I say go ahead ABC and DVR mfgs. If this is the future for DVR technology, it will create a market with a demand for DVR's with commercial skip and fast forward buttons still enabled. Anyone up for designing a DVR with a big fat FF button on the remote?
Oooooh, and you could advertise your super-swank DVR with the extra large FF button on ABC so all those suckers that are forced to watch it will ask themselves "Why the hell don't I have one of those?"
True... but I think the accent might be a pretty good clue as to their origins. As an aside, the German immigration movement occurred in the last half of the 19th century, placing them at generation 2-4 during WWII. Definitely enough time for the accent to be minimized for most of these people.
As a 4th generation Japanese-American I am familiar with the internment of my grandparents' generation during WWII. My grandfather fought in the 442d Combat Batallion for the US while his sister was interned in Tulelake, CA. It seems like the selective internment of a group of people was a harsh response to the threat... my grandfather was dodging bullets in Italy trying to protect the country that temporarily imprisoned his sister, but you'll be hard pressed to find a Japanese-American who complains about this event.
I guess my point is this... it wasn't all Japanese-Americans that were relocated, just those living on the West Coast after Pearl Harbor. And my grandfather's generation of Nissei (2nd Generation Japanese-Americans) were never bitter about their treatment... they understood, as so few do today, that war can bring out the best in people, as well as the worst.
BTW... there was never a formal internment of German-Americans because 2nd or 3rd generation Germans looked just like a typical white American. Japanese-Americans were much easier to identify. I suspect that if Al Queda was a primarily European organization, we wouldn't have companies like Western Union selectively rooting out potential terrorists.
And finally, I think it is hilarious that people (and by that I mean white, middle-class liberals) get up in arms about the treatment of my family during WWII, when I have never heard them get angry or even complain about it. The past is the past, and our future in this great country exists because of the sacrifice of people like my grandfather.
Huh... I've always wondered about this though: You know how they always say that water flushes down the toilet clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the southern... would these clusters be little endian in the US and big endian in Africa?
I don't think I should comment on this without first identifying exactly what my interpretation of a "village" is. When I hear the word "village" I am immediately reminded of the small rural community in which I was raised. To me, "village" in this context means a group of people, collectively forming a community, which is also a member of perhaps many higher levels of community. At the highest level is the entire world which is indeed the entire community of human beings. Beneath that can be such abstractions as: country, state, city, neighborhood, church, etc. So which level of community does this proverb elude to? I tend to think it means the smallest community order in which one resides. The reason is this: the smallest community to which you belong is impacted the most by your actions, and the actions of your children. So finally I come to this conclusion: it does, to some degree, take a village to raise a child... but that village does not include MySpace, corporate America, or the internet. (As a side note, this is an old African proverb... a village truly was a collection of only a few dozen tribesmen and family members).
Secondly, while I agree with the spirit of this proverb given my assumption about what constitutes a "village", the proverb does assume one thing: that the members of the "village" not only have an interest in raising a child, but are also qualified to raise that child. And ultimately, who makes that determination? The parents? I think so... others might argue that it's the state, or government. I absolutely shudder at the thought of this, which brings me to my next point...
This proverb has taken on a new meaning from what it historically meant and today it is a banner of liberal dogma that so many people gather around... the funny thing is that this saying was popularized among liberals in recent years in a book by Hillary Clinton. Her message was this: our public education system is well equiped to provide a first rate education for our children. Funny... Chelsea Clinton never attended public school. I know this may be slightly out of the realm of this discussion, but to use another tired saying: when one of the major proponents of what I'll call "the country as a village theory" doesn't put her kid "where her mouth is"... it tells you something.
But there are other factors involved and some are indeed more powerful.
True... but only if the parent allows them to be more powerful from the beginning. Growing up, my parents made the decision to monitor most every activity in which I was involved outside of the home... it wasn't invasion of privacy, it was concern. And now, as a result, I have a college education, an excellent career, I'm married to a bright young lady, looking to start a family of my own one day, and my relationship with my parents has evolved into one of utter respect and admiration. How fortunate I am that "the other factors" never were really that powerful to me, because my parents never allowed them to be. Left to my own devices, and the un-checked direction of others, I may well be one of the millions of sob-stories in this country.
If you don't quite understand what I mean about all of this, I direct you to the Blank Slate theory developed by the 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
I know it's a long post, but one final note: when something goes wrong with a kid... he breaks the law, she flees the country, he brings a knife to school, etc. who are the first people to be contacted, and sometimes eventually blamed? The parents. If I am to be held accountable for the actions of my child, there is no way in hell I'm going to let someone else influence my kid to such a degree that it becomes "more powerful".
