I try to avoid using abbreviations in email and SMS (such as "CU l8er") and use proper punctuation because:
1. It takes a negligably longer time to write proper words, 2. I like to do things properly, 3. I consider it polite, and 4. I appreciate proper use of language and grammar.
Unfortunately, the use of such shortcuts has become so rampant that when you don't use them people can mistake your succinct comments as curt or angry (perhaps in the "I'm speaking clearly and slowly because I'm absolutely furious" sense). A good friend took offense at such a message (which was intended to be in good humour) because I didn't use a smily. I tried to explain that if I'm unhappy/angry/offended I'll say so (where possible verbally), and in the absence of any smily a positive sentiment is to be assumed by default. Of course, that didn't cut it. My efforts in writing things 'properly' were completely wasted.
Needless to say, my friend gets smilies in her SMSs now. You can't fight the smily. The smily always wins.;)
There is no 'cure' for cancer because it is not one disease, but many. Most so-called 'cures' for cancer are actually new treatments that generally target a specific form of cancer. Some of them are very successful, and the recovery rate is always increasing, but at the same time we expose ourselves to more and more chemicals and unhhealthy foods that can lead to cancer. I doubt there will ever be a cancer cure-all, but your chances of survival - and recovery - are much higher than fifty years ago.
The closest thing we have to Walmart is probably the grocery chain Woolworths. They were a great supermarket when I was growing up. Then they started undercutting small business. They started a petrol (gas) station chain that was several cents cheaper, with special offers (spend $30 at the supermarket, save 4c/litre at the pump). The smaller stations without the buying power struggled or closed. Then Woolworths started buying the local liquor stores, some of them just so they could close them. They would sell wine at lower prices than the local restaurants could get wholesale. Then their major competitor, Coles, had to start using similar tactics. I think it stinks. You shop with the big boys to save money, you send money out of town, and surrounding local economies suffer, not to mention the families that have spent generations building the local businesses.
Poker machines have arguably had a similar effect on pubs/bars and sports clubs, although they don't belong to any particular institution. Once they were legalised about ten years ago they became the main revenue-raisers, and the hotels couldn't compete just with drink sales any more. Now you're hard-pressed to find one without them, and they wreck thousands of families through gambling addiction. One of South Australia's most respected politicians (he received more votes than the whole of the main opposition party) is called "No pokies". The pokies are not quite Walmart, but they seem to have a similar effect.
Back in primary school (that's Australian for Elementary) I used to draw all the time. It was one of my favourite passtimes, and I was good at it. Then I discovered the addictive world of computer games and programming (although I had been playing games for several games, I wasn't an addict). In high school I spent much less time drawing and more time playing, and what do I have to show for it? Not much. My drawing skills could have been so much better by now. When I realised this, shortly after finishing school, I decided that computer games are not worth investing my time in. At least programming is useful, but if I want a rush I'd rather go ride a mountain bike with friends than pretend to shoot them. I still don't draw much - I've got out of the habit, but I'm not wasting fifteen hours a week gaming. That said, here I am, wasting time on Slashdot...
I'll be really impressed when they build a submarine aircraft carrier that can launch and retrieve drone aircraft underwater, effectively eliminating the need for a runway, greatly decreasing the risk of aerial attack and removing the need to send pilots into battle. Of course, such a move would require designing submersible aircraft. Unless you used a minisub to send choppers to and from the surface... or a minisub that doubles as a helicopter. Now wouldn't that be a great toy if it made it to the consumer market, even as an R/C scale model!
Re:Good to see the NY Times so up to date...
on
Idea Stock Exchange
·
· Score: 0
The HP idea is a way of managing the finances for services provided internally to other departments. This article is about a virtual stock exchange for ideas, so that everyone in the company can submit ideas and support or discuss those they like, with the possibility for being financially rewarded if they get behind ideas that bear fruit. They are not the same idea at all.
if these quarterbacks are able to come up with the very best ideas in the company, shouldn't they receive all the encouragement in the world to dream up new ideas? And shouldn't they share the spoils of this success with the people who can implement these great ideas?
