1. That is why you have a lawyer make those statements. Your lawyer is not under oath. Your lawyer only has an ethical duty not to mislead a court or a jury. That doesn't apply to the opposing side-- much less the public. See Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200. The idea is, you have someone other than the principal make statements so that the principal always has an excuse (i.e., that the representative made an error in transcription, etc.). Blame any "mistake" on the lawyer-- that's what is at work here.
2. A lawyer's prepared statement is designed to give wiggle room while implying certain things that put the client in a favorable light or make the client appear innocent. See my breakdown of the statement: - Fred didn't play a "day to day" role
-> could mean
- Fred wasn't in charge of that, so he's not responsible for misconduct.
- Fred was in charge of that, but he wasn't involved in the details, so someone else committed misconduct and he's not responsible for it.
- Fred was in charge and is officially responsible for the misconduct, but he didn't know about it because he can't review _everything_ that happens or else he couldn't do his main job-- helping the company make money for shareholders.
-> implies
- Fred is innocent.
- Fred is above the fray.
- Fred is too important to have committed misconduct.
- Fred couldn't have known about misconduct because he doesn't know all the details.
- Whoever committed misconduct hid it from Fred.
- "in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options."
-> could mean
- Fred doesn't have the authority to grant stock options (true: the Board of Directors may be the only entity that can grant stock options).
- Fred isn't involved in reporting stock options to the SEC or shareholders.
- Fred isn't involved in auditing/accounting.
- Fred has authority to grant stock options but it's not one of his more significant duties.
- Fred is involved in reporting to the SEC, but since reports to the SEC don't come out on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
- Fred is involved in accounting of stock options, but since auditing and accounting isn't done on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
-> implies
- Fred is not responsible for misconduct.
- Fred is above the fray.
- Fred can manage a public company's finances in the future because he did nothing wrong here.
- Fred knows nothing.
- "he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process"
-> could mean
- Fred manipulated the process unknowingly.
- Fred was involved in manipulating the process but didn't know the extent of his role.
-> implies
- Fred didn't
The worst thing you can do as a lawyer is lose control of _yourself_, which is far more dangerous than losing control of a case or other legal problem. In any legal community, you're going to see the same people more than once. God forbid you piss off or personally insult a judge. Sometimes the opposing lawyer will even be your friend or someone you went to law school with. Basically you must have the ability to work with people you don't like or don't agree with.
The kind of unprofessionalism, overconfidence, and entitlement that Ms. Abdala so thoughtlessly displayed will doom her to a solo practice representing her relatives and other clients who don't know anything about legal services. Oh yes, they have already heard of her in the local community. But they are _amused_ by her, they don't respect her. Because when you're a 24 year-old first year lawyer, you don't know jack and you're a very junior member of the club (I know this, being a 25 year-old first year lawyer). If you act like you do know everything, you will be ostracized.
What will probably happen is that Ms. Abdala will forget to do something important and thereby commit malpractice, then cover it up because she will be too embarrassed to admit her mistake. The state bar will discipline her and she will retire from the practice of law prematurely at age 29.
> It's precisely the fact that American tend to measure EVERYTHING in dollars that makes for a whole world of trouble
By contrast, measuring with money is the best way for people to make rational decisions, and the only way to encourage greater efficiency. You can talk all day about "saving the environment" or blaming the Americans for being oil-thirsty suburbanites, which makes for good coffee table discussion, but you're only going to affect the idealists. By contrast, increasing the price, taxing, or regulating something bad causes real changes in behavior and real responses from consumers based on increased costs they must pay. Double the gasoline tax and people will use less gasoline by buying more efficient cars, it's almost that simple and it's already happening because of the prices, even though the prices in the U.S. are still low relative to the world. Witness the proliferation of cheap, efficient motor scooters in places like India and southeast Asia, where the masses cannot generally afford cars.
