The NERDS! Every machine they made was superior to the opposition, and they only lost the final because it had little to nothing to do with the machine being built.
Plus they had a *project planning and scheduling* specialist! Any team that Pert-charts its builds (with yellow sticky notes) gets my respect.
Tolkein is subtle on this matter (although it's pretty clear on re-reading). The mighty can't be swayed by the arguments of The Enemy to serve him. But their own tendencies can be reinforced and twisted to the outcome Sauron desires. We have two examples here, Saruman and Denethor. (We also have the backstory of the downfall of Numenor, but that's outside the scope of LoTR.)
Sauron played to Saruman's pride - his opinion of himself as a superior entity. In his mind it was *Saruman* who deserved to wield the ring, to the ultimate downfall of Sauron. He believed that he was good enough to use the ring for Good, and he played along with Sauron as a way to get it within his grasp. Obviously Sauron knew the ultimate outcome would be different. And we know it too, making Saruman a tragic character, not an evil one.
Denethor, on the other hand, was given to despair. As Steward he already had a somewhat fatalistic view of things because the King - the true champion of the people - never returned. As much as the Steward can try to take the King's place, he is not the King. As a representative of the King he would never treat with Sauron directly so he could not be convinced, but he could be rendered ineffectual. His Palantir was steered so as to give him the worst possible view of the world and strength of The Enemy. The result was catatonic despair. Also a tragic figure.
I think Saruman is Tolkien's metaphor for the German Army in WWI. They were simply men with the best of intentions doing a nasty job, but (from the point of view of Tolkien and his friends) in service of an evil end.
All that being said, we have the problem of the book vs. the movie. There's simply no time to make these points about Saruman in film one. In the book the two stories unfold in parallel. We already know about Denethor when we confront Saruman in Orthanc, and Gandalf can have pity on him because we realize what kind of challenge he was facing. He did thoroughly bad things from a good, albeit flawed, intention.
Making Saruman an out-and-out bad guy isn't such a difference in the big picture. Tragic he may be, but his actions are ultimately evil. If he have to shorthand him as a character, that's pretty much the result. The problem I do have with it is that it eliminates a terrific illustration of one of the most common and dangerous paths to evil - pride.
There are plenty of options to run and manage setiathome. First is to realize that the screen saver version is just eye candy to hook those that need visual stimulation. If you run the command line version, it will run at least twice as fast, use a lot fewer resources, and stay out of your way. It actually runs at idle priority and effectively replaces that idle loop that executes when there is nothing else to execute. You can get the Windows client here. (Don't let the 'unix' in the URL fake you out. They put all the non-graphical clients on that page.)
This tip is brought to you by the crunchers at Ars Technica Team Lamb Chop.
Making her "elected" also blows one of the more noticable plot points in Ep1, that the queen is masquerading as a lady in waiting. This works so long as the court is an insular thing, not open to public scrutiny. But if the queen is elected, then at least every one of the electors knows who she is and what she looks like.
I'd rather that she abdicated to enter politics, or something similar that shows some adventurousness or ambition.
I have to quibble. You point about turning Battlebots into "The Carmen Electra Show" is well taken. But if you examine the way her shots are assembled (hint: look at the outfits) you can dope out the time line of when they were shot.
It's apparent that Carmen started out doing her best spokesmodel imitation (which actually isn't bad for a spokesmodel), but then saw what everyone was there for (mayhem!) and started getting genuinely excited (hint: look a bit closer at her outfit).
My own quibble with the show - WHY does the director frame up a shot of Carmen and her electric boobies, then immediately paste an opaque title over her chest? Isn't that defeating the whole purpose of having here there?!?
De-ionized water can be troublesome. I worked at a TI fab development plant back in the early 70s. They used DI water for many processes and supplied large amounts of it throughout the plant in pipes. These pipes were tough to maintain. DI water (lacking chlorine) is a great environment for some flora and fauna. They had to flush the pipes periodically with formaldehyde.
