I'd love to use this service because I'm a huge Ubuntu fan, but the price just isn't competitive. $3 per month only gets you 20 GB.
For example, you can sign up for a Dreamhost shared hosting account, get unlimited TB of storage and bandwidth for $9 per month: Dreamhost hosting plans
You can throw a multitude of various front-ends on it with their "Easy Install" or whatever the name is, and have pretty much any files you want served to you where ever you want.
I have a lot more than 20 GB of data that I'd want to sync and back up.
From a pure price/features standpoint, rsync.net is roughly comparable in price but has a way better feature set (copied from their page): - ssh, scp, sftp, ftp... and tools like rsync, rdiff-backup, duplicity and Unison - IPV6 connectivity and dedicated Gigabit connections available - BackupAssist, Backup Exec, Imaging, System Restore, and Bare Metal - Seamless integration with VMWare, Xen, Citrix and Hyper-V - ssh key based automation and support for remote UNIX commands - Multiple logins and custom access/permissions - Encrypted filesystem support
If Ubuntu one were to change their pricing to be about $10-20 per TB, per month - I'd probably jump on board. I know, that's a pretty tough price point to meet, but others (like dreamhost) are able to do it.
I did a website for a client who sells and configure devices like this for schools and libraries under the federal e-rate program. I don't have personal experience with the device, but he says it works quite well. Here's a link (disclaimer: like I mentioned, I developed the web site for this, but I'm not affiliated with the product) http://e-rateforschools.com/services/e-rate-internet-availability-link-balancers/
I live in Texas, where it is not abnormal for people to go to church on Sunday hung over from the night at the strip club on Saturday.
In Dallas, we have some of the best and most famous strip clubs in the world, and we also have more churches per capita that most other areas.
Is this hypocrisy? Undoubtedly. However, I think there's are major cultural undercurrents that the rest of the world, and in the case of Texas, the rest of the country misses. I've lived all over the US, and interestingly (to me) I've found Texas to be the least judgmental and most accepting of any place I've lived, including many "liberal" places like California (San Diego) and Oregon (Portland).
This probably challenges a lot of closely held beliefs by a lot of people in the US and around the world, and I get that. But the fact is, I live in a "conservative" small town in Texas, and when I'm done work today I'm going to go have a beer at the local red-neck bar, a cool little place that is filled with simple folks, has Big Buck Hunter tournaments, and plays country/western non-stop. A bar that's owned by an amazing lesbian couple, and had a flamboyantly gay cook for years. And everyone in my town loves the place, the owners and the cook.
A lot of folks (as I was, at first) are really put off by this kind of hypocrisy. Why not just loosen up, and drop the pretense? Why pretend to be a good, church-going Christian, when you have no problem dropping a grand in a strip club, or doing all kinds of other wild things?
What I've come to realize, after living in Texas for several years, is that it is all about manners. In Texas, we don't like to offend folks, we keep our private business private, and it is no one's business what happens behind closed doors. I think the perceived hypocrisy of the porn v/s guns debate has a lot to do with this mentality, and I think this is a sentiment that shared (to various degrees) around the US.
Folks here don't want personal business put out in public, and nudity is considered very personal business here. Guns, however aren't at all. One of our favorite pastimes is going to the shooting range, or out to the ranch, and putting a couple hundred rounds into targets.
Many around the world are mystified by this kind of mentality, and I understand that - it's a huge cultural difference, but the thing that's important to realize is that while it is very different here, it isn't bad. In fact, Texas is the most amazing place I've lived in my life. I love it here, I love the people here, and I've learned a lot about being a gentleman and proper manners since I've moved here - things that really don't get much attention in some other parts of the US (like where I grew up).
It is easy to point a finger and criticize us, when you don't have any understanding of our culture, and from an outside perspective, it must seem confusing. But honestly, would you do the same thing to monks in Tibet? Or tribes in Africa? No, you'd respect that they have a vastly different culture - one that works for them, and you'd respect that (most likely).
I would request the same consideration from you and others for the US (and from others in the US for Texas). The reason I think it is so hard for people to do this is because (on the surface) western cultures are so similar. It is easy for us to look at Native Americans and identify the vast cultural differences, but not quite so much with Europe/US. It is important to realize, however, that those differences really are there, and the cultural gap is just as vast.
For those who are interested in learning a little bit more (good and bad) about how things work in Texas, I recommend the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas". Aside from being a great movie, it is based on real events, and (in my experience) is pretty spot on with the way people are in Texas. I can't speak to several other of the "conservative" states, because I haven't lived in them all, but I suspect that they have pretty similar attitudes (though I know there are some extreme exceptions).
The Asus Eee Pad Transformer looks amazing, and is apparently selling extremely well - based on the fact that it's sold out everywhere.
Apparently (based on what Asus has said) demand for the devices wildly exceeded even their most optimistic expectations.
I think if Asus had been prepared for this demand, and provided an adequate number of devices, we'd be seeing a different story in the Android sales numbers. That being said, the device has only been available for two days, so time will tell.
MM - I generally enjoy reading the things that you post, but in this case the quality of your writing has diminished, and I'm disappointed in the purposefully reactionary and inflammatory post. You, sir, are better than this.
Ron Paul's point was that there were better ways to end slavery than going to war - this may or may not be true, but it is much different than being a "vile bigot". Ron Paul's belief system, as with the Libertarians, is centered around limited federal government, and enhanced local and state governments. The merits of that belief system are worthy of discussion, but this can be done effectively without ad hominem attacks.