Lastly, if I were a European conglomerate owned by members of the propertied upper class in Europe, I would _want_ the non-propertied class to blame the Americans while I lined my pockets with profits from rents, wireless phone service, restaurants, and all the other expensive things they have over in your neck of the woods. What better tactic than getting most of the population on your side of the opinion war-- advocating your position free of charge-- while laughing all the way to the bank? My friend, wise up to what's going on over there (I'm guessing you're European, sorry if I'm wrong).
I'm pretty lucky in maintenance. The Crown Vic is reliable, and parts are cheap. I had to replace the shocks and the tires once for a total cost of $1000, and that was 2 years ago. That was the only major expense I've had to pay in 5 1/2 years of ownership. Other than oil changes, I replaced the battery for $100, did two transmission flushes at $125 each, and replaced a shattered window for $160. That's everything.
BART is based on a debit system where you have a prepaid ticket with $X, and it costs a fixed amount of $Y per segment rather than giving you one ticket to ride the whole system end-to-end. This is one of the most common criticisms of BART, because long trips are no more economical than short trips. In my three-agency trip, BART is the most expensive component. A monthly SF Muni pass is $45, so I'd have to take Muni 30 times before it was worth it. The Muni pass is only valid on BART for trips within San Francisco, and my trip would start to the south and end further south:/
In my example trip I'd take Muni about 20 days per month so that would be 40 muni trips, a savings of $15 with the fast pass...it's not really worth the trouble.
Yes, unfortunately I have a one year lease that I signed before getting my current job, and I'm in month 6, but I will most certainly be moving as close to work as possible when it's up. When I lived in San Mateo before this I biked to the train and biked in San Francisco to school until I got a job that caused the economics to favor driving.
I'd sublease my place but no one is interested, and also the contract forbids it. So I'm stuck here, basically. Still, 12 miles each way isn't bad. Some people drive from Sacramento to San Francisco every single day. I can't understand how they do that.
> Why are people even buying cars in the first place? If you city has good public transit, you could take the bus back and forth to work each day, and rent a car for the weekends for less then the price of owning a car. $15 a day to rent a car, plus $15 a day for insurance, that's $30 a day, times 8 days for weekends in a month, and you at $240 a month.
I'll answer the economic question first and the philosophical question second. I live in San Francisco near SF State, my job is 12 miles away on the Peninsula, and my commute options are: *Driving* Ford Crown Victoria LX: $15488 in August 2000, pre-owned with 23,000 miles. 4.6L V-8, 200 horsepower, 17/25 mpg (22 overall). 88,000 miles driven in 5.5 years = 16,000 miles/year. Gas costs at $2 per gallon avg over last 5.5 years = $1500 per year = $4 per day. Insurance: $68 per month with all my discounts = $2.27 per day. Maintenance: 3 oil changes per year at $60 at Jiffy Lube plus misc. maintenance averaging $300 per year = $480/yr = $1.30 per day.
Total consumables cost per day of car use for ownership: $7.57 per day, assuming equal use on all days of the year (long trips on weekends make up for non-use, etc). Depreciation: car now worth $4500 = $11,000 depreciation over 5.5 years = $2000/yr = $5.50 per day.
Total cost for car ownership, daily use for commuting and pleasure, etc etc: $13.07 per day. Time spent commuting: ~35 minutes per day for a 24 mile round trip. My car is in my apartment garage so I walk directly to it, drive to the office garage, and walk into the office.
The question is whether public transit costs more than that amount per day. *Public Transit* Bus to Daly City BART station: $1.50, 10 minute walk away, ~5 minutes spent waiting for the bus. 5 minute ride to BART. $1.75 for BART ticket. 5-10 minutes spent waiting for train. 20 minute train ride to Millbrae. Transfer to Caltrain, $1.50 ticket. 10 minute train ride. Walk 5 minutes to office in downtown San Mateo. One-way cost: $4.75 Time spent: 62 minutes. Double it for daily total: $9.50, 120 minutes avg. Assume use is halved on weekends for recreation, $4.75 and 60 minutes.
Car: $4770 per year = $13.07 per day avg. Public transit: $2825 per year = $7.70 per day avg.
