IANAL, but from what I've read, and what I've heard lawyers quote, one of the main factors in judging trademark infringement is the potential of confusion in the mind of the consumer (citation).
So if company A can show that the intent of a competitor (company B) buying keyword ad space specifically with company A's trademark in it and their intent is to confuse consumers into thinking company B is company A, then they have a case.
That said, there may be more to this due to the actual practice I've seen in big companies going after people over trademark infringement (Mike Rowe Soft anyone?). But these cases are often settled out of court so they could just be scare tactics since the big company knows they couldn't win in court other than to out lawyer the defendant.
... IE decides that since it doesn't know what a ".exe?query=string" extension is, so it strips the "extension off" and tries to connect to: http://www.somedomain.com/url/path/to/file
... which (in my case) doesn't exist.
This is another example of why injecting proprietary meaning, which often contradicts with more fundamental established protocols, into processes/protocols is problematic.
I have so many problems with those ridiculous religious statements that i don't know where to begin
That's why I used the word axiom. These are "propositions that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident."
Every human pursuit has at its core its own set of axioms. Geometry, physics, algebra, calculus, biology, astronomy, computer theory, etc. At a certain point, you're left with a set of items which are assumed to be true but which aren't proven or are not provable. That doesn't mean that geometry, physics, algebra, calculus, etc. are invalid or somehow weaker. It just highlights the lack of understanding or absolute certainty we're always surrounded with as humans.
If any of those axioms I listed above are PROVABLY false (not just suggestively or implicitly), then Christianity as we know it would crumble or at least have to be fundamentally revised.
The same could be said of geometry. If you discovered that parallel lines on a 2 dimensional plane do in fact intersect, then geometry as we know it would crumble and would have to be revised.
Now, this happens all the time in religion/science. Earth as the center of the universe gives way to a better sun-centered model. Newtonian mechanics gives way to relativity. Likewise religion, at least any honest religion, must also give way to verifiable proof. The idea the angels were needed to keep the earth in motion must give way to Newtonian mechanics, the creation story must align with verifiable evidences found around us (ie: carbon dating, evolotion etc.).
But the key is to when new evidences are discovered, in whatever pursuit you're in (science, religion, human studies, etc.), know what needs to be abandoned versus what remains or needs to be revised. It's the old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
I know this probably sounds platitudinous, but not everything can be put into a math equation.
You know what the best part about this is? I DON'T CARE ONE BIT.
When I first read the title my instinct was to get angry. Then suddenly I felt a wave of calm come over me as I realized that I haven't relied on windows for 5 years now.
You: Pascal's wager is a poor argument. It could be used to justify all sorts of foolish behavior
Me: Likewise, a complete rejection of Pascal's wager leads to lots of foolish behavior itself. Some of the criticisms lead to complete moral relativism.
All morals are relative. A person in a position of authority insisting that certain of his morals are absolute is as morally repugnant to me as abortion is to the pope.
And we've come full circle.
I'm not saying I agree with the pope, just that absolute moral relativism is just as indefensible as considering your own personal morals as absolute. They are both fallacies on opposite ends of a spectrum.
I've yet to meet a moral relativist who claims they would back their claim with their life by allowing someone who feels it is moral to take it away from them to do so. Anyone I've met admittedly has their limits (and that's fine). It just gets sticky when morals seem to contradict (that's called humanity).
I never said that I feel Pascal's wager is perfect (see criticisms on that wikipedia page). Just that the argument that it's foolish to put faith in something as yet to be proven is foolish in and of itself.
Likewise, a complete rejection of Pascal's wager leads to lots of foolish behavior itself. Some of the criticisms lead to complete moral relativism.
ou spend a hell of a lot of time codifying your fairy tale. I would admire it if it wasn't such a prolific waste of life.
The same could be said of science. If you think you can count the axioms of mathematics, physics, geometry, etc. on both hands and toes then you are sorely mistaken. But it isn't the number of axioms that determine whether an idea is sound or not, its whether it leads to real verifiable results. Science does better than religion in the "verifiable" region being primarily logic driven, but both have levels of validation to them.
As to whether Christianity is a waste of time, that all depends on the axioms above. If God doesn't exist or Christ wasn't who He said He was, then you're correct. But if both (or even either) are true then ignoring them was the actual "waste of life" (see Pascal's wager).