Statements like "Yes, his old man, the guy who thought that Abe Lincoln shouldn't have tried to end slavery." are purposefully misleading and untrue, and do little to advance the discussion. Simply because Ron Paul disagrees with the means by which Lincoln abolished slavery, does not mean that he is "pro slavery", in fact quite the opposite. You know this, but choose to ignore it and make personal attacks. This type of rhetoric is beneath you.
These things are disturbingly common in much of the current political debate - people are so emotionally charged with the sense that "their team is right" and the other guys are wrong/stupid/evil, that we don't seem to be able to (as a country, perhaps as a species) move forward and learn from each other.
This is complicated by the fact that people from both "sides" of the discussion do wrong/stupid/evil things, so rather than debate theories and premises, we're stuck with remonstrations and finger pointing. People absolutely should be held accountable for their actions, but we need to remove the actions of individuals from the discussion of philosophy, which, in the end, is what politics and religion are all about.
I have challenges discussing my personal political viewpoint in the environment created by such rampant hostility. I believe that neither Republicans or Democrats are inherently "evil" or wrong, I think they (in general) are both collections of people who are trying to "do right" and help others. The disappointing thing about that previous statement, is that I think many people who read it will immediately and viscerally disagree with it - because their team is the one who is/really/ right, and the other team is wrong/stupid/evil as evidenced by the actions of X,Y and Z.
I personally believe that the Liberals have great points when it comes to civil liberties, protections from abuse by the government, separation of religion from government, limiting the military to defense only, ending federal corporate subsidies, and several other points.
I think the Rebublicans are correct when they discuss fiscal discipline, limiting federal powers, limiting entitlement programs, focusing on local government and charity, and several other points.
Actually, I think a lot of people feel the way that I do (though I can't prove this, it is purely anecdotal) but we have trouble expressing those opinions in the current "us or them" high emotion, high volume environment. Everyone seems to be too interested in pointing out how wrong/stupid/evil what X person did yesterday, and boy aren't all those Democrats/Republicans awful/racist/stupid/mean/hipocritical/wrong/evil.
I think that this is why there are a growing number of "Independent" voters out there. I think and hope that this is a Good Thing(tm).
You are an elequent and intelligent person, and I enjoy reading much of what you write. I hope you'll maintain the quality of your posts, and avoid falling into these sorts of rhetorical pitfalls - because I don't believe they do you justice.
The js libraries (jquery, etc..) already deal with these differences between browsers, they'll just continue to take up the slack and we'll continue to be more dependent on them.
I'm sure to be modded to purgatory for this post, but I can't help it.
Here's my (only) experience with homeopathic stuff.
My older son, almost 12, has had a problem with bed wetting. From all the research we've done, its a genetic thing (not stress or psychological as most earlier child psych folks thought). His mother had the same problem late into childhood.
We've been to the Dr, tried the meds they gave us. Nothing helped. We didn't really stress about it, we figure that few people go to college still wetting their bed, that he'd get over it eventually. Still, my son is embarrassed by it, wishes it wasn't an issue. So we figure "what the hell" there happens to be a homeopathic thing for bedwetting, its only $5, give it a shot.
So I give him the pills, joking about it while I do "here, take these sugar pills, they won't do anything, but they probably taste good". We joked about it a lot. I told my son all about homeopathy and how it was BS etc etc.
Except.... yes. He stopped wetting the bed.
*sigh*
Placebo? Dunno. If so, why didn't the other "real" meds the doctor gave us work? You'd think they would have the same effect.
Hell, I'm as skeptical as the next guy, more so than most, the only thing I know is that we don't have to wash his sheets twice a week anymore.
If I have to pay $5 for sugar pills for that, I'm all for it.
I agree. I've been a card carrying member for many years, and I donate every year. But just because I agree with conservatives on the limited role of government, I'm immediately tagged as a Republican.
The GP is clearly just trolling, but its still annoying.
And the implication that you have to be a liberal to believe in evolution is just silly. As is the assumption that Darwin's evolution is The Answer, even though current research in speciation has even the most die-hard evolutionist scientists scratching their heads.
I guess if I had to choose between Democrats or Republicans, I think I'd have to go with the Republicans: if for no other reason than that they tend to screech less. Posts like the GP's are a good example of why.
Great post, thanks for taking the time to set the record straight!
I would just like to make one clarification though:
Republicans aren't fans of science; we know that.
I don't think that statement is accurate. I think it is true that generally Republicans/Conservatives frown on federally funded science, because they don't believe that it is a legitimate function of government, but I don't think it is fair to say they don't like science.
That's sort of like saying all liberals hug trees.
And for the record, I'm a Libertarian, not Republican.
I agree with you for HTML, but IMHO Adobe Flex is one of the nicest languages/platforms I've ever developed in. I love it, I'd prefer to do all my UI work with it now and far into the future.
I know slashdot tends to dislike flash, but Flex is the best platform for developing business app UI's I've ever seen.
For a long time now I've been wondering where/how developers from India have gotten a reputation for being more highly trained and "smarter" than their American counterparts.
My evidence in purely anecdotal, but I've been a developer for a long time now (working on 13 years professionally) and have worked with tons of developers from India, both remotely (overseas) and locally hired.
What I have seen are people who claim to have masters degrees but are utterly incompetent - I've seen them trying to solve extremely simple problems by calling into some sort of support number and having someone in India (I assume) walk them through the problem remotely and tell them what to type into the IDE. Seriously.
I've had to deal with guys who were so unbelievably arrogant (apparently they were some sort of royalty in India) they couldn't sit and listen through an entire sentence without interrupting, yelling and generally making asses out of themselves. And this was when they were asking me for help! It takes almost superhuman patience to deal with.