Car: 35 minutes per day transit time Public transit: 98 minutes per day The question now is whether the time difference makes up for the higher cost of ownership. During the week I make $45 per hour. I save over an hour per day by driving. So I can work more per day and still have the same amount of leisure time as if I worked less and took public transit. If I work the full extra hour, I make an extra $39.63 per day by driving!
Now the philosophical argument.
For people under time pressure, public transit is the worst. You end up wasting a lot of time waiting around, getting tickets, waiting in line, waiting in the terminal, walking between trains, climbing stairs, and the like. Then you have the often neglected and graffittied vehicles filled with somber, depressed people. Not to mention panhandlers, drug addicts, and blabbermouths on their cell phones trying to catch up on work and not getting much done. I would rather work (and get paid for it) than spend time sitting in a train waiting to arrive at the next station. In my car I have the ultimate freedom in transport: I'm reverse commuting, which means no rush hour traffic and no waiting, I have my iPod hooked up and I can replay the same song 100 times in a row if I want, and I can take a beautiful leisurely drive on highway 280 south, "the world's most beautiful freeway," and luxuriate in the knowledge that if nothing else, I made it in life to the extent that I can afford to drive to work until gasoline reaches about $18 per gallon because I use less than two gallons per day and made that extra $39. Driving makes absolute sense to me, especially as cars get more efficient. Add to that the freedom of being able to go wherever I want at any
> I don't see why this matters, or why it's worded [snip]
It matters if you're getting free internet service from the Google network, like on your wi-fi equipped laptop or cell phone. In such a system, you'd never really find the best pagerank, just the best pay rank, much more so than the current one because in the current one you can compare with other search engines. With their own network, Google could disallow wi-fi users from anything it wants. Just imagine the other pieces in the puzzle.
Re:I like working with Power Tools...
on
Makers
·
· Score: 2, Funny
> How this applies: building stuff doesn't necessarily mean that your kid is going to be laying pipe for a living.
He should be so lucky! But this is slashdot, and future porn stars don't really hang out here:)
An aside: using Hummingbird Exceed on a PC allows the use of high-end workstation apps that formerly required the pricey workstation. You can now buy a much cheaper $13,000 software package that replaces the Pegasys workstation with a regular PC. Personally I've found the Pegasys to be difficult to work with because of the old version of Solaris and the lack of a compiler. However, it does allow the use of essential Unix command line utilities if you want to automate the export of images like we have. As for Osirix, if you're a successful medical imaging practice bringing in large profits from your services, saving a one-time cost of $50,000 by using Osirix isn't worth it, even if Osirix offered all the features of the commercial application.
> Osirix works well for scientists and others looking to save money, but I think physicians would have a difficult time saying it is better then the commercial vendors software.
I second that. For anything requiring more than basic viewing of processed images, which can be done in a web browser, the commercial systems are essential. The current state of the art in Nuclear cardiology is a Pegasys Ultra (Sun UltraSparc >=500 MHz) running AutoQUANT processing software. The key function AutoQUANT does is translating a DICOM data set created by a nuclear camera into user-readable Gated SPECT and slice/splash displays. Total cost: $60,000 plus $400/month for a service plan. And it only has Solaris 2.5!
Don't get me wrong, Osirix looks like a great program for physicians who would like to see the output of an imaging workstation and have a G5 running Mac OS X. But for features, quality control reasons, and customer service, I feel more comfortable going with a commercial vendor. I've actually been quite pleased with Philips Medical customer service so far.
For physicians who just need to view images, a web-based system (link to my employer) works fine and has dramatically fewer tech support/privacy issues than the iPod/Mac approach. The most recent version of AutoQUANT lets us export movies and put them up there with the images too, so our clients can see much of what we see. It's very cool.
