Nah, all they really needed was one for iPad 2. I don't think there are a lot of people 'hotly anticipating" windows tablets (which don't work... windows simply isn't touch screen friendly) or android tablets (which are likely to suffer from the same thing android phones do: OS version fragmentation.) And the apps for the iPad... the scope is wide and the prices are reasonable (which is why my iPad is loaded with really cool apps.)
There's tons of room for improvement from the iPad. The iPad 2 could bring one or two cameras, an IR emitter, stereo mics, audio input, a real USB port, more memory, an I/Q wideband front end or dedicated AM/FM/TV tuner(s), faster CPU, faster graphics, higher resolution, card slots, bezel surgery (badly needed IMHO), cord-free charging, wireless sync, built-in stand, CDMA connectivity, a slide-out keyboard (unlikely, but would be welcomed by me, anyway.)
Apple seems to like to trickle out improvements, so the above could account for a lot of iPad versions. But they've pretty much sewn up the tablet market; everyone else is too little, too late. Barring some kind of huge surprise (for which there is no evidence at this time), the iPad 2 is, IMHO, not only the hottest anticipated tech for 2011, it's about the only hotly anticipated tech.
Well, you know, except for flying cars, an affordable Apple tower, AI, fusion, 3D printers that can incorporate working electronics, and the rest of the usual cast of things we're not about to get.
I try to keep exposures between 4 and 8 seconds. Longer, and the details sort of merge together. Shorter, and the camera, even with my fastest lens (f/1.4), doesn't pick up on the fainter details. I could up the ISO a bit (the 50D will push to 12800) but the noise level is tough to accept. I shot with Canon's 85mm f/1.2L for a while, but the FOV is a bit narrow for auroras (though it did an excellent job in terms of light gathering and image quality.)
The thing is, these were mostly pretty faint auroras -- Montana isn't exactly the optimum viewing location for this stuff. I'm hoping that with the rise in solar activity, we might see some serious storms.
In the late 80's or early 90's [waves hands vaguely], I was driving on my way to Great Falls, basically in the middle of nowhere, and there was a storm so bright it was really obvious even driving with the headlights on. Of course, no camera in the car (and even if there had been, it would have been pretty wimpy compared to a modern DSLR.) That's what I'm hoping to see again. And with the monitoring software I've got running, weather permitting, I'll actually catch it.
I took these aurora shots in NE Montana during the low portion of the solar cycle; I'm very excited to see what more solar activity brings. I wrote this open source application to help me catch them when they occur.
But I'd rather be warned I made a typo in an obscure procedure called once a year when I first start the program, not when it encounters that procedure after a year.
You do understand the difference between interpreted and compiled code, do you not? Yes?
And you also understand that even an aggressively picky compiler won't save you when your typo is not syntactically invalid?
It is not the language's responsibility to ensure that you are a good programmer, or that your code is "right."
This is something every assembly language programmer learns right out of the gate; something that is almost as harshly taught by C; and something that even the most syntactically precise and picky language will eventually teach you when you depend upon it to ensure the rightness of your programming.
Python does what it does very well, within the limits of the type of tool it is. Which is not to say that you can't botch up your programs if you don't give them your best effort. To be blunt, carping about a language's error checking simply shines a light on your own lack of skills. Strive to write good code, and test your code. If you write something such that it is only run into once a year -- and you put that same code into production without testing it -- someone has you doing work you're not qualified to do. Even if that someone is only you.
A program shouldn't treat block structure or typos as run-time errors.
Wrong. A language that actually uses whitespace should. Which is what Python does. The fact that you can't wrap your head around it isn't in any way a condemnation of Python. It just says you're inflexible, and frankly, in forty years of programming experience, I've never found lack of flexibility to be a useful trait.
Whitespace utilization in Python uses the programmer's intuition to instantly perceive block structure. This beats the heck out of scanning lines for randomly embedded (speaking spatially, now) braces. Mind you, it is possible to write C (and I do), for instance, nominally a free form language WRT whitespace, with meaningful whitespace. Really helps, especially later on, when you haven't seen the code for years.
The fact that Python *requires* whitespace is simply a means to bring your intuition to the table by force, and frankly, I think it's a good idea. That some folks can't, or won't, get it... that's unfortunate. For them.:)
I found a free HP48GX thang for the iPad recently -- made my day. Now I have two hardware versions, a 48 and a 48GX, a 48 emulation on my Mac desktop, and a 48GX in my iPad. I feel... "covered.":)
I keep HP 12Cs around in about the same places, too. That thing does an awesome job with loans and the like.
