But surely there must be more beneath the surface than blaming our beloved television?
Sure there is. Human nature and modelling are to blame. People do what they see. People who want to do something already are more likely to do it if they see others engaging in the same activity.
TV is different from music and video games. Music doesn't lend itself to modelling as there's no strict video component. Any violence in video games (and for the same reason animation) is easier to write off as it's a given that the worlds are artificial--they even look artificial. With standard television there aren't so many reality-check cues.
Think about how your notions of romance are related to portrayals in movies and television shows. We're all sheep.
Yes, yes, and while you're spending fifteen minutes a day accomplishing your grand project of cleaning your bathroom, successful people will be putting in the 80 hours a week it takes to do something worthwhile.
So, if your goal is to reorganize your record collection, you might be okay w/ 15 minutes a day. If you want to build an addition to your house, you might want to step it up a bit if you don't want a lot of problems. If you want to win the Nobel Prize and/or be a useful member of the human race, you should probably try for a hell of a lot more.
Re:Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
on
A Good Summer Read?
·
· Score: 0
...will blow your mind--right out of your ass. Rarely has there surfaced a work so deserving of the title "Pompous Piece of Horse Dung" as Goedel, Escher, Bach. The reviews are in--GEB is "Unreadable Garbage" fit only for "those with adequate pocket protection and a sufficient lack of neuronal connections"!!! "If your parrot is complaining that the newspaper is such an obvious target, BUY THIS BOOK!!!"
The real question is whether the submitter knew the origin and full meaning of the word "hysterical"
I suppose so. Not 5 minutes after I finished the article, my uterus shot up through my mid-section and started floating around in my armpit. Thankfully, my internal masseur is around to work it back into place.
In short, Paul Graham is a geek by association, because of what he decided he likes to do,
Hmmm--that's interesting. You believe that people actually decide what they like to do. Couldn't you just as well say that not all people who like to program are geeks--that is, that the genetic components and/or life experiences related to skill and interest in algorithmic and system design are not necessarily linked?
What would I sue them for? The violation of my constitutional rights
You're kidding, right? You do know that the Constitution delineates the behavior of the United States Government, right? It really has no direct applicability to corporations.
Yeah, O'Reilly is a real trooper with these copyrights. Maybe one of these days, the company will start assigning copyrights to the authors instead of hoarding them for itself. Presumably the texts are works for hire.
What I didn't see is ho well it integrates into an existing site, so theoretically people buy a CD without even knowing they're in a frame on a different site. Maybe I just answered my own question.
Check out the demo page. It probably answers your question.
Last I heard, CDBaby takes $4 per CD. Of course, they handle warehousing and shipping for you, but then you have to pay to send the CDs to them. For most sales, they also add the standard handling fees that the musician won't see.
So, you could sell your CD for $14 + $2.25 shipping and make $10, or you could sell your CD for $14 + $2.25 and make $15+ before shipping costs. Or, you could sell your CD for $10 + $2 shipping, get about $10 and maybe sell more because of the cheaper price.
As for marketing, you're absolutely right. Labels also take care of weeding the wheat from the chaff (in their opinion), something that indie sales and promotion sites generally don't do (Think of MP3.com). I gather that most musicians want the first problem solved w/o consideration for the second--something that just isn't economically feasible. So for now, you settle for word-of-mouth and hope that sites like CDBaby and FatChuck's Music help you extend the loudness of the mouth.
Several months ago I read a post here that got me thinking about my SSN. According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID).
Find someone older who has an SSN card. It was printed on the card itself that the number was not to be used as an ID.
Q21: When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?
A: The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936, they did not have this legend. Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972. The legend has not been on any new cards issued since 1972."
Even more relevant evidence is the nature of academic research. "Our money" also funds several computer science projects annually through the DoD, the NSF, the NIH, etc. The actual systems built, however, often remain the property of the academic institution or the granting agency to be used as seen fit. While some universities have taken it upon themselves to allow the release of tools developed by research faculty, it is the university's choice to do so.