The same phenomenon occurs in other channels as well; reality TV shows are often more about the hosts cutting down the contestants and crapping on them than seeing who is actually the best at something. Watch "American Idol," "America's Next Top Model," "Blind Date," or any other reality game show to see this in action. It seems to me that making fun of and insulting the obviously talented contestants helps the "average" audience identify with the hosts of the show, which makes average people feel OK for never trying to do what the contestants are doing. It's unfortunate, because there are so many people who would have put on better shows with the lost air time. Watch an interview with the producers and writers of an Emmy-winning show like "Lost" to see the huge contrast between who's on reality TV and who's making real entertainment.
The linked article sounds like "buyer's remorse." Even if the device isn't a huge success, Apple was still first, and that counts for a lot.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the mindset that credit card companies and advertisers _want_ you to take, because you spend more. In reality, you should think about the future, save for a rainy day, work in a field you enjoy, and party on weekends.
Apple makes a $29 extended keyboard that is downright comfortable and has a pleasant key action. It also uses the least amount of desk space I've ever seen, and looks great. As soon as I tried it I ditched my wireless Logitech despite that the Apple Keyboard doesn't come in black. But it does work with Linux.
It's an interesting take on the industry. I disagree on going freelance. While it's true that you have total creative control, I would point out the following: - with a sales team finding and closing deals, you the developer can focus on what you're best at: developing creative solutions to the clients' problems without getting mired in administrative crap. - getting shoestring budget projects and cheapskate businesspeople to pay me has got to be the hardest thing I have ever done. - since it's just me, it is difficult to find clients who trust me with "their baby," so most of my clients are previous business connections or otherwise through networking.
Until I pass the California bar exam I'm a full time freelance web application developer in PHP and PostgreSQL. While I bill between $35 and $50 hourly depending on the number of hours in the project (an effective method, I think-- lower number of hours = higher rate), I spend a lot of time in non-paying admin time and simply finding projects. Essentially, there are long periods of downtime where I don't know if I'll get anything. Although I do have all the free time I want, I find that I make less overall than when I was working 40-50 hours a week at $25/hr. doing basic Dreamweaver pages back in summer 2000 in a development house. Those were the days. Now I've had to take an easy job managing the IT needs of a local medical office just so I can pay my bills. My experimental web applications that I like doing but get no money for are on the back burner indefinitely:/. I did apply for an IT dev job at the SETI institute that sounded really cool, but I haven't heard back. No Comp. Sci. degree here, so I sure am glad I have a law job lined up.
Ad revenue is a zero sum game-- one site's gain is another site's loss. As a niche publication with low viewership compared to real news sites, you can't expect untargeted advertising to pay for your staff. You're going to need to go to a subscription model to have any chance. And if people offer free shit on their blogs that even remotely challenges the quality of your site, why would anyone pay? There are already thousands of similar sites on the internet and I think you are going to have a very difficult time keeping the site running. Sorry.
> Except in England and Japan. Over there, the passenger sits in the driver's seat.
Intelligence shows that in an unspecified Eastern European country, the car rides on the driver. Reports that this unnamed country is Soviet Russia are unconfirmed. Details at 11.
Apple marketing owns you, d00d. It is a corporation and does not have feelings, except maybe the feelings of Steve Jobs. The company's purpose is to maximize profit by any means necessary, and their rational decision making settled on the move to Intel to cement Apple's place as the Porsche of the computer world, not to make it some kind of egalitarian, warm and fuzzy place where nothing gets done and no one works because everyone is happy.
> I just hope it will meet minimum requirements for Doom 3
The Mac mini will never be fast enough for Doom 3.
I specifically got my AMD64 system for Doom 3, and the graphics card (nVidia 6800GT) alone was $399. It runs perfectly in Linux on Ultra Quality. Believe me, you want Ultra Quality. See my sample screenshots. My system costs less than the entry level iMac. HL2 and Counter-Strike Source run great also. You just won't get that with a Mini.
Slashdot Mirror
1. That is why you have a lawyer make those statements. Your lawyer is not under oath. Your lawyer only has an ethical duty not to mislead a court or a jury. That doesn't apply to the opposing side-- much less the public. See Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200. The idea is, you have someone other than the principal make statements so that the principal always has an excuse (i.e., that the representative made an error in transcription, etc.). Blame any "mistake" on the lawyer-- that's what is at work here.
