This event [Big Screw] is still run; this year's event happened this week.
See here for a slightly outdated list of winners and charities; Chuck Vest (Make a Wish Foundation) won in 2004 and Prof. George Verghese (Doctors Without Borders) won in 2003. The 2005 winner will be announced tomorrow evening, and will be presented with the four foot long, left-handed aluminum wood screw.
Well, when it comes down to it, you have two options:
Fill in a fake name and address on the card, and don't worry about being contacted.
Fill in your real name and address on the card, and get warnings such as this one.
The form I filled out for my supermarket card had the usual "Check this box if you do not wish your name and information given out to qualified vendors, etc," but lacked a "Please do not contact me with further offers" box. However, I have yet to receive any mail from said business, including flyers.
Truthfully, if they have your address, it was your decision, and you should be happy you received the warning. If they don't, that's just the price you pay for privacy. I'm certain somebody in the office or the neighborhood got the warning and would be perfectly willing to alert you in the future.
Did you know that if you click Links the cat and type either "meow" or "purr" into the text box, one of the options that comes up gives directions for turning off the Office Assistant sound?
I'm forced to disagree. Although reading texts in their primary languages is certainly valuable, I severely doubt every single scholar who studies ancient Mesopotamia is fluent in reading cuneiform script! Also, asking scholars to be fluent in one or two dead languages is quite a lot (according to my sister, who's a medieval scholar and speaks Latin and Medieval French)- would you have them be fluent in every single language they encounter? That's unrealistic, as well as inefficient.
Although it's certainly true that many scholars can read the primary languages of the periods they study, some do not. For example, if one were studying Culture A through the medium of Culture B's records of interactions with Culture A, one would not need to read primary sources from Culture A.
It's true that many scholars do prefer to rely on personal translations of primary sources, but for many it's a simple waste of time that could be better spent. Instead of arguing that all scholars must be able to read all primary sources of the cultures they study, I would argue that they should be able to analyze the translations of others (perhaps even the translations this system produces) with regards to the culture. If 20,000 scholars all translate a primary source and their translations are all relatively accurate (errors will be corrected in time), then 19,999 of them have wasted weeks or months.
Yes. Scholars do need translations - they help verify the scholar's own translations, provide much-needed resources, give insight into the translator's view of the culture - in short, they are a resource too valuable to put aside.
MIT has gotten around the problem of student non-attendance, at least with course 6.001 (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs).
The course (at least, according to a recent symposium lecture by its professors) is entirely computerized... students download recorded lectures each week (somewhat like a distance learning program), and the professor(s) can keep track of who downloads what. The course also has online problem sets and exercises. A few lectures are still offered in the traditional format (i.e. in the lecture hall), but the rest of the course is computerized.
I'm not sure how I feel about this... I like the professors' readiness to use technology (one would hope that would occur, considering which course it is!), but I can see how many students would benefit from a traditional lecture format.
You'll get no argument from me on that score. I hate the taste of coffee (although I do love the smell). Tea is much more up my alley, as well as being better for you (as you said). Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that the majority of office beverage drinkers are drinking coffee (although I could be wrong). Go tea!
Drinking a lot of coffee will also help you urinate more, which will decrease your body's water content (and thus your weight, at least temporarily). Pure, unadorned black coffee also contains no calories, which makes it "better" for you than beer. So if you drink coffee constantly, you might just lose some weight.
Sounds like a quick trip to a caffeine overdose to me.
Well, actually, the major problem with loading Linux (apart from any Sony considerations) on this machine is that it has a Centrino processor.
A nice machine, to be sure, but without Linux compatibility (in the near future, at least), it's not going to sell to anyone who's interested in a dual-boot system.
Better to go with a slightly older model (i.e. the IBM T30 series) that has a Pentium 4 rather than a Centrino... otherwise Linux is (unless I'm wrong here, or you enjoy writing system software) out of the question.
Indeed. It seems as though SCO is trying to prod IBM into launching said counter-suit before IBM is ready. This can have two end results:
IBM bides its time.
IBM takes the bait.
If IBM bides its time, SCO is probably (note the word probably) screwed. They've put out so many questionable allegations without proof (mostly to taunt IBM and put fear in the hearts of Linux users) that they've damaged their credibility. The Linux-literate public (and the courts, hopefully) don't tend to like these tactics.