DI water tastes good. We used it in the coffee maker. One day the handle on the glass coffee carafe started to melt. The coffee smelled and tasted weird, too. Turns out they did an (unannounced?) formaldehyde flush of the lines and someone charged the maker with a formaldehyde and water solution. (Higher boiling point??)
Maybe the same thing happened to detector... No wonder they'd want it kept quiet.
Safe speeds on freeways are often 20-30km/h above posted in traffic.
Not just freeways. Posted speed limits are increasingly disconnected from customary speeds. It used to be common practice for traffic engineers (yes there is such a discipline) to set speed limits by observing *actual speeds* and calculating the limit so that roughly 80% of the traffic already travelled at or below the limit.
Then came Federal money and the Great Gasoline Panic of the '70s. Now there are Federal "standards" that are set in Washington (the home of speedophobia), are lower than common practice, and may bear no relevance to a particular stretch of road.
And of course as good citizens we are required to slavishly obey them.
There's all different kinds of Pr0n. For example, here is a gallery of high end systems and components to excite you.
Talk of $140K systems is aiming too low. For *truly* high-end gear check out this fine example. The text associated with it is particulary revealing (once you get past the fanboy drooling).
Net result of viewing these feelthy peectures is it makes me want to go out and buy some better gear. Could I hear the difference? YOU BET. (Too many Who concerts and all.)
All those people hollering "Free speech" seem to be incapable of making a distinction here. The Virginia law *does not* prohibit or constrain free speech. It *does* prohibit certain uses of state-owned equipment.
Read your U.S. Constitution. It guarantees the right of free speech. It does not charge the Federal or state governments with providing the means to convey that speech.
I have a friend who took the decorating one step further. She covered the ceiling tiles with them, track side down. The room was lit with torchieres, and the CDs acted like little circular diffraction grates, subduing the intensity and throwing colors all over the room. It was pretty cool looking, and worth the months of collecting the little buggers.
While I kinda agree with this post, there is a high level description that can be made without telling the questioner *how* to do it.
Typically an audit is interested in 2 things: 1) do we have the right software/product; 2) are we using it legally.
2) you can handle with an inventory and license check.
1) is more complicated, but fortunately the auditor rarely has to do it (literally). He just has to prove that someone else has made that certification by a) proper tests in the case of internally developed software, or b) analysis in the case of externally developed software.
Most people evaluate flex time from inside the company. Looked at from outside it can have significant environmental implications.
1) It can have a negative impact in that the building is required to host 'users' for more of the day. More A/C, lighting, etc.. (Realistically, few buildings throttle down much during marginal occupancy. E.g. the cleaning crew turns on all the lights anyway. E.g. for short periods it actually costs more to let the tempertature fluctuate.)
2) It can have a positive impact on external systems, as the load is spread out. E.g. water, power, sewer, network.
3) The big one (at least from my point of view dealing with traffic systems) is on commuting. First, shifting workers off-peak decreases the peak load and makes the commute easier for everyone else. Second, it makes the commute much easier for those off-peak workers.
There are disproportionate effects on emissions (and fuel comsumption). Faster commute means the engines are running for a shorter time, plus there is less idle or start-up time, both of which are high-emission/high comsumption operating modes.
4) The company can gain PR points through the use of flex time for the above reasons, and it might be convinced to keep some divisions on it for that purpose.
Au contraire! my dear cat novice. Your cat is quiet aware that she is blocking the screen. That's the whole point! Now stop playing with your computer and pet the cat like you're supposed to.
Untrue. Most phone companies do have a metered rate plan. E.g. With BellSouth I pay about half the unlimited usage rate which includes 30 local calls. For every call over 30 I pay $0.12.
IMNSHO, placing computers in normal classrooms is a slap in the face to the teacher there. It says, "A $1000 machine can teach these kids better than you do."
So why aren't teachers, as a group, saying this. First, individual teachers are afraid to oppose the NEA (which is a problem in its own right). Second, the NEA only sees that it can use the issue to:
a) get the taxpayers used to providing more money, which might be diverted to other uses once all the computers have been bought. (Yeah, I know. But they're 'not technical people'.)
b) lock out private "voucher" schools by making public schools uniquely equipped. Supposedly the voucher schools don't have the resources to buy all those computers...