2. A lawyer's prepared statement is designed to give wiggle room while implying certain things that put the client in a favorable light or make the client appear innocent. See my breakdown of the statement:
- Fred didn't play a "day to day" role
-> could mean
- Fred wasn't in charge of that, so he's not responsible for misconduct.
- Fred was in charge of that, but he wasn't involved in the details, so someone else committed misconduct and he's not responsible for it.
- Fred was in charge and is officially responsible for the misconduct, but he didn't know about it because he can't review _everything_ that happens or else he couldn't do his main job-- helping the company make money for shareholders.
-> implies
- Fred is innocent.
- Fred is above the fray.
- Fred is too important to have committed misconduct.
- Fred couldn't have known about misconduct because he doesn't know all the details.
- Whoever committed misconduct hid it from Fred.
- "in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options."
-> could mean
- Fred doesn't have the authority to grant stock options (true: the Board of Directors may be the only entity that can grant stock options).
- Fred isn't involved in reporting stock options to the SEC or shareholders.
- Fred isn't involved in auditing/accounting.
- Fred has authority to grant stock options but it's not one of his more significant duties.
- Fred is involved in reporting to the SEC, but since reports to the SEC don't come out on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
- Fred is involved in accounting of stock options, but since auditing and accounting isn't done on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
-> implies
- Fred is not responsible for misconduct.
- Fred is above the fray.
- Fred can manage a public company's finances in the future because he did nothing wrong here.
- Fred knows nothing.
- "he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process"
-> could mean
- Fred manipulated the process unknowingly.
- Fred was involved in manipulating the process but didn't know the extent of his role.
-> implies
- Fred didn't
Heh, actually I never plan to work for a big firm, which is why I'm still interviewing for a permanent job...
The worst thing you can do as a lawyer is lose control of _yourself_, which is far more dangerous than losing control of a case or other legal problem. In any legal community, you're going to see the same people more than once. God forbid you piss off or personally insult a judge. Sometimes the opposing lawyer will even be your friend or someone you went to law school with. Basically you must have the ability to work with people you don't like or don't agree with.
The kind of unprofessionalism, overconfidence, and entitlement that Ms. Abdala so thoughtlessly displayed will doom her to a solo practice representing her relatives and other clients who don't know anything about legal services. Oh yes, they have already heard of her in the local community. But they are _amused_ by her, they don't respect her. Because when you're a 24 year-old first year lawyer, you don't know jack and you're a very junior member of the club (I know this, being a 25 year-old first year lawyer). If you act like you do know everything, you will be ostracized.
What will probably happen is that Ms. Abdala will forget to do something important and thereby commit malpractice, then cover it up because she will be too embarrassed to admit her mistake. The state bar will discipline her and she will retire from the practice of law prematurely at age 29.
> It's precisely the fact that American tend to measure EVERYTHING in dollars that makes for a whole world of trouble
By contrast, measuring with money is the best way for people to make rational decisions, and the only way to encourage greater efficiency. You can talk all day about "saving the environment" or blaming the Americans for being oil-thirsty suburbanites, which makes for good coffee table discussion, but you're only going to affect the idealists. By contrast, increasing the price, taxing, or regulating something bad causes real changes in behavior and real responses from consumers based on increased costs they must pay. Double the gasoline tax and people will use less gasoline by buying more efficient cars, it's almost that simple and it's already happening because of the prices, even though the prices in the U.S. are still low relative to the world. Witness the proliferation of cheap, efficient motor scooters in places like India and southeast Asia, where the masses cannot generally afford cars.
Lastly, if I were a European conglomerate owned by members of the propertied upper class in Europe, I would _want_ the non-propertied class to blame the Americans while I lined my pockets with profits from rents, wireless phone service, restaurants, and all the other expensive things they have over in your neck of the woods. What better tactic than getting most of the population on your side of the opinion war-- advocating your position free of charge-- while laughing all the way to the bank? My friend, wise up to what's going on over there (I'm guessing you're European, sorry if I'm wrong).
