I'm not Christian, but Take 6 is an unabashedly Christian group that also happens to be a very critically acclaimed (10 Grammys) and are pretty fantastic even to my sinful atheist ears: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcg9OV8ZVuI&feature=related
Who said it's a toy? Considering the discussion it has fostered, the catcopter has certainly served a higher purpose than it would have had it just been stuck in the ground.
It's a good point, but the platform itself is just getting started. I can't believe how many people have responded to, "I want a gadget that works as a traditional watch" with "Just get a watch." The Pebble is an open platform, so you can make it whatever you like, and while it's current form is a far cry from something you'd wear as a formal timepiece, it's not half bad looking.
How about some respect for a false dichotomy? Who says you can't own more than one watch? I'd wager that many folks who do own watches own more than one.
You can go nerdcore, as some below have pointed out, but there can be a medium. I love my Tag Heuer, it's a stylish and a quality timepiece, but it won't be too long (I dunno, 4 years?) before the two ends meet and the high end meets the unobtrusive technology. Case in point, you used to need a fucking nerd machine calc to graph shit on the go, now you can do it on your status symbol smart phone. The guy specifically says he's not specifically looking for jewelry, but the idea that high end tech isn't a part of the status symbol equation now a days is a little out of touch.
Bluetooth e-paper watch with apps, talks to both Apple and Android. Made a splash on kickstarter earlier this month:
www.getpebble.com
You can't buy it now, but I have a hard time believing this isn't the future of watches, in terms of not needing to pull the phone out of your pocket, it can send just about anything to the watch, and you can use the watch to control your phone.
Republicans and Democrats do not like paying money to crooked bankers, cronies of local politicians, corrupt unions. (The inference that you think they do is amusing, since presumably these corrupt individuals couldn't possibly be Tea Party, and therefore would be Republicans and Democrats. Yet I wasn't aware that corrupt people like wasting their own money.) So sure, corrupt people steal money. The idea that Tea Party politicians would be systematically immune to wasting tax money is hilarious. Let us know when you find that magical stick that identifies how you achieve 100% tax base efficiency. All I hear is, "Bad tax bad! Good tax good!" Your local essential services waste tax dollars just as well as the bankers (although obviously not at the same scale.) When I say I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of wastage to support single payer health care, you say you are not. But the notion that any one system is inherently less prone than another abuse is naive and a prime example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You're pedantically sorta right except that it's completely impractical. If you don't want to pay taxes, you get to give up your right to private property, since presumably, you would accept that you're on your own in protecting it. Okay, fine. Propose to me a system where by the police do not respond to a theft in progress before checking to see if said property belongs to somebody who has pre-emptively given up their right to private property.
Here's a clue: a right is a man made thing. Nobody has any rights. At all. But they do have 'rights' as defined by law. If you arn't going to pay for the enforcement of those rights, under the pretense that it doesn't waste any of your neighbours tax contributions (you're free to argue that, but you are simply in the historical wrong) them, guess what, we're gunna come over with a bunch of thugs, and threaten to put you in the jails we pay for, unless you/help/ pay for the practical solution of the general will of society.
You couldn't be an island even if you tried. In the above scenario, you'd probably gang up with some folks so that you all shared the responsibility of protecting each others' properties. Okay, cool, how are you gunna fund that responsibility? You'd pool some resources together, and bang - guess what, now you're trying to claim sovereignty. So just do it and see how far it gets you. I'm prepared to call the government 'a bunch of people who put people in jail if you don't pay the 1000$'.
as for "with a demand you stop smoking pot, a demand you stop drinking milk from a cow, or your stereo is 'too loud' and you tell the cops they need a warrant before coming on your property"
This is not a just world. This is not a meritocracy. Stop acting like a big baby, and work to change the system. You don't get to declare the extent of your involvement with other people on your own terms alone. It's a physical impossibility.
