There is increasing evidence that politicians believe (perhaps rightly) that we cannot discuss things such as the US's utter dependence on oil and what ensuring that need is fulfilled might require as adults.
It must be all of those baby boomers who still haven't gotten their heads out of their 60s "peacenik" (they're not really for peace; they're just for not themselves dying -- essentially cowards and DAMN loud ones at that) asses.
Would really like to see "addiction" presented...
on
Coffee is Addictive
·
· Score: 1
as a continuum.
It disrespects what heroin users are to say they are "addicted" and then in the same breath use that same label to describe those who ordinarily drink joe in the morning.
Perhaps both demonstrate "withdrawal" symptoms but surely those experienced by the junkie are of an entirely different universe than the latter.
Perhaps location on the continuum would be assigned on the basis of how strong of a role physiology plays in the withdrawal symptoms (vs. psychology) and further how those withdrawal symptoms manifest. There is something chemically that goes on in the bodies of habitual heroin users when they stop using that cannot rightly be compared to someone griping that he/she is not as productive b/c he/she hasn't had her cup of joe yet that day.
We need some way of capturing or expressing this so that proper perspective is applied to studies such as this one.
I'd like to see a search engine -- perhaps just for shopping -- that weeds out repeat entries. I.e. I was trying to find a particular pair of "Donald J Pliner" shoes and so punched various combinations of "Pliner" and the name of the shoe into Google.
And from that I got what looked like several *different* websites. The first website was zappos.com so I went there and found that they didn't have my size / the color I wanted. So I tried some of the 80+ other *different-looking* sites (each with unique URLs). And for just about every single one, I would go to the new URL, then find the shoe I was interested in, then when I clicked on the link to "learn more about the shoe" or "see if the shoe was in stock," EVERY single time I got sent back to Zappos.com which I already KNEW didn't have the shoe in my size/the desired color.
Usually you can tell hack websites by the URLs -- the URLs are something like this: donald-j-pliner.urbanclothing.net
You can tell it's a sham website (as contrasted to shoebargains.com, shoedini.com, shoebuy -- which seem as though they could be legitimate operations in and of themselves).
So I want a search engine that will dereference these various URLs and let me know if if there is something truly new there or if these are just front websites for a website I've already visited.
This was one of my most frustrating online shopping experiences ever; zappos.com saturated the search engine results so that only zappos.com proxies were returned. And maybe the answer is that there are no other retailers (besides macys.com nordstrom.com...) but if that were the case: I'd rather just have that answer than spend hours following links that led me back to the same answer. Total bullshit.
Except that when initial 3-way connection is set up, a window size is established (max # of bytes of un-ACKed packets that can exist from one party to the other at any given time).
So the victim machine is able to negotiate a reasonable window size (or refuse the connection). So if a particular IP + port is misbehaving and sending more packets, then it's greylisted -- this can be done quickly in hardware to drop the packet after investing minimal processing in it -- and the the TCP connection is reset.
Problem solved; of course we know that there are other difficulties with TCP, possibilities for abuse.
If you had read even a little of the context, you should have been able to easily see that the comments I made on this were in response to original poster's attempt to refute what Cerf et al said which was and is patently obvious: when IP etc. were designed, they weren't designed with security in mind.
If this is news for you,...
Re:Silly Mainstream News...
on
The Internet At 35
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To say nothing of weaknesses in ICMP, TCP, etc...
Ever hear of the TCP slow start attack?
Wonder why ping flooding is possible (hint ICMP goes directly over IP not via TCP which would prohibit this particular attack in its most common form)?
They shouldn't beat themselves up too hard, though; heck, even SSL v 1.0 was a total and complete mess (but nothing compared to some other modern-day-designed doozies) and that was designed much later than the initial Internet was... and hence with a much greater understanding of the adversarial nature of it.