I'm pretty lucky in maintenance. The Crown Vic is reliable, and parts are cheap. I had to replace the shocks and the tires once for a total cost of $1000, and that was 2 years ago. That was the only major expense I've had to pay in 5 1/2 years of ownership. Other than oil changes, I replaced the battery for $100, did two transmission flushes at $125 each, and replaced a shattered window for $160. That's everything.
BART is based on a debit system where you have a prepaid ticket with $X, and it costs a fixed amount of $Y per segment rather than giving you one ticket to ride the whole system end-to-end. This is one of the most common criticisms of BART, because long trips are no more economical than short trips. In my three-agency trip, BART is the most expensive component. A monthly SF Muni pass is $45, so I'd have to take Muni 30 times before it was worth it. The Muni pass is only valid on BART for trips within San Francisco, and my trip would start to the south and end further south :/
In my example trip I'd take Muni about 20 days per month so that would be 40 muni trips, a savings of $15 with the fast pass...it's not really worth the trouble.
Yes, unfortunately I have a one year lease that I signed before getting my current job, and I'm in month 6, but I will most certainly be moving as close to work as possible when it's up. When I lived in San Mateo before this I biked to the train and biked in San Francisco to school until I got a job that caused the economics to favor driving.
I'd sublease my place but no one is interested, and also the contract forbids it. So I'm stuck here, basically. Still, 12 miles each way isn't bad. Some people drive from Sacramento to San Francisco every single day. I can't understand how they do that.
> as for feeling like you "made it in life" because you can drive some highway, I think you need new priorities.
On a second reading of my post, I agree that sounds a little strange and/or arrogant. I should have written that differently.
> Why are people even buying cars in the first place? If you city has good public transit, you could take the bus back and forth to work each day, and rent a car for the weekends for less then the price of owning a car. $15 a day to rent a car, plus $15 a day for insurance, that's $30 a day, times 8 days for weekends in a month, and you at $240 a month.
I'll answer the economic question first and the philosophical question second. I live in San Francisco near SF State, my job is 12 miles away on the Peninsula, and my commute options are:
*Driving*
Ford Crown Victoria LX: $15488 in August 2000, pre-owned with 23,000 miles.
4.6L V-8, 200 horsepower, 17/25 mpg (22 overall). 88,000 miles driven in 5.5 years = 16,000 miles/year. Gas costs at $2 per gallon avg over last 5.5 years = $1500 per year = $4 per day.
Insurance: $68 per month with all my discounts = $2.27 per day.
Maintenance: 3 oil changes per year at $60 at Jiffy Lube plus misc. maintenance averaging $300 per year = $480/yr = $1.30 per day.
Total consumables cost per day of car use for ownership: $7.57 per day, assuming equal use on all days of the year (long trips on weekends make up for non-use, etc).
Depreciation: car now worth $4500 = $11,000 depreciation over 5.5 years = $2000/yr = $5.50 per day.
Total cost for car ownership, daily use for commuting and pleasure, etc etc: $13.07 per day.
Time spent commuting: ~35 minutes per day for a 24 mile round trip. My car is in my apartment garage so I walk directly to it, drive to the office garage, and walk into the office.
The question is whether public transit costs more than that amount per day.
*Public Transit*
Bus to Daly City BART station: $1.50, 10 minute walk away, ~5 minutes spent waiting for the bus. 5 minute ride to BART.
$1.75 for BART ticket. 5-10 minutes spent waiting for train.
20 minute train ride to Millbrae.
Transfer to Caltrain, $1.50 ticket.
10 minute train ride.
Walk 5 minutes to office in downtown San Mateo.
One-way cost: $4.75
Time spent: 62 minutes.
Double it for daily total: $9.50, 120 minutes avg.
Assume use is halved on weekends for recreation, $4.75 and 60 minutes.
Car: $4770 per year = $13.07 per day avg.