That a system can be abused does not make it inherently inferior to another system. All systems can be abused. Some less than others. Simply pointing out that a system can be abused is a moot point and has no place at the discussion table. Tell me why campaign finance reform would lead to less collusion between the private and public sector rather than less. There are still laws about who and how money can be donated to a campaign. Are you proposing a complete removal of all of those laws since any amount of laws can be circumvented? Are you convinced that such laws are in fact 100% useless? Should we just throw our hands up and say, "Fuck it, people can circumvent law. Ok guys, no laws!"
What's the beef against Massholes? I've been there a ton of times and except for one cabbie who was convinced Obama is the spawn of Satan, lots of folks seem to be pretty chill and educated there.
1) If it's a marketable idea, one that could make bucketloads of money, the employer is going to pursue it.
They may not. (IE, I think your third point is a lot more common than the 1st.) I had a friend who kept trying to get his project made and kept getting shutting down. So he left, and now he on the cusp of making boatloads of money. Companies are risk adverse, and of great ideas are pooh poohed until you're the one that proves that it's commercially viable.
I'd always recommend what I do, at least within the field of programming - if they don't plan on financially backing you on projects you do outside of work time, than they concede the the ownership of those ideas/work. Most employers that I've run into say as much in their contracts, and if they don't, every single last one of them has amended the contract to say as much. What I do at work is theirs - what they don't let me work on at work is not. They have not hired my mind, they have hired by ability to do the work they expect me to do during work hours (and compensated overtime) at the salary we agreed upon in the contract.
I'd be wary of any position in which shit I do outside of work could contractually end up in their hands, but thus far, after 12 years of this, nobody has batted an eye when I've requested such a reasonable change before I sign an employment contract. (From their perspective, it's obvious why they'd try and start with blanket ownership, and also obvious why not being able to bend on such matters would make recruiting prohibitively difficult.)
I'm starting to not wanna be in the US, I've been to maybe 30 states, I'm no stranger down there but man is it getting rather inconvenient, expensive, and stupid. And for some reason, the voices of reason are the ones who are shouted down.
My father is a principle R&D scientist for a mass spec company - sadly he doesn't watch much TV but it tickles me to think of a mass spec scientist getting pissed off by wrong MS portrayals in mainstream TV.
I'll tell him that it'd be nicer if their newer models could run a sample in 5 minutes...;)
I always found the original Law and Order did something very nice that permitted them to stay rather close to what I imagine is "true" for lawyers (IANAL) in that the morally "right" side didn't always win... unlike shows like CSI, the good guys didn't always win their case (or even won them sometimes with misgivings about having won them) which is far closer to real life regardless of what vocation you're in.
I bet that helped a ton in staying closer to reality within the justice system. This is pretty much point number one for me about any drama - if the morals in play are presented in black and white, it's immediately downgraded in my view.
I suspect this is one reason for House's popularity - it seems to live inbewteen in that they overwhelmingly come out on top of the diagnosis by the end, but House as an anti-hero gets it closer to reality. But I still find House is too neat and tidy for me, smart people being smart people, rarely having to pay for their mistakes with their last hour heroics and untouchable academics.
I still submit that The Wire was the finest piece of television ever produced because nobody was totally clean and characters had to pay for their faults in a fashion much truer to real life.
Yeah, we're aware that it's real, but it's a classic example of using novelty/research software in an environment where there would be no motivation to do so - software that way too conveniently provided 100% of the dramatic tension in the scene where she's trying to lock (or was it unlock) the doors in the facility before the dinos get in.
Perfect example of how design wants something cool and futuristic, but in the real world, the more critical the system the more boring and utilitarian an interface is it likely to have.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't have anything informed to say, you could try saying nothing at all.
RTFA much? The coffin is not a mock funeral for the respective prime ministers, but rather for the 'death of science'.
I'm not Christian, but Take 6 is an unabashedly Christian group that also happens to be a very critically acclaimed (10 Grammys) and are pretty fantastic even to my sinful atheist ears: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcg9OV8ZVuI&feature=related
But that would be a free market! Companies are notoriously terrified of such a concept.