No, I'm not in any sense a Luddite. I simply find it both inefficient and unethical to obsolete people's investments because one is too lazy to implement something new, well.
It is a very rare case indeed where one needs to obsolete an earlier method or mechanism in order to bring in the new. IPV6 isn't one of these. Instead, it is precisely that kind of technology that can include the old while bringing most of the key benefits of the new. So there is no need to leave anyone behind. Without such a need, the ethics are clear: doing so is abusive behavior.
Me, I believe in moving when your road gets busy instead of putting up signs that say "Slow Down".
The point of IPV6 is that it expands the highest level network address space so that there will be enough addresses for everyone and everything that needs one. It can easily do that without "slowing anyone down." On the contrary, if implementation breaks a bunch of people's expensive hardware, that will slow things down, incur huge unnecessary costs, and create both resistance and (entirely appropriate) anger.
Further, a properly compatible implementation, that is, one where IPV6-aware net-facing routers at the network extents are sufficient for compatibility, means that anyone who wants and/or needs IPV6 functionality internal to their network can implement it at their convenience, so no one is slowed down. If that in turn means that adoption of IPV6 at every level is slower, then perhaps all that was actually needed was more addresses for everyone, anyway. And so what? Is IPV6 some holy thing that "must" be implemented at every level all at once in your mind? If so, why? It seems to me that the objective should be that everyone has the functionality they need. Not the functionality some visionary or some committee somewhere thinks they should have.
Reasonable fluency takes only a couple thousand graphs; the 50,000 you quote includes huge numbers of obsolete, historical and technical graphs, and virtually no one outside of a language scholar has that kind of vocabulary.
And while you might find that the 26 letters you are familiar with create a simple context to build words with, I assure you that the few strokes the Chinese have to learn also create a simple context - very often, a graph is a word. As a native English speaker, I found it quite easy to learn to associate Chinese graphs with their meaning -- it's not nearly as difficult as it looks. It's considerably more difficult to learn to speak the language(s), but reading isn't too bad at all.
It is also only fair to point out that English is riddled with exceptions and weird little rules that make it quite difficult to master (and as evidence, I point to the constant stream of errors here on slashdot, where, supposedly anyway, the membership is well educated.
The big advantage for English (or other easily written languages Korean hangul) is the speed with which it can be typed into a digital context; but with stroke-aware input systems coming online, that advantage isn't likely to last a lot longer.
Somebody who treats a life partner with contempt and is abusive in their relationship deserves to have some substantial "punishment" for their actions.
Certainly, such acts deserve consequences - but why should this be tied in any way to marriage? Why is it of less consequence to treat someone you've been with for 12 years without marriage that way? Legal consequences should fall upon behavior, upon contract violations, upon criminal activity. Not because you did - or didn't - have someone wave their hands over you when you were wearing a formal outfit.
There's no compelling reason any site should have to upgrade, at all, beyond a single routing device. The future very rarely needs to be at the expense of the past. When someone implies that it does, usually that means they haven't thought it through. For instance, a site in basic HTML... just fine. And no reason to ever not be "just fine." A site that produces nothing but a stream of text... just fine. Etc.
When you obsolete people's software and devices, in a very real sense you are stealing from them. Money they laid out is no longer working for them as a direct consequence of your actions. This puts a completely unnecessary drain on people's net worth, one for which a judgment of "so be it" is simply arrogant -- and worse. Appropriate net-facing routers are a much, much better solution.
You should no longer need a router if you use IPv6. That's kind of the point.
Wait, what? I've got a bunch of stuff on a private network. 20 or devices. They represent a pretty fair investment in hardware, one I'm not looking to foul up. THAT is kind of the point. I expect my IPV6 router, when it becomes necessary, to see the world as IPV6 and my internal networks as a ghetto of "only" 0.0.0.X devices, and provide me with DNS translation so that I can "only" reach out to a few billion places at once. There is absolutely NO need for anything within my network to know one single thing about a larger address space. If they design it so I have to update or obsolete any of my IPV4 devices beyond the world-facing router, they failed. Horribly.
Your idea of being "ok with a switch" implies replacement of every single network device I own, and I'm here to tell ya, pal, that idea is a terrible idea.
Part of the point of a marriage is that you share your life in such an intimate level that it becomes difficult to distinguish any separate property.