I agree. Just because you're not very practical does not make your ideas worthless. Likewise, not every practical, driven person has any good ideas of their own. Sure, it's great if you can realise your own ideas, but in the majority of cases where this isn't the case, teamwork goes a long way.
Great art has been achieved through artistic 'collectives' - teams of artists who pool their ideas, workshop, work together to produce a quality piece. This is particularly the case with theatre. Sometimes it is done with a director, others without any leader. Both models can work or fail.
Such a system is quite comparable to Slashdot. Although there are moderators and editors, everyone has a voice, and the ability to contribute. Those contributions that are valuable are invested in by moderators, which means they receive more attention.
Well, they didn't with barcodes, which each have sixes at either end and in the middle - two single-width lines with a space in between. These digits, supposedly selected because they are the same in reverse, indicate where the reader should start and stop, and the halfway point at which the numbers are inverted. Such an indicator might also be used on an RFID tag, and the majority of the world would have no idea, just like they have no idea with barcodes. There was even a federal (US) smartcard security experiment with the provocative name of 'MARC' (Multi-technology
Automated Reader Card).
If this gets into the mainstream, how will it affect the titanium market? People might start wanting it on all the surfaces in their home - benches, showers, baby bottles, paint, toys, computer keyboards etc.
And will there be any long-term effects from touching treated surfaces?
A great way to improve your chess skills (and that of your opponent) is to play a game in which you and your opponent tell each other why you are making each move. You get to learn from their strategy and they do from yours. It can still be a competitive game, and it works with people of different skill levels. After a while you might start learning things from your child! It also can make the game more conversational - not so much sitting in silence while one person ponders, as you can discuss your strategy as much as you like.
Anyone who has done any serious reading will know that eerie feeling of encountering someone else who has developed a similar line of thought as one of your own, especially when it comes from a source hundreds or even thousands of years old.
When I was in about grade 6 (around 11 years old) I invented a mag-lev train which wrapped around its track and accelerated using magnets (I can't remember if I knew about electromagnets then). A year or two later I found out there were prototypes in Japan. I also invented car seats that disable the car when you don't have a seatbelt on, then found out similar devices had been around for decades but were rarely used in cars. I came up with lots of cool inventions that others had also invented. Now I'm so busy reading slashdot I don't have a chance to come up with original ideas!
One possible way of reducing our copper usage is to change the ways we transport energy. Carrying electricity for thousands of kilometres is a waste of copper and electricity when the electricity can be generated locally using generators (wind, solar) that are constructed with much less materials than the actual cables. Wireless telecommunications also require much less copper cabling (as do optical cables). The developed world could use much less resources if we shared our possessions rather than insisting on owning everything (why does every house need fifty power and garden tools that are only getting used occasionally and decaying from time rather than use). In reality, most the stuff that the developed world buys (and the developing world often makes) is luxury - gifts that are not needed and rarely used.
Even the huge copper pipelines for oil and gas (and in some cases even water) are built to keep up with the demand of developed-world excess and refusal to use green energy and transport, and many of our developing neighbours are copying our wasteful habits.
I suspect in the next fifty years we will start digging up landfill to recycle metals and other minerals.
When carbon nanotubes become (much) cheaper to produce, we may see copper cables replaced with carbon - very high tensile cables, with high conductivity. And at this stage there is no shortage of carbon...
The last one cent coins were dated 1990 and the last two cent coins were dated 1989. They were progressively removed from circulation starting in 1992... 1c and 2c pieces are still Australian legal tender, but they are not considered as 'currency' (or, money that is officially released for circulation). This means that you can take your old 1c and 2c coins to the bank and exchange them for currency totalling the same face value.
You can still use 1c and 2c pieces, but you never see them any more. If you buy a single 7c washer from a hardware store, you only pay 5c. Some people are suggesting it is time to phase at the 5c piece; washers and lollies are about the only things that cost less than 10c.
Is this a distinct phenomenon from the warp in the milky way reported recently? Or just a different interpretation of the same thing? The warp would also explain the asymmetry of the galaxy as described in the article. They may be separate, but it is interesting that they were reported in the same week.