I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?
I'll chime in on this, because as a Christian it kills me to see this pre-school level understanding of Christianity repeated.
To make it simple here's the basic axioms of Christianity: 1. God is real and is perfect 2. Anyone who wants to return to Him must be perfect 3. Nobody is perfect (enter the paradox) 4. Christ willingly takes upon Himself the imperfections (sins) of the world. 5. Then as the creditor, He, and He alone, has the authority to redefine the terms of returning to God
The problem arises when Christians think they themselves are able to define the terms of returning to God, which when you think of it could be considered blasphemous at the highest level because one must arrogate themselves above Christ to think that they have the authority to do so.
This is done often by misinformed Christians when referring to atheists, non-believers, other Christian sects, and even people with whom they don't agree with within their own faith--and generally is indicative of a very immature understanding of the Christian faith. I've encountered this myself as I've heard people tell me whether I'm a Christian based on definitions varying from "anyone who follows Christ" to "anyone who goes to my Bible study group on Thursdays." It's a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Continuing from #5 above:
6. A significant portion of God's children never heard of Christ or otherwise lacked the opportunity to accept Him by no fault of their own, and thus could not be condemned by a perfect God for reasons beyond their control (note that "opportunity" is defined loosely here since it is different for everyone)
Christians who stopped at #5 above and simply proceeded to try to define the terms of salvation on their own won't even get to this step since they're too busy trying to pretend they're qualified to judge those around them (which, by the way, is explicitly forbidden in Christianity).
There are several different ways different Christian sects try to solve the paradox contained in #6. Rather than dive too much deeper I'll just say that Christ Himself gave a clue to this in His parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew (go look it up). Summarizing, it basically teaches that those who concerned themselves with helping the homeless, poor, sick, widowed and otherwise less fortunate are those who He will allow back into God's presence regardless of any amount of lip service given.
So if, God forbid, Dr. Hawking dies now, will he be saved? I don't know, and I can firmly say that neither does anyone else on this planet. So, I'd say the best thing we can do is appreciate all the good he did and hope/pray we can enjoy his presence longer. And if not, take all of the good Dr. Hawking brought to the scientific community and mankind in general.
This is exactly what Dyson is talking about. Computer models are at BEST as good as the data we put into them. What Dyson is arguing for in most of his talks/papers is that we focus more on the data we're putting into models than we currently are.
As an aside, I think that when people stop questioning things and go even further so that they resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with them, in that moment they are no longer defending science but dogma, and their credibility is entirely lost.
I didn't read the featured article, but whenever I see "X program/system mimics brain" I always try to pipe in with my 2 cents.
Any system that considers a brain as nothing but a series of perceptron-based connections is going to fall short of the neurology of the actual brain it is trying to mimic. Ask any neurologist and they will tell you that there many other dimensions at play in the human brain. For instance, the whole system itself is sitting in a chemical bath which can change at any moment with the right mixture of hormones or other chemical changes. These changes in chemistry affect the firing and working of the neurons, axons, and synapses. Combine this with the control of external factors such as DNA, RNA, and epigenitics and things start getting exponentially complex.
I don't mean to down-play the progress we're making in this field. I just hate it when I see the "Computer system with X-sized neural network must equal a brain with X-number of neurons" mentality.
I am not a bona fide registered patent attorney, but it seems to me that requiring a certain level of investment towards the development of the entity behind a patent (relative to what the investment capability of the filer is) would go a long way towards making the business of being a patent troll unprofitable. Once it's unprofitable to be a patent troll, they'll go away.
This would basically make the patent system a two-way street. If the government is going to grant you a patent and help you protect it (by providing the legal system, courts, etc.), you'd better make it worth their while by investing in the idea which in turn puts money back into the economy. Make patents less of an enumeration of ideas and more like a business proposal made to a bank.
I remember being sent in the mail a photo of me running a red light from one of these traffic cameras along with a ticket. The front of my car hadn't even entered the intersection before the light was red and you could clearly see my license plate, me, and the red light in the photo. I just laughed and paid the ticket.
I'm a fan of the following (in order of importance):
1. Open education and discussion. Talk with them about their browsing habits and what the expectations (and consequences) are for what is acceptable or not.