This situation can be arrived at without going anywhere near marriage. As can the vast majority of other benefits that supposedly accrue to the married.
In reality, marriage simply provides the government and various commercial entities with ways to classify you - you can visit each other in the hospital, inheritance laws address some death issues, tax policies vary, and lawyers wait patiently for the likely failure of the whole enterprise.
Ideally, marriage should be reduced to ritual, with no legal consequences and absolutely no limits as to who can decide to enter into such a state -- because it would then have zero legal implications of any kind. Contracts should be contracts, and should be limited to the issues in the contracts.
This concept offers straightforward solutions to a huge range of social problems, including polygamy, gay marriage, inheritance, shared (or not) financial obligations, who gets the kids (or not), who can visit in the hospital, insurance pools, wills... as a society, we have seriously screwed-up the institution of marriage. Not that we're likely to fix it, but still, that's the best fix I've ever come across.
I have an original copy of Tom Pittman's 6800 TINY BASIC on paper tape. I recovered it with my working SWTPC 6800 SS-50 machine from about 1975 using a home-brew paper tape reader I built long ago. It loaded and ran, so I popped it onto cassette tape using an SWTPC AC-30 interface (which is all this machine has for "mass storage", it only reads paper tape, can't write it), imported it to my Gimix 6809 SS-50 machine from the cassette tape, popped it onto DSDD floppy, then used an S9 format serial transfer utility I wrote (*nix style) to get it into my Mac Pro via a serial/USB interface. Both the 6809 and 6800 machines can send S9 serially as a feature of the system monitor (SBUG for the 6800 and GMXBUG for the Gimix), but I wanted a record of it on the 6809 for later reworking, hence the middleman.
I've got all my writing - personal letters, an article I published in Kilobaud magazine, that kind of thing - from the late 1970's that was done on the 6800 and the Gimix 6809, all of my 6800 programs, and everything I ever did on the 6809, as well as all the software - editors, assemblers, compilers, an early spreadsheet, arcade games, a bunch of ham radio stuff (baudot to ascii converters, morse code and radioteletype software, "log" programs, antenna calculators and so on.)
And while emulation may not count as a recovery tool for the purposes of TFS, I wrote a 6809/Flex emulation which boots PSYMON and then FLEX, that can read and deal with all of the 6809-era stuff in a native fashion... even has a graphics engine that runs some of the arcade stuff I wrote back when that was the place to work. I designed arcade hardware that used the 6809, and built an SS-50 board for my Gimix to make design easier, and when I did the emulation, well, hadda have that there as well.:)
So that's 1975 data to 2010 hardware, about 35 years of recovery span. With the emulator, that recovery will extend for quite some time, basically as long as anything can run XP, real or virtual (which is where my emulator lives.)
Although each task taught an essential skill that would eventually be used to kick the punkass loser's butt, it was not clear at the time and even discouraging.
In teaching martial arts, it is worthwhile to inflict upon the student a series of discoveries that lead to the firm conviction that the instructor actually knows what they are talking about -- not because the instructor told them so, but because the student arrives at the conclusion by being unable to avoid the action of changing their mind from "WTF" to "WOW"; making them self-transition from discouraged to encouraged. Internal motivation is far more powerful than any motivation you can try to apply from outside (unless you're directly addressing an internal motivation that already exists, which of course is the ultimate goal.)
I'm not simply talking about the motivation to learn martial arts, but a more important one for long-term success, the understanding that one has found a worthwhile and talented instructor who actually can help you reach your goals.
Further, also in the context of the martial arts, the student really needs to learn to try to do exactly what the instructor says, because "inventing" and "elaborating" and "guessing" all lead to injuries -- the student's, those working out with the student, even bystanders or the instructors themselves. Aside from that, they also often lead to error and poor technique. The time for experimenting begins years in, when you've come to a decent understanding of the meat of your chosen skill set -- not when you first stumble out on the floor. That's the time to empty your head and do exactly what you're told.
Math can't be taught this way, or at least, I don't see how. First, you'd have to identify a goal that the student wishes to reach, and then get them there by setting them without their knowledge on a path that leads to reaching that goal in such a way that they initially think you're mistaken, but proves massively effective and serves to demonstrate that you are exactly the person they should be learning from. But what would such a goal be? In my experience, those goals - such as, "I need to rotate a planet around the sun in this space simulation" don't arise until the student is already on a path to get something important to them done. Consequently, teaching them how rotation works in terms of sin/cos and perhaps the application of matrices beforehand is pretty much certain to bore them to tears. It's on the wrong end of the path; they don't know the goal yet.