Quite true. In fact, while some things are very easy to give people for free (like beer, and with some people, software) there are some customers that are more likely be interested in something if they have to pay for it. If you put on a free concert (like a play or something) some people will assume it would be amateur (which it is if the performers are not paid) and by implication poor quality (which is not necessarily the case). Charge five dollars and you can get a crowd.
Cost is assumed to imply quality, reliabilty, longevity. For similar reasons some people will buy the dearer of two virtually identical products - but of course others will automatically select the cheaper!
Unfortunately, it appears that there are many people involved in this debate who do not understand what is being debated, both proponents and opponents of ID. Taking the article at face value, there are a couple of possibilities:
1. Some IDists arguing that our inability to understand something implies that it is designed. This is not a very sound argument - you cannot prove something with ignorance - and it does not really fit with ID theory IMHO.
2. The scientists - or article writers - are misconstruing or simplifying the argument, either in order to debunk it or because they misunderstand it.
If this (ignorance/inexplicability implies design) is in fact the argument in question, one wonders why the scientists would be concerned with it, because it is not a strong argument, nor does debunking it actually affect ID theory, only the reputations of those who use the argument. I am unsure what the original pro-ID bee argument was, but it would be much more fitting (according to my limited understanding) to argue something like:
"The flying mechanisms of a honeybee, which we to some degree understand, is complex and intricate, and includes a number of essential features. Without each of these features/parts, it does not work. Furthermore, removal or modification of any of these features (ie reverse evolution) would result in a useless appendage which would disadvantage the animal. The number of steps or mutations required between a (hypothetical) healthy flightless bee and the precise functioning of a flying honeybee (including both the anatomy and the complex "instinct" required to use it) - and the disadvantage to the supposed intermediate animal in weilding such a mutation - would exlude it from natural selection. It is therefore suggested that some unnatural phenomenon or design was involved in the production of the amazing honeybee, whether that be guided evolution (from flightless to flying), creation in a finished state (ie no flightless be) or some other means."
The premise of this argument is knowledge rather than ignorance of the flight system of a honey bee, and is (I think) somewhat closer to the ID theory of irreducible complexity. It neither excludes or precludes God per se as part of the equation; proving it would not prove God it exists (I suspect that may be impossible) but likewise disproving it would not prove God does not exist.
Anyway, the point is, if you're going to argue about it, for or against, at least know what it is you're arguing about, or you'll only cloud the issue. On that note, some of the originators of ID theory are scientists, who certainly do not advocate ignorance.
"Users should take care not to visit unfamiliar or un-trusted Web sites that could potentially host the malicious code."
Now there's some good advice. Don't go to any website you don't trust. So, how do you tell if a site is trustworthy without going to it? What if MSN search links to a dodgy site? Does their search engine check the sites it crawls for known exploits? How are you supposed to surf the web if you don't visit unfamiliar sites? Does that mean I should just stick to the sites I already trust?
Yes and no. It's a great way to increase the number of brains working for them, but only paying those that come up with the goods. Otherwise they could be paying millions to staff that don't come up with any revolutonary ideas, while the 'visionaries' are out there struggling, their ideas being wasted.
It's kind of similar to putting out a tender for a project. The bidding companies put thousands of dollars and man hours into developing their proposal and finding workable solutions, but only one will win the project.
Yes, but mostly and no.
Wikipedia is quite unique on the web. On most web sites, if you find something inaccurate, you write to the webmaster (if you can find their address) and tell them. If you're lucky, if they want to and if they agree with you, they will change the information according to their own desires. They are accountable to themselves, unless they cross into the libel domain. Wikipedia is accountable to its readership. It has demonstrated that it can and will quickly correct itself if an error is identified.
The article compared Wikipedia to graffiti, but graffiti is a defacement of property, not a resource. And would graffiti be such a problem if there was a can of paint next to each wall, in the same colour as the wall, waiting to remove any defacement? The best remedy to grafitti is to remove it quickly.
Wikipedia is probably the most diverse source of verifiable and moderated information on the web. It is well referenced, and has facilities to acknowledge when information needs verification from an expert. Most of the web has none of these features. The Register does not even appear to have any means of reader discussion. And what are its references? Mostly Wikipedia pages and other Register articles on the same topic.