3. Though every child/family is different, I think having the computer(s) in a public place does a multitude of good.
4. Avoid double-standards. If you can browse to sites that they are not allowed to go to, it will only create "forbidden fruit" and they'll just end up going there anyways.
5. Adblock is good in general to keep unwanted content away.
6. DNS-based solutions (ie: OpenDNS).
Use technology as a parental tool, not a replacement.
I guess Utah Mormon is a bit of a different breed than Mormons from almost everywhere else. It must be the effect of any one group having a majority.
Interesting you should say that. As a Mormon who was born and raised in the Seattle area, spent 4 years living in Utah while going to school, and who has since moved back to the Seattle area to start my career, I have some of the same feelings.
Just yesterday I was in the car with a good friend (also a Mormon who has lived in and out of Utah) and we came the similar conclusion that whenever you have a group that homogeneous, it is human tendency for certain "quirks" to emerge which do not necessarily reflect the identity of the group abroad. You could expect some of the same culturalisms to emerge (some good, some bad) for any other homogenous group.
That said, I do differ from you in that I could see myself living there (though you would have to pay me to leave Seattle). After living there for a year or two, you learn to ignore the parts of the culture you don't like and embrace the ones that you do.
It may have involved superconductors, but I think they were trying to do something with gravity at first. Hence measuring the change in weight of the object in the box, before they found the box's other properties.
I hope people aren't modding your post interesting thinking you were talking about TFA rather than the movie I mentioned.
Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.
If found this comment interesting. While I'm not commenting on you personally, the comment made me think of a Thomas Jefferson quote (of all things) that I think is especially poignant given recent events:
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
When we live on or near the brink of destitution such that we are totally dependent on our jobs (read, debt and utter lack of savings), businesses/employers/government have all the power and the people will lack the courage to stand up for what is right.
I'm not trying to be a doom-sayer here. Just pointing out a trend that I see where people often cite something unethical they see in their company or their industry in general but then never say anything about it because the potential retribution would lead to their economic demise. That, and I think that is one of the best Thomas Jefferson quotes ever.
My wife and I recently bought our first HD flat screen TV. We were about to call Comcast to add HD to our cable plan. Then we stopped and asked ourselves a question, "How much more enjoyment will we get from watching shows we already watch but now in HD?" The answer, for us, turned out to be almost nothing. So now we were stuck with stretched and obviously pixelated non HD programming on our new HD TV.
So we asked ourselves another question, "How many of the shows that we watch aren't available online as full episodes (many in HD)?" The answer again, for us, turned out to be almost none.
So we dropped all cable TV (cable package, DVR, and on-demand) and only kept internet. We then signed up for Netflix 3 DVDs with Blu-Ray and on-demand for only $17 a month. We then bought an LG Blu-Ray player that hooks into your Netflix account and allows you to stream any Netflix on-demand show to your TV. LG even recently released an upgrade where now we can browse YouTube and watch any video.
Looking back, we would never go back to cable. We're perfectly happy with the selection of entertainment Netflix and online sites give us and very much enjoy watching TV on our terms with almost no commercials (most network TV websites use commercials... though Netflix doesn't, of course). Plus, we went from almost paying ~$80 for HD cable with a DVR and an on-demand box to only $17 a month (plus the Blu-Ray player we bought) and are much happier with our TV.
What's poetic justice in all this is that Comcast is providing the bandwidth for us to stream all of their competitor's content. Makes me realize why cable companies are vehemently against net neutrality. I hope they never win that battle.
Suppose you have a long history of posts covering a particular topic with a large following of readers. You decide to compile them into a book and get it published. If it becomes popular (read: profitable) enough, you bet Facebook will pull the ToC out, dust if off, and demand at least a portion of the profits.
The reason you don't see the implications of this very often is there's usually no money in claiming ownership to material posted. But you'd better believe that once there's money in it, Facebook (or whoever else has this kind of ToC) will enforce it with teams of lawyers.
(the book example is just one example of how this could happen... there could be many more)
I'm tired of the "X/Y/Z doesn't affect me" mantra. Everything affects you.
Does reading slashdot 12 times a day affect you? Yes.
Would reading the entire constitution of the US everyday affect you? Yes.
Does skipping a night of sleep affect you? Yes.
Does holding down a full time job affect you? Yes.
Does playing video games affect you? Yes.