Martial arts training often starts in the desirable state, where the motivation to achieve is already high and the general goals well known; math training starts when kids are boiling in hormones and really would rather be sticking their tongues down each others throats - and when they generally, honestly, have little use for math, unless they're part of a very small, very geeky subgroup. Math is, indeed, very much worth learning, but I don't think you'll find the examples you need to encourage that in the martial arts.
I agree with TFA that math helps you think; but I would also add that there are other disciplines that can do that too. Sometimes, it occurs to me that a useful (short) course would, instead of teaching the actual math, explain the branches of math, so that one might know where to look for solutions, rather than having had all the solutions themselves painfully inculcated prior to any nee for them. I'm talking about describing algebra in general, and then listing some problems solved with algebra; likewise geometry, statistics, etc. Perhaps a special section on right triangles and the amazing breadth of problems that can be solved with just the relevant math, from stellar navigation to RMS/peak power conversions to "just how high is that flagpole?"
With that kind of knowledge under the belt, many of us can often make do just fine with reference materials when we recognize that we've encountered a problem
We own both Apple TV and the identically priced Roku XD|S. The XD|S's far superior connectivity, huge advantage in variety and depth of content, and wider range of supported display modes over Apple TV make it a no-question win. The open source channel kit itself serves as incontrovertible evidence that the XD|S isn't intended as a port into a walled garden.
I wish we had found the XD|S first. Would have saved us $99. Oh well. The Apple TV, meanwhile, has found use here as a more-or-less dedicated Internet radio station appliance.
My only connection to Roku is as a happy customer. My connection to Apple is similar, just not quite as happy.
Seriously, the ONLY solution that is reasonable for parents who think hiding things from their kids will be good for them is to implement whitelisting at home. No link can be followed until/unless mommy or daddy approves it. This both allows the kids to surf alone at home, and encourages mommy and/or daddy to spend time with little johnny and jane.
Also, this way, the kids will be motivated to get out more and visit homes that aren't breeding grounds for stone-age ideas about sexuality, and we'll all benefit.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Google's searches really turn up a lot of trash for me most of the time. Google ranks pages by how much they're referenced from one another, and what that does is uses the average level of attention and interest of the crowd - but the crowd these days is the usual Gaussian, not at all the original crowd of technical people, and consequently -- Google's search results reflect that.
One thing Yahoo *really* did better was class types of sites and put them together into a sensible tree; if I was looking for a particular type of software, finding a really good selection of it - if one existed - was easy. On Google, it's refine, refine, refine because the search results are *loaded* with spam, link-farms, and just generally junk.
I run a few websites, some of which are quite popular, and a trend right now is people buying one line text ads - paying fairly dearly for them, too - so that Google will see that one of my popular sites references some other site, and so ups their search ranking. The link of course is nothing but financially driven, and really has no reflection at all on the value of the linked site... but that's how Google rolls. The end result is the sites with the money climb in the rankings.
On the original Yahoo index, if you offered, say, a C compiler, you were in the list with the other people who offered a C compiler. Alphabetically. Wasn't about who bought what. That was *great*. Then Yahoo got slow. Not so great. THEN Yahoo decided you had to pay to be listed. And that was the end of Yahoo's useful tech, just that quickly. Poof!
But Google hasn't replaced that original Yahoo functionality with something better. Google is fast, easy and mediocre. Which is, I suppose, where things generally tend to end up anyway. But I still miss the original Yahoo index, before they utterly screwed it up with pay-for-your-listing-or-wait-forever.
Yahoo is a has-been. It was at its most useful when it was a maintained tree of useful sites, essentially spam free. Then they got slow about updating it. THEN they decided you should pay or they'd drag their heels and probably not even "get to" your submission. Then (surprise) no one wanted to play with them anymore, and they shut the whole thing down. That's the history of Yahoo's actual tech. Today, they are useful to me only because they bought Flickr. I appreciate the service, but I don't think of it as "Yahoo's tech."
Car analogy:
It's like the difference between a fellow who buys a car, and one who has built one of equal quality. They both end up with cars, so if you're simply looking for a ride, they're equal. But the guy who built his car deserves a lot more respect than the guy who bought one.
Yahoo built a car, fouled the paint job, ran it into a few immovable objects, junked it, and bought another. I respect the original build, and sincerely regret that they screwed it up. That they bought another, I don't find particularly notable. I do like to ride in it, though.