Sure, it's not perfect, but neither is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it's not trying to be the same thing. It is its own creature, and it will probably never meet the criteria of another system. Those who think it should will probably always find reason to criticise it - and they're probably the people least likely to fix an erroneous article.
Slashdot Mirror
...television marketers have figured out how to clone steak knives!
See the Pedal Prix. Only the Pedal Prix cars are pedal powered.
I try to avoid using abbreviations in email and SMS (such as "CU l8er") and use proper punctuation because:
;)
1. It takes a negligably longer time to write proper words,
2. I like to do things properly,
3. I consider it polite, and
4. I appreciate proper use of language and grammar.
Unfortunately, the use of such shortcuts has become so rampant that when you don't use them people can mistake your succinct comments as curt or angry (perhaps in the "I'm speaking clearly and slowly because I'm absolutely furious" sense). A good friend took offense at such a message (which was intended to be in good humour) because I didn't use a smily. I tried to explain that if I'm unhappy/angry/offended I'll say so (where possible verbally), and in the absence of any smily a positive sentiment is to be assumed by default. Of course, that didn't cut it. My efforts in writing things 'properly' were completely wasted.
Needless to say, my friend gets smilies in her SMSs now. You can't fight the smily. The smily always wins.
There is no 'cure' for cancer because it is not one disease, but many. Most so-called 'cures' for cancer are actually new treatments that generally target a specific form of cancer. Some of them are very successful, and the recovery rate is always increasing, but at the same time we expose ourselves to more and more chemicals and unhhealthy foods that can lead to cancer. I doubt there will ever be a cancer cure-all, but your chances of survival - and recovery - are much higher than fifty years ago.
And yes, you should quit smoking. Right now.
Good answer...I wasn't expecting one. :)
The closest thing we have to Walmart is probably the grocery chain Woolworths. They were a great supermarket when I was growing up. Then they started undercutting small business. They started a petrol (gas) station chain that was several cents cheaper, with special offers (spend $30 at the supermarket, save 4c/litre at the pump). The smaller stations without the buying power struggled or closed. Then Woolworths started buying the local liquor stores, some of them just so they could close them. They would sell wine at lower prices than the local restaurants could get wholesale. Then their major competitor, Coles, had to start using similar tactics. I think it stinks. You shop with the big boys to save money, you send money out of town, and surrounding local economies suffer, not to mention the families that have spent generations building the local businesses.
Poker machines have arguably had a similar effect on pubs/bars and sports clubs, although they don't belong to any particular institution. Once they were legalised about ten years ago they became the main revenue-raisers, and the hotels couldn't compete just with drink sales any more. Now you're hard-pressed to find one without them, and they wreck thousands of families through gambling addiction. One of South Australia's most respected politicians (he received more votes than the whole of the main opposition party) is called "No pokies". The pokies are not quite Walmart, but they seem to have a similar effect.
Back in primary school (that's Australian for Elementary) I used to draw all the time. It was one of my favourite passtimes, and I was good at it. Then I discovered the addictive world of computer games and programming (although I had been playing games for several games, I wasn't an addict). In high school I spent much less time drawing and more time playing, and what do I have to show for it? Not much. My drawing skills could have been so much better by now. When I realised this, shortly after finishing school, I decided that computer games are not worth investing my time in. At least programming is useful, but if I want a rush I'd rather go ride a mountain bike with friends than pretend to shoot them. I still don't draw much - I've got out of the habit, but I'm not wasting fifteen hours a week gaming. That said, here I am, wasting time on Slashdot...
You mean there are times when you can't? So much for freedom...
(Disclaimer: I live in Australia, I've never had the privelege of seeing a Walmart. But I used to work at Kmart).
Wow! This will make wasting time so much more efficient!
I'll be really impressed when they build a submarine aircraft carrier that can launch and retrieve drone aircraft underwater, effectively eliminating the need for a runway, greatly decreasing the risk of aerial attack and removing the need to send pilots into battle. Of course, such a move would require designing submersible aircraft. Unless you used a minisub to send choppers to and from the surface ... or a minisub that doubles as a helicopter. Now wouldn't that be a great toy if it made it to the consumer market, even as an R/C scale model!