Public transit: $2825 per year = $7.70 per day avg.
Car: 35 minutes per day transit time
Public transit: 98 minutes per day
The question now is whether the time difference makes up for the higher cost of ownership. During the week I make $45 per hour. I save over an hour per day by driving. So I can work more per day and still have the same amount of leisure time as if I worked less and took public transit. If I work the full extra hour, I make an extra $39.63 per day by driving!
Now the philosophical argument.
For people under time pressure, public transit is the worst. You end up wasting a lot of time waiting around, getting tickets, waiting in line, waiting in the terminal, walking between trains, climbing stairs, and the like. Then you have the often neglected and graffittied vehicles filled with somber, depressed people. Not to mention panhandlers, drug addicts, and blabbermouths on their cell phones trying to catch up on work and not getting much done. I would rather work (and get paid for it) than spend time sitting in a train waiting to arrive at the next station. In my car I have the ultimate freedom in transport: I'm reverse commuting, which means no rush hour traffic and no waiting, I have my iPod hooked up and I can replay the same song 100 times in a row if I want, and I can take a beautiful leisurely drive on highway 280 south, "the world's most beautiful freeway," and luxuriate in the knowledge that if nothing else, I made it in life to the extent that I can afford to drive to work until gasoline reaches about $18 per gallon because I use less than two gallons per day and made that extra $39. Driving makes absolute sense to me, especially as cars get more efficient. Add to that the freedom of being able to go wherever I want at any
> I don't see why this matters, or why it's worded [snip]
It matters if you're getting free internet service from the Google network, like on your wi-fi equipped laptop or cell phone. In such a system, you'd never really find the best pagerank, just the best pay rank, much more so than the current one because in the current one you can compare with other search engines. With their own network, Google could disallow wi-fi users from anything it wants. Just imagine the other pieces in the puzzle.
> How this applies: building stuff doesn't necessarily mean that your kid is going to be laying pipe for a living.
:)
He should be so lucky! But this is slashdot, and future porn stars don't really hang out here
An aside: using Hummingbird Exceed on a PC allows the use of high-end workstation apps that formerly required the pricey workstation. You can now buy a much cheaper $13,000 software package that replaces the Pegasys workstation with a regular PC. Personally I've found the Pegasys to be difficult to work with because of the old version of Solaris and the lack of a compiler. However, it does allow the use of essential Unix command line utilities if you want to automate the export of images like we have. As for Osirix, if you're a successful medical imaging practice bringing in large profits from your services, saving a one-time cost of $50,000 by using Osirix isn't worth it, even if Osirix offered all the features of the commercial application.
> Osirix works well for scientists and others looking to save money, but I think physicians would have a difficult time saying it is better then the commercial vendors software.
I second that. For anything requiring more than basic viewing of processed images, which can be done in a web browser, the commercial systems are essential. The current state of the art in Nuclear cardiology is a Pegasys Ultra (Sun UltraSparc >=500 MHz) running AutoQUANT processing software. The key function AutoQUANT does is translating a DICOM data set created by a nuclear camera into user-readable Gated SPECT and slice/splash displays. Total cost: $60,000 plus $400/month for a service plan. And it only has Solaris 2.5!
Don't get me wrong, Osirix looks like a great program for physicians who would like to see the output of an imaging workstation and have a G5 running Mac OS X. But for features, quality control reasons, and customer service, I feel more comfortable going with a commercial vendor. I've actually been quite pleased with Philips Medical customer service so far.
For physicians who just need to view images, a web-based system (link to my employer) works fine and has dramatically fewer tech support/privacy issues than the iPod/Mac approach. The most recent version of AutoQUANT lets us export movies and put them up there with the images too, so our clients can see much of what we see. It's very cool.
