"Burnout is about resentment," she said. "It's about knowing what matters to you so much that if you don't get it that you're resentful."
This is true, but not everyone can have the things that matter to them. Mayer and Horowitz are in the lucky minority. If the things that matter to you also happen to be worth a lot of money to other people, and you happen to be very good at them, then you can devote yourself to them all day long and get paid well for it. If the the things that matter to you have little or no value for anyone else (e.g. spending time with your own children), then you're kind of screwed. The fact that we live in a world of scarcity means that the vast majority of people will have to do menial labor in order to obtain their basic needs. Most jobs are not inspiring or creative, but they need to get done -- and they will be done by people who would rather be doing something else. You can't tell me that Marissa Mayer would work 16 hour days for minimum wage as a cashier in the Google cafeteria.
The thing about babies is that you can't (yet) alter individual stats, you just have to re-roll a new character. Sometimes it's better to take the -5 weakness to fire if it's balanced out by really high intelligence or strength, rather than waiting forever to generate the perfect battlemage.
Yes, and don't forget the danger of bad blocks in a job this size. A single bad block can take out an entire archive. I used to backup my 300GB of data into a single.tar file on external USB drives. Unfortunately, when I tried to restore after a system failure, I discovered that BOTH of my backups had bad blocks about 30GB into the.tar file. After the bad blocks, the rest of the file was unreadable. I attribute the bad blocks to the high temperatures inside fanless external HDD enclosures (this is also a danger in your scheme). Now I use rsync, so bad blocks won't kill more than one file at a time. If you must use an archiving backup program (like tar), break up the backups into small files, and make sure that they can be restored individually.
If there WERE a Microsoft appreciation day, we would no longer have to use the subjunctive mood when referring to it, since we would no longer be describing a wishful or fanciful situation contrary to fact. Asking "What if there WAS a Microsoft appreciation day?" questions whether such a day occurred at some point in the past -- this is not what the poster meant to ask.
It matters because it could be a significant blow to Apple's business model, which depends upon being fashionable. People buy Apple products because they think the company and the products are cool, and that buying these products will make the consumer cool as well. It will be a complete disaster for Apple if people start to realize that Apple is not actually cool, and is instead a corporate behemoth engaging in rent-seeking behavior (just like Microsoft). People don't like being tricked.
The Economist showed up in my mailbox on Saturday, but this article is on page 52 of the magazine, so I didn't read it until today -- a few minutes before I saw it here on Slashdot. I guess I read at about the same pace as Soulskill.
For privately-held companies with more than 500 shareholders, the SEC has rules about disclosures which are very similar to those that apply to public company. Facebook was already over 500 shareholders, so an IPO didn't result in significantly more regulatory burden than staying private. This rule is designed to prevent companies from trading their shares on unregulated secondary markets rather than on the public markets.
This is a terrible idea, and you should be ashamed of yourself. The human body does not combust readily enough to be used as a source of fuel. Even with current refining technology, the energy required to refine a human body into fuel would be greater than the energy yielded. The one exception is your Mom, whose refined subcutaneous fat could power a city the size of San Diego for a year.
'Not only does the box give people warm and fuzzy associations with the product from the get-go, but also, people form emotional attachments to the actual pieces of cardboard. Instead of tossing them like the trash that they are, people have been known to keep their iBoxes,' writes Greenfield. 'Instead of forgotten in a dump or recycling facility, the boxes sit on shelves serving as a constant reminder of the beauty within.'
Is this a joke? Does anyone (besides Apple's accountants) really think it's a good thing for people to fetishize cardboard boxes? I realize that it's good for a business's bottom line if people overpay for useless crap, but by that logic tech companies should start emulating drug dealers. Oh wait, that's exactly what's happening. Now I get it.
First of all, thank you for doing this interview and releasing it for free for my enjoyment. However, I don't have audio on the computer I'm using right now, so I can't hear it. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I hate watching videos of things that can be communicated faster and more efficiently via text (like interviews). A transcription would be appreciated.