The HP idea is a way of managing the finances for services provided internally to other departments. This article is about a virtual stock exchange for ideas, so that everyone in the company can submit ideas and support or discuss those they like, with the possibility for being financially rewarded if they get behind ideas that bear fruit. They are not the same idea at all.
I agree. Just because you're not very practical does not make your ideas worthless. Likewise, not every practical, driven person has any good ideas of their own. Sure, it's great if you can realise your own ideas, but in the majority of cases where this isn't the case, teamwork goes a long way.
Great art has been achieved through artistic 'collectives' - teams of artists who pool their ideas, workshop, work together to produce a quality piece. This is particularly the case with theatre. Sometimes it is done with a director, others without any leader. Both models can work or fail.
Such a system is quite comparable to Slashdot. Although there are moderators and editors, everyone has a voice, and the ability to contribute. Those contributions that are valuable are invested in by moderators, which means they receive more attention.
Well, they didn't with barcodes, which each have sixes at either end and in the middle - two single-width lines with a space in between. These digits, supposedly selected because they are the same in reverse, indicate where the reader should start and stop, and the halfway point at which the numbers are inverted. Such an indicator might also be used on an RFID tag, and the majority of the world would have no idea, just like they have no idea with barcodes. There was even a federal (US) smartcard security experiment with the provocative name of 'MARC' (Multi-technology Automated Reader Card).
If this gets into the mainstream, how will it affect the titanium market? People might start wanting it on all the surfaces in their home - benches, showers, baby bottles, paint, toys, computer keyboards etc.
And will there be any long-term effects from touching treated surfaces?
A great way to improve your chess skills (and that of your opponent) is to play a game in which you and your opponent tell each other why you are making each move. You get to learn from their strategy and they do from yours. It can still be a competitive game, and it works with people of different skill levels. After a while you might start learning things from your child! It also can make the game more conversational - not so much sitting in silence while one person ponders, as you can discuss your strategy as much as you like.
One possible way of reducing our copper usage is to change the ways we transport energy. Carrying electricity for thousands of kilometres is a waste of copper and electricity when the electricity can be generated locally using generators (wind, solar) that are constructed with much less materials than the actual cables. Wireless telecommunications also require much less copper cabling (as do optical cables). The developed world could use much less resources if we shared our possessions rather than insisting on owning everything (why does every house need fifty power and garden tools that are only getting used occasionally and decaying from time rather than use). In reality, most the stuff that the developed world buys (and the developing world often makes) is luxury - gifts that are not needed and rarely used.
Even the huge copper pipelines for oil and gas (and in some cases even water) are built to keep up with the demand of developed-world excess and refusal to use green energy and transport, and many of our developing neighbours are copying our wasteful habits.
I suspect in the next fifty years we will start digging up landfill to recycle metals and other minerals.
When carbon nanotubes become (much) cheaper to produce, we may see copper cables replaced with carbon - very high tensile cables, with high conductivity. And at this stage there is no shortage of carbon...
From the site of the Royal Australian Mint:
... 1c and 2c pieces are still Australian legal tender, but they are not considered as 'currency' (or, money that is officially released for circulation). This means that you can take your old 1c and 2c coins to the bank and exchange them for currency totalling the same face value.
The last one cent coins were dated 1990 and the last two cent coins were dated 1989. They were progressively removed from circulation starting in 1992
You can still use 1c and 2c pieces, but you never see them any more. If you buy a single 7c washer from a hardware store, you only pay 5c. Some people are suggesting it is time to phase at the 5c piece; washers and lollies are about the only things that cost less than 10c.
Is this a distinct phenomenon from the warp in the milky way reported recently? Or just a different interpretation of the same thing? The warp would also explain the asymmetry of the galaxy as described in the article. They may be separate, but it is interesting that they were reported in the same week.
Quite true. In fact, while some things are very easy to give people for free (like beer, and with some people, software) there are some customers that are more likely be interested in something if they have to pay for it. If you put on a free concert (like a play or something) some people will assume it would be amateur (which it is if the performers are not paid) and by implication poor quality (which is not necessarily the case). Charge five dollars and you can get a crowd.
Cost is assumed to imply quality, reliabilty, longevity. For similar reasons some people will buy the dearer of two virtually identical products - but of course others will automatically select the cheaper!