The same phenomenon occurs in other channels as well; reality TV shows are often more about the hosts cutting down the contestants and crapping on them than seeing who is actually the best at something. Watch "American Idol," "America's Next Top Model," "Blind Date," or any other reality game show to see this in action. It seems to me that making fun of and insulting the obviously talented contestants helps the "average" audience identify with the hosts of the show, which makes average people feel OK for never trying to do what the contestants are doing. It's unfortunate, because there are so many people who would have put on better shows with the lost air time. Watch an interview with the producers and writers of an Emmy-winning show like "Lost" to see the huge contrast between who's on reality TV and who's making real entertainment.
The linked article sounds like "buyer's remorse." Even if the device isn't a huge success, Apple was still first, and that counts for a lot.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the mindset that credit card companies and advertisers _want_ you to take, because you spend more. In reality, you should think about the future, save for a rainy day, work in a field you enjoy, and party on weekends.
Given that their faces never appear on screen together (except for one blurry, brief scene at night), it could have been done! :)
Apple makes a $29 extended keyboard that is downright comfortable and has a pleasant key action. It also uses the least amount of desk space I've ever seen, and looks great. As soon as I tried it I ditched my wireless Logitech despite that the Apple Keyboard doesn't come in black. But it does work with Linux.
It's an interesting take on the industry. I disagree on going freelance. While it's true that you have total creative control, I would point out the following:
:/. I did apply for an IT dev job at the SETI institute that sounded really cool, but I haven't heard back. No Comp. Sci. degree here, so I sure am glad I have a law job lined up.
- with a sales team finding and closing deals, you the developer can focus on what you're best at: developing creative solutions to the clients' problems without getting mired in administrative crap.
- getting shoestring budget projects and cheapskate businesspeople to pay me has got to be the hardest thing I have ever done.
- since it's just me, it is difficult to find clients who trust me with "their baby," so most of my clients are previous business connections or otherwise through networking.
Until I pass the California bar exam I'm a full time freelance web application developer in PHP and PostgreSQL. While I bill between $35 and $50 hourly depending on the number of hours in the project (an effective method, I think-- lower number of hours = higher rate), I spend a lot of time in non-paying admin time and simply finding projects. Essentially, there are long periods of downtime where I don't know if I'll get anything. Although I do have all the free time I want, I find that I make less overall than when I was working 40-50 hours a week at $25/hr. doing basic Dreamweaver pages back in summer 2000 in a development house. Those were the days. Now I've had to take an easy job managing the IT needs of a local medical office just so I can pay my bills. My experimental web applications that I like doing but get no money for are on the back burner indefinitely
Ad revenue is a zero sum game-- one site's gain is another site's loss. As a niche publication with low viewership compared to real news sites, you can't expect untargeted advertising to pay for your staff. You're going to need to go to a subscription model to have any chance. And if people offer free shit on their blogs that even remotely challenges the quality of your site, why would anyone pay? There are already thousands of similar sites on the internet and I think you are going to have a very difficult time keeping the site running. Sorry.
> Except in England and Japan. Over there, the passenger sits in the driver's seat.
Intelligence shows that in an unspecified Eastern European country, the car rides on the driver. Reports that this unnamed country is Soviet Russia are unconfirmed. Details at 11.
There are some 200 Million cars in the U.S. alone.
Apple marketing owns you, d00d. It is a corporation and does not have feelings, except maybe the feelings of Steve Jobs. The company's purpose is to maximize profit by any means necessary, and their rational decision making settled on the move to Intel to cement Apple's place as the Porsche of the computer world, not to make it some kind of egalitarian, warm and fuzzy place where nothing gets done and no one works because everyone is happy.
> I just hope it will meet minimum requirements for Doom 3
The Mac mini will never be fast enough for Doom 3.
I specifically got my AMD64 system for Doom 3, and the graphics card (nVidia 6800GT) alone was $399. It runs perfectly in Linux on Ultra Quality. Believe me, you want Ultra Quality. See my sample screenshots. My system costs less than the entry level iMac. HL2 and Counter-Strike Source run great also. You just won't get that with a Mini.
> Damn. That's pretty well written, do you write scripts often?
:)
Thanks, it's my first. I watch a lot of movies though
this info inspired me to write this