He is wrong an unbelievable number of times. (Monkeys spouting things off at random get things right occasionally)
He is also incredibly biased. He used to be a big E-Machines hyper until they went with a different underwriter, wherupon he switched 180 degrees, and started blasting E-Machines. A quick web search will quickly verify this.
So much for the "chinese wall" between the analysts and underwriters at the big accounting firms.
Re:I still think Southpark had the best answer....
on
Video Games and ADD
·
· Score: 1
With a true ADD kid this makes it worse.
Saying "study because you have to" is going to cause that ADD kid to rebel.
They need to understand why they should be studying, to internalize it.
When they get to the stage where they're asking for your help to remind them that they're wandering, you're set....
I have ADD, and can usually sit at video games for hours, but not D2. If I had to actually think or if it actually required a little bit of reaction time, maybe I'd find it a little less boring...
ADD is an attention disorder. Sometimes you hyperfocus, sometimes you have no attention whatsoever. If you are doing what you like and what you think is important, you can get into this amazing hyperfocus state. Man, it's awesome. Learn to turn it on when you want and you can take on the world.
The trick is to hyperfocus on things that are important. Get addicted to stuff like exercise rather than UO.
I don't have a problem missing lunch. Let's just say that I could afford to skip a few.:)
Yes, I am fairly young, but I'm actually older than most of the guys at my company. Plus, I've been coding fairly regularly since I was 12, so I've got more experience than many of the others combined. Which means I'm somewhat senior. Which means more design documents and less coding... I love writing design docs, but I have lots of trouble finishing them.
I haven't been fired, but after 3 years in the work world, I'm on my 3rd job. All 3 are very different. (FPGA design, embedded software and large project).
By the way, do you have trouble shifting from one task to another, or getting back into something one you have been distracted? I know I sure do. Good luck with your work, hope you can bet back to some real coding soon.
Sometimes. It depends on whether I was in "the zone" before I was distracted, or not!
Good luck with your son. I'm fairly sure that if you would have been with him his entire life, he would find reading interesting, as you do. I'm certain that I got it from my mother, who I'm fairly sure has ADD as well. Keep setting a good example.
Reading is awesome, isn't it? It's the best way to ignore teachers without getting into trouble too much....
My problem at work is that I have some amazing coworkers. I have to hyperfocus consistently to keep up with them. This summer was hard. I broke my ankle, so without exercise, my ADD got a lot worse. Plus, I've been working on design documents rather than actually coding. I was diagnosed a few weeks ago, and things are really starting to turn around now. I'm not going to fix it by switching jobs this time....
Obviously, my ADD is not typical, but I do not have the attention span to watch TV. I mean, I can sit down and flip through the channels, but after about 15 minutes, I get bored and walk away. No way can I sit through a whole program. So about once a month I sit down to watch TV to catch some of the new commercials, but that's all the TV I watch.
Again, most twitch video games are the same. I can do well for a while. But if you get blown away every time you get distracted, you lose the incentive.
On the other hand, I can go "hyperfocus" (that state that ADD'ers love) on games like Civilization. I remember sitting down to play that game at about 10PM and not looking up until I won the game (it was daylight outside).
Novels are another great way to focus. Once you can read quickly, a novel moves so much faster than those boring TV shows. I guess I'm lucky, because most ADD people have trouble concentrating enough to read properly.
I used to hyperfocus on coding, but I'm losing that. Getting paid for what you love is a nasty way to turn it into work. Ugh.
1) Analysts predict 11% growth per quarter for AMD. That's 51% annualized. I'd like to hear your definition of a bad projection. Stock in the toilet? 1 year the stock was $18, now its $70. Almost 4x. Nice work if you can get it...
2) AMD has a history of getting screwed by their partners. (Via, for example). Why would Nokia, Volkswagen and Nortel give them "supplier of the year awards" if they regularly screwed people?
3) no comment
4) This is mainly a cross-patent deal! In this patent lawsuit world everybody needs as many patents as they can get their hand on. Both AMD & Transmeta have filed for lots of "fundamental" patents. It's insurance against Intel, who have been known to file lawsuits against AMD in the past...
Secondly, they are cooperating on infrastructure. Both AMD and Transmeta have abandoned Intel architectures such as Socket 7 and Slot 1 that clone makers have traditionally used in the past. Nobody considered AMD big enough to get chipset support without using an Intel architecture -- they got around this by using the Compaq Alpha system bus, which had little market share but lots of mind share. I see this deal as continuing this philosophy.
5) AMD has a short ratio over 10%. Wall street HATES this stock. AMD's performance before the last 12 months has been DISMAL, so wall street figures AMD will screw up again. This time it's Intel thats been screwing up. (ever try to buy a 1GHz P3? Rambus, that was a smart move, not to mention having to recall all of those i820 motherboards....)