The idea of "Our Money" doesn't enter into the picture at all.
Heh, it's "our money" funding the gasoline and automobile industry, fast food chains, Microsoft. Maybe they should GPL everything!!
Don't be a moron. It wasn't a quote. It was you stating what could either be third-hand information or just plain fantasy. A quote usually has a source other than "I heard somewhere..."
Calling something a quote and then not citing a source makes the information useless at best.
What should I take into consideration (academically) when I select a grad school for MSE?
Take into consideration that application does not guarantee admission. A number of schools are scaling back on the number of M.Sc. applicants that they accept in favor of Ph.D.'s. In addition, not all universities will fund a M.Sc. student these days, so acceptance doesn't guarantee support.
So, look at what schools will actually support M.Sc. students, or start looking for a program close to where you work and try to get your employer to foot the bill for a part-time program.
Oh, and you'll probably want to count the number of faculty members that do research in software engineering as opposed to the other subdisciplines--and check their age. My school had 4 software engineering professors 4 years ago--now it has 1. They retired, and the M.Sc. in SE that used to be offered is no longer meaningful.
Of course don't forget the fact that the grad student makes 15k/yr as a TA, while the BS guy makes say, 45-65k starting.
Don't be a moron. That BS guy is making 45 to 65k starting, but someone with a M.Sc. will make 65 to 80k starting. As for investing that extra money you make not being a TA, it's not going to happen. The new car, new stereo, new computer syndrome hits when you go from living next to a crack house to making 50k a year. The extra couple of years in grad school might give you enough perspective to just buy a new car and leave the rest of it alone.
Right, all those shitty jobs you get with a BS CMU CS degree like this guy.
A B.Sc. is a B.Sc. There are just some jobs that you can't get without the paper or possibly 10 years of experience. If you want to be a project manager (or higher), then you get the degree.
As to the guy who was shocked that someone three years out of school was going back for a master's in software engineering, it sure beats getting your master's right after your bachelors. That's one degree move I don't understand, especially if they're in the same field.
Don't be a moron. Even if you get a B.Sc. and go into industry, by the time it takes you to get that 2 year M.Sc. degree, you won't be making near the starting pay of someone who went those extra couple of years. That doesn't even take into account the sort of shitty jobs you get with a B.Sc. and no experience.
As an interesting aside, I've read that masters students generally end up making less money over their lifetime than BSers that would have invested the money they would have spent on their education. This is an on-average thing over the past ten years or something similar.
Don't be a moron. Either your employer or the department funds your graduate degree, otherwise you don't go. If your employer funds it, you're making the same money. If the department funds it, you're making less cash for 2 years. Starting salaries for M.Sc. tend to be 20k higher than that for B.Sc. only. Not to mention that some of the better jobs in the industry require more than an undergraduate degree, regardless of institution.
Look, the topic of the inadequacy of the patent office has been brought up on Slashdot several, several times. Now there is incontrovertible proof that the USPTO is incompetent. Why not use this patent as an example in a plea to your legislators to reexamine the methods of patent granting in the United States?
Sen X may not understand the ridiculous nature of One-Click Shopping, but she's bound to know that Sideways Swinging should never have been approved.
I'm not usually one to advocate this, but go to grad school. You'll hook up with the people who are developing what will be the standard years from now, and are researching the bleeding edge.
Grad school will break you out of the its-been-done rut you seem to be in.
Delusions. In grad school, you'll start out covering the same old "core" material. When you start working on research, you'll have to get lucky enough to find an advisor doing something related to your interests. Oh, and you'll need to get interested in something.
Sounds like the problem is you want to be a superstar, but you don't have any motivation. Things don't really work like that. If you were motivated, you would be doing interesting things already, and maybe one of those things would be a "big deal." You need to motivate yourself.
What do you do when it isn't fun any more, but you'd like it to be?
