Just to correct you (nothing personal, I'm presuming you appreciate correction where wrong) - it's Loch. The 'ch' is guttural, as if you were pronouncing a German word.
I second xkcd. Randall Munroe posts on here too, occasionally.
If we're doing webcomics...
I also quite like the off-the-wall humour of ctrl-alt-del, which isn't as Windows oriented as it sounds. It's a bit like Penny Arcade (another recommendation) but with slightly different eccentric wit.
Why? If you're capable of keeping your voice down to normal conversation levels, what's the big deal? Is it rude to chat to someone next to you in line at the checkout?
At my uni (also in the UK), examiners are only allowed to mark what is written in ink. So it's pens for everything - not just prose, but diagrams, calculations, graphs, etc as well.
For those that have it, I'd definitely recommend checking out the developer commentary in TF2. While TF2 doesn't quite fit this particular profile of rapid prototyping (9 years!), it is relevant in how much attention they paid to it being fun. They started out with some very different gameplay from what is present now - eg a BF2 / RTS-esque 'commander' - but dropped it because (among other things) it wasn't fun. They do make mention of testing out lots of different combinations and seeing what the many pariticipants found to be most fun. Of course, the commentary talks about other things such as character design and simplicity and so forth, but for those that haven't had a listen I heartily recommend it.
But the first story / headline is much more likely to bring in people from the RSS readers / aggregators etc. Not that internet censorship isn't a topic worth discussing; but the latest information is more useful than this misleading summary.
In other news, the anus is just the hole at end of a long tube. Absorption would happen through the colon.
True, but not quite. Absorbtion can happen through the capilliary beds in the rectum, as is the case for suppositories. You're correct about the anus though.
The coveredinbees tag seems to be a reference to a skit of his he did during his Glorious tour:
My father was a beekeeper before me, his father was a beekeeper before him. I want to walk in their footsteps. And their footsteps were like this...
[Runs screaming]
AAAAAAAH! I'm covered in beeeeees!
It's like firing a salvo across the battleship msoft's bow. Might be firing arrows, and in a house of mirrors, but it's still firing shots. With an arrow, a leader can still be maimed or killed. Shatter the mirrors, and somebody's vision is jarred.
Well said, but I think someone else said it better...
Brannigan: If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate.
That's a pity. The way I deal with people is this: if they're a casual acquaintance, I wont tell them anything particularly negative. Put on a smile and tell them I'm "Doin' great!" Is it dishonest? Perhaps. If a good friend asks me, I'll ask them "Are you asking or making small talk?", and give a response based on that.
The advantage the white lie has is that if nothing else, it cheers the other person up, which in turn can cheer you up. And eventually if you tell the lie enough, you begin to believe it. Of course, if you have a chronically low mood, along with losing interest in activities you previously had interest in; loss of your sense of humour; increasing social isolation; change in eating or sleeping patterns; or fatigue or other malaise, you should see a doctor to see how they can help. Of course, that is if you haven't done so already. If you have and what they did isn't working - tell them! That way they can try something else. By way of analogy: a developer won't fix a bug they know nothing of.
In the meantime, a no-holds barred, frank conversation with a close friend can go a surprisingly long way; even if you have to fib to your casual acquaintances that everything is hunky-dory. Heck, even for for those that are doing great, a frank discussion with a good friend is a useful thing too.
You're welcome. I think you took a lot of flak from the other folk. Someone replied to my other post saying sometimes civility isn't necessary; but it doesn't cost me anything, and it's easier to understand a contrary viewpoint when it's made calmly and with respect. I also find the general level of vitriol shown on here deplorable - it really gets in the way of illuminating discussion. Tough crowd. Besides, it's not so much that I'm angry, more that I'm disappointed (heh, I'll bet you used that line with your kid at least once).
Anyway, I think we partly agree on some points but disagree on others. I agree that parents always have a responsibility for their child. And they without question though should always make an effort, and continue to make an effort even if it seems like banging their head off a brick wall.
I disagree with the implication that generally parents are responsible for the suicides of their children (this case notwithstanding as I don't know if these guys were or not).
If it is, then it's their job to get a degree level understanding of what their child is going through and intimately participate in her recovery.
