Er, uh, how is the genius engineer going to explain his/her idea to the communication genius if he/she is not capable of communication?
You understand that this isn't about marketing, right? The purpose of the essay is to distinguish between the engineer who can engage other engineers and the one who can't — it's not aimed at finding the engineer who can develop a branding campaign for his/her widget.
The notion that there is _any_ field of human endeavor in which communication is not essential is just ridiculous.
Yes. I think we can all agree that someone's facility with language is no indicator of the quality of their ideas. That's why the best TED talks are characterized only by grunting and the throwing of fecal matter.
Here's a suggestion: Why not simply split candidates' heads open and look at the ideas themselves?
Morevoer, there's not really any principle at work here. It's only duplication of functionality when the functionality they are citing is something they want to sell personally. There are a million fart apps.
A mathematician friend of mine was telling me about a fellow in the 19th century who was interested in large prime numbers. What were they good for, people would ask, and the answer was: nothing. Not in his lifetime did they prove useful, but he studied them because he was curious.
So if you know anything about large prime numbers, you know the moral of this story. If not, let's put it like this: a dollar spent today uncovering a mysterious substance on a piece of instrumentation tens of millions of miles away may return the cornerstone of a culture tomorrow.
Frankly, I think finding out about our universe is one of the highest of aims whether we get a dollar return or not, but what do I know -- I'm only human.
On the other hand, if we had dumped all our eggs into the manned mission basket, we probably would be sitting here right now arguing over which multi-billion dollar system would best shield astronauts from cosmic radiation instead of arguing over the output of that $20 camera. I'll take the latter.
Some of us are in a position where we have to support IE of some sort -- forcing everyone to make the same choices we do is just not an option. If that's where you are, though, better to support one crappy browser than two.
I know I'm not. I've calculated stuff like this before.
True, the orbits intersect in space. But not in time, due to different excentricity.
Hey, you seem like a bright guy. You seem to know what you're talking about. But don't the people who teach you orbital math ever bother to teach you how to spell "eccentricity?"
You have a point insofar as "jazz is not random." But there are a few problems here:
1) Your statement seems to indicate that you think "random" and "improv" are one side of a coin. Improv is not random.
2) Counterpoint is a specific type of polyphonic technique. Jazz can be contrapuntal, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, it doesn't even have to be polyphonic.
3) The cutting edge of jazz is not built on top of well-established music theory. Theory follows practice, not the other way around. Yeah, if you want to mimic Charlie Parker, learn the theory. And yes, if you want to get past Charlie Parker, you must first learn the theory. But if you want to know what Anthony Braxton is going to do next, you'll have to wait 'til he does it.
4) You're right that jazz is not improv. But a great deal of -- most, in fact -- jazz incorporates improv. Indeed, if you took the improv out of it, it would be awfully hard to suggest that what is left is a distinct genre.
The Bush Doctrine was discussed several times in the Republican primary debates without any need for clarification from the moderator.
Wouldn't an informed candidate be able to at least indicate that there are multiple interpretations of "Bush Doctrine" and perhaps discuss them a bit? Instead of just stalling for time; fishing for clues so transparently?
1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't issue sub-prime mortgages, by definition. Not saying they aren't blameless, but the people who created this problem were private sector.
2) The CRA didn't force anyone to issue sub-prime loans. Where were all the sub-prime loans in the 80s, pray tell?
3) Your solution is the very heart and soul of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The consequences of a credit seizure are much worse than what this bill does, and if it is handled properly, Congress goes back and deals with the long-term later. Yeah, that might never happen, but just letting the whole system collapse in hope that something better comes along? That's just foolish.
Moreover, the folks who caused this mess, well, while you're eating dog food in a dark shanty, do you really believe they'll be suffering? No, they've already got their golden parachutes.
This attitude reminds me of people burning down their own neighborhoods in riots. That'll show 'em.
Look, I sympathize with everyone saying this is a bad bill. But there are number of people suggesting that we just need to let all those financial institutions collapse. I think that's nuts -- this is a suck bill, but the alternative would be worse. The free market got us into this mess, why should we leave it to the free market to sort it out?
Anytime I hear Paul Krugman and Ben Stein in agreement, I get the feeling something is up. So what nobody has satisfactorily answered is: if we let these companies fail, who is going to provide all the commercial paper necessary to keep other businesses running? My local grocery store didn't sell any sub-prime mortgages, but when the time comes to make their payroll, oh, I'd kinda like for them to have the liquidity necessary to do it.