Re:Silly Mainstream News...
on
The Internet At 35
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The hardware infrastructure != the protocol of the Internet. The protocol of the internet is very much implemented in software. And, yes, the ease in ability of spoofing an Internet Protocol address is a security issue with the protocol, not just with a particular software implementation of that protocol.
Ditto there are issues with the various routing protocols, which are issues not just with any particular implementation of that protocol but with the protocol itself.
Boy, you need to brush up on reading comprehension. Because I'm feeling generous, I'll give you a play by play.
This is what I said: Because of this fact, even though the Dems are the numerical minority in the Senate and House both (as well as that they don't control the Executive Office), they can still be quite effective at implementing their agenda or at the very least stymie-ing Republicans in their attempt to do same.
Translation for those who attended public schools:
(1) Dems can be effective at implementing their agenda OR
(20 Dems can be effective at stymie-ing Republicans' attempts to implement the Republican agenda
In hindsight I shouldn't have bothered to take the time; none are so blind as those who will not see.
Am bothering to respond because you genuinely seem mystified about a major aspect of how government works in this country.
Certain actions require 2/3 support of the Senate, for example, invoking cloture successfully to end a fillibuster.
Because of this fact, even though the Dems are the numerical minority in the Senate and House both (as well as that they don't control the Executive Office), they can still be quite effective at implementing their agenda or at the very least stymie-ing Republicans in their attempt to do same. This has often happened with judicial nominations.
So from the viewpoint of certain GOP supporters, there's still plenty to protest against. And this is just the most direct example of how Democrats can effectively act to thwart Republicans even though the former "aren't in power."
Yes. I found it very, very funny. Laugh out loud funny.
There's nothing "FUD" about it and, boy, you've got a way with those buzzwords (the last refuge of the unintelligent), don't you.
Look, Kerry certainly offered aid and comfort to the communist North Vietnamese so even though I just think the site is good for a few hearty chuckles, it's not terribly far off the mark either.
You think all these Vets (and, believe me, the majority of US vets will not vote for the military-underfunding Kerry) are mad at Kerry because he got medals that he didn't deserve? Don't be a fool; it has much more to do with 1971. Or was that before your time, asshole?
Anybody crowing this much about the looks of something as promoting of that thing ought to at least provide those he's trying to convince with a 3-D image that can be turned and zoomed in on and such.
I mean, Sheesh, even bluefly.com does as much. And they're not even a technology company.
In short, put up or shut up.
Though I must admit that the idea of buying anything "museum quality" that is going to live within 24 - 36 inches of where I usually eat my dinner is a somewhat dubious notion...
There are arguments to be made against Bush and this one isn't it.
Aren't you smart enough to see that the American people as a whole STILL support the way Bush handled 9/11? And when Kerry himself whines about what Bush did for 300 to 420 seconds, it makes him look like a first class asshole. Er, makes him look like MORE of a 1st class asshole since his going on and on about his 16 weeks in Viet Nam twenty years later when many men who served longer and were braver don't breathe a word about it.
Even JFK -- the real one, J. Effin' Scary's hero/idol -- never talked about his experiences in WW II and totally dismissed self-deprecatingly intimations that he, Kennedy, was a hero. That's because the guy had class.
Something your snowboarder who blames his tumbles on the slopes on nearby Secret Service men (everyday folk, them) couldn't even begin to immitate.
Look, boy Kerry is a gigolo, just a gigolo, everywhere he goes, people know the tune he's playing... November's gonna be great.
And that's where the rubber will meet the road for GOOG. It's one thing to say (as Page/Brin have) that "we won't care if our revenues aren't monotonically increasing; we understand that some years/quarters are going to be off" but it's totally another to listen to the press badmouth your company, to fear the share price dropping substantially, to hear SiVa rumblings that you're washed up, "another " and to still amidst all that to not become beholden to the allmighty share price.