Who said it's a toy? Considering the discussion it has fostered, the catcopter has certainly served a higher purpose than it would have had it just been stuck in the ground.
It's a good point, but the platform itself is just getting started. I can't believe how many people have responded to, "I want a gadget that works as a traditional watch" with "Just get a watch." The Pebble is an open platform, so you can make it whatever you like, and while it's current form is a far cry from something you'd wear as a formal timepiece, it's not half bad looking.
How about some respect for a false dichotomy? Who says you can't own more than one watch? I'd wager that many folks who do own watches own more than one.
You can go nerdcore, as some below have pointed out, but there can be a medium. I love my Tag Heuer, it's a stylish and a quality timepiece, but it won't be too long (I dunno, 4 years?) before the two ends meet and the high end meets the unobtrusive technology. Case in point, you used to need a fucking nerd machine calc to graph shit on the go, now you can do it on your status symbol smart phone. The guy specifically says he's not specifically looking for jewelry, but the idea that high end tech isn't a part of the status symbol equation now a days is a little out of touch.
Oh, and it will have an open SDK so you can develop your own apps for it :)
Bluetooth e-paper watch with apps, talks to both Apple and Android. Made a splash on kickstarter earlier this month:
www.getpebble.com
You can't buy it now, but I have a hard time believing this isn't the future of watches, in terms of not needing to pull the phone out of your pocket, it can send just about anything to the watch, and you can use the watch to control your phone.
Republicans and Democrats do not like paying money to crooked bankers, cronies of local politicians, corrupt unions. (The inference that you think they do is amusing, since presumably these corrupt individuals couldn't possibly be Tea Party, and therefore would be Republicans and Democrats. Yet I wasn't aware that corrupt people like wasting their own money.) So sure, corrupt people steal money. The idea that Tea Party politicians would be systematically immune to wasting tax money is hilarious. Let us know when you find that magical stick that identifies how you achieve 100% tax base efficiency. All I hear is, "Bad tax bad! Good tax good!" Your local essential services waste tax dollars just as well as the bankers (although obviously not at the same scale.) When I say I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of wastage to support single payer health care, you say you are not. But the notion that any one system is inherently less prone than another abuse is naive and a prime example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You're pedantically sorta right except that it's completely impractical. If you don't want to pay taxes, you get to give up your right to private property, since presumably, you would accept that you're on your own in protecting it. Okay, fine. Propose to me a system where by the police do not respond to a theft in progress before checking to see if said property belongs to somebody who has pre-emptively given up their right to private property.
Here's a clue: a right is a man made thing. Nobody has any rights. At all. But they do have 'rights' as defined by law. If you arn't going to pay for the enforcement of those rights, under the pretense that it doesn't waste any of your neighbours tax contributions (you're free to argue that, but you are simply in the historical wrong) them, guess what, we're gunna come over with a bunch of thugs, and threaten to put you in the jails we pay for, unless you /help/ pay for the practical solution of the general will of society.
You couldn't be an island even if you tried. In the above scenario, you'd probably gang up with some folks so that you all shared the responsibility of protecting each others' properties. Okay, cool, how are you gunna fund that responsibility? You'd pool some resources together, and bang - guess what, now you're trying to claim sovereignty. So just do it and see how far it gets you. I'm prepared to call the government 'a bunch of people who put people in jail if you don't pay the 1000$'.
as for "with a demand you stop smoking pot, a demand you stop drinking milk from a cow, or your stereo is 'too loud' and you tell the cops they need a warrant before coming on your property"
This is not a just world. This is not a meritocracy. Stop acting like a big baby, and work to change the system. You don't get to declare the extent of your involvement with other people on your own terms alone. It's a physical impossibility.
That a system can be abused does not make it inherently inferior to another system. All systems can be abused. Some less than others. Simply pointing out that a system can be abused is a moot point and has no place at the discussion table. Tell me why campaign finance reform would lead to less collusion between the private and public sector rather than less. There are still laws about who and how money can be donated to a campaign. Are you proposing a complete removal of all of those laws since any amount of laws can be circumvented? Are you convinced that such laws are in fact 100% useless? Should we just throw our hands up and say, "Fuck it, people can circumvent law. Ok guys, no laws!"