This deal makes lots of sense to both parties.. It may fall through, but it is far from a hoax.
The movies say "clones are evil". Without more technologies, most of the scenaries are impossible. For instance, clone armies require thousands/millions of host mothers plus ~20 years of education/training/maturation time.
Organ farms? The technology to just grow the organs themselves seems much more promising. One cannot grow adult organs without >10 years of maturation time, a host womb as well as a brain in the host. (any organs grown in a host without a brain will be pretty unhealthy). And if the host has a brain, then harvesting it for organs is called murder, and can get you life in jail.
And if Jurassic Park is created, I'll be one of the first in line. They've kept elephants & tigers in zoos for ages, why can't they keep dinasours? If dinasours were anything special they'd still be around...
Remember what Thomas Edison said: "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration"
Which is one of the best arguments I've heard for abandoning patents.
If it takes 99% of the effort to replicate somebody's work than it does in the first place, that's the situation we want to be in. Without competition, capitalism fails. It costs their competitors virtually as much to join the club, yet Amazon has the critical first-mover advantage.
The impression I got from my law class was that if there is no direct precedence, the judge will use the decision of other courts as precedence, although he may give it less weight.
For example, if there is no precedence for a case in Canada, the judge will look for similar cases in the UK or the rest of Commonwealth, and if there isn't any there may even consider precedents from US jurisdictions.
This is a very good question. If your neighbor was working in a traditional industry, an economist would assume that you neighbor was doing the most he could do for society, by doing the most he could for himself. Of course, such an assumption is obviously false, but it works very well.
However, in the software industry, the government grants monopoly protection in the form of copyrights to the developers of software. This generally results in higher-priced software than one would normally expect.
It's still "fair" pricing -- at least with copyright law, as opposed to patent law, if you don't like what somebody is charging for something, you don't have to pay her.
But the fact remains, under copyright monopolies, prices are determined differently, so the incentives are different, and its reasonable to question whether people are choosing the profession where they can do the most good in the world. (assuming that the amount of good is related to how much you are paid -- obviously false, but better than any other definition I'm aware of).
Oil is simply a convenient, portable source of energy. The supply of this is close enough to infinite for an economist.
"Over the last century these things have been mostly true. Over the course of recorded human history, they have not. Which is more likely to hold true in the long run? "
Over the last century these things have been mostly true. Over the course of recorded human history? I would argue they have been true as well. The development of substitutes and innovations like scientific farming requires PEOPLE. Over most of human history, there have only been a few million people, so of course the rate of innovation has been much slower.
"Which is more likely to hold true over the long run?"
I'd bet money on Julian Simon's version. I don't see innovation slowing down. And we have a good population base.
I don't understand this "more people is bad" meme.
Look at the people we have and have had in our world: (to list a few relevant to the Slashdot crowd): Torvalds, Stallman, Einstein, Turing, Tesla, Newton, etc. Do you not think the presence of people like this and lesser contributors more than makes up for the losers in the world? Don't you think that if we had more people with access to opportunity, we'd have more people of this calibre and the world would be a better place?
The resources argument is invalid: this is shown by the low prices of food and commodities. The pollution argument is invalid: we have less pollution now than we used to, even though we have more people.
Luckily many of the misguided population organizations are acheiving means I approve of anyways: distributing contraceptives and education in the 3rd world raises the standard of living there.
I want to live in a world where any of the 6 billion people of the world have the opportunity be a Linus or an Einstein. If this is any of 12, we've just doubled our chances, haven't we?
To study this further, read Julian Simon. It's too bad he's no longer around to utterly humiliate Erlich with accurate predictions.
Why do we need another standard? There is already a way to send uncompressed audio and MIDI information over 1394, as well as video and everything else.
Yamaha is the biggest proponent of the audio over 1394 standards. And they're a much bigger player in the digital music market than Gibson.
The timing might be slightly better in the Gibson spec, though. 1394 is great for stereo signals and would work well for source signals, but the timing is not quite good enough to seperate a mixed signal. You need picosecond resolution for that. In other words, 1394 is good enough to run signals from the mics to the mixing board, and from the mixing board to the amplifiers, but you wouldn't want to run 1394 from the amplifier to the speakers. (well you could, but some audiophiles might complain)
1394 is an open standard that has been in public discussion for a long time, and promises to interconnect a large variety of devices.
I don't think that the Gibson spec will be any cheaper than 1394. A 100Mb Ethernet PHY is cheaper than a 400Mb 1394 PHY, but the data/link IC is as yet unknown....
Slashdot Mirror
He is wrong an unbelievable number of times. (Monkeys spouting things off at random get things right occasionally)
He is also incredibly biased. He used to be a big E-Machines hyper until they went with a different underwriter, wherupon he switched 180 degrees, and started blasting E-Machines. A quick web search will quickly verify this.