Why does this have to be the end of the process? Isn't this just a way to prevent this from getting any worse *today*? Let's get a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress and write some serious regulation bills next spring, shall we?
It was regulation that made Comcast's monopoly possible in the first place
Huh? Where have you been for the last 20 years? Which regulations are responsible for Comcast's monopoly? The '98 telecom deregulation act? Oh, wait...
Bittorrent is a very efficient way of moving around large files, and Comcast says they want to kneecap it. Great, so people will move around large files in an inefficient manner, like say, http (rapidshare, anyone?). Great, so where does that get us? Nowhere. In fact, the end result of this ploy is that while the rest of the world is enjoying the benefits of some super-efficient non-Comcast-developed son-of-Bittorrent, we'll still be poking along with the old-school technology, or worse, something out of Comcast's development center (Comchoice!). That's what Comcast is doing to us, all in the name of some illusory bandwidth gain (bandwidth for what?). What ever happened to giving the customer what they want?
Me: I want to move files quickly.
Comcast: Ok, I'll just make it impossible for you to move files *too* quickly and then everyone will be able to move files around at a slow, but level speed. How's that suit you?
The American people gave up on taking responsibility for themselves when the Great Depression hit.
This is glib, baseless, ahistorical horseshit. The generation that came out of the Great Depression was singular in its frugality and self-reliance, you dunderhead.
I'm not judging the guy's argument, but I think you've mischaracterized it. I think his point is that faith is based on personal, subjective experience, as *demonstrated* by Biblical characters. He's not saying that faith is based on *their* experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Get yourself elected president and we'll talk.
Dude, give the guy props for not being George W. Bush. That's an accomplishment the U.S. can be proud of.
Er, uh, how is the genius engineer going to explain his/her idea to the communication genius if he/she is not capable of communication?
You understand that this isn't about marketing, right? The purpose of the essay is to distinguish between the engineer who can engage other engineers and the one who can't — it's not aimed at finding the engineer who can develop a branding campaign for his/her widget.
The notion that there is _any_ field of human endeavor in which communication is not essential is just ridiculous.
Yes. I think we can all agree that someone's facility with language is no indicator of the quality of their ideas. That's why the best TED talks are characterized only by grunting and the throwing of fecal matter.
Here's a suggestion: Why not simply split candidates' heads open and look at the ideas themselves?
I disabled my entire computer, so I don't have to worry about any malware at all.
Morevoer, there's not really any principle at work here. It's only duplication of functionality when the functionality they are citing is something they want to sell personally. There are a million fart apps.
A mathematician friend of mine was telling me about a fellow in the 19th century who was interested in large prime numbers. What were they good for, people would ask, and the answer was: nothing. Not in his lifetime did they prove useful, but he studied them because he was curious.
So if you know anything about large prime numbers, you know the moral of this story. If not, let's put it like this: a dollar spent today uncovering a mysterious substance on a piece of instrumentation tens of millions of miles away may return the cornerstone of a culture tomorrow.
Frankly, I think finding out about our universe is one of the highest of aims whether we get a dollar return or not, but what do I know -- I'm only human.
On the other hand, if we had dumped all our eggs into the manned mission basket, we probably would be sitting here right now arguing over which multi-billion dollar system would best shield astronauts from cosmic radiation instead of arguing over the output of that $20 camera. I'll take the latter.
Some of us are in a position where we have to support IE of some sort -- forcing everyone to make the same choices we do is just not an option. If that's where you are, though, better to support one crappy browser than two.
... just as long as they put similar stickers on the doors of military recruitment centers.
I didn't chuckle. Can I get my money back?
The points you're arguing are things I did not say.
No, I'm arguing with your imprecision vis-a-vis things you most definitely said. E.g.:
Jazz is floating counterpoint.
That's just a silly thing to say.
I know I'm not. I've calculated stuff like this before.
True, the orbits intersect in space. But not in time, due to different excentricity.
Hey, you seem like a bright guy. You seem to know what you're talking about. But don't the people who teach you orbital math ever bother to teach you how to spell "eccentricity?"
I'm just sayin'.
She fumbled, in a high-stress enviroment under high-stress circumstances
Time to put Terrell Owens in a spacesuit.