Where I come from, a degree-level understanding of psychology this means no less than 4 years of full-time study, which I think puts it beyond the reach of most working parents. Even then, this understanding may not be enough and you need need a psychiatric-level understanding of the situation. This is at least 7 years of full time study to get a basic, and above-full time (ie above a 40-50 hour week) commitment to on-the-job experience at higher levels. I think I'm taking this into the realms of reductio ad absurdum, so I'll ask you to clarify what you mean by 'degree-level understanding'. I do agree with "intimately participate in her recovery", though. If the parents in this (Megan's) case didn't make that effort - and I don't know if they did or not - that is pretty sad and incomprehensible.
My other point is that sometimes, even if you are a wise consultant psychiatrist, you cannot cure depression. For some people it's intractable. In these cases it's clearly not the parents' fault. I think we can agree there.
And actually, I think you do have a point that you haven't really brought up or emphasised so much. It's possible that through more attentive parenting throughout life, that some cases of depression can be prevented. If both parents are away working 50, 60 hour weeks and aren't able to muster the energy to spend quality time with their children, then I think its reasonable to assume some kids will suffer as a result. Of course, there's usually an economic necessity for working 60 hour (or longer) weeks, but poverty / consumer culture / debt slavery is another discussion.
To boil it down, more attentive parenting = good; but sometimes depression can't be solved by a parent even with the best-chosen words.
PS I think you may have taken the flak because of the use of the words "responsible" and "fault". By saying its is the parents fault and they are responsible for the suicide, the implication is that they should be punished for the death. I think it's only cases of wilful negligence that should be punished.
Actually, I think we're both right. Yes, parents are responsible for their kids without a doubt, but OTOH they are not mind readers (if you are the OP posting as AC you'll know what I mean), and they should not and cannot force their child to reveal something that they don't want to.
Let me put it another way: you can intuit something is wrong with your kid, but you don't know what, and no matter how much you ask, threaten, cajole, encourage, demand, they don't say what it is. You hear "It's nothing" and "I'm fine". How do you find out what you need to know if they have no desire to tell you? Also, it's not enough to say "I'd raise them so that they would have no problem talking to me", because well yeah, great if you can do it, but evidently that isn't the case here. Of course, if we're talking about a mental problem that alters their perception to the extent that they'd kill themself maybe it also made them less-than-rational about talking to you about it. It's damn tricky no matter what way you slice it.
As for Darwin, well... there we do disagree. I'm a hybrid nature-nurture man myself, and I'm not sure there is a "bad parenting gene". Even if there is, I think we're collectively smart enough to get around it. Here's my proposal: education. Not just telling people what to look for in depression (or any other illness), but just as importantly: how to look for it and why it may occur.
How to look for it, because you don't find out jack shit about someone when you're talking to them during WoW raids, or on MySpace, or on the forums du jour (yes, I appreciate the irony), or what have you. A great many relationships are entirely superficial. When you're next having a rotten month, tell someone that asks you "How are you doing?" exactly how you are doing. Watch them flounder. If we have real communication, we might actually catch some of these things (see the end of my GP post to get what I mean).
And the why is important too. Depression, somewhat unbelievably, is still to an extent taboo and societally unacceptable. People need to understand that you are no more to blame for depression than you are to blame for getting pneumonia. Not just people, but employers, insurers... Of course, a mental malaise that lasts for a few months isn't necessarily depression, and I am very much against clinicians handing out fluoxetine or citalopram left, right and centre.
Anyway, my point actually comes back to what you were saying about responsibility. If people knew something about depression, they would be better equipped to recognise and handle it. I don't think you can be responsible for someone's mental health if you don't know anything about it. Is that fair?
You seem quite adamant that the fault of the suicide lies with the parents, and you've been modded up (currently +4, Interesting), so it would seem either that people agree with you, or want your viewpoint heard. Well, let me propose another way of looking at it: maybe it was no-one's fault.
Megan had problems and felt bad about herself? Why? (actual question, not a setup) She was beautiful. Where were her parents? How in the fcuk could a beautiful girl like that grow up not believing, *knowing* she has value.
(my emphasis)
It's possible to be depressed without knowing exactly why. At least two of my friends are in the same position. And that's the ones I know about. And while one was obvious, if I hadn't been told about the other, there is almost no way I would have ever known. Now, if Megan was on 'psychotic drugs' (I'm not sure why she'd be on [anti]psychotic drugs, unless there was another component other than depression - perhaps you meant 'psychotropic' to refer to antidepressants in general), it's fair to assume that the parents knew about it. But how much did they know? How much did they understand? Parents generally aren't psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors. If they've never been exposed to depression, there is no way you can expect them to know *exactly* how to help.