"But you can't just type in my real name in Google and see 183 reasons to fire me, 26 reasons to arrest me, and four reasons to execute me for treason"
Don't be so sure... Haven't you heard about "Google DirtFinder Beta"?:-)
Today, many children are left to raise themselves, by parents consumed by alchoholism, workoholism, or any other -ism you can think of. Everything about the family structure implies the responsibility of parenthood... it's inherently biological. Does MySpace have a vested interest in the safety of these teenagers? Not really... they'll go only as far as it takes to keep their collective asses out of court. That goes for any other company out there with offerings targeted at our youth. What it boils down to is an issue of trust... can you as a parent trust another person/group/school/company/etc to always have your child's best interests at heart? If not, it's up to you as the parent to regulate and/or monitor their interaction with these entities. Is this a "gross oversimplification"? Maybe... but ultimately, parents are the front line of defense for their children, and when no one else will protect them from these dangers... it becomes their duty.
Call it a "mantra" if you like... but, just like a famous Hindu mantra: "from non-being to being lead me, from darkness to light lead me"
Absolutely correct, and while I think it's cute that camps are taking an interest in the kids that attend, where are the parents in all of this? There's no doubt that these social networking sites can be dangerous for teenage girls who can't keep their lid shut about personal issues (have you ever met a teenage girl who could?), so why are parents not taking an active interest in their children's online activity?
Re:Still have flashbacks ...
on
Quake is 10
·
· Score: 1
I love the smell of burning Strogg flesh in the morning.
As for "32-bit value" vs. "four 8-bit values", I must say I wouldn't see the difference.
There is no difference! A 32-bit value yields 2^32 possibilities (4294967296) and 4 8-bit values yields (2^8)^4 possibilities (also 4294967296). Whatever way they are transmitted in the IP packet is irrelevent... an address 192.168.0.1 can be represented as 0x0100A8C0 in a 32-bit value or 0xC0 0xA8 0x00 0x01 in 4 8-bit values...
I am suggesting a _new_ way here
You are essentially trying to solve the same problem that IPv6 already solves... the limit on the number of hosts that the protocol will support. Hate to say it, but all that brain power has gone to waste mulling over this one...
I don't disagree with your statements, but this is not about NDA's. This guy never entered into an NDA with Apple. NDA means Non-Disclosure AGREEMENT and requires the consent of both parties. If anything, he might be guilty of corporate espionage.
I hope you're not asking about my educational background so you can jest at my ignorance... and if so, I hope you're sorely disappointed:-) I'll probably not get a response back to this post since I'm a day late, but here goes anyway:
I'm a software engineer. I spent 5 years in college before graduating (never transfer to another school your senior year:-). 2 years of which were in physics. I have a strong scientific background... but I admit, not in biology. I love science, but my true interests are in human behavior.
Why do I believe what I believe? First of all, I prefer a purely agnostic approach to the use of science to create theories, and later prove their validity. Science should start with observation, and not a conclusion. Secondly, my previous statement may be in error... I'm not too proud to admit that:-) BUT, I draw conclusions about topics such as these from the belief that evolution (the macro flavor) is either completely incorrect, mostly incorrect, or at the very least, rooted in poor execution of the scientific method. I'll name two examples for this. BTW, whether they like to admit it or not, EVERYONE else draws conclusions from some basic "worldview"... there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Indoctrination usually occurs at a young age.:-)
-EXAMPLE 1-
When I sit down to write a piece of software, I work within a structured framework to solve a problem. Part of that process is understanding the framework and the set of rules that govern how the end product will work. Our wonderful universe is similar. There are a set of rules that govern the physical inner workings of the universe... and the biological processes as well. This "Biological Rule Set" (in this context, we are talking about evolution) is a subset of the "Physical Rule Set" (we would call this physics).
There is an obvious relationship here... evolution as a subset of physics cannot break the laws of physics. Take thermodynamics, for instance. On a macro scale, we understand that the universe tends towards disorder, rather than order. A cute little example of this: My brakes started going out on my truck last week (of course it had to happen when my car was in the shop). If the car salesman who sold me the truck 10 years ago had made a statement like: "You'll never need to replace this truck! It defies the laws of physics and it is constantly tending towards order, and evolving into a better truck!". We would certainly consider this man foolish, and out of touch with reality. I consider an evolutionist to be just as silly. Why then is evolution still a prevalent theory in science? Because someone early on decided that since we can't witness the process in our short-spanned lives (again, I'm talking about macro-evolution), it must take a really long time. A few others didn't like this idea, and decided that changes occur rapidly, but in spurts... punctuated equilibrium was born. But the problem still remains: How is it that lower ordered creatures could evolve to higher ordered creatures, when doing so breaks a fundamental law of physics?