Bottom line: I agree that computers are a hinderance in 80% of the curriculum. And by promoting their acquisition, the education establishment is pursuing an agenda that does *not* serve the education of our children.
I broach the subject to predict what editorial position of the Wall Street Journal (an otherwise astute publication) will be on today's ruling: "The ruling interferes with the function of the free market, and government ought to butt out before they ruin the whole thing. It is a step toward a centralized economy, etc.." (Their stance is not a mystery; they've been saying that ever since.)
What they don't seem to get is the nature of monopoly. Monopoly is a situation in which the dynamic of the free market has been crushed out of existence. One might liken it to a singularity in the space-time of economic interactions. Microsoft is a black hole in the fabric of the global economy.
Enforcement of the anti-trust act(s) is simply trying to ensure that the singularity doesn't grow to absorb neighboring markets (like Canada).
>> That's it. Now, you can argue the *trade secret* part separately, but the fact is, the text of the spec *is* copyrighted, and entitled to protection, just as slashdot's code is copyrighted, and entitled to protection
The fact of the matter is simply that *everything* is copyrighted. A copyright isn't something that is granted upon application (such as a patent). A copyright is inherent in the work when produced. A work may be registered with the Copyright Office, but that doesn't confer the copyright, it merely serves as a repository for the work to demonstrate that the work was in existence at the time of registration, and that rights were asserted.
This post is copyrighted (c) by me, simply by writing it. By posting to/., I give up certain usage rights. (So did seebs, who's (c) material I make fair use of above.)
By posting the K spec to the Inet, M$ gave up certain usage rights. Exactly what those rights were and what it retains is very much an open question. Do not uderestimate M$' and Bill the Gates' interest in obtaining a favorable legal interpretation of those retained rights. Besides the possible effect on open-source s/w (Does the term "MS-Linux" make you shudder? It should.), they are also some of the largest commercial content owners active in cyberspace.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out Team Cheaing is Possible.
The NERDS! Every machine they made was superior to the opposition, and they only lost the final because it had little to nothing to do with the machine being built.
Plus they had a *project planning and scheduling* specialist! Any team that Pert-charts its builds (with yellow sticky notes) gets my respect.
Tolkein is subtle on this matter (although it's pretty clear on re-reading). The mighty can't be swayed by the arguments of The Enemy to serve him. But their own tendencies can be reinforced and twisted to the outcome Sauron desires. We have two examples here, Saruman and Denethor. (We also have the backstory of the downfall of Numenor, but that's outside the scope of LoTR.)
Sauron played to Saruman's pride - his opinion of himself as a superior entity. In his mind it was *Saruman* who deserved to wield the ring, to the ultimate downfall of Sauron. He believed that he was good enough to use the ring for Good, and he played along with Sauron as a way to get it within his grasp. Obviously Sauron knew the ultimate outcome would be different. And we know it too, making Saruman a tragic character, not an evil one.
Denethor, on the other hand, was given to despair. As Steward he already had a somewhat fatalistic view of things because the King - the true champion of the people - never returned. As much as the Steward can try to take the King's place, he is not the King. As a representative of the King he would never treat with Sauron directly so he could not be convinced, but he could be rendered ineffectual. His Palantir was steered so as to give him the worst possible view of the world and strength of The Enemy. The result was catatonic despair. Also a tragic figure.
I think Saruman is Tolkien's metaphor for the German Army in WWI. They were simply men with the best of intentions doing a nasty job, but (from the point of view of Tolkien and his friends) in service of an evil end.
All that being said, we have the problem of the book vs. the movie. There's simply no time to make these points about Saruman in film one. In the book the two stories unfold in parallel. We already know about Denethor when we confront Saruman in Orthanc, and Gandalf can have pity on him because we realize what kind of challenge he was facing. He did thoroughly bad things from a good, albeit flawed, intention.
Making Saruman an out-and-out bad guy isn't such a difference in the big picture. Tragic he may be, but his actions are ultimately evil. If he have to shorthand him as a character, that's pretty much the result. The problem I do have with it is that it eliminates a terrific illustration of one of the most common and dangerous paths to evil - pride.