I have never heard anyone say that the web is the internet, or use "web" to mean "internet." Actually, I very rarely hear anybody use the term "web" anymore in this context; everyone says "internet." I suppose it's true that oranges are not cats, bats are not telephones, and the World Bank is the the Eurozone, but nobody is claiming any of those things either and we don't need articles about the distinctions. Perhaps the author conflated the two concepts for a long time and assumed that everyone else had done the same. The author probably thinks that he is doing a service to his readers, but in reality, everyone else already knows that the web and the internet are different. That is, everyone except the person who submitted this to Slashdot.
While we're at it, this is a terribly-written sentence and its author should be ashamed of himself: "Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care, but if you're talking about history or technical stuff and you want to be accurate or a know-it-all or beat a computer at Jeopardy, you should know the difference."
"Providing them with a way to produce habitable volume and energy with local materials is also high on our list, but these technologies are not 'off the shelf'. Mars One plans to send out a request for proposals to have these technologies developed."
Translation: We have no idea how to implement our ideas; we don't even know if it's physically possible to do so. We're just hoping somebody else can solve these problems before our money runs out.
Having read Gibbon, I must say that I disagree with you. The Roman military was the basis of Roman wealth. The Romans knew this, and that gave the military the ability to hold the Senate and the Emperor hostage if they didn't like what was going on. Because the Romans saw the army as the source of their riches, the army felt entitled to push everybody else around. You can see this in the practice of newly-acceded Emperors giving a large "donative" to the armies. Every time the army wanted a big payoff, all they had to do was assassinate the current Emperor. What does this have to do with your analogy regarding free trade and empire? Nothing! Your analogy is inapt.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether it works or not, "Spambot Sandbox" is a great band name.
"Burnout is about resentment," she said. "It's about knowing what matters to you so much that if you don't get it that you're resentful."
This is true, but not everyone can have the things that matter to them. Mayer and Horowitz are in the lucky minority. If the things that matter to you also happen to be worth a lot of money to other people, and you happen to be very good at them, then you can devote yourself to them all day long and get paid well for it. If the the things that matter to you have little or no value for anyone else (e.g. spending time with your own children), then you're kind of screwed. The fact that we live in a world of scarcity means that the vast majority of people will have to do menial labor in order to obtain their basic needs. Most jobs are not inspiring or creative, but they need to get done -- and they will be done by people who would rather be doing something else. You can't tell me that Marissa Mayer would work 16 hour days for minimum wage as a cashier in the Google cafeteria.
The thing about babies is that you can't (yet) alter individual stats, you just have to re-roll a new character. Sometimes it's better to take the -5 weakness to fire if it's balanced out by really high intelligence or strength, rather than waiting forever to generate the perfect battlemage.
Perhaps not the best surveillance platform in a country where anyone can buy a 50-calibre sniper rifle.
Yes, and don't forget the danger of bad blocks in a job this size. A single bad block can take out an entire archive. I used to backup my 300GB of data into a single .tar file on external USB drives. Unfortunately, when I tried to restore after a system failure, I discovered that BOTH of my backups had bad blocks about 30GB into the .tar file. After the bad blocks, the rest of the file was unreadable. I attribute the bad blocks to the high temperatures inside fanless external HDD enclosures (this is also a danger in your scheme). Now I use rsync, so bad blocks won't kill more than one file at a time. If you must use an archiving backup program (like tar), break up the backups into small files, and make sure that they can be restored individually.
If only I had a machine that could answer that question...
I never get more depressed than when I read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
"The market can stay inefficient longer than you can stay solvent." -- Keynes
If there WERE a Microsoft appreciation day, we would no longer have to use the subjunctive mood when referring to it, since we would no longer be describing a wishful or fanciful situation contrary to fact. Asking "What if there WAS a Microsoft appreciation day?" questions whether such a day occurred at some point in the past -- this is not what the poster meant to ask.
We shouldn't be so uptight, it's not like everyone in the world will die if they're distracted from their job for an instant.