In 13 years I've only ever met one programmer from India whom I would consider competent (and he was actually much smarter than I am) but he was such a jerk it was impossible to have a discussion with him, even to explain basic requirements.
I used to think that this was just a cultural thing, or a language barrier, or that I was just working with the worst people - getting unlucky - but over the years it has just gotten worse, not better.
I've been waiting patiently for the backlash against outsourcing to develop as businesses realize that the cost of outsourcing projects is actually 3X not 1/3, but while I've seen a very mild trend toward this - it hasn't been anything like the tidal wave I'm expecting.
To be fair, I'm pretty disappointed with the American programmers I've worked with as well (with some notable exceptions), but by and large I've been able to work with them, explain issues, have issues explained to me and eventually get the job done.
I think there is a fundamental problem in software development today (here comes the 'get off my lawn' rant) that is not localized to any one country: programmers aren't nerds anymore.
See, in the old days (back when I was a kid) programming was magical and elite and only the best and brightest would even try. It was new and respected, and drew the types of people who were willing to spend endless hours painstakingly gnawing at a problem until they had a solution - then deleting it all and redoing it when they discovered a better one; and this was done for fun, as a hobby!
Now (like so many other things) businesses try to commoditize it, fit it into rigid processes, categorize and quantify it. I can understand the impetus and motivation behind this: as a business it sucks to be dependent on magicians and magic - but I think it has lead to a decline in talent locally and globally.
A business would generally rather have a predictable, repeatable process - even if it costs 5-10 times as much - than to be forced to rely on individual talented people. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there is a global market claiming that they can provide that sort of predictability and dependability, and that businesses are naive enough to believe it.
I agree that it is a common form of story telling, but (in the case of Star Trek) I disagree that it is valid.
Maybe one of my problems is that I'm too young - I'm in my mid 30's and to me Star Trek *is* TNG. It defined (for me) what good sci-fi should be, a literary device used to explore interesting philosophical and moral issues - with some hard science thrown in.
I believe that an excellent movie could have been made about Kirk's early days in the Starfleet, meeting Spock and the others, forming long lasting friendships and loyalties, with plenty of action etc... without resorting to the completely implausible.
The Klingons would have presented an excellent enemy, there really wasn't any reason to have some mining ship come back from the future.
And speaking of the future: it is a hugely exhausted plot to the point where it has become a cliche.
I might be incorrect, but off the top of my head I can think of three Star Trek movies now that have used time travel as a plot line.
Seriously, with all the writing talent out there, this is the best they can do? ANOTHER time travel plot? I'm surprised Spock didn't try to save some whales while he was there.
If another writer decides it is a good idea to make a "time travel" Star Trek movie, I'm going to poke him in the eye with a dilithium crystal spork.
and a starship captain at a younger age (lots of opportunity for stories about a less experienced but still excellent captain)
This is where the movie lost me. Maybe it is because of my background in the USN, but the 4th wall was completely destroyed for me by the clumsy way the writers inserted Kirk into the Enterprise chain of command.
Here we have a *cadet* who is on academic probation for cheating - again, let me stress, he isn't even an ensign, hasn't actually received a commission at all, but for some reason the captain of a brand new starship just magically decides he is the new first officer. Seriously? That was such utter crap, I wanted to walk out of the movie then.
Unfortunately, I didn't - which caused me to suffer through the utterly improbable scene where this same person, who is not an officer, has been not only forcibly removed from the bridge but has actually been expelled from the ship itself, somehow manages to cause a mutiny on the ship and become captain by making fun of Spock's mommy.
Then, after miraculously taking over the entire ship, makes the utterly insane decision to single handedly attack a superior vessel, with one other person (Spock) instead of notifying the fleet that the *Earth is about to be destroyed*.
Fortunately, he is able to dance around while 15 or so enemies are shooting at him and avoid being hit. I haven't seen such improbable writing since the A-Team.
Then, instead of being immediately thrown in jail along with his co-conspirators, he is rewarded with a captaincy of the Enterprise (even though he hasn't actually finished the Academy yet).
I just don't get it. I'm honestly not trying to troll here (check my Karma, I don't do that) I really just don't understand how anyone could take this the least bit seriously, much less praise it.
The worst episode of TNG had better writing and plot than this movie.
I just added RockBox to my Sansa based on your comment. I'm truly amazed at the difference in playback quality. I didn't realize what crap the default firmware was until I listened to the same music through RockBox.
RockBox is amazing, I highly recommend it to anyone out there that has a supported player - and if you are buying an MP3 player, make sure you get one that RockBox supports.
Oh, and you can play Doom on your Sansa:D
The "portable earthquake machine" thing is a misunderstanding of actual events that took place in his lab. He was testing harmonic resonance theory and set up an oscillator on a structural beam of the building his lab was in (Chicago, if I remember correctly) this caused a rumbling in the building and several local fire departments to respond. The news papers reported it as Tesla causing an earthquake and sensationalized it. I actually have photocopies of those newspaper articles, they are utter bullshit.
The "cracking the earth in half" thing came from an offhand comment made to a reporter. He was discussing harmonic resonance and did some "off the cuff" math that said if you detonated X tons of TNT at a specific frequency for long enough you could set up a reinforcing harmonic resonance that could conceivably cause a fluctuation in the earth's crust.
I don't know about the math or reality of the scenario, but from what I've read, his comments were sensationalized and taken completely out of context.
Strange, I've never seen a reporter do that before...
I freely admit to being an asshat. That being said if I remember correctly, Tesla's wireless transmission of power was based on the conductive properties of the ionosphere and earth with the atmosphere acting as a dielectric - or in other words, using the earth + air + ionosphere as a giant capacitor. His theory was that you could charge the earth using this capacitance and retrieve the energy from any other point on the earth with nearly 70% efficiency. From what I remember, his speech at the Niagara Falls hydroelectric dam referred to this, and wired power as being "obsolete". This, of course, didn't go over well with the investors in attendance who had just "bet the farm" on the new electric grid.