Actually, your attitude kind of annoys me, I'm sorry to say. Specifically, you seem to be looking for someone to blame for Megan's death. You probably don't intend to annoy, and in fact maybe in this case you are right - they did fuck up. Or maybe Megan chose not to tell her parents the extent of her illness, and so they didn't get a chance to help her. I can't tell as I don't have enough information. But neither, I suspect, do you. And I am not questioning your parenting, but I hope while bringing up your son well you also taught your him that sometimes you can't blame anyone for something that went wrong.
I hope I've not come off the wrong way; you seemed to not be aware of idiopathic depression, or that often depressed people choose to hide their suffering. I seek to educate. While I'm on the subject, if there are slashdotters out there that are (potentially) depressed, don't hide it. Go and talk to a friend or family member face to face about it. I know on here people will caustically jump on any mistake you make and generally tear you to shreds, but in general folk want to help.
I hear Alanis Morissette has a song about things being ironic that is ripe for parody by a man of your talents.
You really should include a link to the slating you referenced so that other slashdotters can enjoy the comedy stylings of Ed Byrne.
Windows 95 was released over a decade ago. That should help to give you a bound on when the start/shutdown "joke" ceased to be funny or original.
Actually, originality notwithstanding, he makes a valid point. Windows XP still takes a (relative) age to shut down after a few months worth of use. If I had to guess, I would say the delay was due to the multitude of services that invariably accumulate over time. I don't know if Vista is any better in this regard, but it should only take a second or two to shut down the OS (not the open applications). And I'm not slating solely Windows here, Linux takes longer than I'd like, too.
Mod parent up. I thought MS had bought both, but Photosynth is collaborative research by Noah Snavely (undergrad at UW), Steve Seitz (also UW), and Richard Szeliski (from Microsoft Research). Maybe in six months time I'll be retroactively correct when they do buy it...
Slashdot Mirror
I did actually, thank you for pointing that out. I hear and see it so often that my mind blanked out the rest of the post.
Just to correct you (nothing personal, I'm presuming you appreciate correction where wrong) - it's Loch. The 'ch' is guttural, as if you were pronouncing a German word.
Simulate a nuclear explosion, a hurricane or the Big Bang. Down to the particle.
Or, get it to work on the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.
If you need more suggestions, find out what your local University/ies is/are running on their cluster.
What? No 26 'In Popular Culture' ?
* "Make good money $5 a day... Made any more I might move away..."
You got the Cumberland blues too?
PONIES!
Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of them prefer IE 6 to IE 7.
On behalf of webmasters everywhere: those people should be taken out and shot.
...and the corpses shot again.
Can't be too careful.
I second xkcd. Randall Munroe posts on here too, occasionally.
If we're doing webcomics...
I also quite like the off-the-wall humour of ctrl-alt-del, which isn't as Windows oriented as it sounds. It's a bit like Penny Arcade (another recommendation) but with slightly different eccentric wit.
It *IS* lupus!
Hmm, I lose at not being trolled. Need more practice...
Why? If you're capable of keeping your voice down to normal conversation levels, what's the big deal? Is it rude to chat to someone next to you in line at the checkout?
At my uni (also in the UK), examiners are only allowed to mark what is written in ink. So it's pens for everything - not just prose, but diagrams, calculations, graphs, etc as well.
$350 *total*, for the whole system? Where did you get that from? I ask as I'm thinking of getting myself a new machine myself. Cheers.
I would buy (my gf wants a plushie), but they don't ship to the UK :(
They're missing an opportunity - I imagine other folk would buy too.
For those that have it, I'd definitely recommend checking out the developer commentary in TF2. While TF2 doesn't quite fit this particular profile of rapid prototyping (9 years!), it is relevant in how much attention they paid to it being fun. They started out with some very different gameplay from what is present now - eg a BF2 / RTS-esque 'commander' - but dropped it because (among other things) it wasn't fun. They do make mention of testing out lots of different combinations and seeing what the many pariticipants found to be most fun. Of course, the commentary talks about other things such as character design and simplicity and so forth, but for those that haven't had a listen I heartily recommend it.
The Afghan Senate decided to go back on it's original decision
But the first story / headline is much more likely to bring in people from the RSS readers / aggregators etc. Not that internet censorship isn't a topic worth discussing; but the latest information is more useful than this misleading summary.
Sheesh.