I appreciate that GOOG hearkens to the model provided by Warren Buffett at Berkshire; I just hope Google's board realizes a critical difference b/n GOOD and BH: BH has been around for forty years and so a bad quarter for BH does not send investors scurrying AND BH's profit model is still understandable to the average lay person; there's no worry that the profits are generated from something ethereal and perhaps fleeting. Not so, GOOG. Also there is the fact that BH very much grew slowly and so somewhat under the radar. It's not a six year old venture and in it's six year it wasn't worth billions of times what it was worth in its first year.
All that said, I wish them the bust; some folks made out like gangbusters.
That only makes sense as even a way-out-in-left-field idea IF the law officer is somehow financially compensated for getting a conviction (or participating in a conviction since police officers don't try folks).
Because otherwise all you have is the police officer paying out for the wiretap and never getting paid IN. Cops' jobs are hard enough and not well compensated enough as it is; now you want them to sacrifice in order to be able to carry out their jobs? It'd be like your IT dept telling you that YOU have to pay for your new 256 MB RAM card == you need it to do bidness.
Which would perhaps set up some screwy incentives (evidence planting to increase likelihood of gaining a conviction? strange partnerings b/n prosecutors & police officers?)
The company -- Bell Canada -- is doing a nice job of saying that it's concerned for the customer. Doesn't want to increase costs covered by the customer,...
But what they mean is that (a) they don't want the customer to see this charge as part of their Bell Canada (TM) phone bill; AND (b) they don't want to cover the costs for processing that charge...
But mostly Bell Canada doesn't want to be seen as the SOURCE of this cost. Which is completely understandable AND completely fair. This is not a charge related to upgrading their network or switches or... it's a charge that is wholly the result of national security concerns. As such, it belongs (a) being regulated by external oversight (not just giving Grue a blank check for some amount that results from charging each customer what seems to be not an overly burdensome amount); and (b) coming from the public in the form of a tax.
Grue doesn't want to have to justify the costs to the public and so that's why he wants to just pass it onto them under the auspices of the phone company, always an easy villian (behemoth,...).
As every/.'er has said, the public will cover the costs, it's just a question of who has to stick them with the bill. So this story is about all of these people playing musical chairs to avoid getting stuck with delivering the check. Not even covering it. And it's a totally appropriate expenditure in my mind.
At least the phone company says it's willing to split the costs: half coming from LE, half from the phoneco itself; whereas LE just wants to charge everyone a quarter b/c, as Grue says, that seems about right (next breath he says that he hadn't done the analysis on those numbers yet--whatever).
The public's of course. It's a national security expenditure and as such falls exactly under "what taxes are for."
And, yes, there may be some abuses; there may be some wire tapping that ends up being frivolous or a dead end or -- in the extreme corner case -- harmful. But in the general case, I believe it's useful and that a real service is being provided.
I'm thrilled to spend money on terrorist cell members' communication. Can't buy enough of the stuff.
Because if you had, you would know that the phone company doesn't want to "jack up prices" to cover the costs. Or the "supposed" costs as you say (you doubt that there are real costs involved?).
But the country's largest phone company believes that telecommunications firms and law-enforcement agencies, not subscribers, should split the costs.
"We think there should be more of a partnership between the agencies and us, rather than getting the public to pay for it," said Bell Canada spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis.
That your post got modded informative just proves that not only did YOU not RTFA, every person who gave you a point didn't either. Pathetic.
It's for obvious reasons that the phone company doesn't want to have their subscribers cover the costs. I guess this wouldn't be obvious if you have a anti-capitalism chip the size of Ottawa on your shoulder though...
In my opinion, this is precisely what taxes are for (as opposed to, for example, funding methadone clinics for ne'er do wells).
WADR (with all due respect), Brin & Page haven't followed Buffet's advice yet -- they haven't reported any results.
They've merely paid homage to his style and otherwise basically given the man some of the props he genuinely deserves.
But WEB doesn't spout this crap about "evil businesses" and "being good" and other New Agey bullshit, the man's about making money: hiring smart people, investing in solid businesses, watching the share price grow.