Part of the reason he had trouble getting funding at Colorado Springs was due to this...
I've found that military/government culture is generally about a decade behind corporate culture. For example, when I was in the Navy they were pushing this "TQL" stuff, which was a bad rehash of the popular 80's TQM "Total quality management" initiatives. Corporate culture had moved past that particular management flavor of the week, but the military was just getting into it.
I see a similar thing with hiring practices. I'm a vet, and a talented senior developer and quite patriotic (in a libertarian/contstitutionalist sense). I decided a couple years ago to try to offer my services to the government.
I went to the usual places, such as usajobs and looked at or applied for various development positions. Most of the jobs were such a hassle to apply for, I didn't even make it past the first stage. You couldn't even talk to a human being until you had filled out a bunch of different forms, put together a "package", submitted it, had it rejected for some minor error, resubmitted it etc...
Many of the jobs had degree requirements and wouldn't even talk to me.
After going through all this for weeks, I didn't get a single response back. Nothing. So I figured "oh well, I gave them a chance" and I accepted one of the multitude of positions head hunters were clamoring for me to take, for a much better salary than was being offered by any of the government positions.
The punchline to this story is that about four months after all this (and after I was happily settled into my new job), I got a couple calls from those agencies saying that my package had finally passed review and asking if I was available for an interview. Four months!
With a process like that, how is the government supposed to hire talented people?
When I was leading a development team I considered my primary role to be an umbrella for the developers. I did my best (frequently not good enough) to insulate them from the assorted pressures of the management team (political, revenue/sales, deadline etc...).
All this is sort of avoiding the primary, fundamental issue: when you are a manager you have the power (and responsibility) to fire someone.
This is the real rub. Can you do it?
In my case, I came to a decision that I needed to fire a developer who was completely inadequate to the position. Only this: she was one of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever met. Additionally, if I were to let her go, she would be sent back to India - forcing her husband to also go back. It would have been devastating to them.
So what to do? She was not able to perform her job function and it was costing the company revenue. On the other hand, I wouldn't have been surprised to see Bambi walk up and eat out of her hand whilst blue jays perched on her shoulder (this is how kind hearted and sweet the girl was).
And I had to fire her.
So I tried.
And failed.
I came to find out this about myself: when confronted with a tearful employee who says she'll do anything, including work for half the salary if only I won't fire her - I cave.
This turned out, in the long run, to be one of the worst management decisions I've ever made. I agreed to keep her on at a reduced salary. She continued to perform inadequately but over time she had been with the company long enough that dismissing her wasn't an option.
Everything she wrote ended up having to be completely rewritten and she wasn't learning from experience or coaching. Even though she was working at a reduced salary, she ended up costing the company a high multiple of her salary in lost productivity, alienated clients and rework costs.
So what was the "right" thing to do in that situation? On the one hand, I felt a moral imperative to help this kind, tender and wonderful person. On the other, I had a commitment and moral responsibility to the company I worked for.
Finally, I reached the correct solution: I resigned my position as manager of the team.
As I'm sure you've noticed, I am personally not suited for management. I will never put myself in that situation again.
Just because I'm a talented developer, doesn't mean that I have the ability to make tough managerial decisions when they are called for. Those are two different skill sets, and one of the reasons that I tend to not resent my managers. Firing someone is brutal, and unless you are comfortable with those types of decisions and _sticking_with_them_ I strongly recommend that you avoid the managerial gig and stay in development.
It drives me insane (and my wife, because she has to deal with me yelling at the screen) every time I see one of those DVD anti-piracy ads, the ones that go "You wouldn't steal a car... blah blah blah.... buying pirated movies is STEALING. STEALING is against the LAW."
Those ads are factually incorrect and misleading. Buying pirated movies may be copyright infringement, but thats quite doubtful since the purchaser is not responsible for proving that the CD/DVD is authentic and the doctrine of first sale still applies to DVDs/CDs. The infringer, in that case, would be the person knowingly selling pirated materials, not (necessarily) the person buying them.
Even if it was copyright infringement, that is wildly different than STEALING, since no one is being deprived of a physical possession, which is why they are separate areas of law and until recently copyright infringement was mostly considered a civil issue, except for extreme cases.
I get infuriated at the blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of fact in those ads. They are untrue and intimidating, and I would love if a lawyer here would tell me if a lawsuit would have any grounds to get them stopped. I dontate to the EFF, maybe they would take up the case.
Does anyone know if a case like this would have any teeth?
> If you could get a squirrel to enter a house and just sit there
Thats a big "if".
I had a squirrel get lose in my house once (it fell down the chimney) and let me tell you the LAST thing it did was "sit there".
That squirrel was PISSED. It completely wrecked the kitchen, broke many dishes, was on top of the cabinets, the sonnabitch ripped drywall from the walls and ceiling. There was much screaming and telling the kids to "get in their room and close the door" whilst I bravely ran away from the enraged critter waving a broom at it from a safe distance.
Eventually it got tired of playing with us and left the house through the front door (which I had previously opened).
I just took a quick look, it requires 3D Studio Max and only runs on windows.
If anyone from the Blender team reads this, how realistic would it be to incorporate this stuff into Blender? Or is the rigging functionality in Blender pretty much the same as this already?
Slashdot Mirror
*sigh* rsync.net
I'd love to use this service because I'm a huge Ubuntu fan, but the price just isn't competitive. $3 per month only gets you 20 GB.