-EXAMPLE 2-
Since my real interests lie in human behavior, I try to also examine the historical and cultural context and what kind of impact they had on the topic. When evolution was conceived, it flew at the face of established religion. Those early pioneers of evolution were confronted with two problems: actually finding evidence to support evolution, and bearing any persecution sent their way from the established belief systems at the time. When virtually no supporting evidence was found... and Darwin's classical view of evolution was seen as dying due to a lack of evidence in the fossil record (a constraint placed on the theory by Darwin himself), the evolutionary theory turned to politics for its salvation. Roe v. Wade was a turning point for evolution... they slapped an "Approved by Science" sticker on the theory, and the courts
I would have worded it a bit differently, but I think you have a valid point. There is simply no way for us to know whether this creature is a member of a transitional species or just another species that at one time became extinct and until recently has been hidden from the eyes of science.
OK. Just so you know, my response was not an attack on your opinions. I agree with most of your statements and felt that they stood well on their own without you clarifying your bias. IMHO, as soon as you reveal your bias, especially with a polar controversy like religion vs. science, you invite the opposite side of the spectrum to instantly shut you out. The ideas you talked about are too important to fall on deaf ears just because someone is religous and saw that you weren't. Just a thought.
But who am I kidding, is/. really a good place for these kinds conversations?:-)
BTW, I've known some very intellectual thinkers who might be classified as religious. For me, the question of our origins ultimately transcends the divine... either way, our existence is a miracle.
Slashdot Mirror
"I like Windows (cue idiocy)"
:-)
Don't worry, admitting your idiocy is a good first step to quitting.
- Your friendly Windows Rehab Counselor
I'm sorry... you lost me somewhere around "Statistical physicists"...
I say go ahead ABC and DVR mfgs. If this is the future for DVR technology, it will create a market with a demand for DVR's with commercial skip and fast forward buttons still enabled. Anyone up for designing a DVR with a big fat FF button on the remote?
Oooooh, and you could advertise your super-swank DVR with the extra large FF button on ABC so all those suckers that are forced to watch it will ask themselves "Why the hell don't I have one of those?"
Just an idea...
True... but I think the accent might be a pretty good clue as to their origins. As an aside, the German immigration movement occurred in the last half of the 19th century, placing them at generation 2-4 during WWII. Definitely enough time for the accent to be minimized for most of these people.
As a 4th generation Japanese-American I am familiar with the internment of my grandparents' generation during WWII. My grandfather fought in the 442d Combat Batallion for the US while his sister was interned in Tulelake, CA. It seems like the selective internment of a group of people was a harsh response to the threat... my grandfather was dodging bullets in Italy trying to protect the country that temporarily imprisoned his sister, but you'll be hard pressed to find a Japanese-American who complains about this event.
I guess my point is this... it wasn't all Japanese-Americans that were relocated, just those living on the West Coast after Pearl Harbor. And my grandfather's generation of Nissei (2nd Generation Japanese-Americans) were never bitter about their treatment... they understood, as so few do today, that war can bring out the best in people, as well as the worst.
BTW... there was never a formal internment of German-Americans because 2nd or 3rd generation Germans looked just like a typical white American. Japanese-Americans were much easier to identify. I suspect that if Al Queda was a primarily European organization, we wouldn't have companies like Western Union selectively rooting out potential terrorists.
And finally, I think it is hilarious that people (and by that I mean white, middle-class liberals) get up in arms about the treatment of my family during WWII, when I have never heard them get angry or even complain about it. The past is the past, and our future in this great country exists because of the sacrifice of people like my grandfather.
liberalism...
Huh... I've always wondered about this though: You know how they always say that water flushes down the toilet clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and counter-clockwise in the southern... would these clusters be little endian in the US and big endian in Africa?
Good catch. My guess would be that it was a poorly chosen word in the article...
Interesting... I also heard that Intel is looking to off-load their telecom subsidiary, Dialogic. I wonder what's going on with these guys?
That is what school and TV are for.
God I hope that was a joke.