True, but not quite. Absorbtion can happen through the capilliary beds in the rectum, as is the case for suppositories. You're correct about the anus though.
The coveredinbees tag seems to be a reference to a skit of his he did during his Glorious tour:
Classic.Well said, but I think someone else said it better...
Brannigan: If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate.
That's a pity. The way I deal with people is this: if they're a casual acquaintance, I wont tell them anything particularly negative. Put on a smile and tell them I'm "Doin' great!" Is it dishonest? Perhaps. If a good friend asks me, I'll ask them "Are you asking or making small talk?", and give a response based on that.
The advantage the white lie has is that if nothing else, it cheers the other person up, which in turn can cheer you up. And eventually if you tell the lie enough, you begin to believe it. Of course, if you have a chronically low mood, along with losing interest in activities you previously had interest in; loss of your sense of humour; increasing social isolation; change in eating or sleeping patterns; or fatigue or other malaise, you should see a doctor to see how they can help. Of course, that is if you haven't done so already. If you have and what they did isn't working - tell them! That way they can try something else. By way of analogy: a developer won't fix a bug they know nothing of.
In the meantime, a no-holds barred, frank conversation with a close friend can go a surprisingly long way; even if you have to fib to your casual acquaintances that everything is hunky-dory. Heck, even for for those that are doing great, a frank discussion with a good friend is a useful thing too.
You're welcome. I think you took a lot of flak from the other folk. Someone replied to my other post saying sometimes civility isn't necessary; but it doesn't cost me anything, and it's easier to understand a contrary viewpoint when it's made calmly and with respect. I also find the general level of vitriol shown on here deplorable - it really gets in the way of illuminating discussion. Tough crowd. Besides, it's not so much that I'm angry, more that I'm disappointed (heh, I'll bet you used that line with your kid at least once).
Anyway, I think we partly agree on some points but disagree on others. I agree that parents always have a responsibility for their child. And they without question though should always make an effort, and continue to make an effort even if it seems like banging their head off a brick wall.
I disagree with the implication that generally parents are responsible for the suicides of their children (this case notwithstanding as I don't know if these guys were or not).
If it is, then it's their job to get a degree level understanding of what their child is going through and intimately participate in her recovery.Where I come from, a degree-level understanding of psychology this means no less than 4 years of full-time study, which I think puts it beyond the reach of most working parents. Even then, this understanding may not be enough and you need need a psychiatric-level understanding of the situation. This is at least 7 years of full time study to get a basic, and above-full time (ie above a 40-50 hour week) commitment to on-the-job experience at higher levels. I think I'm taking this into the realms of reductio ad absurdum, so I'll ask you to clarify what you mean by 'degree-level understanding'. I do agree with "intimately participate in her recovery", though. If the parents in this (Megan's) case didn't make that effort - and I don't know if they did or not - that is pretty sad and incomprehensible.
My other point is that sometimes, even if you are a wise consultant psychiatrist, you cannot cure depression. For some people it's intractable. In these cases it's clearly not the parents' fault. I think we can agree there.
And actually, I think you do have a point that you haven't really brought up or emphasised so much. It's possible that through more attentive parenting throughout life, that some cases of depression can be prevented. If both parents are away working 50, 60 hour weeks and aren't able to muster the energy to spend quality time with their children, then I think its reasonable to assume some kids will suffer as a result. Of course, there's usually an economic necessity for working 60 hour (or longer) weeks, but poverty / consumer culture / debt slavery is another discussion.
To boil it down, more attentive parenting = good; but sometimes depression can't be solved by a parent even with the best-chosen words.
PS I think you may have taken the flak because of the use of the words "responsible" and "fault". By saying its is the parents fault and they are responsible for the suicide, the implication is that they should be punished for the death. I think it's only cases of wilful negligence that should be punished.
Actually, I think we're both right. Yes, parents are responsible for their kids without a doubt, but OTOH they are not mind readers (if you are the OP posting as AC you'll know what I mean), and they should not and cannot force their child to reveal something that they don't want to.
Let me put it another way: you can intuit something is wrong with your kid, but you don't know what, and no matter how much you ask, threaten, cajole, encourage, demand, they don't say what it is. You hear "It's nothing" and "I'm fine". How do you find out what you need to know if they have no desire to tell you? Also, it's not enough to say "I'd raise them so that they would have no problem talking to me", because well yeah, great if you can do it, but evidently that isn't the case here. Of course, if we're talking about a mental problem that alters their perception to the extent that they'd kill themself maybe it also made them less-than-rational about talking to you about it. It's damn tricky no matter what way you slice it.