For example, you can sign up for a Dreamhost shared hosting account, get unlimited TB of storage and bandwidth for $9 per month: Dreamhost hosting plans
You can throw a multitude of various front-ends on it with their "Easy Install" or whatever the name is, and have pretty much any files you want served to you where ever you want.
I have a lot more than 20 GB of data that I'd want to sync and back up.
From a pure price/features standpoint, rsync.net is roughly comparable in price but has a way better feature set (copied from their page): ... and tools like rsync, rdiff-backup, duplicity and Unison
- ssh, scp, sftp, ftp
- IPV6 connectivity and dedicated Gigabit connections available
- BackupAssist, Backup Exec, Imaging, System Restore, and Bare Metal
- Seamless integration with VMWare, Xen, Citrix and Hyper-V
- ssh key based automation and support for remote UNIX commands
- Multiple logins and custom access/permissions
- Encrypted filesystem support
If Ubuntu one were to change their pricing to be about $10-20 per TB, per month - I'd probably jump on board. I know, that's a pretty tough price point to meet, but others (like dreamhost) are able to do it.
I did a website for a client who sells and configure devices like this for schools and libraries under the federal e-rate program. I don't have personal experience with the device, but he says it works quite well. Here's a link (disclaimer: like I mentioned, I developed the web site for this, but I'm not affiliated with the product) http://e-rateforschools.com/services/e-rate-internet-availability-link-balancers/
-Clay
I live in Texas, where it is not abnormal for people to go to church on Sunday hung over from the night at the strip club on Saturday.
In Dallas, we have some of the best and most famous strip clubs in the world, and we also have more churches per capita that most other areas.
Is this hypocrisy? Undoubtedly. However, I think there's are major cultural undercurrents that the rest of the world, and in the case of Texas, the rest of the country misses. I've lived all over the US, and interestingly (to me) I've found Texas to be the least judgmental and most accepting of any place I've lived, including many "liberal" places like California (San Diego) and Oregon (Portland).
This probably challenges a lot of closely held beliefs by a lot of people in the US and around the world, and I get that. But the fact is, I live in a "conservative" small town in Texas, and when I'm done work today I'm going to go have a beer at the local red-neck bar, a cool little place that is filled with simple folks, has Big Buck Hunter tournaments, and plays country/western non-stop. A bar that's owned by an amazing lesbian couple, and had a flamboyantly gay cook for years. And everyone in my town loves the place, the owners and the cook.
A lot of folks (as I was, at first) are really put off by this kind of hypocrisy. Why not just loosen up, and drop the pretense? Why pretend to be a good, church-going Christian, when you have no problem dropping a grand in a strip club, or doing all kinds of other wild things?
What I've come to realize, after living in Texas for several years, is that it is all about manners. In Texas, we don't like to offend folks, we keep our private business private, and it is no one's business what happens behind closed doors. I think the perceived hypocrisy of the porn v/s guns debate has a lot to do with this mentality, and I think this is a sentiment that shared (to various degrees) around the US.
Folks here don't want personal business put out in public, and nudity is considered very personal business here. Guns, however aren't at all. One of our favorite pastimes is going to the shooting range, or out to the ranch, and putting a couple hundred rounds into targets.
Many around the world are mystified by this kind of mentality, and I understand that - it's a huge cultural difference, but the thing that's important to realize is that while it is very different here, it isn't bad. In fact, Texas is the most amazing place I've lived in my life. I love it here, I love the people here, and I've learned a lot about being a gentleman and proper manners since I've moved here - things that really don't get much attention in some other parts of the US (like where I grew up).
It is easy to point a finger and criticize us, when you don't have any understanding of our culture, and from an outside perspective, it must seem confusing. But honestly, would you do the same thing to monks in Tibet? Or tribes in Africa? No, you'd respect that they have a vastly different culture - one that works for them, and you'd respect that (most likely).
I would request the same consideration from you and others for the US (and from others in the US for Texas). The reason I think it is so hard for people to do this is because (on the surface) western cultures are so similar. It is easy for us to look at Native Americans and identify the vast cultural differences, but not quite so much with Europe/US. It is important to realize, however, that those differences really are there, and the cultural gap is just as vast.
For those who are interested in learning a little bit more (good and bad) about how things work in Texas, I recommend the movie "The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas". Aside from being a great movie, it is based on real events, and (in my experience) is pretty spot on with the way people are in Texas. I can't speak to several other of the "conservative" states, because I haven't lived in them all, but I suspect that they have pretty similar attitudes (though I know there are some extreme exceptions).
Ron Paul is trying: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/16/why-im-suing-the-obama-administration-over-libya/
The Asus Eee Pad Transformer looks amazing, and is apparently selling extremely well - based on the fact that it's sold out everywhere.
Apparently (based on what Asus has said) demand for the devices wildly exceeded even their most optimistic expectations.
I think if Asus had been prepared for this demand, and provided an adequate number of devices, we'd be seeing a different story in the Android sales numbers. That being said, the device has only been available for two days, so time will tell.
MM - I generally enjoy reading the things that you post, but in this case the quality of your writing has diminished, and I'm disappointed in the purposefully reactionary and inflammatory post. You, sir, are better than this.
Ron Paul's point was that there were better ways to end slavery than going to war - this may or may not be true, but it is much different than being a "vile bigot". Ron Paul's belief system, as with the Libertarians, is centered around limited federal government, and enhanced local and state governments. The merits of that belief system are worthy of discussion, but this can be done effectively without ad hominem attacks.