I'm thinking it's time to update my back up of my Flickr pictures. I'm behind 20 or 30, and I'd hate to get a Christmas "gift" of this nature from Yahoo...
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, all they really needed was one for iPad 2. I don't think there are a lot of people 'hotly anticipating" windows tablets (which don't work... windows simply isn't touch screen friendly) or android tablets (which are likely to suffer from the same thing android phones do: OS version fragmentation.) And the apps for the iPad... the scope is wide and the prices are reasonable (which is why my iPad is loaded with really cool apps.)
There's tons of room for improvement from the iPad. The iPad 2 could bring one or two cameras, an IR emitter, stereo mics, audio input, a real USB port, more memory, an I/Q wideband front end or dedicated AM/FM/TV tuner(s), faster CPU, faster graphics, higher resolution, card slots, bezel surgery (badly needed IMHO), cord-free charging, wireless sync, built-in stand, CDMA connectivity, a slide-out keyboard (unlikely, but would be welcomed by me, anyway.)
Apple seems to like to trickle out improvements, so the above could account for a lot of iPad versions. But they've pretty much sewn up the tablet market; everyone else is too little, too late. Barring some kind of huge surprise (for which there is no evidence at this time), the iPad 2 is, IMHO, not only the hottest anticipated tech for 2011, it's about the only hotly anticipated tech.
Well, you know, except for flying cars, an affordable Apple tower, AI, fusion, 3D printers that can incorporate working electronics, and the rest of the usual cast of things we're not about to get.
Thanks for your kind words.
I try to keep exposures between 4 and 8 seconds. Longer, and the details sort of merge together. Shorter, and the camera, even with my fastest lens (f/1.4), doesn't pick up on the fainter details. I could up the ISO a bit (the 50D will push to 12800) but the noise level is tough to accept. I shot with Canon's 85mm f/1.2L for a while, but the FOV is a bit narrow for auroras (though it did an excellent job in terms of light gathering and image quality.)
The thing is, these were mostly pretty faint auroras -- Montana isn't exactly the optimum viewing location for this stuff. I'm hoping that with the rise in solar activity, we might see some serious storms.
In the late 80's or early 90's [waves hands vaguely], I was driving on my way to Great Falls, basically in the middle of nowhere, and there was a storm so bright it was really obvious even driving with the headlights on. Of course, no camera in the car (and even if there had been, it would have been pretty wimpy compared to a modern DSLR.) That's what I'm hoping to see again. And with the monitoring software I've got running, weather permitting, I'll actually catch it.
I took these aurora shots in NE Montana during the low portion of the solar cycle; I'm very excited to see what more solar activity brings. I wrote this open source application to help me catch them when they occur.
You do understand the difference between interpreted and compiled code, do you not? Yes?
And you also understand that even an aggressively picky compiler won't save you when your typo is not syntactically invalid?
It is not the language's responsibility to ensure that you are a good programmer, or that your code is "right."
This is something every assembly language programmer learns right out of the gate; something that is almost as harshly taught by C; and something that even the most syntactically precise and picky language will eventually teach you when you depend upon it to ensure the rightness of your programming.
Python does what it does very well, within the limits of the type of tool it is. Which is not to say that you can't botch up your programs if you don't give them your best effort. To be blunt, carping about a language's error checking simply shines a light on your own lack of skills. Strive to write good code, and test your code. If you write something such that it is only run into once a year -- and you put that same code into production without testing it -- someone has you doing work you're not qualified to do. Even if that someone is only you.
This is an absolute you have no justification to be declaring.
Ah. Well then, we've learned where you made your mistake. Carry on.
Wrong. A language that actually uses whitespace should. Which is what Python does. The fact that you can't wrap your head around it isn't in any way a condemnation of Python. It just says you're inflexible, and frankly, in forty years of programming experience, I've never found lack of flexibility to be a useful trait.
Whitespace utilization in Python uses the programmer's intuition to instantly perceive block structure. This beats the heck out of scanning lines for randomly embedded (speaking spatially, now) braces. Mind you, it is possible to write C (and I do), for instance, nominally a free form language WRT whitespace, with meaningful whitespace. Really helps, especially later on, when you haven't seen the code for years.
The fact that Python *requires* whitespace is simply a means to bring your intuition to the table by force, and frankly, I think it's a good idea. That some folks can't, or won't, get it... that's unfortunate. For them. :)
I found a free HP48GX thang for the iPad recently -- made my day. Now I have two hardware versions, a 48 and a 48GX, a 48 emulation on my Mac desktop, and a 48GX in my iPad. I feel... "covered." :)
I keep HP 12Cs around in about the same places, too. That thing does an awesome job with loans and the like.