"It takes a village to raise a child"
I don't think I should comment on this without first identifying exactly what my interpretation of a "village" is. When I hear the word "village" I am immediately reminded of the small rural community in which I was raised. To me, "village" in this context means a group of people, collectively forming a community, which is also a member of perhaps many higher levels of community. At the highest level is the entire world which is indeed the entire community of human beings. Beneath that can be such abstractions as: country, state, city, neighborhood, church, etc. So which level of community does this proverb elude to? I tend to think it means the smallest community order in which one resides. The reason is this: the smallest community to which you belong is impacted the most by your actions, and the actions of your children. So finally I come to this conclusion: it does, to some degree, take a village to raise a child... but that village does not include MySpace, corporate America, or the internet. (As a side note, this is an old African proverb... a village truly was a collection of only a few dozen tribesmen and family members).
Secondly, while I agree with the spirit of this proverb given my assumption about what constitutes a "village", the proverb does assume one thing: that the members of the "village" not only have an interest in raising a child, but are also qualified to raise that child. And ultimately, who makes that determination? The parents? I think so... others might argue that it's the state, or government. I absolutely shudder at the thought of this, which brings me to my next point...
This proverb has taken on a new meaning from what it historically meant and today it is a banner of liberal dogma that so many people gather around... the funny thing is that this saying was popularized among liberals in recent years in a book by Hillary Clinton. Her message was this: our public education system is well equiped to provide a first rate education for our children. Funny... Chelsea Clinton never attended public school. I know this may be slightly out of the realm of this discussion, but to use another tired saying: when one of the major proponents of what I'll call "the country as a village theory" doesn't put her kid "where her mouth is"... it tells you something.
But there are other factors involved and some are indeed more powerful.
True... but only if the parent allows them to be more powerful from the beginning. Growing up, my parents made the decision to monitor most every activity in which I was involved outside of the home... it wasn't invasion of privacy, it was concern. And now, as a result, I have a college education, an excellent career, I'm married to a bright young lady, looking to start a family of my own one day, and my relationship with my parents has evolved into one of utter respect and admiration. How fortunate I am that "the other factors" never were really that powerful to me, because my parents never allowed them to be. Left to my own devices, and the un-checked direction of others, I may well be one of the millions of sob-stories in this country.
If you don't quite understand what I mean about all of this, I direct you to the Blank Slate theory developed by the 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
I know it's a long post, but one final note: when something goes wrong with a kid... he breaks the law, she flees the country, he brings a knife to school, etc. who are the first people to be contacted, and sometimes eventually blamed? The parents. If I am to be held accountable for the actions of my child, there is no way in hell I'm going to let someone else influence my kid to such a degree that it becomes "more powerful".
"But you can't just type in my real name in Google and see 183 reasons to fire me, 26 reasons to arrest me, and four reasons to execute me for treason"
:-)
Don't be so sure... Haven't you heard about "Google DirtFinder Beta"?
Today, many children are left to raise themselves, by parents consumed by alchoholism, workoholism, or any other -ism you can think of. Everything about the family structure implies the responsibility of parenthood... it's inherently biological. Does MySpace have a vested interest in the safety of these teenagers? Not really... they'll go only as far as it takes to keep their collective asses out of court. That goes for any other company out there with offerings targeted at our youth. What it boils down to is an issue of trust... can you as a parent trust another person/group/school/company/etc to always have your child's best interests at heart? If not, it's up to you as the parent to regulate and/or monitor their interaction with these entities. Is this a "gross oversimplification"? Maybe... but ultimately, parents are the front line of defense for their children, and when no one else will protect them from these dangers... it becomes their duty.
...from ignorance to truth lead me.
Call it a "mantra" if you like... but, just like a famous Hindu mantra: "from non-being to being lead me, from darkness to light lead me"
Absolutely correct, and while I think it's cute that camps are taking an interest in the kids that attend, where are the parents in all of this? There's no doubt that these social networking sites can be dangerous for teenage girls who can't keep their lid shut about personal issues (have you ever met a teenage girl who could?), so why are parents not taking an active interest in their children's online activity?
I love the smell of burning Strogg flesh in the morning.
float fX = 0.0f;
float fY = 0.0f;
while(1) { fY=sinf(fX = (fX<360.0f) ? fX+1.0f : 0.0f); }
Break-down:
On most loops:
2x FP assignments/loop
1x FP addition/loop
1x FP compare/loop
On one loop every 360:
3x FP assignments/loop
1x FP compare/loop
Plus god knows how many FLOPS sinf uses...
What about "Period-Delimited Quad Octets"? :-) Can I get a slap in the face with a wet fish for that one?
As for "32-bit value" vs. "four 8-bit values", I must say I wouldn't see the difference.
There is no difference! A 32-bit value yields 2^32 possibilities (4294967296) and 4 8-bit values yields (2^8)^4 possibilities (also 4294967296). Whatever way they are transmitted in the IP packet is irrelevent... an address 192.168.0.1 can be represented as 0x0100A8C0 in a 32-bit value or 0xC0 0xA8 0x00 0x01 in 4 8-bit values...