Statements like "Yes, his old man, the guy who thought that Abe Lincoln shouldn't have tried to end slavery." are purposefully misleading and untrue, and do little to advance the discussion. Simply because Ron Paul disagrees with the means by which Lincoln abolished slavery, does not mean that he is "pro slavery", in fact quite the opposite. You know this, but choose to ignore it and make personal attacks. This type of rhetoric is beneath you.
These things are disturbingly common in much of the current political debate - people are so emotionally charged with the sense that "their team is right" and the other guys are wrong/stupid/evil, that we don't seem to be able to (as a country, perhaps as a species) move forward and learn from each other.
This is complicated by the fact that people from both "sides" of the discussion do wrong/stupid/evil things, so rather than debate theories and premises, we're stuck with remonstrations and finger pointing. People absolutely should be held accountable for their actions, but we need to remove the actions of individuals from the discussion of philosophy, which, in the end, is what politics and religion are all about.
I have challenges discussing my personal political viewpoint in the environment created by such rampant hostility. I believe that neither Republicans or Democrats are inherently "evil" or wrong, I think they (in general) are both collections of people who are trying to "do right" and help others. The disappointing thing about that previous statement, is that I think many people who read it will immediately and viscerally disagree with it - because their team is the one who is /really/ right, and the other team is wrong/stupid/evil as evidenced by the actions of X,Y and Z.
I personally believe that the Liberals have great points when it comes to civil liberties, protections from abuse by the government, separation of religion from government, limiting the military to defense only, ending federal corporate subsidies, and several other points.
I think the Rebublicans are correct when they discuss fiscal discipline, limiting federal powers, limiting entitlement programs, focusing on local government and charity, and several other points.
Actually, I think a lot of people feel the way that I do (though I can't prove this, it is purely anecdotal) but we have trouble expressing those opinions in the current "us or them" high emotion, high volume environment. Everyone seems to be too interested in pointing out how wrong/stupid/evil what X person did yesterday, and boy aren't all those Democrats/Republicans awful/racist/stupid/mean/hipocritical/wrong/evil.
I think that this is why there are a growing number of "Independent" voters out there. I think and hope that this is a Good Thing(tm).
You are an elequent and intelligent person, and I enjoy reading much of what you write. I hope you'll maintain the quality of your posts, and avoid falling into these sorts of rhetorical pitfalls - because I don't believe they do you justice.
As well as doing what you mentioned, the article has also inspired me to work on learning more math.
It's not that big of a deal .
The js libraries (jquery, etc..) already deal with these differences between browsers, they'll just continue to take up the slack and we'll continue to be more dependent on them.
I'm sure to be modded to purgatory for this post, but I can't help it.
Here's my (only) experience with homeopathic stuff.
My older son, almost 12, has had a problem with bed wetting. From all the research we've done, its a genetic thing (not stress or psychological as most earlier child psych folks thought). His mother had the same problem late into childhood.
We've been to the Dr, tried the meds they gave us. Nothing helped. We didn't really stress about it, we figure that few people go to college still wetting their bed, that he'd get over it eventually. Still, my son is embarrassed by it, wishes it wasn't an issue. So we figure "what the hell" there happens to be a homeopathic thing for bedwetting, its only $5, give it a shot.
So I give him the pills, joking about it while I do "here, take these sugar pills, they won't do anything, but they probably taste good". We joked about it a lot. I told my son all about homeopathy and how it was BS etc etc.
Except.... yes. He stopped wetting the bed.
*sigh*
Placebo? Dunno. If so, why didn't the other "real" meds the doctor gave us work? You'd think they would have the same effect.
Hell, I'm as skeptical as the next guy, more so than most, the only thing I know is that we don't have to wash his sheets twice a week anymore.
If I have to pay $5 for sugar pills for that, I'm all for it.
I agree. I've been a card carrying member for many years, and I donate every year. But just because I agree with conservatives on the limited role of government, I'm immediately tagged as a Republican.
The GP is clearly just trolling, but its still annoying.
And the implication that you have to be a liberal to believe in evolution is just silly. As is the assumption that Darwin's evolution is The Answer, even though current research in speciation has even the most die-hard evolutionist scientists scratching their heads.
I guess if I had to choose between Democrats or Republicans, I think I'd have to go with the Republicans: if for no other reason than that they tend to screech less. Posts like the GP's are a good example of why.
I would just like to make one clarification though:
Republicans aren't fans of science; we know that.
I don't think that statement is accurate. I think it is true that generally Republicans/Conservatives frown on federally funded science, because they don't believe that it is a legitimate function of government, but I don't think it is fair to say they don't like science.
That's sort of like saying all liberals hug trees.
And for the record, I'm a Libertarian, not Republican.
I agree with you for HTML, but IMHO Adobe Flex is one of the nicest languages/platforms I've ever developed in. I love it, I'd prefer to do all my UI work with it now and far into the future.
I know slashdot tends to dislike flash, but Flex is the best platform for developing business app UI's I've ever seen.
For a long time now I've been wondering where/how developers from India have gotten a reputation for being more highly trained and "smarter" than their American counterparts.
My evidence in purely anecdotal, but I've been a developer for a long time now (working on 13 years professionally) and have worked with tons of developers from India, both remotely (overseas) and locally hired.
What I have seen are people who claim to have masters degrees but are utterly incompetent - I've seen them trying to solve extremely simple problems by calling into some sort of support number and having someone in India (I assume) walk them through the problem remotely and tell them what to type into the IDE. Seriously.
I've had to deal with guys who were so unbelievably arrogant (apparently they were some sort of royalty in India) they couldn't sit and listen through an entire sentence without interrupting, yelling and generally making asses out of themselves. And this was when they were asking me for help! It takes almost superhuman patience to deal with.
