From the Wikipedia link, it appears that the disease has many attendent symptoms, of which insomnia is just one small part, so it isn't clear that insomnia is killing the patient.
After all, Ritalin is chemically very little different to Speed and it has the same effect.
I've seen you repeat this several times now - in what way does Ritalin "have the same effects" as speed?
Moreover the whole "is chemically very little different to" is incredibly suspect, small chemical changes have very large changes of effect. See also ethane v ethanol and dihydrogen monoxide v hydrogen peroxide.
OK, here is the simple simple way of thinking about pitching projects to senior management. You should be able to answer these two questions before you go near them.
1. How will it help us save money? Potentially how much/when ?
2. How will it help us make money? Potentially how much/when?
Work out in your own mind the relationship between your pet projects and these questions. Even if you think they are bat-shit daft questions and don't apply to your project think it through any way. It is good intellectual discipline.
If the projects are something to do with risk or security, try to place the security risk in terms of the realistic financial hit the company will take. If it is a whizzy new front-end to a Web site, how will it improve sales?
I'm think most PHBs are actually much more intelligent than some technical people give them credit for - many PHBs do understand technical issues. However at the end of the day a large part of their job is to understand how any expenditure they authorise with affect their financials.
A large part of your job is to give them the information they need to give the project the go-ahead by converting the technical benefits into tangible financial ones. You can't expect them to do all the work for them.
Powerpoint can help. But gratuitous use of buzzword bingo insults both your and their intelligence.
Unfortunately, the whole article appears to have been written by someone who was biologically illiterate:
Scientists in Australia's tropical north are collecting blood from crocodiles in the hope of developing a powerful antibiotic for humans, after tests showed that the reptile's immune system kills the HIV virus.
Since antibiotics are agents that kill bacteria rather than viruses, this paragraph is a non sequitur.
Similarly, the phrase However, the crocodile's immune system may be too powerful for humans makes no sense scientifically. What part of the immune system are we talking about? "too powerful" in what sense?
At first I thought this was just the journalist getting it wrong, but I checked another article (from the Scotsman) and got this choice quote:
Adam Britton, a member of the team, said: "If you take a test tube of HIV and add crocodile serum, it has a greater effect than human serum. It kills a greater number of HIV viral organisms."
He continued: "The crocodile has an immune system which attaches to bacteria, making it explode. It's like putting a gun to the head of the bacteria and pulling the trigger."
I'll leave you to decide if this guy knows what he is talking about. A man who can use the phrase "HIV viral organism" and keep a straight face, before moving on to talk about bacteria without a pause seems as if he should be in charge of the sheep dip.
.. It is, to use the old phrase "a non-denial denial".
If the guy had said "It's just rumours and there is absolutely no truth in it" that would be one thing. Just saying "it's a rumour" is the polite equivalent of "no comment".
I would imagine that Paul Bragiel and his company is quite enjoying the attention, so it's not in his interests to decisively quash these rumours, so he's left things a little ambiguous.
I think the main thrust of your posting (re: Google's possible strategy) is very insightful, however it is important that you don't confuse iTunes the application with iTunes the music store; the former does not require use of the latter.
I have never used the music store, but I do use the application - it imposes no DRM requirements on me; I simply use it as an elegant way to manage my music and burn CDs.
What is commonly meant by evolution I support fully (however, evolution as a concrete thing has been shown to be wrong, there are more modern theories that better fit the data set.
The butterfly question is an interesting one, but not so problematic when you recognise (as another poster said) just how common larval stages are in the animal kingdom.
Across the whole range of living things there appears to be a widespread 'strategy' of dividing the life cycle into vegetative stages (growth and feeding) and reproductive (ways of spreading those gametes around). Flowering plants, fungi, amphibians, the list goes on and on.
But let me tell you an evolutionary "just so story" about the butterfly- I make no apologies; it is just a hypothesis I dreamed up, but it may make your mind a little less boggled. Have a look at the life-cycle of the locust, it may also help unboggle your mind.
Consider many millions of years ago. You have a primitive insect, it reproduces by laying eggs.
A mutation which occurs that means that a small population arises where the egg hatches before the insect is fully formed (cf also tadpoles). The advantage to the animal is that it spends less time in the vulnerable egg stage and also less energy needed to be stored in the egg. Instead the young insect fed itself up on leaves, with wings forming later.
If you look at the locust you can see how the insect gradually develops through a series of stages called instars.
With the locust (and the frog) the metamorphosis is gradual, but let's continue our just so story. Let's assume our proto-butterfly lived in a temperate region with with seasons. It may be that a period of hibernation was advantageous, and the larva build coccoons for protection.
All it then takes is for a further mutation to change the lifecycle a little so that more than one instar takes place inside the cocoon and you are well on you way to the buttetfly life-style.
So to answer your questions specifically:
They obviously had the means for procreation on their own, so why bother becoming a butterfly?