There are plenty of options to run and manage setiathome. First is to realize that the screen saver version is just eye candy to hook those that need visual stimulation. If you run the command line version, it will run at least twice as fast, use a lot fewer resources, and stay out of your way. It actually runs at idle priority and effectively replaces that idle loop that executes when there is nothing else to execute. You can get the Windows client
here. (Don't let the 'unix' in the URL fake you out. They put all the non-graphical clients on that page.)
This tip is brought to you by the crunchers at Ars Technica Team Lamb Chop.
Making her "elected" also blows one of the more noticable plot points in Ep1, that the queen is masquerading as a lady in waiting. This works so long as the court is an insular thing, not open to public scrutiny. But if the queen is elected, then at least every one of the electors knows who she is and what she looks like.
I'd rather that she abdicated to enter politics, or something similar that shows some adventurousness or ambition.
GL has much to answer for.
You're missing the point. The author means that penguins (South Pole) are preferable to polar bears (North Pole).
I rather agree.
I have to quibble. You point about turning Battlebots into "The Carmen Electra Show" is well taken. But if you examine the way her shots are assembled (hint: look at the outfits) you can dope out the time line of when they were shot.
It's apparent that Carmen started out doing her best spokesmodel imitation (which actually isn't bad for a spokesmodel), but then saw what everyone was there for (mayhem!) and started getting genuinely excited (hint: look a bit closer at her outfit).
My own quibble with the show - WHY does the director frame up a shot of Carmen and her electric boobies, then immediately paste an opaque title over her chest? Isn't that defeating the whole purpose of having here there?!?
De-ionized water can be troublesome. I worked at a TI fab development plant back in the early 70s. They used DI water for many processes and supplied large amounts of it throughout the plant in pipes. These pipes were tough to maintain. DI water (lacking chlorine) is a great environment for some flora and fauna. They had to flush the pipes periodically with formaldehyde.
DI water tastes good. We used it in the coffee maker. One day the handle on the glass coffee carafe started to melt. The coffee smelled and tasted weird, too. Turns out they did an (unannounced?) formaldehyde flush of the lines and someone charged the maker with a formaldehyde and water solution. (Higher boiling point??)
Maybe the same thing happened to detector... No wonder they'd want it kept quiet.
Not just freeways. Posted speed limits are increasingly disconnected from customary speeds. It used to be common practice for traffic engineers (yes there is such a discipline) to set speed limits by observing *actual speeds* and calculating the limit so that roughly 80% of the traffic already travelled at or below the limit.
Then came Federal money and the Great Gasoline Panic of the '70s. Now there are Federal "standards" that are set in Washington (the home of speedophobia), are lower than common practice, and may bear no relevance to a particular stretch of road.
And of course as good citizens we are required to slavishly obey them.
There's all different kinds of Pr0n. For example, here is a gallery of high end systems and components to excite you.
Talk of $140K systems is aiming too low. For *truly* high-end gear check out this fine example. The text associated with it is particulary revealing (once you get past the fanboy drooling).
Net result of viewing these feelthy peectures is it makes me want to go out and buy some better gear. Could I hear the difference? YOU BET. (Too many Who concerts and all.)
All those people hollering "Free speech" seem to be incapable of making a distinction here. The Virginia law *does not* prohibit or constrain free speech. It *does* prohibit certain uses of state-owned equipment.
Read your U.S. Constitution. It guarantees the right of free speech. It does not charge the Federal or state governments with providing the means to convey that speech.
I have a friend who took the decorating one step further. She covered the ceiling tiles with them, track side down. The room was lit with torchieres, and the CDs acted like little circular diffraction grates, subduing the intensity and throwing colors all over the room. It was pretty cool looking, and worth the months of collecting the little buggers.
While I kinda agree with this post, there is a high level description that can be made without telling the questioner *how* to do it.
Typically an audit is interested in 2 things: 1) do we have the right software/product; 2) are we using it legally.
2) you can handle with an inventory and license check.