Take a long break from it. Read books, get away for awhile. Think about what made it fun in the first place and try to find out where your interests lie. If your stuck, go back and really read your CS books from upper-level courses. See if any of the topics seems interesting at all. If so, do that. If not, explore topics that either weren't offered by your school or that you didn't take.
If none of that works, get a random job in the industry. There's nothing like 8+ mind-numbing, stress-filled hours a day doing exactly what you hate to get you thinking about what you REALLY want to do.
When I was balked finding a research topic, I took the big, insurmountable idea that got me started in computers and wittled it down until I had a manageable piece. That became my starting point. It took forever, and it required a little work researching the subfield, but it got me there.
If you don't want an advanced degree, then once you figure out what sort of programs interest you, or what about programming interests you, get hired by company that does that. Most software houses have enough divisions that you can float around for a bit working in different areas. Hell, try QA.
How is this different from the tizzy raised about the Betamax when it was released? I would guess that the case would be a DMCA vs. the Sony case as far as strategy goes.
The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement.
If the Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profit-making purpose, such use would presumptively be unfair. The contrary presumption is appropriate here, however, because the District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be characterized as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity.
the District Court rejected plaintiffs' suggestion that the commercial attractiveness of television broadcasts would be diminished because Betamax owners would use the pause button or fast-forward control to avoid viewing advertisements
This case wouldn't even be an issue if Replay weren't a digital medium and therefore covered by the DMCA. I suspect that the major networks are counting on the ability of the DMCA to override fair use rights. I don't think it will work. They may be caught trying to defend the notion that the advance button is different from a FFWD button.
Slashdot Mirror
Interview today. I have posted the interview here rather than make a link to CRN as they are sponsoring SCOForum and do not deserve the Hits.
Way to show the world that Linux and Open Source fans would never infringe on copyright. You don't work for SCO by any chance, do you?
But surely there must be more beneath the surface than blaming our beloved television?
Sure there is. Human nature and modelling are to blame. People do what they see. People who want to do something already are more likely to do it if they see others engaging in the same activity.
TV is different from music and video games. Music doesn't lend itself to modelling as there's no strict video component. Any violence in video games (and for the same reason animation) is easier to write off as it's a given that the worlds are artificial--they even look artificial. With standard television there aren't so many reality-check cues.
Think about how your notions of romance are related to portrayals in movies and television shows. We're all sheep.
Bleet Bleet
Yes, yes, and while you're spending fifteen minutes a day accomplishing your grand project of cleaning your bathroom, successful people will be putting in the 80 hours a week it takes to do something worthwhile.
So, if your goal is to reorganize your record collection, you might be okay w/ 15 minutes a day. If you want to build an addition to your house, you might want to step it up a bit if you don't want a lot of problems. If you want to win the Nobel Prize and/or be a useful member of the human race, you should probably try for a hell of a lot more.
...will blow your mind--right out of your ass. Rarely has there surfaced a work so deserving of the title "Pompous Piece of Horse Dung" as Goedel, Escher, Bach. The reviews are in--GEB is "Unreadable Garbage" fit only for "those with adequate pocket protection and a sufficient lack of neuronal connections"!!! "If your parrot is complaining that the newspaper is such an obvious target, BUY THIS BOOK!!!"
The real question is whether the submitter knew the origin and full meaning of the word "hysterical"
I suppose so. Not 5 minutes after I finished the article, my uterus shot up through my mid-section and started floating around in my armpit. Thankfully, my internal masseur is around to work it back into place.
Ahem, Hey OHHHH!
In short, Paul Graham is a geek by association, because of what he decided he likes to do,
Hmmm--that's interesting. You believe that people actually decide what they like to do. Couldn't you just as well say that not all people who like to program are geeks--that is, that the genetic components and/or life experiences related to skill and interest in algorithmic and system design are not necessarily linked?
What would I sue them for?
The violation of my constitutional rights
You're kidding, right? You do know that the Constitution delineates the behavior of the United States Government, right? It really has no direct applicability to corporations.