As for Darwin, well... there we do disagree. I'm a hybrid nature-nurture man myself, and I'm not sure there is a "bad parenting gene". Even if there is, I think we're collectively smart enough to get around it. Here's my proposal: education. Not just telling people what to look for in depression (or any other illness), but just as importantly: how to look for it and why it may occur.
How to look for it, because you don't find out jack shit about someone when you're talking to them during WoW raids, or on MySpace, or on the forums du jour (yes, I appreciate the irony), or what have you. A great many relationships are entirely superficial. When you're next having a rotten month, tell someone that asks you "How are you doing?" exactly how you are doing. Watch them flounder. If we have real communication, we might actually catch some of these things (see the end of my GP post to get what I mean).
And the why is important too. Depression, somewhat unbelievably, is still to an extent taboo and societally unacceptable. People need to understand that you are no more to blame for depression than you are to blame for getting pneumonia. Not just people, but employers, insurers... Of course, a mental malaise that lasts for a few months isn't necessarily depression, and I am very much against clinicians handing out fluoxetine or citalopram left, right and centre.
Anyway, my point actually comes back to what you were saying about responsibility. If people knew something about depression, they would be better equipped to recognise and handle it. I don't think you can be responsible for someone's mental health if you don't know anything about it. Is that fair?
You seem quite adamant that the fault of the suicide lies with the parents, and you've been modded up (currently +4, Interesting), so it would seem either that people agree with you, or want your viewpoint heard. Well, let me propose another way of looking at it: maybe it was no-one's fault.
Megan had problems and felt bad about herself? Why? (actual question, not a setup) She was beautiful. Where were her parents? How in the fcuk could a beautiful girl like that grow up not believing, *knowing* she has value.(my emphasis)
It's possible to be depressed without knowing exactly why. At least two of my friends are in the same position. And that's the ones I know about. And while one was obvious, if I hadn't been told about the other, there is almost no way I would have ever known. Now, if Megan was on 'psychotic drugs' (I'm not sure why she'd be on [anti]psychotic drugs, unless there was another component other than depression - perhaps you meant 'psychotropic' to refer to antidepressants in general), it's fair to assume that the parents knew about it. But how much did they know? How much did they understand? Parents generally aren't psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors. If they've never been exposed to depression, there is no way you can expect them to know *exactly* how to help.
Actually, your attitude kind of annoys me, I'm sorry to say. Specifically, you seem to be looking for someone to blame for Megan's death. You probably don't intend to annoy, and in fact maybe in this case you are right - they did fuck up. Or maybe Megan chose not to tell her parents the extent of her illness, and so they didn't get a chance to help her. I can't tell as I don't have enough information. But neither, I suspect, do you. And I am not questioning your parenting, but I hope while bringing up your son well you also taught your him that sometimes you can't blame anyone for something that went wrong.
I hope I've not come off the wrong way; you seemed to not be aware of idiopathic depression, or that often depressed people choose to hide their suffering. I seek to educate. While I'm on the subject, if there are slashdotters out there that are (potentially) depressed, don't hide it. Go and talk to a friend or family member face to face about it. I know on here people will caustically jump on any mistake you make and generally tear you to shreds, but in general folk want to help.
I hear Alanis Morissette has a song about things being ironic that is ripe for parody by a man of your talents.
You really should include a link to the slating you referenced so that other slashdotters can enjoy the comedy stylings of Ed Byrne.
Windows 95 was released over a decade ago. That should help to give you a bound on when the start/shutdown "joke" ceased to be funny or original.Actually, originality notwithstanding, he makes a valid point. Windows XP still takes a (relative) age to shut down after a few months worth of use. If I had to guess, I would say the delay was due to the multitude of services that invariably accumulate over time. I don't know if Vista is any better in this regard, but it should only take a second or two to shut down the OS (not the open applications). And I'm not slating solely Windows here, Linux takes longer than I'd like, too.
Mod parent up. I thought MS had bought both, but Photosynth is collaborative research by Noah Snavely (undergrad at UW), Steve Seitz (also UW), and Richard Szeliski (from Microsoft Research). Maybe in six months time I'll be retroactively correct when they do buy it...
(from http://labs.live.com/photosynth/ and http://labs.live.com/photosynth/aboutus.html)