So much for the "chinese wall" between the analysts and underwriters at the big accounting firms.
With a true ADD kid this makes it worse.
Saying "study because you have to" is going to cause that ADD kid to rebel.
They need to understand why they should be studying, to internalize it.
When they get to the stage where they're asking for your help to remind them that they're wandering, you're set....
Am I the only one that finds Diablo II boring?
I have ADD, and can usually sit at video games for hours, but not D2. If I had to actually think or if it actually required a little bit of reaction time, maybe I'd find it a little less boring...
Cocaine is supposedly a very effective medication for ADD.
:)
Unfortunately, the side effects are a little nasty.
Playing UO 24/7 is typical ADD.
ADD is an attention disorder. Sometimes you hyperfocus, sometimes you have no attention whatsoever. If you are doing what you like and what you think is important, you can get into this amazing hyperfocus state. Man, it's awesome. Learn to turn it on when you want and you can take on the world.
The trick is to hyperfocus on things that are important. Get addicted to stuff like exercise rather than UO.
Yes, I am fairly young, but I'm actually older than most of the guys at my company. Plus, I've been coding fairly regularly since I was 12, so I've got more experience than many of the others combined. Which means I'm somewhat senior. Which means more design documents and less coding... I love writing design docs, but I have lots of trouble finishing them.
I haven't been fired, but after 3 years in the work world, I'm on my 3rd job. All 3 are very different. (FPGA design, embedded software and large project).
By the way, do you have trouble shifting from one task to another, or getting back into something one you have been distracted? I know I sure do. Good luck with your work, hope you can bet back to some real coding soon.
Sometimes. It depends on whether I was in "the zone" before I was distracted, or not!
later,
Bryan
Good luck with your son. I'm fairly sure that if you would have been with him his entire life, he would find reading interesting, as you do. I'm certain that I got it from my mother, who I'm fairly sure has ADD as well. Keep setting a good example.
Reading is awesome, isn't it? It's the best way to ignore teachers without getting into trouble too much....
My problem at work is that I have some amazing coworkers. I have to hyperfocus consistently to keep up with them. This summer was hard. I broke my ankle, so without exercise, my ADD got a lot worse. Plus, I've been working on design documents rather than actually coding. I was diagnosed a few weeks ago, and things are really starting to turn around now. I'm not going to fix it by switching jobs this time....
Obviously, my ADD is not typical, but I do not have the attention span to watch TV. I mean, I can sit down and flip through the channels, but after about 15 minutes, I get bored and walk away. No way can I sit through a whole program. So about once a month I sit down to watch TV to catch some of the new commercials, but that's all the TV I watch.
Again, most twitch video games are the same. I can do well for a while. But if you get blown away every time you get distracted, you lose the incentive.
On the other hand, I can go "hyperfocus" (that state that ADD'ers love) on games like Civilization. I remember sitting down to play that game at about 10PM and not looking up until I won the game (it was daylight outside).
Novels are another great way to focus. Once you can read quickly, a novel moves so much faster than those boring TV shows. I guess I'm lucky, because most ADD people have trouble concentrating enough to read properly.
I used to hyperfocus on coding, but I'm losing that. Getting paid for what you love is a nasty way to turn it into work. Ugh.
Huh?
1) Analysts predict 11% growth per quarter for AMD. That's 51% annualized. I'd like to hear your definition of a bad projection. Stock in the toilet? 1 year the stock was $18, now its $70. Almost 4x. Nice work if you can get it...
2) AMD has a history of getting screwed by their partners. (Via, for example). Why would Nokia, Volkswagen and Nortel give them "supplier of the year awards" if they regularly screwed people?
3) no comment
4) This is mainly a cross-patent deal! In this patent lawsuit world everybody needs as many patents as they can get their hand on. Both AMD & Transmeta have filed for lots of "fundamental" patents. It's insurance against Intel, who have been known to file lawsuits against AMD in the past...
Secondly, they are cooperating on infrastructure. Both AMD and Transmeta have abandoned Intel architectures such as Socket 7 and Slot 1 that clone makers have traditionally used in the past. Nobody considered AMD big enough to get chipset support without using an Intel architecture -- they got around this by using the Compaq Alpha system bus, which had little market share but lots of mind share. I see this deal as continuing this philosophy.
5) AMD has a short ratio over 10%. Wall street HATES this stock. AMD's performance before the last 12 months has been DISMAL, so wall street figures AMD will screw up again. This time it's Intel thats been screwing up. (ever try to buy a 1GHz P3? Rambus, that was a smart move, not to mention having to recall all of those i820 motherboards....)
This deal makes lots of sense to both parties.. It may fall through, but it is far from a hoax.
Bryan
"DOesn't that sound like it could be a problem"?