Yeah, O'Reilly is a real trooper with these copyrights. Maybe one of these days, the company will start assigning copyrights to the authors instead of hoarding them for itself. Presumably the texts are works for hire.
If a piece of work is classifiable as "work for hire," then the publishing company owns the copyright. See this article and a summary of the relevant law. Recently musicians have found their work falling under an expanded clause.
And for all the Flash developers out there... you are NOT programmers. You are "artists".
Umm...no they're not.
I have yet to see a flash animation that looked like art--slideshows of Dali don't count.
What I didn't see is ho well it integrates into an existing site, so theoretically people buy a CD without even knowing they're in a frame on a different site. Maybe I just answered my own question.
Check out the demo page. It probably answers your question.
Last I heard, CDBaby takes $4 per CD. Of course, they handle warehousing and shipping for you, but then you have to pay to send the CDs to them. For most sales, they also add the standard handling fees that the musician won't see.
So, you could sell your CD for $14 + $2.25 shipping and make $10, or you could sell your CD for $14 + $2.25 and make $15+ before shipping costs. Or, you could sell your CD for $10 + $2 shipping, get about $10 and maybe sell more because of the cheaper price.
As for marketing, you're absolutely right. Labels also take care of weeding the wheat from the chaff (in their opinion), something that indie sales and promotion sites generally don't do (Think of MP3.com). I gather that most musicians want the first problem solved w/o consideration for the second--something that just isn't economically feasible. So for now, you settle for word-of-mouth and hope that sites like CDBaby and FatChuck's Music help you extend the loudness of the mouth.
Several months ago I read a post here that got me thinking about my SSN. According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID).
Find someone older who has an SSN card. It was printed on the card itself that the number was not to be used as an ID.
You could also read the FAQ at the ssa ( http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html):
Isn't the Principia Mathematica basically obsolete? Who cares what happens to an old rag except for nostalgia mongers?
Woot! Einstein in da House, yall!
Even more relevant evidence is the nature of academic research. "Our money" also funds several computer science projects annually through the DoD, the NSF, the NIH, etc. The actual systems built, however, often remain the property of the academic institution or the granting agency to be used as seen fit. While some universities have taken it upon themselves to allow the release of tools developed by research faculty, it is the university's choice to do so.
The idea of "Our Money" doesn't enter into the picture at all.
Heh, it's "our money" funding the gasoline and automobile industry, fast food chains, Microsoft. Maybe they should GPL everything!!
Here, read the
Berne Convention.
Don't be a moron. It wasn't a quote. It was you stating what could either be third-hand information or just plain fantasy. A quote usually has a source other than "I heard somewhere..."
Calling something a quote and then not citing a source makes the information useless at best.
What should I take into consideration (academically) when I select a grad school for MSE?
Take into consideration that application does not guarantee admission. A number of schools are scaling back on the number of M.Sc. applicants that they accept in favor of Ph.D.'s. In addition, not all universities will fund a M.Sc. student these days, so acceptance doesn't guarantee support.
So, look at what schools will actually support M.Sc. students, or start looking for a program close to where you work and try to get your employer to foot the bill for a part-time program.
Oh, and you'll probably want to count the number of faculty members that do research in software engineering as opposed to the other subdisciplines--and check their age. My school had 4 software engineering professors 4 years ago--now it has 1. They retired, and the M.Sc. in SE that used to be offered is no longer meaningful.
Of course don't forget the fact that the grad student makes 15k/yr as a TA, while the BS guy makes say, 45-65k starting.
Don't be a moron. That BS guy is making 45 to 65k starting, but someone with a M.Sc. will make 65 to 80k starting. As for investing that extra money you make not being a TA, it's not going to happen. The new car, new stereo, new computer syndrome hits when you go from living next to a crack house to making 50k a year. The extra couple of years in grad school might give you enough perspective to just buy a new car and leave the rest of it alone.
Right, all those shitty jobs you get with a BS CMU CS degree like this guy.