The relationship between Google and Buffet is pretty superficial at this point in my book. Page & Brin have a loooonnnnnnnng way to go and an awful lot of proving to be remotely on WEB's level in terms of business success, managerial genius and money-making ability (even icon status).
Darling, nothing I've ever done that's been worthwhile has come easy. Nothing I've ever really wanted to do has been viewed by others as "a good idea" (e.g. studying abroad in Kenya; the person in charge of Study Abroad at Georgetown Univ (where I went ugrad) told me, "Africa's no place for a white girl"; e.g. becoming a network engineer).
Lesson: swimming against the current involves waves pulling you in the opposite direction -- but it makes you a stronger swimmer.
(1) It's something that you can train for -- and, with training, improve in
(2) It's something in which your progress and fitness and skill/talent can be measured
(3) It's something in which some people are just naturally gifted and others can achieve at a level commensurate with their effort -- to a point. At some higher levels of mathematics, though -- just like at some levels of athletics (e.g. the Tour de France, the Olympics), no amount of training can overcome a genetic deficiency.
Maybe I just have a skewed vision of how things work.
No. You're just lucky enough work in a sane environment. They are possible.
In fact I think folks who work in an environment where there is constantly tons of overtime or erratic demands in terms of working hours are working for bad companies who haven't hired enough or the right people or who don't know how to manage projects successfully/properly (budgeting time/people/resources is probably the most crucial part of this).
Working your coders to death is robbing Peter to pay Paul and doesn't get you ahead -- just lets you tread water a bit longer.
Slashdot Mirror
heretic!!!!!!!!!
And this from the people who scoff at religion.
BR>
Now about the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon problem...
Your ideas are very well stated.
There is increasing evidence that politicians believe (perhaps rightly) that we cannot discuss things such as the US's utter dependence on oil and what ensuring that need is fulfilled might require as adults.
It must be all of those baby boomers who still haven't gotten their heads out of their 60s "peacenik" (they're not really for peace; they're just for not themselves dying -- essentially cowards and DAMN loud ones at that) asses.
as a continuum.
It disrespects what heroin users are to say they are "addicted" and then in the same breath use that same label to describe those who ordinarily drink joe in the morning.
Perhaps both demonstrate "withdrawal" symptoms but surely those experienced by the junkie are of an entirely different universe than the latter.
Perhaps location on the continuum would be assigned on the basis of how strong of a role physiology plays in the withdrawal symptoms (vs. psychology) and further how those withdrawal symptoms manifest. There is something chemically that goes on in the bodies of habitual heroin users when they stop using that cannot rightly be compared to someone griping that he/she is not as productive b/c he/she hasn't had her cup of joe yet that day.
We need some way of capturing or expressing this so that proper perspective is applied to studies such as this one.
I'd like to see a search engine -- perhaps just for shopping -- that weeds out repeat entries. I.e. I was trying to find a particular pair of "Donald J Pliner" shoes and so punched various combinations of "Pliner" and the name of the shoe into Google.
...) but if that were the case: I'd rather just have that answer than spend hours following links that led me back to the same answer. Total bullshit.
And from that I got what looked like several *different* websites. The first website was zappos.com so I went there and found that they didn't have my size / the color I wanted. So I tried some of the 80+ other *different-looking* sites (each with unique URLs). And for just about every single one, I would go to the new URL, then find the shoe I was interested in, then when I clicked on the link to "learn more about the shoe" or "see if the shoe was in stock," EVERY single time I got sent back to Zappos.com which I already KNEW didn't have the shoe in my size/the desired color.
Usually you can tell hack websites by the URLs -- the URLs are something like this: donald-j-pliner.urbanclothing.net
You can tell it's a sham website (as contrasted to shoebargains.com, shoedini.com, shoebuy -- which seem as though they could be legitimate operations in and of themselves).