No, I'm not in any sense a Luddite. I simply find it both inefficient and unethical to obsolete people's investments because one is too lazy to implement something new, well.
It is a very rare case indeed where one needs to obsolete an earlier method or mechanism in order to bring in the new. IPV6 isn't one of these. Instead, it is precisely that kind of technology that can include the old while bringing most of the key benefits of the new. So there is no need to leave anyone behind. Without such a need, the ethics are clear: doing so is abusive behavior.
The point of IPV6 is that it expands the highest level network address space so that there will be enough addresses for everyone and everything that needs one. It can easily do that without "slowing anyone down." On the contrary, if implementation breaks a bunch of people's expensive hardware, that will slow things down, incur huge unnecessary costs, and create both resistance and (entirely appropriate) anger.
Further, a properly compatible implementation, that is, one where IPV6-aware net-facing routers at the network extents are sufficient for compatibility, means that anyone who wants and/or needs IPV6 functionality internal to their network can implement it at their convenience, so no one is slowed down. If that in turn means that adoption of IPV6 at every level is slower, then perhaps all that was actually needed was more addresses for everyone, anyway. And so what? Is IPV6 some holy thing that "must" be implemented at every level all at once in your mind? If so, why? It seems to me that the objective should be that everyone has the functionality they need. Not the functionality some visionary or some committee somewhere thinks they should have.
Reasonable fluency takes only a couple thousand graphs; the 50,000 you quote includes huge numbers of obsolete, historical and technical graphs, and virtually no one outside of a language scholar has that kind of vocabulary.
And while you might find that the 26 letters you are familiar with create a simple context to build words with, I assure you that the few strokes the Chinese have to learn also create a simple context - very often, a graph is a word. As a native English speaker, I found it quite easy to learn to associate Chinese graphs with their meaning -- it's not nearly as difficult as it looks. It's considerably more difficult to learn to speak the language(s), but reading isn't too bad at all.
It is also only fair to point out that English is riddled with exceptions and weird little rules that make it quite difficult to master (and as evidence, I point to the constant stream of errors here on slashdot, where, supposedly anyway, the membership is well educated.
The big advantage for English (or other easily written languages Korean hangul) is the speed with which it can be typed into a digital context; but with stroke-aware input systems coming online, that advantage isn't likely to last a lot longer.
Certainly, such acts deserve consequences - but why should this be tied in any way to marriage? Why is it of less consequence to treat someone you've been with for 12 years without marriage that way? Legal consequences should fall upon behavior, upon contract violations, upon criminal activity. Not because you did - or didn't - have someone wave their hands over you when you were wearing a formal outfit.
There's no compelling reason any site should have to upgrade, at all, beyond a single routing device. The future very rarely needs to be at the expense of the past. When someone implies that it does, usually that means they haven't thought it through. For instance, a site in basic HTML... just fine. And no reason to ever not be "just fine." A site that produces nothing but a stream of text... just fine. Etc.
When you obsolete people's software and devices, in a very real sense you are stealing from them. Money they laid out is no longer working for them as a direct consequence of your actions. This puts a completely unnecessary drain on people's net worth, one for which a judgment of "so be it" is simply arrogant -- and worse. Appropriate net-facing routers are a much, much better solution.
Wait, what? I've got a bunch of stuff on a private network. 20 or devices. They represent a pretty fair investment in hardware, one I'm not looking to foul up. THAT is kind of the point. I expect my IPV6 router, when it becomes necessary, to see the world as IPV6 and my internal networks as a ghetto of "only" 0.0.0.X devices, and provide me with DNS translation so that I can "only" reach out to a few billion places at once. There is absolutely NO need for anything within my network to know one single thing about a larger address space. If they design it so I have to update or obsolete any of my IPV4 devices beyond the world-facing router, they failed. Horribly.
Your idea of being "ok with a switch" implies replacement of every single network device I own, and I'm here to tell ya, pal, that idea is a terrible idea.
This situation can be arrived at without going anywhere near marriage. As can the vast majority of other benefits that supposedly accrue to the married.
In reality, marriage simply provides the government and various commercial entities with ways to classify you - you can visit each other in the hospital, inheritance laws address some death issues, tax policies vary, and lawyers wait patiently for the likely failure of the whole enterprise.