Everything you engage in affects you. It's called being human. It's not a question of whether something affects you, it's a question of whether you are mature enough to recognise HOW it effects you and make appropriate adjustments if necessary.
The insistence that you are somehow superior to every aspect of life and can only be affected if you allow it is just immature arrogance.
My wife runs a small photography business (ie: just her and an assistant), and I'm the pro-bono programmer/IT specialist. She didn't rely heavily on office products (just contracts and simple CSVs), so when we did a reinstall a while back I suggested we move to Open Office. We haven't had any problems.
We also moved to Thunderbird and Google-calendar (using the Lightning plug-in).
I exclusively use Linux for all development and IT related tasks (office file share server, email/web/database server, development boxes) with the exception of a virtual install of Windows for website testing.
She has mentioned to me several times that the only thing keeping her from switching to Linux is Adobe. There's just no justification dropping Adobe once you've invested 2k+ in their software.
Once Adobe supports Linux (if ever), we'll be a 100% open source shop with the exception of VMs and Adobe products.
I'm all for dropping IE6. It is now nothing more than a bane to web developers and the advancement of web pages in general. But to stop accommodating IE6 in your websites simply becomes someone else says to do so is naive. You should support whatever your site's visitors need.
For my wife's site, I can drop support for 800x600 since they comprise of less than 2% of my visitors, and falling (hurray!). Yes, I know fluid design can accommodate all, but sometimes needs necessitate static widths.
However, IE6 still accounts for ~20% of my visitors, so no matter what Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc. says, until that number drops well below 10%, I will still support it.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but from what I've read, and what I've heard lawyers quote, one of the main factors in judging trademark infringement is the potential of confusion in the mind of the consumer (citation).
So if company A can show that the intent of a competitor (company B) buying keyword ad space specifically with company A's trademark in it and their intent is to confuse consumers into thinking company B is company A, then they have a case.
That said, there may be more to this due to the actual practice I've seen in big companies going after people over trademark infringement (Mike Rowe Soft anyone?). But these cases are often settled out of court so they could just be scare tactics since the big company knows they couldn't win in court other than to out lawyer the defendant.
...another Windows bug I ran into the other day with how the IE engine deals with URLs.
Given the following URL (with the server properly responding with mime-type of octet-stream and an otherwise proper response):
... IE decides that since it doesn't know what a ".exe?query=string" extension is, so it strips the "extension off" and tries to connect to:
... which (in my case) doesn't exist.
http://www.somedomain.com/url/path/to/file.exe?query=string
http://www.somedomain.com/url/path/to/file
This is another example of why injecting proprietary meaning, which often contradicts with more fundamental established protocols, into processes/protocols is problematic.
The Gutenberg project is a good resource for free texts:
http://www.gutenberg.org
Though strictly not a classic "science" book, I'm currently reading Pascal's Pensees, written by one of the great mathematicians in history.
I have so many problems with those ridiculous religious statements that i don't know where to begin
That's why I used the word axiom. These are "propositions that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident."
Every human pursuit has at its core its own set of axioms. Geometry, physics, algebra, calculus, biology, astronomy, computer theory, etc. At a certain point, you're left with a set of items which are assumed to be true but which aren't proven or are not provable. That doesn't mean that geometry, physics, algebra, calculus, etc. are invalid or somehow weaker. It just highlights the lack of understanding or absolute certainty we're always surrounded with as humans.
If any of those axioms I listed above are PROVABLY false (not just suggestively or implicitly), then Christianity as we know it would crumble or at least have to be fundamentally revised.
The same could be said of geometry. If you discovered that parallel lines on a 2 dimensional plane do in fact intersect, then geometry as we know it would crumble and would have to be revised.
Now, this happens all the time in religion/science. Earth as the center of the universe gives way to a better sun-centered model. Newtonian mechanics gives way to relativity. Likewise religion, at least any honest religion, must also give way to verifiable proof. The idea the angels were needed to keep the earth in motion must give way to Newtonian mechanics, the creation story must align with verifiable evidences found around us (ie: carbon dating, evolotion etc.).
But the key is to when new evidences are discovered, in whatever pursuit you're in (science, religion, human studies, etc.), know what needs to be abandoned versus what remains or needs to be revised. It's the old saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
I know this probably sounds platitudinous, but not everything can be put into a math equation.
You know what the best part about this is? I DON'T CARE ONE BIT.