So I want a search engine that will dereference these various URLs and let me know if if there is something truly new there or if these are just front websites for a website I've already visited.
This was one of my most frustrating online shopping experiences ever; zappos.com saturated the search engine results so that only zappos.com proxies were returned. And maybe the answer is that there are no other retailers (besides macys.com nordstrom.com
Except that when initial 3-way connection is set up, a window size is established (max # of bytes of un-ACKed packets that can exist from one party to the other at any given time).
...
So the victim machine is able to negotiate a reasonable window size (or refuse the connection). So if a particular IP + port is misbehaving and sending more packets, then it's greylisted -- this can be done quickly in hardware to drop the packet after investing minimal processing in it -- and the the TCP connection is reset.
Problem solved; of course we know that there are other difficulties with TCP, possibilities for abuse.
If you had read even a little of the context, you should have been able to easily see that the comments I made on this were in response to original poster's attempt to refute what Cerf et al said which was and is patently obvious: when IP etc. were designed, they weren't designed with security in mind.
If this is news for you,
To say nothing of weaknesses in ICMP, TCP, etc...
Ever hear of the TCP slow start attack?
Wonder why ping flooding is possible (hint ICMP goes directly over IP not via TCP which would prohibit this particular attack in its most common form)?
They shouldn't beat themselves up too hard, though; heck, even SSL v 1.0 was a total and complete mess (but nothing compared to some other modern-day-designed doozies) and that was designed much later than the initial Internet was... and hence with a much greater understanding of the adversarial nature of it.
The hardware infrastructure != the protocol of the Internet. The protocol of the internet is very much implemented in software. And, yes, the ease in ability of spoofing an Internet Protocol address is a security issue with the protocol, not just with a particular software implementation of that protocol.
Ditto there are issues with the various routing protocols, which are issues not just with any particular implementation of that protocol but with the protocol itself.
Boy, you need to brush up on reading comprehension. Because I'm feeling generous, I'll give you a play by play.
This is what I said: Because of this fact, even though the Dems are the numerical minority in the Senate and House both (as well as that they don't control the Executive Office), they can still be quite effective at implementing their agenda or at the very least stymie-ing Republicans in their attempt to do same.
Translation for those who attended public schools:
(1) Dems can be effective at implementing their agenda OR
(20 Dems can be effective at stymie-ing Republicans' attempts to implement the Republican agenda
In hindsight I shouldn't have bothered to take the time; none are so blind as those who will not see.
Am bothering to respond because you genuinely seem mystified about a major aspect of how government works in this country.
Certain actions require 2/3 support of the Senate, for example, invoking cloture successfully to end a fillibuster.
Because of this fact, even though the Dems are the numerical minority in the Senate and House both (as well as that they don't control the Executive Office), they can still be quite effective at implementing their agenda or at the very least stymie-ing Republicans in their attempt to do same. This has often happened with judicial nominations.
So from the viewpoint of certain GOP supporters, there's still plenty to protest against. And this is just the most direct example of how Democrats can effectively act to thwart Republicans even though the former "aren't in power."
Yes. I found it very, very funny. Laugh out loud funny.
There's nothing "FUD" about it and, boy, you've got a way with those buzzwords (the last refuge of the unintelligent), don't you.
Look, Kerry certainly offered aid and comfort to the communist North Vietnamese so even though I just think the site is good for a few hearty chuckles, it's not terribly far off the mark either.
You think all these Vets (and, believe me, the majority of US vets will not vote for the military-underfunding Kerry) are mad at Kerry because he got medals that he didn't deserve? Don't be a fool; it has much more to do with 1971. Or was that before your time, asshole?
You have so much rage you don't even make sense, seriously.
Good luck in the anger management efforts; you're going to need those skills more than ever in about 3 months.
The site is a hysterical send up of Kerry and his band of book burners; it's for the non-intellect and non-irony impaired. You need not have applied.