Ideally, marriage should be reduced to ritual, with no legal consequences and absolutely no limits as to who can decide to enter into such a state -- because it would then have zero legal implications of any kind. Contracts should be contracts, and should be limited to the issues in the contracts.
This concept offers straightforward solutions to a huge range of social problems, including polygamy, gay marriage, inheritance, shared (or not) financial obligations, who gets the kids (or not), who can visit in the hospital, insurance pools, wills... as a society, we have seriously screwed-up the institution of marriage. Not that we're likely to fix it, but still, that's the best fix I've ever come across.
I'm not quite dead...
I believe you may have misspelled "co-irker."
I have an original copy of Tom Pittman's 6800 TINY BASIC on paper tape. I recovered it with my working SWTPC 6800 SS-50 machine from about 1975 using a home-brew paper tape reader I built long ago. It loaded and ran, so I popped it onto cassette tape using an SWTPC AC-30 interface (which is all this machine has for "mass storage", it only reads paper tape, can't write it), imported it to my Gimix 6809 SS-50 machine from the cassette tape, popped it onto DSDD floppy, then used an S9 format serial transfer utility I wrote (*nix style) to get it into my Mac Pro via a serial/USB interface. Both the 6809 and 6800 machines can send S9 serially as a feature of the system monitor (SBUG for the 6800 and GMXBUG for the Gimix), but I wanted a record of it on the 6809 for later reworking, hence the middleman.
I've got all my writing - personal letters, an article I published in Kilobaud magazine, that kind of thing - from the late 1970's that was done on the 6800 and the Gimix 6809, all of my 6800 programs, and everything I ever did on the 6809, as well as all the software - editors, assemblers, compilers, an early spreadsheet, arcade games, a bunch of ham radio stuff (baudot to ascii converters, morse code and radioteletype software, "log" programs, antenna calculators and so on.)
And while emulation may not count as a recovery tool for the purposes of TFS, I wrote a 6809/Flex emulation which boots PSYMON and then FLEX, that can read and deal with all of the 6809-era stuff in a native fashion... even has a graphics engine that runs some of the arcade stuff I wrote back when that was the place to work. I designed arcade hardware that used the 6809, and built an SS-50 board for my Gimix to make design easier, and when I did the emulation, well, hadda have that there as well. :)
So that's 1975 data to 2010 hardware, about 35 years of recovery span. With the emulator, that recovery will extend for quite some time, basically as long as anything can run XP, real or virtual (which is where my emulator lives.)
(cough)
In teaching martial arts, it is worthwhile to inflict upon the student a series of discoveries that lead to the firm conviction that the instructor actually knows what they are talking about -- not because the instructor told them so, but because the student arrives at the conclusion by being unable to avoid the action of changing their mind from "WTF" to "WOW"; making them self-transition from discouraged to encouraged. Internal motivation is far more powerful than any motivation you can try to apply from outside (unless you're directly addressing an internal motivation that already exists, which of course is the ultimate goal.)
I'm not simply talking about the motivation to learn martial arts, but a more important one for long-term success, the understanding that one has found a worthwhile and talented instructor who actually can help you reach your goals.
Further, also in the context of the martial arts, the student really needs to learn to try to do exactly what the instructor says, because "inventing" and "elaborating" and "guessing" all lead to injuries -- the student's, those working out with the student, even bystanders or the instructors themselves. Aside from that, they also often lead to error and poor technique. The time for experimenting begins years in, when you've come to a decent understanding of the meat of your chosen skill set -- not when you first stumble out on the floor. That's the time to empty your head and do exactly what you're told.
Math can't be taught this way, or at least, I don't see how. First, you'd have to identify a goal that the student wishes to reach, and then get them there by setting them without their knowledge on a path that leads to reaching that goal in such a way that they initially think you're mistaken, but proves massively effective and serves to demonstrate that you are exactly the person they should be learning from. But what would such a goal be? In my experience, those goals - such as, "I need to rotate a planet around the sun in this space simulation" don't arise until the student is already on a path to get something important to them done. Consequently, teaching them how rotation works in terms of sin/cos and perhaps the application of matrices beforehand is pretty much certain to bore them to tears. It's on the wrong end of the path; they don't know the goal yet.
Martial arts training often starts in the desirable state, where the motivation to achieve is already high and the general goals well known; math training starts when kids are boiling in hormones and really would rather be sticking their tongues down each others throats - and when they generally, honestly, have little use for math, unless they're part of a very small, very geeky subgroup. Math is, indeed, very much worth learning, but I don't think you'll find the examples you need to encourage that in the martial arts.