A B.Sc. is a B.Sc. There are just some jobs that you can't get without the paper or possibly 10 years of experience. If you want to be a project manager (or higher), then you get the degree.
Unless you think getting a Master's will get you more money or a better job, you can learn all you need to know from reading some books.
Don't be a moron. Of course getting an M.Sc. will get you a better job and more money.
As to the guy who was shocked that someone three years out of school was going back for a master's in software engineering, it sure beats getting your master's right after your bachelors. That's one degree move I don't understand, especially if they're in the same field.
Don't be a moron. Even if you get a B.Sc. and go into industry, by the time it takes you to get that 2 year M.Sc. degree, you won't be making near the starting pay of someone who went those extra couple of years. That doesn't even take into account the sort of shitty jobs you get with a B.Sc. and no experience.
As an interesting aside, I've read that masters students generally end up making less money over their lifetime than BSers that would have invested the money they would have spent on their education. This is an on-average thing over the past ten years or something similar.
Don't be a moron. Either your employer or the department funds your graduate degree, otherwise you don't go. If your employer funds it, you're making the same money. If the department funds it, you're making less cash for 2 years. Starting salaries for M.Sc. tend to be 20k higher than that for B.Sc. only. Not to mention that some of the better jobs in the industry require more than an undergraduate degree, regardless of institution.
Look, the topic of the inadequacy of the patent office has been brought up on Slashdot several, several times. Now there is incontrovertible proof that the USPTO is incompetent. Why not use this patent as an example in a plea to your legislators to reexamine the methods of patent granting in the United States?
Sen X may not understand the ridiculous nature of One-Click Shopping, but she's bound to know that Sideways Swinging should never have been approved.
Instead of gawking at the absurdity, use it.
AEH
I'm not usually one to advocate this, but go to grad school. You'll hook up with the people who are developing what will be the standard years from now, and are researching the bleeding edge.
Grad school will break you out of the its-been-done rut you seem to be in.
Delusions. In grad school, you'll start out covering the same old "core" material. When you start working on research, you'll have to get lucky enough to find an advisor doing something related to your interests. Oh, and you'll need to get interested in something.
Sounds like the problem is you want to be a superstar, but you don't have any motivation. Things don't really work like that. If you were motivated, you would be doing interesting things already, and maybe one of those things would be a "big deal." You need to motivate yourself.
What do you do when it isn't fun any more, but you'd like it to be?
Take a long break from it. Read books, get away for awhile. Think about what made it fun in the first place and try to find out where your interests lie. If your stuck, go back and really read your CS books from upper-level courses. See if any of the topics seems interesting at all. If so, do that. If not, explore topics that either weren't offered by your school or that you didn't take.
If none of that works, get a random job in the industry. There's nothing like 8+ mind-numbing, stress-filled hours a day doing exactly what you hate to get you thinking about what you REALLY want to do.
When I was balked finding a research topic, I took the big, insurmountable idea that got me started in computers and wittled it down until I had a manageable piece. That became my starting point. It took forever, and it required a little work researching the subfield, but it got me there.
If you don't want an advanced degree, then once you figure out what sort of programs interest you, or what about programming interests you, get hired by company that does that. Most software houses have enough divisions that you can float around for a bit working in different areas. Hell, try QA.
Alive Today?
Robert Pirsig
Kurt Vonnegut
Toni Morrison
Alive until a few years ago...
William Burroughs
Phillip K. Dick
Allen Ginsberg
I've read a few other authors that could produce classics, but arguably still haven't.
Brett Easton Ellis
Chuck Palahniuk
Emily Perkins
See the Supreme Court's opinion on the Betamax issue.
Statements of note:
This case wouldn't even be an issue if Replay weren't a digital medium and therefore covered by the DMCA. I suspect that the major networks are counting on the ability of the DMCA to override fair use rights. I don't think it will work. They may be caught trying to defend the notion that the advance button is different from a FFWD button.