When I first read the title my instinct was to get angry. Then suddenly I felt a wave of calm come over me as I realized that I haven't relied on windows for 5 years now.
I simply just don't care any more.
You: Pascal's wager is a poor argument. It could be used to justify all sorts of foolish behavior
Me: Likewise, a complete rejection of Pascal's wager leads to lots of foolish behavior itself. Some of the criticisms lead to complete moral relativism.
All morals are relative. A person in a position of authority insisting that certain of his morals are absolute is as morally repugnant to me as abortion is to the pope.
And we've come full circle.
I'm not saying I agree with the pope, just that absolute moral relativism is just as indefensible as considering your own personal morals as absolute. They are both fallacies on opposite ends of a spectrum.
I've yet to meet a moral relativist who claims they would back their claim with their life by allowing someone who feels it is moral to take it away from them to do so. Anyone I've met admittedly has their limits (and that's fine). It just gets sticky when morals seem to contradict (that's called humanity).
I never said that I feel Pascal's wager is perfect (see criticisms on that wikipedia page). Just that the argument that it's foolish to put faith in something as yet to be proven is foolish in and of itself.
Likewise, a complete rejection of Pascal's wager leads to lots of foolish behavior itself. Some of the criticisms lead to complete moral relativism.
ou spend a hell of a lot of time codifying your fairy tale. I would admire it if it wasn't such a prolific waste of life.
The same could be said of science. If you think you can count the axioms of mathematics, physics, geometry, etc. on both hands and toes then you are sorely mistaken. But it isn't the number of axioms that determine whether an idea is sound or not, its whether it leads to real verifiable results. Science does better than religion in the "verifiable" region being primarily logic driven, but both have levels of validation to them.
As to whether Christianity is a waste of time, that all depends on the axioms above. If God doesn't exist or Christ wasn't who He said He was, then you're correct. But if both (or even either) are true then ignoring them was the actual "waste of life" (see Pascal's wager).
I hope he pulls through too. Because if he dies he will do so without being having accepted his gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. God is not going to ask Stephen Hawking what his GPA was, or how many department chairs he has held, or how many papers he has published. No, there is only one question that Mr. Hawking will be asked... Did you believe upon my Son for the forgiveness of your sins?
I'll chime in on this, because as a Christian it kills me to see this pre-school level understanding of Christianity repeated.
To make it simple here's the basic axioms of Christianity:
1. God is real and is perfect
2. Anyone who wants to return to Him must be perfect
3. Nobody is perfect (enter the paradox)
4. Christ willingly takes upon Himself the imperfections (sins) of the world.
5. Then as the creditor, He, and He alone, has the authority to redefine the terms of returning to God
The problem arises when Christians think they themselves are able to define the terms of returning to God, which when you think of it could be considered blasphemous at the highest level because one must arrogate themselves above Christ to think that they have the authority to do so.
This is done often by misinformed Christians when referring to atheists, non-believers, other Christian sects, and even people with whom they don't agree with within their own faith--and generally is indicative of a very immature understanding of the Christian faith. I've encountered this myself as I've heard people tell me whether I'm a Christian based on definitions varying from "anyone who follows Christ" to "anyone who goes to my Bible study group on Thursdays." It's a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Continuing from #5 above:
6. A significant portion of God's children never heard of Christ or otherwise lacked the opportunity to accept Him by no fault of their own, and thus could not be condemned by a perfect God for reasons beyond their control (note that "opportunity" is defined loosely here since it is different for everyone)
Christians who stopped at #5 above and simply proceeded to try to define the terms of salvation on their own won't even get to this step since they're too busy trying to pretend they're qualified to judge those around them (which, by the way, is explicitly forbidden in Christianity).
There are several different ways different Christian sects try to solve the paradox contained in #6. Rather than dive too much deeper I'll just say that Christ Himself gave a clue to this in His parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew (go look it up). Summarizing, it basically teaches that those who concerned themselves with helping the homeless, poor, sick, widowed and otherwise less fortunate are those who He will allow back into God's presence regardless of any amount of lip service given.
So if, God forbid, Dr. Hawking dies now, will he be saved? I don't know, and I can firmly say that neither does anyone else on this planet. So, I'd say the best thing we can do is appreciate all the good he did and hope/pray we can enjoy his presence longer. And if not, take all of the good Dr. Hawking brought to the scientific community and mankind in general.