The butterfly stage is a grand way of spreading the population - they get around; they are the equivalent of wind-blown seeds, but self-powered.
If it was the butterfly, why even bother with the caterpillar stage? If you can already fly around and stuff, why bother crawling?
Because having an egg packed with enough resources to create a fully-formed butterfly would require a very big egg crammed with expensive resources, and a very long development time inside the egg - neither of which are good news reproductively.
Surely Yahoo is doing this the wrong way round though:
You say:
I'd love to to see what these things can do if you're able to hook them into the full range of Yahoo information/services.
Surely what is needed is for Yahoo to publish a rich, well documented set of APIs, rather like Google* has done - this would let any desktop software (Konfabulator, Dashboard, Linux stuff, whatever) access the information.
Instead it seems that Yahoo has decided against this and instead is insulating its core APIs by only giving access via a proprietary software layer (Konfabulator) sitting on the client. Seems a bit weird to me.
*Yes, I'm aware of the restrictions that Google places on its API use.
No. Apple has several solutions to window clutter, from spring loaded folders, to exposé to column-mode. This would simply be one more tool in the armoury - I'd like to see it.
All the time - I spend quite a lot of my work life moving bits of documents from one file to another. On the Mac, drag and drop means you don't have to go near the keyboard if you want.
Other times, I use only the keyboard. Both work for me. (yes, on a Mac)
I'm sorry, I've just had a look at this blog, and why would anyone bother? It's self referential, a little self indulgent, and there's nothing either interesting or insightful on the front page.
Perhaps a regular reader could tell me - is it usually better than this?
Slashdot Mirror
And if they don't lose it, it will certainly help them learn how to get mugged in the playground.
From the Wikipedia link, it appears that the disease has many attendent symptoms, of which insomnia is just one small part, so it isn't clear that insomnia is killing the patient.
Just thought I'd point that out.
After all, Ritalin is chemically very little different to Speed and it has the same effect.
I've seen you repeat this several times now - in what way does Ritalin "have the same effects" as speed?
Moreover the whole "is chemically very little different to" is incredibly suspect, small chemical changes have very large changes of effect. See also ethane v ethanol and dihydrogen monoxide v hydrogen peroxide.
Presumably you don;t have a workplace where they make extensive use of Outlook, Groove and MS Project.
Hey ho.
(Another OS X user)
OK, here is the simple simple way of thinking about pitching projects to senior management. You should be able to answer these two questions before you go near them.
1. How will it help us save money? Potentially how much/when ?
2. How will it help us make money? Potentially how much/when?
Work out in your own mind the relationship between your pet projects and these questions. Even if you think they are bat-shit daft questions and don't apply to your project think it through any way. It is good intellectual discipline.
If the projects are something to do with risk or security, try to place the security risk in terms of the realistic financial hit the company will take. If it is a whizzy new front-end to a Web site, how will it improve sales?
I'm think most PHBs are actually much more intelligent than some technical people give them credit for - many PHBs do understand technical issues. However at the end of the day a large part of their job is to understand how any expenditure they authorise with affect their financials.
A large part of your job is to give them the information they need to give the project the go-ahead by converting the technical benefits into tangible financial ones. You can't expect them to do all the work for them.
Powerpoint can help. But gratuitous use of buzzword bingo insults both your and their intelligence.
Oh, you wouldn't believe how bitter I am. So, can we get it from the Croc's mouth? Exactly what should the story have said? What's the link with HIV?
Is there is a decent URL where you set out what the current state of play is?
Eager minds want to know.
Oops, you've just posted an unsubstantiated damaging rumor
You managed to cram more information in your second and third sentences than the entire article.
It's just a shame that we have to guess as to what is going on.
Unfortunately, the whole article appears to have been written by someone who was biologically illiterate:
Scientists in Australia's tropical north are collecting blood from crocodiles in the hope of developing a powerful antibiotic for humans, after tests showed that the reptile's immune system kills the HIV virus.
Since antibiotics are agents that kill bacteria rather than viruses, this paragraph is a non sequitur.
Similarly, the phrase However, the crocodile's immune system may be too powerful for humans makes no sense scientifically. What part of the immune system are we talking about? "too powerful" in what sense?
At first I thought this was just the journalist getting it wrong, but I checked another article (from the Scotsman) and got this choice quote:
Adam Britton, a member of the team, said: "If you take a test tube of HIV and add crocodile serum, it has a greater effect than human serum. It kills a greater number of HIV viral organisms."
He continued: "The crocodile has an immune system which attaches to bacteria, making it explode. It's like putting a gun to the head of the bacteria and pulling the trigger."
I'll leave you to decide if this guy knows what he is talking about. A man who can use the phrase "HIV viral organism" and keep a straight face, before moving on to talk about bacteria without a pause seems as if he should be in charge of the sheep dip.