I am suggesting a _new_ way here
You are essentially trying to solve the same problem that IPv6 already solves... the limit on the number of hosts that the protocol will support. Hate to say it, but all that brain power has gone to waste mulling over this one...
Oh shit... I'm already out of time.
I don't disagree with your statements, but this is not about NDA's. This guy never entered into an NDA with Apple. NDA means Non-Disclosure AGREEMENT and requires the consent of both parties. If anything, he might be guilty of corporate espionage.
I hope you're not asking about my educational background so you can jest at my ignorance... and if so, I hope you're sorely disappointed :-) I'll probably not get a response back to this post since I'm a day late, but here goes anyway:
:-). 2 years of which were in physics. I have a strong scientific background... but I admit, not in biology. I love science, but my true interests are in human behavior.
:-) BUT, I draw conclusions about topics such as these from the belief that evolution (the macro flavor) is either completely incorrect, mostly incorrect, or at the very least, rooted in poor execution of the scientific method. I'll name two examples for this. BTW, whether they like to admit it or not, EVERYONE else draws conclusions from some basic "worldview"... there is no such thing as an unbiased person. Indoctrination usually occurs at a young age. :-)
I'm a software engineer. I spent 5 years in college before graduating (never transfer to another school your senior year
Why do I believe what I believe? First of all, I prefer a purely agnostic approach to the use of science to create theories, and later prove their validity. Science should start with observation, and not a conclusion. Secondly, my previous statement may be in error... I'm not too proud to admit that
-EXAMPLE 1-
When I sit down to write a piece of software, I work within a structured framework to solve a problem. Part of that process is understanding the framework and the set of rules that govern how the end product will work. Our wonderful universe is similar. There are a set of rules that govern the physical inner workings of the universe... and the biological processes as well. This "Biological Rule Set" (in this context, we are talking about evolution) is a subset of the "Physical Rule Set" (we would call this physics).
There is an obvious relationship here... evolution as a subset of physics cannot break the laws of physics. Take thermodynamics, for instance. On a macro scale, we understand that the universe tends towards disorder, rather than order. A cute little example of this: My brakes started going out on my truck last week (of course it had to happen when my car was in the shop). If the car salesman who sold me the truck 10 years ago had made a statement like: "You'll never need to replace this truck! It defies the laws of physics and it is constantly tending towards order, and evolving into a better truck!". We would certainly consider this man foolish, and out of touch with reality. I consider an evolutionist to be just as silly. Why then is evolution still a prevalent theory in science? Because someone early on decided that since we can't witness the process in our short-spanned lives (again, I'm talking about macro-evolution), it must take a really long time. A few others didn't like this idea, and decided that changes occur rapidly, but in spurts... punctuated equilibrium was born. But the problem still remains: How is it that lower ordered creatures could evolve to higher ordered creatures, when doing so breaks a fundamental law of physics?
-EXAMPLE 2-
Since my real interests lie in human behavior, I try to also examine the historical and cultural context and what kind of impact they had on the topic. When evolution was conceived, it flew at the face of established religion. Those early pioneers of evolution were confronted with two problems: actually finding evidence to support evolution, and bearing any persecution sent their way from the established belief systems at the time. When virtually no supporting evidence was found... and Darwin's classical view of evolution was seen as dying due to a lack of evidence in the fossil record (a constraint placed on the theory by Darwin himself), the evolutionary theory turned to politics for its salvation. Roe v. Wade was a turning point for evolution... they slapped an "Approved by Science" sticker on the theory, and the courts
I would have worded it a bit differently, but I think you have a valid point. There is simply no way for us to know whether this creature is a member of a transitional species or just another species that at one time became extinct and until recently has been hidden from the eyes of science.
Nice reference to two of my favorite franchises! I guess no one here reads Arthur C. Clark. :-(
Bummer
Do we know the difference between macro- and micro-evolution in this discussion?
OK. Just so you know, my response was not an attack on your opinions. I agree with most of your statements and felt that they stood well on their own without you clarifying your bias. IMHO, as soon as you reveal your bias, especially with a polar controversy like religion vs. science, you invite the opposite side of the spectrum to instantly shut you out. The ideas you talked about are too important to fall on deaf ears just because someone is religous and saw that you weren't. Just a thought.
/. really a good place for these kinds conversations? :-)
But who am I kidding, is
BTW, I've known some very intellectual thinkers who might be classified as religious. For me, the question of our origins ultimately transcends the divine... either way, our existence is a miracle.