Agreed.
This is exactly what Dyson is talking about. Computer models are at BEST as good as the data we put into them. What Dyson is arguing for in most of his talks/papers is that we focus more on the data we're putting into models than we currently are.
As an aside, I think that when people stop questioning things and go even further so that they resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with them, in that moment they are no longer defending science but dogma, and their credibility is entirely lost.
I didn't read the featured article, but whenever I see "X program/system mimics brain" I always try to pipe in with my 2 cents.
Any system that considers a brain as nothing but a series of perceptron-based connections is going to fall short of the neurology of the actual brain it is trying to mimic. Ask any neurologist and they will tell you that there many other dimensions at play in the human brain. For instance, the whole system itself is sitting in a chemical bath which can change at any moment with the right mixture of hormones or other chemical changes. These changes in chemistry affect the firing and working of the neurons, axons, and synapses. Combine this with the control of external factors such as DNA, RNA, and epigenitics and things start getting exponentially complex.
I don't mean to down-play the progress we're making in this field. I just hate it when I see the "Computer system with X-sized neural network must equal a brain with X-number of neurons" mentality.
I am not a bona fide registered patent attorney, but it seems to me that requiring a certain level of investment towards the development of the entity behind a patent (relative to what the investment capability of the filer is) would go a long way towards making the business of being a patent troll unprofitable. Once it's unprofitable to be a patent troll, they'll go away.
This would basically make the patent system a two-way street. If the government is going to grant you a patent and help you protect it (by providing the legal system, courts, etc.), you'd better make it worth their while by investing in the idea which in turn puts money back into the economy. Make patents less of an enumeration of ideas and more like a business proposal made to a bank.
I remember being sent in the mail a photo of me running a red light from one of these traffic cameras along with a ticket. The front of my car hadn't even entered the intersection before the light was red and you could clearly see my license plate, me, and the red light in the photo. I just laughed and paid the ticket.
I'm a fan of the following (in order of importance):
1. Open education and discussion. Talk with them about their browsing habits and what the expectations (and consequences) are for what is acceptable or not.
3. Though every child/family is different, I think having the computer(s) in a public place does a multitude of good.
4. Avoid double-standards. If you can browse to sites that they are not allowed to go to, it will only create "forbidden fruit" and they'll just end up going there anyways.
5. Adblock is good in general to keep unwanted content away.
6. DNS-based solutions (ie: OpenDNS).
Use technology as a parental tool, not a replacement.
I guess Utah Mormon is a bit of a different breed than Mormons from almost everywhere else. It must be the effect of any one group having a majority.
Interesting you should say that. As a Mormon who was born and raised in the Seattle area, spent 4 years living in Utah while going to school, and who has since moved back to the Seattle area to start my career, I have some of the same feelings.
Just yesterday I was in the car with a good friend (also a Mormon who has lived in and out of Utah) and we came the similar conclusion that whenever you have a group that homogeneous, it is human tendency for certain "quirks" to emerge which do not necessarily reflect the identity of the group abroad. You could expect some of the same culturalisms to emerge (some good, some bad) for any other homogenous group.
That said, I do differ from you in that I could see myself living there (though you would have to pay me to leave Seattle). After living there for a year or two, you learn to ignore the parts of the culture you don't like and embrace the ones that you do.
It may have involved superconductors, but I think they were trying to do something with gravity at first. Hence measuring the change in weight of the object in the box, before they found the box's other properties.
I hope people aren't modding your post interesting thinking you were talking about TFA rather than the movie I mentioned.
Wasn't that what the engineers in the movie Primer (trailer) were working on?
Sorry, I just watched that for the first time earlier this week and am still enamored with it.
Is it good to take a stand? Yes.
Am I going to sacrifice my own career for this cause? No.
If found this comment interesting. While I'm not commenting on you personally, the comment made me think of a Thomas Jefferson quote (of all things) that I think is especially poignant given recent events:
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
When we live on or near the brink of destitution such that we are totally dependent on our jobs (read, debt and utter lack of savings), businesses/employers/government have all the power and the people will lack the courage to stand up for what is right.
I'm not trying to be a doom-sayer here. Just pointing out a trend that I see where people often cite something unethical they see in their company or their industry in general but then never say anything about it because the potential retribution would lead to their economic demise. That, and I think that is one of the best Thomas Jefferson quotes ever.