Why try and name the best? Canada has produced many amazing television shows, and I have a hard time putting KITH over SCTV.
Shit is rediculous, but don't muddy the waters in suggesting this is a free speech issue.
What's the beef against Massholes? I've been there a ton of times and except for one cabbie who was convinced Obama is the spawn of Satan, lots of folks seem to be pretty chill and educated there.
1) If it's a marketable idea, one that could make bucketloads of money, the employer is going to pursue it.
They may not. (IE, I think your third point is a lot more common than the 1st.) I had a friend who kept trying to get his project made and kept getting shutting down. So he left, and now he on the cusp of making boatloads of money. Companies are risk adverse, and of great ideas are pooh poohed until you're the one that proves that it's commercially viable.
I'd always recommend what I do, at least within the field of programming - if they don't plan on financially backing you on projects you do outside of work time, than they concede the the ownership of those ideas/work. Most employers that I've run into say as much in their contracts, and if they don't, every single last one of them has amended the contract to say as much. What I do at work is theirs - what they don't let me work on at work is not. They have not hired my mind, they have hired by ability to do the work they expect me to do during work hours (and compensated overtime) at the salary we agreed upon in the contract.
I'd be wary of any position in which shit I do outside of work could contractually end up in their hands, but thus far, after 12 years of this, nobody has batted an eye when I've requested such a reasonable change before I sign an employment contract. (From their perspective, it's obvious why they'd try and start with blanket ownership, and also obvious why not being able to bend on such matters would make recruiting prohibitively difficult.)
"If it's hard to write, it should be hard to read!"
I'm starting to not wanna be in the US, I've been to maybe 30 states, I'm no stranger down there but man is it getting rather inconvenient, expensive, and stupid. And for some reason, the voices of reason are the ones who are shouted down.
Yet to this day poor people still think the government should be financially at behest of the "most successful people".
My father is a principle R&D scientist for a mass spec company - sadly he doesn't watch much TV but it tickles me to think of a mass spec scientist getting pissed off by wrong MS portrayals in mainstream TV.
I'll tell him that it'd be nicer if their newer models could run a sample in 5 minutes ... ;)
I always found the original Law and Order did something very nice that permitted them to stay rather close to what I imagine is "true" for lawyers (IANAL) in that the morally "right" side didn't always win ... unlike shows like CSI, the good guys didn't always win their case (or even won them sometimes with misgivings about having won them) which is far closer to real life regardless of what vocation you're in.
I bet that helped a ton in staying closer to reality within the justice system. This is pretty much point number one for me about any drama - if the morals in play are presented in black and white, it's immediately downgraded in my view.
I suspect this is one reason for House's popularity - it seems to live inbewteen in that they overwhelmingly come out on top of the diagnosis by the end, but House as an anti-hero gets it closer to reality. But I still find House is too neat and tidy for me, smart people being smart people, rarely having to pay for their mistakes with their last hour heroics and untouchable academics.
I still submit that The Wire was the finest piece of television ever produced because nobody was totally clean and characters had to pay for their faults in a fashion much truer to real life.
Yeah, we're aware that it's real, but it's a classic example of using novelty/research software in an environment where there would be no motivation to do so - software that way too conveniently provided 100% of the dramatic tension in the scene where she's trying to lock (or was it unlock) the doors in the facility before the dinos get in.
Perfect example of how design wants something cool and futuristic, but in the real world, the more critical the system the more boring and utilitarian an interface is it likely to have.
Also "made them a ton of money" requires a little more info, as in money spent on the port, money gained on the port.
I read "NBA Jam" and I was like YEAH! Then I read the Jaguar and I was like "OH NOES"
I also program on console games .. I'm curious to know how many programmers were on that port?