In 13 years I've only ever met one programmer from India whom I would consider competent (and he was actually much smarter than I am) but he was such a jerk it was impossible to have a discussion with him, even to explain basic requirements.
I used to think that this was just a cultural thing, or a language barrier, or that I was just working with the worst people - getting unlucky - but over the years it has just gotten worse, not better.
I've been waiting patiently for the backlash against outsourcing to develop as businesses realize that the cost of outsourcing projects is actually 3X not 1/3, but while I've seen a very mild trend toward this - it hasn't been anything like the tidal wave I'm expecting.
To be fair, I'm pretty disappointed with the American programmers I've worked with as well (with some notable exceptions), but by and large I've been able to work with them, explain issues, have issues explained to me and eventually get the job done.
I think there is a fundamental problem in software development today (here comes the 'get off my lawn' rant) that is not localized to any one country: programmers aren't nerds anymore.
See, in the old days (back when I was a kid) programming was magical and elite and only the best and brightest would even try. It was new and respected, and drew the types of people who were willing to spend endless hours painstakingly gnawing at a problem until they had a solution - then deleting it all and redoing it when they discovered a better one; and this was done for fun, as a hobby!
Now (like so many other things) businesses try to commoditize it, fit it into rigid processes, categorize and quantify it. I can understand the impetus and motivation behind this: as a business it sucks to be dependent on magicians and magic - but I think it has lead to a decline in talent locally and globally.
A business would generally rather have a predictable, repeatable process - even if it costs 5-10 times as much - than to be forced to rely on individual talented people. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there is a global market claiming that they can provide that sort of predictability and dependability, and that businesses are naive enough to believe it.
I agree that it is a common form of story telling, but (in the case of Star Trek) I disagree that it is valid.
Maybe one of my problems is that I'm too young - I'm in my mid 30's and to me Star Trek *is* TNG. It defined (for me) what good sci-fi should be, a literary device used to explore interesting philosophical and moral issues - with some hard science thrown in.
I believe that an excellent movie could have been made about Kirk's early days in the Starfleet, meeting Spock and the others, forming long lasting friendships and loyalties, with plenty of action etc... without resorting to the completely implausible.
The Klingons would have presented an excellent enemy, there really wasn't any reason to have some mining ship come back from the future.
And speaking of the future: it is a hugely exhausted plot to the point where it has become a cliche.
I might be incorrect, but off the top of my head I can think of three Star Trek movies now that have used time travel as a plot line.
Seriously, with all the writing talent out there, this is the best they can do? ANOTHER time travel plot? I'm surprised Spock didn't try to save some whales while he was there.
If another writer decides it is a good idea to make a "time travel" Star Trek movie, I'm going to poke him in the eye with a dilithium crystal spork.
and a starship captain at a younger age (lots of opportunity for stories about a less experienced but still excellent captain)
This is where the movie lost me. Maybe it is because of my background in the USN, but the 4th wall was completely destroyed for me by the clumsy way the writers inserted Kirk into the Enterprise chain of command.
Here we have a *cadet* who is on academic probation for cheating - again, let me stress, he isn't even an ensign, hasn't actually received a commission at all, but for some reason the captain of a brand new starship just magically decides he is the new first officer. Seriously? That was such utter crap, I wanted to walk out of the movie then.
Unfortunately, I didn't - which caused me to suffer through the utterly improbable scene where this same person, who is not an officer, has been not only forcibly removed from the bridge but has actually been expelled from the ship itself, somehow manages to cause a mutiny on the ship and become captain by making fun of Spock's mommy.
Then, after miraculously taking over the entire ship, makes the utterly insane decision to single handedly attack a superior vessel, with one other person (Spock) instead of notifying the fleet that the *Earth is about to be destroyed*.
Fortunately, he is able to dance around while 15 or so enemies are shooting at him and avoid being hit. I haven't seen such improbable writing since the A-Team.
Then, instead of being immediately thrown in jail along with his co-conspirators, he is rewarded with a captaincy of the Enterprise (even though he hasn't actually finished the Academy yet).
I just don't get it. I'm honestly not trying to troll here (check my Karma, I don't do that) I really just don't understand how anyone could take this the least bit seriously, much less praise it.
The worst episode of TNG had better writing and plot than this movie.
It depresses me to hear the masses rave about it.
I just added RockBox to my Sansa based on your comment. I'm truly amazed at the difference in playback quality. I didn't realize what crap the default firmware was until I listened to the same music through RockBox. RockBox is amazing, I highly recommend it to anyone out there that has a supported player - and if you are buying an MP3 player, make sure you get one that RockBox supports. Oh, and you can play Doom on your Sansa :D
The "portable earthquake machine" thing is a misunderstanding of actual events that took place in his lab. He was testing harmonic resonance theory and set up an oscillator on a structural beam of the building his lab was in (Chicago, if I remember correctly) this caused a rumbling in the building and several local fire departments to respond. The news papers reported it as Tesla causing an earthquake and sensationalized it. I actually have photocopies of those newspaper articles, they are utter bullshit.
The "cracking the earth in half" thing came from an offhand comment made to a reporter. He was discussing harmonic resonance and did some "off the cuff" math that said if you detonated X tons of TNT at a specific frequency for long enough you could set up a reinforcing harmonic resonance that could conceivably cause a fluctuation in the earth's crust. I don't know about the math or reality of the scenario, but from what I've read, his comments were sensationalized and taken completely out of context. Strange, I've never seen a reporter do that before...