My wife and I recently bought our first HD flat screen TV. We were about to call Comcast to add HD to our cable plan. Then we stopped and asked ourselves a question, "How much more enjoyment will we get from watching shows we already watch but now in HD?" The answer, for us, turned out to be almost nothing. So now we were stuck with stretched and obviously pixelated non HD programming on our new HD TV.
So we asked ourselves another question, "How many of the shows that we watch aren't available online as full episodes (many in HD)?" The answer again, for us, turned out to be almost none.
So we dropped all cable TV (cable package, DVR, and on-demand) and only kept internet. We then signed up for Netflix 3 DVDs with Blu-Ray and on-demand for only $17 a month. We then bought an LG Blu-Ray player that hooks into your Netflix account and allows you to stream any Netflix on-demand show to your TV. LG even recently released an upgrade where now we can browse YouTube and watch any video.
Looking back, we would never go back to cable. We're perfectly happy with the selection of entertainment Netflix and online sites give us and very much enjoy watching TV on our terms with almost no commercials (most network TV websites use commercials... though Netflix doesn't, of course). Plus, we went from almost paying ~$80 for HD cable with a DVR and an on-demand box to only $17 a month (plus the Blu-Ray player we bought) and are much happier with our TV.
What's poetic justice in all this is that Comcast is providing the bandwidth for us to stream all of their competitor's content. Makes me realize why cable companies are vehemently against net neutrality. I hope they never win that battle.
Suppose you have a long history of posts covering a particular topic with a large following of readers. You decide to compile them into a book and get it published. If it becomes popular (read: profitable) enough, you bet Facebook will pull the ToC out, dust if off, and demand at least a portion of the profits.
The reason you don't see the implications of this very often is there's usually no money in claiming ownership to material posted. But you'd better believe that once there's money in it, Facebook (or whoever else has this kind of ToC) will enforce it with teams of lawyers.
(the book example is just one example of how this could happen... there could be many more)
... wake me when they introduce Google Street View (or Cable View) to the ocean floors.
I'm tired of the "X/Y/Z doesn't affect me" mantra. Everything affects you.
Does reading slashdot 12 times a day affect you? Yes.
Would reading the entire constitution of the US everyday affect you? Yes.
Does skipping a night of sleep affect you? Yes.
Does holding down a full time job affect you? Yes.
Does playing video games affect you? Yes.
Everything you engage in affects you. It's called being human. It's not a question of whether something affects you, it's a question of whether you are mature enough to recognise HOW it effects you and make appropriate adjustments if necessary.
The insistence that you are somehow superior to every aspect of life and can only be affected if you allow it is just immature arrogance.
An interesting section of code:
if (sandbox.isDeepEnd()) {
Message message = sandbox.getLeprechaun().getMessage();
if (MessageInterpreter::isBurnCommand(message)) {
environment.burnItAll();
}
}
self.citeRalphism();
My wife runs a small photography business (ie: just her and an assistant), and I'm the pro-bono programmer/IT specialist. She didn't rely heavily on office products (just contracts and simple CSVs), so when we did a reinstall a while back I suggested we move to Open Office. We haven't had any problems.
We also moved to Thunderbird and Google-calendar (using the Lightning plug-in).
I exclusively use Linux for all development and IT related tasks (office file share server, email/web/database server, development boxes) with the exception of a virtual install of Windows for website testing.
She has mentioned to me several times that the only thing keeping her from switching to Linux is Adobe. There's just no justification dropping Adobe once you've invested 2k+ in their software.
Once Adobe supports Linux (if ever), we'll be a 100% open source shop with the exception of VMs and Adobe products.
Maybe the web developer pie chart will shift.
I'm all for dropping IE6. It is now nothing more than a bane to web developers and the advancement of web pages in general. But to stop accommodating IE6 in your websites simply becomes someone else says to do so is naive. You should support whatever your site's visitors need.
For my wife's site, I can drop support for 800x600 since they comprise of less than 2% of my visitors, and falling (hurray!). Yes, I know fluid design can accommodate all, but sometimes needs necessitate static widths.
However, IE6 still accounts for ~20% of my visitors, so no matter what Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc. says, until that number drops well below 10%, I will still support it.