That was my first thought, though that's probably b/c I'm in a field that's a combo of cognitive psych and education. Educational research of any flavor would be another less-nerdy possibility that still requires analytical skills.
MIT is the sort of unpleasant experience that should be reserved for those who genuinely want it.
This, this, this. Though most of the time if she doesn't really want to go there, they'll catch it in the admissions process - but occasionally someone slips through b/c they did a good job of faking it for their parents' sake. I saw one of those people have an honest-to-god breakdown in her advisor's office.
You seriously think it costs $3000 to set up a program that monitors the school's network traffic for a few hours and grabs the IP of anyone with any public file whose name matches a list of song names? Or $30,000, if they get ten people during those hours? Then send off a few letters, and ask the school to do the dirty work of identifying who was using those IPs?
I could believe that it might outsell any single reference book that's been written so far, although I don't think that that's a foregone conclusion. But I'm sure that a lot more money has been spent on those books total than this one book could possibly make. Hell, John Granger has practically made a career out of writing Harry Potter analysis/reference books.
Yes, it would be in direct competition with a book she plans to write - one whose profits she intends to give entirely to charity, as she has other books, which kind of negates your personal greed theory. But it also has been widely recognized that this book couldn't possibly wipe out sales of that future book, given that she will be including new information that this author is not privy to, and if HP fans are rabid about anything, it's new information from JKR!
So somehow, the fact that she was nice about it for a while when she *could* have sued makes it worse that she's suing now? It makes her greedy? Would she be less greedy if she'd gone after the site immediately? Somehow I don't think most people would have seen it that way.
As did JKR, when she allowed many other reference works to be published. Ones that properly attributed their quotes and added substantial value above and beyond simply rearranging direct excerpts of her work.
It has everything to do with her being greedy and selfish and forgetting from whence she came.
How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that she has allowed many other guidebooks, analyses of her work, etc to be published, and in fact openly praised some of them in the courtroom during this trial? If she were just jealously guarding her work/money, why would she single out only this book and allow the dozen others?
According to the testimony in the trial, 91% of the new book was direct quotations from JKR's work, most of it unattributed. Does it matter that that only amounts to 5% of the original work when he's basically just taking that 5%, adding a small amount of commentary, and then reselling it? Could you take a chapter from The DaVinci Code verbatim, add your opinion to the end, and then sell that?
Yes, but it gets dark even EARLIER when DST ENDS. The reason this result is at all interesting is b/c you'd think that people would use less power when it's light later.
No kidding. This guy doesn't want adult games, he wants pretentious games. There are plenty of games that aren't very mentally stimulating, and plenty that are. The majority might not deal with things that this guy would consider "deep," but there is a reason that crosswords, sudokus, jigsaws, and other puzzles are a popular adult hobby - sometimes you don't need profundity with your mental stimulation. Sometimes you just want to figure out a puzzle. There are plenty of games that are awesome for that. And, of course, there are a few games out there that do get at deeper issues - but isn't this just the whole "games as art" debate again?
But then, I was never that into highbrow literature either. All I really care about when I read a book is plot and character - imagery, word choice, all that just gets in the way for me. I guess I better give up my spot in the tower - my PhD advisor will be so disappointed.
I'd quite like to know that shiny new 8GB SD card is actually brand new and not returned or refurbished goods.
How does the packaging tell you any of that? Do you think companies can't put used or refurbished items in a clamshell? I've returned items whose clamshells I'd opened - I'm sure the company just pops it into a new package.
The best way to ensure you're getting what you paid for is only to buy from reputable companies.
Dear god, I feel you. I collect Barbie dolls, and you would think that they're at risk of untying themselves and climbing right out of the box. It takes a good 10 minutes to get even the most basic doll out of the box, much longer for fancier ones (and this is for someone with years of experience who knows exactly what strings to cut and where to find all the twist ties). Their hair is sewn down to the box liner. WTF? Higher-end doll manufacturers lay each doll in a bed of tissue paper inside a shoebox-style box. While I realize that that sort of setup might not work so well on a shelf in Target, I don't get the overaggressive packaging.
Once I ordered some doll furniture. I got my doll furniture along with a stuffed pikachu. I called them, and they said to just keep the pikachu, I guess it would cost more for them to have me ship it back than to let me keep it.
Re:Do people really use these, on a regular basis?
on
The Gym Arcade
·
· Score: 1
If you can run outside, then good for you. I have bad knees - I jog a half a mile a day for five days in a row, and I'm limping. I try to do it anyhow, but I probably shouldn't. Plus I live in Chicago, where you can only exercise outdoors for about half the year anyhow. So I'm left with the gym, and trust me, although the elliptical is awesome for my knees it is BORING. I've been using it to catch up on reading (I'm a grad student), but video games would also be good. I've played my DS on a recumbent exercise bike before, though when I'm on the elliptical I try to keep my arms involved so a game that responds to my body instead of my fingers would be awesome.
That was basically my mathematician husband's response to this article: "Wait, if they weren't using a Fourier transform to figure it out before, what on earth were they doing?"