I freely admit to being an asshat. That being said if I remember correctly, Tesla's wireless transmission of power was based on the conductive properties of the ionosphere and earth with the atmosphere acting as a dielectric - or in other words, using the earth + air + ionosphere as a giant capacitor. His theory was that you could charge the earth using this capacitance and retrieve the energy from any other point on the earth with nearly 70% efficiency. From what I remember, his speech at the Niagara Falls hydroelectric dam referred to this, and wired power as being "obsolete". This, of course, didn't go over well with the investors in attendance who had just "bet the farm" on the new electric grid. Part of the reason he had trouble getting funding at Colorado Springs was due to this...
I've found that military/government culture is generally about a decade behind corporate culture. For example, when I was in the Navy they were pushing this "TQL" stuff, which was a bad rehash of the popular 80's TQM "Total quality management" initiatives. Corporate culture had moved past that particular management flavor of the week, but the military was just getting into it.
I see a similar thing with hiring practices. I'm a vet, and a talented senior developer and quite patriotic (in a libertarian/contstitutionalist sense). I decided a couple years ago to try to offer my services to the government.
I went to the usual places, such as usajobs and looked at or applied for various development positions. Most of the jobs were such a hassle to apply for, I didn't even make it past the first stage. You couldn't even talk to a human being until you had filled out a bunch of different forms, put together a "package", submitted it, had it rejected for some minor error, resubmitted it etc...
Many of the jobs had degree requirements and wouldn't even talk to me.
After going through all this for weeks, I didn't get a single response back. Nothing. So I figured "oh well, I gave them a chance" and I accepted one of the multitude of positions head hunters were clamoring for me to take, for a much better salary than was being offered by any of the government positions.
The punchline to this story is that about four months after all this (and after I was happily settled into my new job), I got a couple calls from those agencies saying that my package had finally passed review and asking if I was available for an interview. Four months!
With a process like that, how is the government supposed to hire talented people?
When I was leading a development team I considered my primary role to be an umbrella for the developers. I did my best (frequently not good enough) to insulate them from the assorted pressures of the management team (political, revenue/sales, deadline etc...).
All this is sort of avoiding the primary, fundamental issue: when you are a manager you have the power (and responsibility) to fire someone.
This is the real rub. Can you do it?
In my case, I came to a decision that I needed to fire a developer who was completely inadequate to the position. Only this: she was one of the sweetest, kindest people I have ever met. Additionally, if I were to let her go, she would be sent back to India - forcing her husband to also go back. It would have been devastating to them.
So what to do? She was not able to perform her job function and it was costing the company revenue. On the other hand, I wouldn't have been surprised to see Bambi walk up and eat out of her hand whilst blue jays perched on her shoulder (this is how kind hearted and sweet the girl was).
And I had to fire her.
So I tried.
And failed.
I came to find out this about myself: when confronted with a tearful employee who says she'll do anything, including work for half the salary if only I won't fire her - I cave.
This turned out, in the long run, to be one of the worst management decisions I've ever made. I agreed to keep her on at a reduced salary. She continued to perform inadequately but over time she had been with the company long enough that dismissing her wasn't an option.
Everything she wrote ended up having to be completely rewritten and she wasn't learning from experience or coaching. Even though she was working at a reduced salary, she ended up costing the company a high multiple of her salary in lost productivity, alienated clients and rework costs.
So what was the "right" thing to do in that situation? On the one hand, I felt a moral imperative to help this kind, tender and wonderful person. On the other, I had a commitment and moral responsibility to the company I worked for.
Finally, I reached the correct solution: I resigned my position as manager of the team.
As I'm sure you've noticed, I am personally not suited for management. I will never put myself in that situation again.
Just because I'm a talented developer, doesn't mean that I have the ability to make tough managerial decisions when they are called for. Those are two different skill sets, and one of the reasons that I tend to not resent my managers. Firing someone is brutal, and unless you are comfortable with those types of decisions and _sticking_with_them_ I strongly recommend that you avoid the managerial gig and stay in development.
-Clay
It drives me insane (and my wife, because she has to deal with me yelling at the screen) every time I see one of those DVD anti-piracy ads, the ones that go "You wouldn't steal a car... blah blah blah.... buying pirated movies is STEALING. STEALING is against the LAW."
Those ads are factually incorrect and misleading. Buying pirated movies may be copyright infringement, but thats quite doubtful since the purchaser is not responsible for proving that the CD/DVD is authentic and the doctrine of first sale still applies to DVDs/CDs. The infringer, in that case, would be the person knowingly selling pirated materials, not (necessarily) the person buying them.
Even if it was copyright infringement, that is wildly different than STEALING, since no one is being deprived of a physical possession, which is why they are separate areas of law and until recently copyright infringement was mostly considered a civil issue, except for extreme cases.
I get infuriated at the blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of fact in those ads. They are untrue and intimidating, and I would love if a lawyer here would tell me if a lawsuit would have any grounds to get them stopped. I dontate to the EFF, maybe they would take up the case.
Does anyone know if a case like this would have any teeth?
-Clay
> If you could get a squirrel to enter a house and just sit there
Thats a big "if".
I had a squirrel get lose in my house once (it fell down the chimney) and let me tell you the LAST thing it did was "sit there".
That squirrel was PISSED. It completely wrecked the kitchen, broke many dishes, was on top of the cabinets, the sonnabitch ripped drywall from the walls and ceiling. There was much screaming and telling the kids to "get in their room and close the door" whilst I bravely ran away from the enraged critter waving a broom at it from a safe distance.
Eventually it got tired of playing with us and left the house through the front door (which I had previously opened).
I just took a quick look, it requires 3D Studio Max and only runs on windows.
If anyone from the Blender team reads this, how realistic would it be to incorporate this stuff into Blender? Or is the rigging functionality in Blender pretty much the same as this already?