I agree with TFA that math helps you think; but I would also add that there are other disciplines that can do that too. Sometimes, it occurs to me that a useful (short) course would, instead of teaching the actual math, explain the branches of math, so that one might know where to look for solutions, rather than having had all the solutions themselves painfully inculcated prior to any nee for them. I'm talking about describing algebra in general, and then listing some problems solved with algebra; likewise geometry, statistics, etc. Perhaps a special section on right triangles and the amazing breadth of problems that can be solved with just the relevant math, from stellar navigation to RMS/peak power conversions to "just how high is that flagpole?"
With that kind of knowledge under the belt, many of us can often make do just fine with reference materials when we recognize that we've encountered a problem
We own both Apple TV and the identically priced Roku XD|S. The XD|S's far superior connectivity, huge advantage in variety and depth of content, and wider range of supported display modes over Apple TV make it a no-question win. The open source channel kit itself serves as incontrovertible evidence that the XD|S isn't intended as a port into a walled garden.
I wish we had found the XD|S first. Would have saved us $99. Oh well. The Apple TV, meanwhile, has found use here as a more-or-less dedicated Internet radio station appliance.
My only connection to Roku is as a happy customer. My connection to Apple is similar, just not quite as happy.
Yeah, I guess if free radicals don't cause aging, jailed radicals might.
OTOH... Never mind.
Seriously, the ONLY solution that is reasonable for parents who think hiding things from their kids will be good for them is to implement whitelisting at home. No link can be followed until/unless mommy or daddy approves it. This both allows the kids to surf alone at home, and encourages mommy and/or daddy to spend time with little johnny and jane.
Also, this way, the kids will be motivated to get out more and visit homes that aren't breeding grounds for stone-age ideas about sexuality, and we'll all benefit.
Jailing the radicals was good?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Google's searches really turn up a lot of trash for me most of the time. Google ranks pages by how much they're referenced from one another, and what that does is uses the average level of attention and interest of the crowd - but the crowd these days is the usual Gaussian, not at all the original crowd of technical people, and consequently -- Google's search results reflect that.
One thing Yahoo *really* did better was class types of sites and put them together into a sensible tree; if I was looking for a particular type of software, finding a really good selection of it - if one existed - was easy. On Google, it's refine, refine, refine because the search results are *loaded* with spam, link-farms, and just generally junk.
I run a few websites, some of which are quite popular, and a trend right now is people buying one line text ads - paying fairly dearly for them, too - so that Google will see that one of my popular sites references some other site, and so ups their search ranking. The link of course is nothing but financially driven, and really has no reflection at all on the value of the linked site... but that's how Google rolls. The end result is the sites with the money climb in the rankings.
On the original Yahoo index, if you offered, say, a C compiler, you were in the list with the other people who offered a C compiler. Alphabetically. Wasn't about who bought what. That was *great*. Then Yahoo got slow. Not so great. THEN Yahoo decided you had to pay to be listed. And that was the end of Yahoo's useful tech, just that quickly. Poof!
But Google hasn't replaced that original Yahoo functionality with something better. Google is fast, easy and mediocre. Which is, I suppose, where things generally tend to end up anyway. But I still miss the original Yahoo index, before they utterly screwed it up with pay-for-your-listing-or-wait-forever.
Yahoo is a has-been. It was at its most useful when it was a maintained tree of useful sites, essentially spam free. Then they got slow about updating it. THEN they decided you should pay or they'd drag their heels and probably not even "get to" your submission. Then (surprise) no one wanted to play with them anymore, and they shut the whole thing down. That's the history of Yahoo's actual tech. Today, they are useful to me only because they bought Flickr. I appreciate the service, but I don't think of it as "Yahoo's tech."
Car analogy:
It's like the difference between a fellow who buys a car, and one who has built one of equal quality. They both end up with cars, so if you're simply looking for a ride, they're equal. But the guy who built his car deserves a lot more respect than the guy who bought one.
Yahoo built a car, fouled the paint job, ran it into a few immovable objects, junked it, and bought another. I respect the original build, and sincerely regret that they screwed it up. That they bought another, I don't find particularly notable. I do like to ride in it, though.
I'm thinking it's time to update my back up of my Flickr pictures. I'm behind 20 or 30, and I'd hate to get a Christmas "gift" of this nature from Yahoo...