You could *just* about get away with "baseless" if you take it to mean the rumours are unsubstantiated.
Just. Maybe.
.. It is, to use the old phrase "a non-denial denial".
If the guy had said "It's just rumours and there is absolutely no truth in it" that would be one thing. Just saying "it's a rumour" is the polite equivalent of "no comment".
I would imagine that Paul Bragiel and his company is quite enjoying the attention, so it's not in his interests to decisively quash these rumours, so he's left things a little ambiguous.
I think the main thrust of your posting (re: Google's possible strategy) is very insightful, however it is important that you don't confuse iTunes the application with iTunes the music store; the former does not require use of the latter.
I have never used the music store, but I do use the application - it imposes no DRM requirements on me; I simply use it as an elegant way to manage my music and burn CDs.
He was just pointing out that there is a subsidy there, that *does* need to be justified.
Is your last sentence a comment on the inevitability of global warming
...and routes around it.
... or maybe not.
Hang on, maybe I'm getting confused.
No one with more than a few days of computer experience has the slightest trouble with multi-button mice
Send me your phone number, and I'll route all support calls from my 80-year-old dad to you. OK?
Insightful my man, insightful. ... Apologies if you are a woman.
What is commonly meant by evolution I support fully (however, evolution as a concrete thing has been shown to be wrong, there are more modern theories that better fit the data set.
By which you mean....?
No, we're in an exact position to define what is meant by "mutation" your point is that we aren't necessarily in a position to define "beneficial".
The butterfly question is an interesting one, but not so problematic when you recognise (as another poster said) just how common larval stages are in the animal kingdom.
Across the whole range of living things there appears to be a widespread 'strategy' of dividing the life cycle into vegetative stages (growth and feeding) and reproductive (ways of spreading those gametes around). Flowering plants, fungi, amphibians, the list goes on and on.
But let me tell you an evolutionary "just so story" about the butterfly- I make no apologies; it is just a hypothesis I dreamed up, but it may make your mind a little less boggled. Have a look at the life-cycle of the locust, it may also help unboggle your mind.
Consider many millions of years ago. You have a primitive insect, it reproduces by laying eggs.
A mutation which occurs that means that a small population arises where the egg hatches before the insect is fully formed (cf also tadpoles). The advantage to the animal is that it spends less time in the vulnerable egg stage and also less energy needed to be stored in the egg. Instead the young insect fed itself up on leaves, with wings forming later.
If you look at the locust you can see how the insect gradually develops through a series of stages called instars.
With the locust (and the frog) the metamorphosis is gradual, but let's continue our just so story. Let's assume our proto-butterfly lived in a temperate region with with seasons. It may be that a period of hibernation was advantageous, and the larva build coccoons for protection.
All it then takes is for a further mutation to change the lifecycle a little so that more than one instar takes place inside the cocoon and you are well on you way to the buttetfly life-style.
So to answer your questions specifically:
They obviously had the means for procreation on their own, so why bother becoming a butterfly?
The butterfly stage is a grand way of spreading the population - they get around; they are the equivalent of wind-blown seeds, but self-powered.
If it was the butterfly, why even bother with the caterpillar stage? If you can already fly around and stuff, why bother crawling?
Because having an egg packed with enough resources to create a fully-formed butterfly would require a very big egg crammed with expensive resources, and a very long development time inside the egg - neither of which are good news reproductively.
Hope that's perhaps of some use.
Surely Yahoo is doing this the wrong way round though:
You say:
I'd love to to see what these things can do if you're able to hook them into the full range of Yahoo information/services.
Surely what is needed is for Yahoo to publish a rich, well documented set of APIs, rather like Google* has done - this would let any desktop software (Konfabulator, Dashboard, Linux stuff, whatever) access the information.
Instead it seems that Yahoo has decided against this and instead is insulating its core APIs by only giving access via a proprietary software layer (Konfabulator) sitting on the client. Seems a bit weird to me.
*Yes, I'm aware of the restrictions that Google places on its API use.
No. Apple has several solutions to window clutter, from spring loaded folders, to exposé to column-mode. This would simply be one more tool in the armoury - I'd like to see it.
All the time - I spend quite a lot of my work life moving bits of documents from one file to another. On the Mac, drag and drop means you don't have to go near the keyboard if you want.
Other times, I use only the keyboard. Both work for me.
(yes, on a Mac)
Yes, I'm not entirely convinced by this. More likely perhaps is Apple using iTunes or a variant thereof as a video store application.
...from the article summary:
"Since ethanol production plants don't use ethanol themselves for their own energy needs...
I think I see a possible way forward here.
I'm sorry, I've just had a look at this blog, and why would anyone bother? It's self referential, a little self indulgent, and there's nothing either interesting or insightful on the front page.
Perhaps a regular reader could tell me - is it usually better than this?