Yeah, I know what you mean. I feel the same way about all those losers playing GTA instead of actually honing real carjacking skills. And don't even get me STARTED on the assholes who are too lame to find actual treasures - Tomb Raider, my ass.
I know this one weirdo who can play the actual guitar, he has a couple self-published CDs and everything, and yet he STILL insists on playing Guitar Hero and Rock Band! It's as though the game and the actual musical instrument fulfill separate purposes or something!
I think his singing is fine, but all of his solo attempts have proven beyond a doubt that he was getting the good end of the bargain in the Lennon/McCartney songwriting credit agreement.
We have one candidate that opposed the Iraq war from the beginning
Very easy for him to do when he didn't actually have to have his vote on it recorded at the time, didn't have to deal with the potential consequences of that vote for the country or worry about what it would do for his reelection. He was just an armchair quarterback then, just like the rest of us.
a) Graduate students =/= professors. Especially not tenured professors at PhD-granting universities. Trust me - as a graduate student, I am not nearly as productive as my professors; that's what I'm here for, is to learn how to be!
b) I was really talking more in the sciences, etc; I know little to nothing about humanities, and besides, we're on slashdot. I'm in a social science, and I think that most of the professors in my dept are pretty productive by almost any metric someone in the business world might use - even if you're talking profits, they bring in a hell of a lot of grant money.
Well, of course you've got to coordinate with other people in order to collaborate. Do you think most scientists at universities work alone? Of course not, but they do set their own hours and decide for themselves what they'll be working on and when - within the needs of whatever projects they're currently working on. Which means that if they're done with their meetings for the day and they need to go pick up a kid from school, they can just go do it. Or if their brain is fried and they need a break, they just go take one. Maybe yesterday they ate lunch at their desk while working, but today they decide to take two hours to meet their spouse downtown for lunch. If they need to get a document to a collaborator in an hour, they can't do that, obviously. But once the document is sent, they can.
Any condition implies distrust. Any distrust clearly spells out: "so what that there is a deadline tomorrow noon, they don't trust me to know what I do, so I stick to 8 hours".
Definitely. I just heard about some "revolutionary" new book (Work Sucks or something like that?) that suggests letting employees 100% set their own hours, as long as the work gets done it doesn't matter when. The comments about it were all kind of in awe - and I'm thinking, uh, this is how it's worked in academia pretty much forever. And the professors I know are just about the most productive people you could possibly imagine. Is it really taking business this long to figure this out? As long as the work gets done, why does it matter what time people come or go, play video games or write a report?
Slashdot Mirror
That was my first thought, though that's probably b/c I'm in a field that's a combo of cognitive psych and education. Educational research of any flavor would be another less-nerdy possibility that still requires analytical skills.
MIT is the sort of unpleasant experience that should be reserved for those who genuinely want it.
This, this, this. Though most of the time if she doesn't really want to go there, they'll catch it in the admissions process - but occasionally someone slips through b/c they did a good job of faking it for their parents' sake. I saw one of those people have an honest-to-god breakdown in her advisor's office.
You seriously think it costs $3000 to set up a program that monitors the school's network traffic for a few hours and grabs the IP of anyone with any public file whose name matches a list of song names? Or $30,000, if they get ten people during those hours? Then send off a few letters, and ask the school to do the dirty work of identifying who was using those IPs?
I could believe that it might outsell any single reference book that's been written so far, although I don't think that that's a foregone conclusion. But I'm sure that a lot more money has been spent on those books total than this one book could possibly make. Hell, John Granger has practically made a career out of writing Harry Potter analysis/reference books.
Yes, it would be in direct competition with a book she plans to write - one whose profits she intends to give entirely to charity, as she has other books, which kind of negates your personal greed theory. But it also has been widely recognized that this book couldn't possibly wipe out sales of that future book, given that she will be including new information that this author is not privy to, and if HP fans are rabid about anything, it's new information from JKR!
So somehow, the fact that she was nice about it for a while when she *could* have sued makes it worse that she's suing now? It makes her greedy? Would she be less greedy if she'd gone after the site immediately? Somehow I don't think most people would have seen it that way.
As did JKR, when she allowed many other reference works to be published. Ones that properly attributed their quotes and added substantial value above and beyond simply rearranging direct excerpts of her work.
It has everything to do with her being greedy and selfish and forgetting from whence she came.
How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that she has allowed many other guidebooks, analyses of her work, etc to be published, and in fact openly praised some of them in the courtroom during this trial? If she were just jealously guarding her work/money, why would she single out only this book and allow the dozen others?
According to the testimony in the trial, 91% of the new book was direct quotations from JKR's work, most of it unattributed. Does it matter that that only amounts to 5% of the original work when he's basically just taking that 5%, adding a small amount of commentary, and then reselling it? Could you take a chapter from The DaVinci Code verbatim, add your opinion to the end, and then sell that?
Unless you live in the third of the country where the sun sets before 5pm in the winter.
Yeah, notice how it gets dark SOONER now? That's because DST just ENDED.