Anybody crowing this much about the looks of something as promoting of that thing ought to at least provide those he's trying to convince with a 3-D image that can be turned and zoomed in on and such.
I mean, Sheesh, even bluefly.com does as much. And they're not even a technology company.
In short, put up or shut up.
Though I must admit that the idea of buying anything "museum quality" that is going to live within 24 - 36 inches of where I usually eat my dinner is a somewhat dubious notion...
Dude, you do not live in the fucking real world.
There are arguments to be made against Bush and this one isn't it.
Aren't you smart enough to see that the American people as a whole STILL support the way Bush handled 9/11? And when Kerry himself whines about what Bush did for 300 to 420 seconds, it makes him look like a first class asshole. Er, makes him look like MORE of a 1st class asshole since his going on and on about his 16 weeks in Viet Nam twenty years later when many men who served longer and were braver don't breathe a word about it.
Even JFK -- the real one, J. Effin' Scary's hero/idol -- never talked about his experiences in WW II and totally dismissed self-deprecatingly intimations that he, Kennedy, was a hero. That's because the guy had class.
Something your snowboarder who blames his tumbles on the slopes on nearby Secret Service men (everyday folk, them) couldn't even begin to immitate.
Look, boy Kerry is a gigolo, just a gigolo, everywhere he goes, people know the tune he's playing... November's gonna be great.
Totally agree.
And that's where the rubber will meet the road for GOOG. It's one thing to say (as Page/Brin have) that "we won't care if our revenues aren't monotonically increasing; we understand that some years/quarters are going to be off" but it's totally another to listen to the press badmouth your company, to fear the share price dropping substantially, to hear SiVa rumblings that you're washed up, "another " and to still amidst all that to not become beholden to the allmighty share price.
I appreciate that GOOG hearkens to the model provided by Warren Buffett at Berkshire; I just hope Google's board realizes a critical difference b/n GOOD and BH: BH has been around for forty years and so a bad quarter for BH does not send investors scurrying AND BH's profit model is still understandable to the average lay person; there's no worry that the profits are generated from something ethereal and perhaps fleeting. Not so, GOOG. Also there is the fact that BH very much grew slowly and so somewhat under the radar. It's not a six year old venture and in it's six year it wasn't worth billions of times what it was worth in its first year.
All that said, I wish them the bust; some folks made out like gangbusters.
That only makes sense as even a way-out-in-left-field idea IF the law officer is somehow financially compensated for getting a conviction (or participating in a conviction since police officers don't try folks).
Because otherwise all you have is the police officer paying out for the wiretap and never getting paid IN. Cops' jobs are hard enough and not well compensated enough as it is; now you want them to sacrifice in order to be able to carry out their jobs? It'd be like your IT dept telling you that YOU have to pay for your new 256 MB RAM card == you need it to do bidness.
Which would perhaps set up some screwy incentives (evidence planting to increase likelihood of gaining a conviction? strange partnerings b/n prosecutors & police officers?)
I actually think this whole thing is doublespeak.
...
... it's a charge that is wholly the result of national security concerns. As such, it belongs (a) being regulated by external oversight (not just giving Grue a blank check for some amount that results from charging each customer what seems to be not an overly burdensome amount); and (b) coming from the public in the form of a tax.
...).
/.'er has said, the public will cover the costs, it's just a question of who has to stick them with the bill. So this story is about all of these people playing musical chairs to avoid getting stuck with delivering the check. Not even covering it. And it's a totally appropriate expenditure in my mind.
The company -- Bell Canada -- is doing a nice job of saying that it's concerned for the customer. Doesn't want to increase costs covered by the customer,
But what they mean is that (a) they don't want the customer to see this charge as part of their Bell Canada (TM) phone bill; AND (b) they don't want to cover the costs for processing that charge...