It matters because it could be a significant blow to Apple's business model, which depends upon being fashionable. People buy Apple products because they think the company and the products are cool, and that buying these products will make the consumer cool as well. It will be a complete disaster for Apple if people start to realize that Apple is not actually cool, and is instead a corporate behemoth engaging in rent-seeking behavior (just like Microsoft). People don't like being tricked.
The Economist showed up in my mailbox on Saturday, but this article is on page 52 of the magazine, so I didn't read it until today -- a few minutes before I saw it here on Slashdot. I guess I read at about the same pace as Soulskill.
Especially if the NSA outsources its storage to the same cloud service.
For privately-held companies with more than 500 shareholders, the SEC has rules about disclosures which are very similar to those that apply to public company. Facebook was already over 500 shareholders, so an IPO didn't result in significantly more regulatory burden than staying private. This rule is designed to prevent companies from trading their shares on unregulated secondary markets rather than on the public markets.
...nuclear reactor determines people's lifespan.
This is a terrible idea, and you should be ashamed of yourself. The human body does not combust readily enough to be used as a source of fuel. Even with current refining technology, the energy required to refine a human body into fuel would be greater than the energy yielded. The one exception is your Mom, whose refined subcutaneous fat could power a city the size of San Diego for a year.
'Not only does the box give people warm and fuzzy associations with the product from the get-go, but also, people form emotional attachments to the actual pieces of cardboard. Instead of tossing them like the trash that they are, people have been known to keep their iBoxes,' writes Greenfield. 'Instead of forgotten in a dump or recycling facility, the boxes sit on shelves serving as a constant reminder of the beauty within.'
Is this a joke? Does anyone (besides Apple's accountants) really think it's a good thing for people to fetishize cardboard boxes? I realize that it's good for a business's bottom line if people overpay for useless crap, but by that logic tech companies should start emulating drug dealers. Oh wait, that's exactly what's happening. Now I get it.
First of all, thank you for doing this interview and releasing it for free for my enjoyment. However, I don't have audio on the computer I'm using right now, so I can't hear it. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I hate watching videos of things that can be communicated faster and more efficiently via text (like interviews). A transcription would be appreciated.
Agreed -- this is starting to get really embarrassing. Perhaps more of us need to start filtering the articles. Off to the Firehose.
I have never heard anyone say that the web is the internet, or use "web" to mean "internet." Actually, I very rarely hear anybody use the term "web" anymore in this context; everyone says "internet." I suppose it's true that oranges are not cats, bats are not telephones, and the World Bank is the the Eurozone, but nobody is claiming any of those things either and we don't need articles about the distinctions. Perhaps the author conflated the two concepts for a long time and assumed that everyone else had done the same. The author probably thinks that he is doing a service to his readers, but in reality, everyone else already knows that the web and the internet are different. That is, everyone except the person who submitted this to Slashdot.
While we're at it, this is a terribly-written sentence and its author should be ashamed of himself: "Most of the time they can be used synonymously and no one will care, but if you're talking about history or technical stuff and you want to be accurate or a know-it-all or beat a computer at Jeopardy, you should know the difference."
I initially assumed this was about indigestion caused by all the fast food restaurants opening up in Shanghai.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-26/mcdonald-s-no-match-for-kfc-in-china-where-colonel-sanders-rules-fast-food.html
"Providing them with a way to produce habitable volume and energy with local materials is also high on our list, but these technologies are not 'off the shelf'. Mars One plans to send out a request for proposals to have these technologies developed."
Translation: We have no idea how to implement our ideas; we don't even know if it's physically possible to do so. We're just hoping somebody else can solve these problems before our money runs out.
The headline ends in a question mark, but the answer is "Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines
What does that mean?
Having read Gibbon, I must say that I disagree with you. The Roman military was the basis of Roman wealth. The Romans knew this, and that gave the military the ability to hold the Senate and the Emperor hostage if they didn't like what was going on. Because the Romans saw the army as the source of their riches, the army felt entitled to push everybody else around. You can see this in the practice of newly-acceded Emperors giving a large "donative" to the armies. Every time the army wanted a big payoff, all they had to do was assassinate the current Emperor. What does this have to do with your analogy regarding free trade and empire? Nothing! Your analogy is inapt.