll be released) - I happen to know Unix very well, so OS X simply rules for me. Finally, with the video iPod a new era in online video is being spearheaded (see yesterday's /. thread on the topic) and Quicktime is going to be the future. That will allow me to distribute my little shorts to millions of iPods all over the world - something Windows is lightyears away from doing. Finally, on the development front - I'm already 1/2 the time developing on a G4 and hopefully Windows is going to quietly go away in the remainder of this decade.
During some news report I actually heard that it was closer to around 8-10% - they're a lot more honest in Europe in how they count people without employment. Basically, in Europe:
unemployed = No income
In the U.S.:
unemployed = Collecting unemployment
Why did this guy get a 'troll' score?? He's got a point!
Good points, but the point I am making is that we are both living in countries that have the nasty habit of meddling in the affairs of oil producing countries. That leads to a lot of enemies among the impoverished population of those nations, which in turn tends to result in terrorism, particularly when mixed with fanatic religious beliefs. Or in other words: Here we are signing away our civil liberties piece by piece whilst filling up our HUM-Vs and SUVs at the pump. We 'should' be leading a national movement to discover/develop alternative energy sources and pertinent technologies. Instead we accept the status quo and attempt nail down the gate, not realizing that we are locking ourselves in at the same time. Or in even simpler terms: we are directing a huge amount of energy into the wrong direction. The end result will be less freedom for more oil, which is sad, because we really do not need that much oil if we try to curb our excessive consumption, use energy more efficiently, and finally put more money and thought into alternative energies (and I am talking about the entire gamut here - cold fusion, wind power, ocean power, limited nuclear power, solar power, etc..). Anyway, it's a huge discussion and it's not all black and white, but in the end I believe that even the staunchest critic of my world view should be able to concede that we are currently doing a terrible job of energy consumption.
'big brother' - no pun intended ;-)
Okay, it's a joke, and I know that a large part of the Canadian population lives in urban areas - BUT, having said that: why would a country like Canada resort to such drastic measures? To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, 'Who would give up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty nor security.' I live here in the U.S. and am disgusted by all the increasing trickle of loss in civil liberties. One of these days we're going to wake up and it's Big Brother - we're really getting dangerously close. If Bin Laden wanted to destroy our 'way of living' - well, I hate to say that he already succeeded. Michael
You actually might be better off - there are plenty of opportunities out there for talented contractors these days, especially senior people. The money is better, but you need to probably incorporate yourself to properly 'play the system' IYKWIM ;-) Bottomline is that you can probably make up to 30% more/year being a consultants, but bear in mind that you also need to buy your own health insurance, pay for your own 401k etc. So, don't be timid when negotiating your rate - if you have been making $100k/year in salary you probably should ask for at least $60/hr as a consultant, otherwise you're probably just break even or even wind up not making much more. BTW, that estimate consider approx. 3 months of no work per year. Good luck!
Sorry, I have Karma to burn and just had to throw this into the mix ;-)