You have a point insofar as "jazz is not random." But there are a few problems here:
1) Your statement seems to indicate that you think "random" and "improv" are one side of a coin. Improv is not random.
2) Counterpoint is a specific type of polyphonic technique. Jazz can be contrapuntal, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, it doesn't even have to be polyphonic.
3) The cutting edge of jazz is not built on top of well-established music theory. Theory follows practice, not the other way around. Yeah, if you want to mimic Charlie Parker, learn the theory. And yes, if you want to get past Charlie Parker, you must first learn the theory. But if you want to know what Anthony Braxton is going to do next, you'll have to wait 'til he does it.
4) You're right that jazz is not improv. But a great deal of -- most, in fact -- jazz incorporates improv. Indeed, if you took the improv out of it, it would be awfully hard to suggest that what is left is a distinct genre.
The Bush Doctrine was discussed several times in the Republican primary debates without any need for clarification from the moderator.
Wouldn't an informed candidate be able to at least indicate that there are multiple interpretations of "Bush Doctrine" and perhaps discuss them a bit? Instead of just stalling for time; fishing for clues so transparently?
1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't issue sub-prime mortgages, by definition. Not saying they aren't blameless, but the people who created this problem were private sector.
2) The CRA didn't force anyone to issue sub-prime loans. Where were all the sub-prime loans in the 80s, pray tell?
3) Your solution is the very heart and soul of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The consequences of a credit seizure are much worse than what this bill does, and if it is handled properly, Congress goes back and deals with the long-term later. Yeah, that might never happen, but just letting the whole system collapse in hope that something better comes along? That's just foolish.
Moreover, the folks who caused this mess, well, while you're eating dog food in a dark shanty, do you really believe they'll be suffering? No, they've already got their golden parachutes.
This attitude reminds me of people burning down their own neighborhoods in riots. That'll show 'em.
Look, I sympathize with everyone saying this is a bad bill. But there are number of people suggesting that we just need to let all those financial institutions collapse. I think that's nuts -- this is a suck bill, but the alternative would be worse. The free market got us into this mess, why should we leave it to the free market to sort it out?
Anytime I hear Paul Krugman and Ben Stein in agreement, I get the feeling something is up. So what nobody has satisfactorily answered is: if we let these companies fail, who is going to provide all the commercial paper necessary to keep other businesses running? My local grocery store didn't sell any sub-prime mortgages, but when the time comes to make their payroll, oh, I'd kinda like for them to have the liquidity necessary to do it.
Why does this have to be the end of the process? Isn't this just a way to prevent this from getting any worse *today*? Let's get a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress and write some serious regulation bills next spring, shall we?
I mean, is it just me, or is this kind of a dumb question? Things change. The better question is: are the new things better than the old things?
And by the way, AJAX doesn't stop you from viewing source.
It was regulation that made Comcast's monopoly possible in the first place
Huh? Where have you been for the last 20 years? Which regulations are responsible for Comcast's monopoly? The '98 telecom deregulation act? Oh, wait...
Wow, so you ran afoul of people too polite to tell you what a bozo you are. I feel sad for you.
Bittorrent is a very efficient way of moving around large files, and Comcast says they want to kneecap it. Great, so people will move around large files in an inefficient manner, like say, http (rapidshare, anyone?). Great, so where does that get us? Nowhere. In fact, the end result of this ploy is that while the rest of the world is enjoying the benefits of some super-efficient non-Comcast-developed son-of-Bittorrent, we'll still be poking along with the old-school technology, or worse, something out of Comcast's development center (Comchoice!). That's what Comcast is doing to us, all in the name of some illusory bandwidth gain (bandwidth for what?). What ever happened to giving the customer what they want?
Me: I want to move files quickly.
Comcast: Ok, I'll just make it impossible for you to move files *too* quickly and then everyone will be able to move files around at a slow, but level speed. How's that suit you?
Me: WTF?
The American people gave up on taking responsibility for themselves when the Great Depression hit.
This is glib, baseless, ahistorical horseshit. The generation that came out of the Great Depression was singular in its frugality and self-reliance, you dunderhead.I'm not judging the guy's argument, but I think you've mischaracterized it. I think his point is that faith is based on personal, subjective experience, as *demonstrated* by Biblical characters. He's not saying that faith is based on *their* experience.
It's a short path from "informing you" to "spamming the shit out of you."