On the other hand, if IBM takes the bait, SCO has a much stronger position and IBM has less time to prepare a counterattack. In addition, it keeps SCO from digging themselves deeper in the process, which also helps SCO (and not IBM).
Hopefully IBM realizes this and maintains a thick skin.
My best guess, aside from your explanation, is that letting SCO dig themselves deeper is satisfying for a few reasons:
Emotionally satisfying
Source of amusement for *nix community
When/if something happens to "stop these ridiculous claims of SCO," the more evidence against them and the more anti-SCO feeling present, the more likely action will be taken
In short, by waiting we allow SCO to alienate more groups and increase the chances of a decisive victory, legal or otherwise. If various groups were to force SCO's hand now, the actions taken might not have such a lasting impact, and (even more troublesome) might be viewed with doubt by the rest of the world. Waiting for more evidence (as you said) or a decreased public opinion serve the same purpose: waiting to act helps us, not them. Of course, if (don't take this wrong, now, it's an "if") the case has a few holes, waiting could help them... but somehow I doubt it. The evidence seems to be too strong.
Charles Vest, the president of MIT, published a statement in September of 2002 which dealt directly with the issue of openness in universities, particularly regarding scientific research. Although this particular endeavor doesn't specifically fit that category, his words still pertain. I've copied the most notable ones below; the entire statement may be found here.
"By and large, the academic community has treated this as a reasonable approach and, of course, will comply with the law. But even this seemingly straightforward approach is not without a huge potential price to be paid in the advancement of science, and therefore in our health and welfare. The MIT Ad Hoc Committee on Access to and Disclosure of Scientific Information was deeply concerned about the path down which we may be starting, noting that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the statutory power to expand the list of select agents. The Committee expressed the view that we could soon arrive at a level of restriction of access to materials by our students, faculty, or staff on the basis of their citizenship, for example--something that would be incompatible with our principles of openness, and would cause us to withdraw from the corresponding research topics on our campus."
Hopefully this doesn't come to pass, but if it does, I have some faith in MIT's ideals of openness over funding.
Absolutely. While you're off waving your hands to control your cell phone, radio, etc, they're not in their proper place (i.e. on the steering wheel).
Having your hands on the steering wheel is a good thing. If you aren't looking at the road, you can't see the car you're about to hit. If you're looking at the road but your hands are gesturing, you can't control your car to avoid the person you're about to hit.
Slashdot Mirror
This event [Big Screw] is still run; this year's event happened this week.
See here for a slightly outdated list of winners and charities; Chuck Vest (Make a Wish Foundation) won in 2004 and Prof. George Verghese (Doctors Without Borders) won in 2003. The 2005 winner will be announced tomorrow evening, and will be presented with the four foot long, left-handed aluminum wood screw.
- Fill in a fake name and address on the card, and don't worry about being contacted.
- Fill in your real name and address on the card, and get warnings such as this one.
The form I filled out for my supermarket card had the usual "Check this box if you do not wish your name and information given out to qualified vendors, etc," but lacked a "Please do not contact me with further offers" box. However, I have yet to receive any mail from said business, including flyers.Truthfully, if they have your address, it was your decision, and you should be happy you received the warning. If they don't, that's just the price you pay for privacy. I'm certain somebody in the office or the neighborhood got the warning and would be perfectly willing to alert you in the future.
Did you know that if you click Links the cat and type either "meow" or "purr" into the text box, one of the options that comes up gives directions for turning off the Office Assistant sound?
Links is my favorite, too.
I'm forced to disagree. Although reading texts in their primary languages is certainly valuable, I severely doubt every single scholar who studies ancient Mesopotamia is fluent in reading cuneiform script! Also, asking scholars to be fluent in one or two dead languages is quite a lot (according to my sister, who's a medieval scholar and speaks Latin and Medieval French)- would you have them be fluent in every single language they encounter? That's unrealistic, as well as inefficient.
Although it's certainly true that many scholars can read the primary languages of the periods they study, some do not. For example, if one were studying Culture A through the medium of Culture B's records of interactions with Culture A, one would not need to read primary sources from Culture A.
It's true that many scholars do prefer to rely on personal translations of primary sources, but for many it's a simple waste of time that could be better spent. Instead of arguing that all scholars must be able to read all primary sources of the cultures they study, I would argue that they should be able to analyze the translations of others (perhaps even the translations this system produces) with regards to the culture. If 20,000 scholars all translate a primary source and their translations are all relatively accurate (errors will be corrected in time), then 19,999 of them have wasted weeks or months.