But mostly Bell Canada doesn't want to be seen as the SOURCE of this cost. Which is completely understandable AND completely fair. This is not a charge related to upgrading their network or switches or
Grue doesn't want to have to justify the costs to the public and so that's why he wants to just pass it onto them under the auspices of the phone company, always an easy villian (behemoth,
As every
At least the phone company says it's willing to split the costs: half coming from LE, half from the phoneco itself; whereas LE just wants to charge everyone a quarter b/c, as Grue says, that seems about right (next breath he says that he hadn't done the analysis on those numbers yet--whatever).
Who else should pay?
Whose needs are being served?
The public's of course. It's a national security expenditure and as such falls exactly under "what taxes are for."
And, yes, there may be some abuses; there may be some wire tapping that ends up being frivolous or a dead end or -- in the extreme corner case -- harmful. But in the general case, I believe it's useful and that a real service is being provided.
I'm thrilled to spend money on terrorist cell members' communication. Can't buy enough of the stuff.
Seriously, dude; admit you didn't RTFA.
Because if you had, you would know that the phone company doesn't want to "jack up prices" to cover the costs. Or the "supposed" costs as you say (you doubt that there are real costs involved?).
But the country's largest phone company believes that telecommunications firms and law-enforcement agencies, not subscribers, should split the costs.
"We think there should be more of a partnership between the agencies and us, rather than getting the public to pay for it," said Bell Canada spokeswoman Jacqueline Michelis.
That your post got modded informative just proves that not only did YOU not RTFA, every person who gave you a point didn't either. Pathetic.
It's for obvious reasons that the phone company doesn't want to have their subscribers cover the costs. I guess this wouldn't be obvious if you have a anti-capitalism chip the size of Ottawa on your shoulder though...
In my opinion, this is precisely what taxes are for (as opposed to, for example, funding methadone clinics for ne'er do wells).
WADR (with all due respect), Brin & Page haven't followed Buffet's advice yet -- they haven't reported any results.
They've merely paid homage to his style and otherwise basically given the man some of the props he genuinely deserves.
But WEB doesn't spout this crap about "evil businesses" and "being good" and other New Agey bullshit, the man's about making money: hiring smart people, investing in solid businesses, watching the share price grow.
The relationship between Google and Buffet is pretty superficial at this point in my book. Page & Brin have a loooonnnnnnnng way to go and an awful lot of proving to be remotely on WEB's level in terms of business success, managerial genius and money-making ability (even icon status).
Darling, nothing I've ever done that's been worthwhile has come easy. Nothing I've ever really wanted to do has been viewed by others as "a good idea" (e.g. studying abroad in Kenya; the person in charge of Study Abroad at Georgetown Univ (where I went ugrad) told me, "Africa's no place for a white girl"; e.g. becoming a network engineer).
Lesson: swimming against the current involves waves pulling you in the opposite direction -- but it makes you a stronger swimmer.
If it wasn't the Dutch-style auction that marks the beginning of the end, it will surely be this...
No question about it -- they are.
Here are some traits of a sport:
(1) It's something that you can train for -- and, with training, improve in
(2) It's something in which your progress and fitness and skill/talent can be measured
(3) It's something in which some people are just naturally gifted and others can achieve at a level commensurate with their effort -- to a point. At some higher levels of mathematics, though -- just like at some levels of athletics (e.g. the Tour de France, the Olympics), no amount of training can overcome a genetic deficiency.
Most of all, both (mathematics & sports) are fun!
The best post I have ever seen on Slashdot.
I'd wish you luck but you don't need it; you've got something just as valuable: grit.
Maybe I just have a skewed vision of how things work.
No. You're just lucky enough work in a sane environment. They are possible.
In fact I think folks who work in an environment where there is constantly tons of overtime or erratic demands in terms of working hours are working for bad companies who haven't hired enough or the right people or who don't know how to manage projects successfully/properly (budgeting time/people/resources is probably the most crucial part of this).
Working your coders to death is robbing Peter to pay Paul and doesn't get you ahead -- just lets you tread water a bit longer.