Yes, but it gets dark even EARLIER when DST ENDS. The reason this result is at all interesting is b/c you'd think that people would use less power when it's light later.
No kidding. This guy doesn't want adult games, he wants pretentious games. There are plenty of games that aren't very mentally stimulating, and plenty that are. The majority might not deal with things that this guy would consider "deep," but there is a reason that crosswords, sudokus, jigsaws, and other puzzles are a popular adult hobby - sometimes you don't need profundity with your mental stimulation. Sometimes you just want to figure out a puzzle. There are plenty of games that are awesome for that. And, of course, there are a few games out there that do get at deeper issues - but isn't this just the whole "games as art" debate again?
But then, I was never that into highbrow literature either. All I really care about when I read a book is plot and character - imagery, word choice, all that just gets in the way for me. I guess I better give up my spot in the tower - my PhD advisor will be so disappointed.
I'd quite like to know that shiny new 8GB SD card is actually brand new and not returned or refurbished goods.
How does the packaging tell you any of that? Do you think companies can't put used or refurbished items in a clamshell? I've returned items whose clamshells I'd opened - I'm sure the company just pops it into a new package.
The best way to ensure you're getting what you paid for is only to buy from reputable companies.
Dear god, I feel you. I collect Barbie dolls, and you would think that they're at risk of untying themselves and climbing right out of the box. It takes a good 10 minutes to get even the most basic doll out of the box, much longer for fancier ones (and this is for someone with years of experience who knows exactly what strings to cut and where to find all the twist ties). Their hair is sewn down to the box liner. WTF? Higher-end doll manufacturers lay each doll in a bed of tissue paper inside a shoebox-style box. While I realize that that sort of setup might not work so well on a shelf in Target, I don't get the overaggressive packaging.
Once I ordered some doll furniture. I got my doll furniture along with a stuffed pikachu. I called them, and they said to just keep the pikachu, I guess it would cost more for them to have me ship it back than to let me keep it.
If you can run outside, then good for you. I have bad knees - I jog a half a mile a day for five days in a row, and I'm limping. I try to do it anyhow, but I probably shouldn't. Plus I live in Chicago, where you can only exercise outdoors for about half the year anyhow. So I'm left with the gym, and trust me, although the elliptical is awesome for my knees it is BORING. I've been using it to catch up on reading (I'm a grad student), but video games would also be good. I've played my DS on a recumbent exercise bike before, though when I'm on the elliptical I try to keep my arms involved so a game that responds to my body instead of my fingers would be awesome.
Interesting that the posttest was only a day after daily training ended - is there any evidence that these effects are lasting?
That was basically my mathematician husband's response to this article: "Wait, if they weren't using a Fourier transform to figure it out before, what on earth were they doing?"
Am I the only one who read the headline and then burst out laughing?
Yeah, I know what you mean. I feel the same way about all those losers playing GTA instead of actually honing real carjacking skills. And don't even get me STARTED on the assholes who are too lame to find actual treasures - Tomb Raider, my ass.
I know this one weirdo who can play the actual guitar, he has a couple self-published CDs and everything, and yet he STILL insists on playing Guitar Hero and Rock Band! It's as though the game and the actual musical instrument fulfill separate purposes or something!
I think his singing is fine, but all of his solo attempts have proven beyond a doubt that he was getting the good end of the bargain in the Lennon/McCartney songwriting credit agreement.
We have one candidate that opposed the Iraq war from the beginning
Very easy for him to do when he didn't actually have to have his vote on it recorded at the time, didn't have to deal with the potential consequences of that vote for the country or worry about what it would do for his reelection. He was just an armchair quarterback then, just like the rest of us.
a) Graduate students =/= professors. Especially not tenured professors at PhD-granting universities. Trust me - as a graduate student, I am not nearly as productive as my professors; that's what I'm here for, is to learn how to be!
b) I was really talking more in the sciences, etc; I know little to nothing about humanities, and besides, we're on slashdot. I'm in a social science, and I think that most of the professors in my dept are pretty productive by almost any metric someone in the business world might use - even if you're talking profits, they bring in a hell of a lot of grant money.
Well, of course you've got to coordinate with other people in order to collaborate. Do you think most scientists at universities work alone? Of course not, but they do set their own hours and decide for themselves what they'll be working on and when - within the needs of whatever projects they're currently working on. Which means that if they're done with their meetings for the day and they need to go pick up a kid from school, they can just go do it. Or if their brain is fried and they need a break, they just go take one. Maybe yesterday they ate lunch at their desk while working, but today they decide to take two hours to meet their spouse downtown for lunch. If they need to get a document to a collaborator in an hour, they can't do that, obviously. But once the document is sent, they can.
Definitely. I just heard about some "revolutionary" new book (Work Sucks or something like that?) that suggests letting employees 100% set their own hours, as long as the work gets done it doesn't matter when. The comments about it were all kind of in awe - and I'm thinking, uh, this is how it's worked in academia pretty much forever. And the professors I know are just about the most productive people you could possibly imagine. Is it really taking business this long to figure this out? As long as the work gets done, why does it matter what time people come or go, play video games or write a report?