Why? Because you saw it in the movies?
The movies say "clones are evil". Without more technologies, most of the scenaries are impossible. For instance, clone armies require thousands/millions of host mothers plus ~20 years of education/training/maturation time.
Organ farms? The technology to just grow the organs themselves seems much more promising. One cannot grow adult organs without >10 years of maturation time, a host womb as well as a brain in the host. (any organs grown in a host without a brain will be pretty unhealthy). And if the host has a brain, then harvesting it for organs is called murder, and can get you life in jail.
And if Jurassic Park is created, I'll be one of the first in line. They've kept elephants & tigers in zoos for ages, why can't they keep dinasours? If dinasours were anything special they'd still be around...
Bryan
Remember what Thomas Edison said: "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration"
Which is one of the best arguments I've heard for abandoning patents.
If it takes 99% of the effort to replicate somebody's work than it does in the first place, that's the situation we want to be in. Without competition, capitalism fails. It costs their competitors virtually as much to join the club, yet Amazon has the critical first-mover advantage.
Bryan
The impression I got from my law class was that if there is no direct precedence, the judge will use the decision of other courts as precedence, although he may give it less weight.
For example, if there is no precedence for a case in Canada, the judge will look for similar cases in the UK or the rest of Commonwealth, and if there isn't any there may even consider precedents from US jurisdictions.
Bryan
This is a very good question. If your neighbor was working in a traditional industry, an economist would assume that you neighbor was doing the most he could do for society, by doing the most he could for himself. Of course, such an assumption is obviously false, but it works very well.
However, in the software industry, the government grants monopoly protection in the form of copyrights to the developers of software. This generally results in higher-priced software than one would normally expect.
It's still "fair" pricing -- at least with copyright law, as opposed to patent law, if you don't like what somebody is charging for something, you don't have to pay her.
But the fact remains, under copyright monopolies, prices are determined differently, so the incentives are different, and its reasonable to question whether people are choosing the profession where they can do the most good in the world. (assuming that the amount of good is related to how much you are paid -- obviously false, but better than any other definition I'm aware of).
Bryan
Oil is simply a convenient, portable source of energy. The supply of this is close enough to infinite for an economist.
"Over the last century these things have been mostly true. Over the course of recorded human history, they have not. Which is more likely to hold true in the long run? "
Over the last century these things have been mostly true. Over the course of recorded human history? I would argue they have been true as well. The development of substitutes and innovations like scientific farming requires PEOPLE. Over most of human history, there have only been a few million people, so of course the rate of innovation has been much slower.
"Which is more likely to hold true over the long run?"
I'd bet money on Julian Simon's version. I don't see innovation slowing down. And we have a good population base.
Want a repeat of the Erlich-Simon bet?
Bryan
I don't understand this "more people is bad" meme.
Look at the people we have and have had in our world: (to list a few relevant to the Slashdot crowd): Torvalds, Stallman, Einstein, Turing, Tesla, Newton, etc. Do you not think the presence of people like this and lesser contributors more than makes up for the losers in the world? Don't you think that if we had more people with access to opportunity, we'd have more people of this calibre and the world would be a better place?
The resources argument is invalid: this is shown by the low prices of food and commodities. The pollution argument is invalid: we have less pollution now than we used to, even though we have more people.
Luckily many of the misguided population organizations are acheiving means I approve of anyways: distributing contraceptives and education in the 3rd world raises the standard of living there.
I want to live in a world where any of the 6 billion people of the world have the opportunity be a Linus or an Einstein. If this is any of 12, we've just doubled our chances, haven't we?
To study this further, read Julian Simon. It's too bad he's no longer around to utterly humiliate Erlich with accurate predictions.
Bryan
Cowpland != Corel, but
Corel = COwpland REsearch Laboratories.
It would definitely affect Corel significantly if Cowpland were to step down. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of debate...
Bryan
Why do we need another standard? There is already a way to send uncompressed audio and MIDI information over 1394, as well as video and everything else.
Yamaha is the biggest proponent of the audio over 1394 standards. And they're a much bigger player in the digital music market than Gibson.
The timing might be slightly better in the Gibson spec, though. 1394 is great for stereo signals and would work well for source signals, but the timing is not quite good enough to seperate a mixed signal. You need picosecond resolution for that. In other words, 1394 is good enough to run signals from the mics to the mixing board, and from the mixing board to the amplifiers, but you wouldn't want to run 1394 from the amplifier to the speakers. (well you could, but some audiophiles might complain)
1394 is an open standard that has been in public discussion for a long time, and promises to interconnect a large variety of devices.
I don't think that the Gibson spec will be any cheaper than 1394. A 100Mb Ethernet PHY is cheaper than a 400Mb 1394 PHY, but the data/link IC is as yet unknown....