Yes. Scholars do need translations - they help verify the scholar's own translations, provide much-needed resources, give insight into the translator's view of the culture - in short, they are a resource too valuable to put aside.
MIT has gotten around the problem of student non-attendance, at least with course 6.001 (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs).
The course (at least, according to a recent symposium lecture by its professors) is entirely computerized... students download recorded lectures each week (somewhat like a distance learning program), and the professor(s) can keep track of who downloads what. The course also has online problem sets and exercises. A few lectures are still offered in the traditional format (i.e. in the lecture hall), but the rest of the course is computerized.
I'm not sure how I feel about this... I like the professors' readiness to use technology (one would hope that would occur, considering which course it is!), but I can see how many students would benefit from a traditional lecture format.
We'll see where this goes, I guess.
You'll get no argument from me on that score. I hate the taste of coffee (although I do love the smell). Tea is much more up my alley, as well as being better for you (as you said). Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet that the majority of office beverage drinkers are drinking coffee (although I could be wrong). Go tea!
Drinking a lot of coffee will also help you urinate more, which will decrease your body's water content (and thus your weight, at least temporarily). Pure, unadorned black coffee also contains no calories, which makes it "better" for you than beer. So if you drink coffee constantly, you might just lose some weight.
Sounds like a quick trip to a caffeine overdose to me.
Well, actually, the major problem with loading Linux (apart from any Sony considerations) on this machine is that it has a Centrino processor.
A nice machine, to be sure, but without Linux compatibility (in the near future, at least), it's not going to sell to anyone who's interested in a dual-boot system.
Better to go with a slightly older model (i.e. the IBM T30 series) that has a Pentium 4 rather than a Centrino... otherwise Linux is (unless I'm wrong here, or you enjoy writing system software) out of the question.
- IBM bides its time.
- IBM takes the bait.
If IBM bides its time, SCO is probably (note the word probably) screwed. They've put out so many questionable allegations without proof (mostly to taunt IBM and put fear in the hearts of Linux users) that they've damaged their credibility. The Linux-literate public (and the courts, hopefully) don't tend to like these tactics.On the other hand, if IBM takes the bait, SCO has a much stronger position and IBM has less time to prepare a counterattack. In addition, it keeps SCO from digging themselves deeper in the process, which also helps SCO (and not IBM).
Hopefully IBM realizes this and maintains a thick skin.
- Emotionally satisfying
- Source of amusement for *nix community
- When/if something happens to "stop these ridiculous claims of SCO," the more evidence against them and the more anti-SCO feeling present, the more likely action will be taken
In short, by waiting we allow SCO to alienate more groups and increase the chances of a decisive victory, legal or otherwise. If various groups were to force SCO's hand now, the actions taken might not have such a lasting impact, and (even more troublesome) might be viewed with doubt by the rest of the world. Waiting for more evidence (as you said) or a decreased public opinion serve the same purpose: waiting to act helps us, not them. Of course, if (don't take this wrong, now, it's an "if") the case has a few holes, waiting could help them... but somehow I doubt it. The evidence seems to be too strong.Charles Vest, the president of MIT, published a statement in September of 2002 which dealt directly with the issue of openness in universities, particularly regarding scientific research. Although this particular endeavor doesn't specifically fit that category, his words still pertain. I've copied the most notable ones below; the entire statement may be found here.
"By and large, the academic community has treated this as a reasonable approach and, of course, will comply with the law. But even this seemingly straightforward approach is not without a huge potential price to be paid in the advancement of science, and therefore in our health and welfare. The MIT Ad Hoc Committee on Access to and Disclosure of Scientific Information was deeply concerned about the path down which we may be starting, noting that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the statutory power to expand the list of select agents. The Committee expressed the view that we could soon arrive at a level of restriction of access to materials by our students, faculty, or staff on the basis of their citizenship, for example--something that would be incompatible with our principles of openness, and would cause us to withdraw from the corresponding research topics on our campus. "
Hopefully this doesn't come to pass, but if it does, I have some faith in MIT's ideals of openness over funding.
Absolutely. While you're off waving your hands to control your cell phone, radio, etc, they're not in their proper place (i.e. on the steering wheel).
Having your hands on the steering wheel is a good thing. If you aren't looking at the road, you can't see the car you're about to hit. If you're looking at the road but your hands are gesturing, you can't control your car to avoid the person you're about to hit.
Nuff said?