1) is more complicated, but fortunately the auditor rarely has to do it (literally). He just has to prove that someone else has made that certification by a) proper tests in the case of internally developed software, or b) analysis in the case of externally developed software.
Most people evaluate flex time from inside the company. Looked at from outside it can have significant environmental implications.
1) It can have a negative impact in that the building is required to host 'users' for more of the day. More A/C, lighting, etc.. (Realistically, few buildings throttle down much during marginal occupancy. E.g. the cleaning crew turns on all the lights anyway. E.g. for short periods it actually costs more to let the tempertature fluctuate.)
2) It can have a positive impact on external systems, as the load is spread out. E.g. water, power, sewer, network.
3) The big one (at least from my point of view dealing with traffic systems) is on commuting. First, shifting workers off-peak decreases the peak load and makes the commute easier for everyone else. Second, it makes the commute much easier for those off-peak workers.
There are disproportionate effects on emissions (and fuel comsumption). Faster commute means the engines are running for a shorter time, plus there is less idle or start-up time, both of which are high-emission/high comsumption operating modes.
4) The company can gain PR points through the use of flex time for the above reasons, and it might be convinced to keep some divisions on it for that purpose.
Au contraire! my dear cat novice. Your cat is quiet aware that she is blocking the screen. That's the whole point! Now stop playing with your computer and pet the cat like you're supposed to.
Untrue. Most phone companies do have a metered rate plan. E.g. With BellSouth I pay about half the unlimited usage rate which includes 30 local calls. For every call over 30 I pay $0.12.
IMNSHO, placing computers in normal classrooms is a slap in the face to the teacher there. It says, "A $1000 machine can teach these kids better than you do."
So why aren't teachers, as a group, saying this. First, individual teachers are afraid to oppose the NEA (which is a problem in its own right). Second, the NEA only sees that it can use the issue to:
a) get the taxpayers used to providing more money, which might be diverted to other uses once all the computers have been bought. (Yeah, I know. But they're 'not technical people'.)
b) lock out private "voucher" schools by making public schools uniquely equipped. Supposedly the voucher schools don't have the resources to buy all those computers...
Bottom line: I agree that computers are a hinderance in 80% of the curriculum. And by promoting their acquisition, the education establishment is pursuing an agenda that does *not* serve the education of our children.
The best thing I can say about the movie?
* I didn't go see it.
I broach the subject to predict what editorial position of the Wall Street Journal (an otherwise astute publication) will be on today's ruling: "The ruling interferes with the function of the free market, and government ought to butt out before they ruin the whole thing. It is a step toward a centralized economy, etc.." (Their stance is not a mystery; they've been saying that ever since.)
What they don't seem to get is the nature of monopoly. Monopoly is a situation in which the dynamic of the free market has been crushed out of existence. One might liken it to a singularity in the space-time of economic interactions. Microsoft is a black hole in the fabric of the global economy.
Enforcement of the anti-trust act(s) is simply trying to ensure that the singularity doesn't grow to absorb neighboring markets (like Canada).
Dibs on the gas!
>> That's it. Now, you can argue the *trade secret* part separately, but the fact is, the text of the spec *is* copyrighted, and entitled to protection, just as slashdot's code is copyrighted, and entitled to protection
/., I give up certain usage rights. (So did seebs, who's (c) material I make fair use of above.)
The fact of the matter is simply that *everything* is copyrighted. A copyright isn't something that is granted upon application (such as a patent). A copyright is inherent in the work when produced. A work may be registered with the Copyright Office, but that doesn't confer the copyright, it merely serves as a repository for the work to demonstrate that the work was in existence at the time of registration, and that rights were asserted.
This post is copyrighted (c) by me, simply by writing it. By posting to
By posting the K spec to the Inet, M$ gave up certain usage rights. Exactly what those rights were and what it retains is very much an open question. Do not uderestimate M$' and Bill the Gates' interest in obtaining a favorable legal interpretation of those retained rights. Besides the possible effect on open-source s/w (Does the term "MS-Linux" make you shudder? It should.), they are also some of the largest commercial content owners active in cyberspace.