Unfortunately, it appears that there are many people involved in this debate who do not understand what is being debated, both proponents and opponents of ID. Taking the article at face value, there are a couple of possibilities:
1. Some IDists arguing that our inability to understand something implies that it is designed. This is not a very sound argument - you cannot prove something with ignorance - and it does not really fit with ID theory IMHO.
2. The scientists - or article writers - are misconstruing or simplifying the argument, either in order to debunk it or because they misunderstand it.
If this (ignorance/inexplicability implies design) is in fact the argument in question, one wonders why the scientists would be concerned with it, because it is not a strong argument, nor does debunking it actually affect ID theory, only the reputations of those who use the argument. I am unsure what the original pro-ID bee argument was, but it would be much more fitting (according to my limited understanding) to argue something like:
"The flying mechanisms of a honeybee, which we to some degree understand, is complex and intricate, and includes a number of essential features. Without each of these features/parts, it does not work. Furthermore, removal or modification of any of these features (ie reverse evolution) would result in a useless appendage which would disadvantage the animal. The number of steps or mutations required between a (hypothetical) healthy flightless bee and the precise functioning of a flying honeybee (including both the anatomy and the complex "instinct" required to use it) - and the disadvantage to the supposed intermediate animal in weilding such a mutation - would exlude it from natural selection. It is therefore suggested that some unnatural phenomenon or design was involved in the production of the amazing honeybee, whether that be guided evolution (from flightless to flying), creation in a finished state (ie no flightless be) or some other means."
The premise of this argument is knowledge rather than ignorance of the flight system of a honey bee, and is (I think) somewhat closer to the ID theory of irreducible complexity. It neither excludes or precludes God per se as part of the equation; proving it would not prove God it exists (I suspect that may be impossible) but likewise disproving it would not prove God does not exist.
Anyway, the point is, if you're going to argue about it, for or against, at least know what it is you're arguing about, or you'll only cloud the issue. On that note, some of the originators of ID theory are scientists, who certainly do not advocate ignorance.
From Microsoft Security Advisory (912840):
"Users should take care not to visit unfamiliar or un-trusted Web sites that could potentially host the malicious code."
Now there's some good advice. Don't go to any website you don't trust. So, how do you tell if a site is trustworthy without going to it? What if MSN search links to a dodgy site? Does their search engine check the sites it crawls for known exploits? How are you supposed to surf the web if you don't visit unfamiliar sites? Does that mean I should just stick to the sites I already trust?
Yes and no. It's a great way to increase the number of brains working for them, but only paying those that come up with the goods. Otherwise they could be paying millions to staff that don't come up with any revolutonary ideas, while the 'visionaries' are out there struggling, their ideas being wasted.
It's kind of similar to putting out a tender for a project. The bidding companies put thousands of dollars and man hours into developing their proposal and finding workable solutions, but only one will win the project.
Yes, but mostly and no. Wikipedia is quite unique on the web. On most web sites, if you find something inaccurate, you write to the webmaster (if you can find their address) and tell them. If you're lucky, if they want to and if they agree with you, they will change the information according to their own desires. They are accountable to themselves, unless they cross into the libel domain. Wikipedia is accountable to its readership. It has demonstrated that it can and will quickly correct itself if an error is identified.
The article compared Wikipedia to graffiti, but graffiti is a defacement of property, not a resource. And would graffiti be such a problem if there was a can of paint next to each wall, in the same colour as the wall, waiting to remove any defacement? The best remedy to grafitti is to remove it quickly.
Wikipedia is probably the most diverse source of verifiable and moderated information on the web. It is well referenced, and has facilities to acknowledge when information needs verification from an expert. Most of the web has none of these features. The Register does not even appear to have any means of reader discussion. And what are its references? Mostly Wikipedia pages and other Register articles on the same topic.
Sure, it's not perfect, but neither is the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and it's not trying to be the same thing. It is its own creature, and it will probably never meet the criteria of another system. Those who think it should will probably always find reason to criticise it - and they're probably the people least likely to fix an erroneous article.
I'm sorry, I can't read your comment because my browser has crashed.