I want everyone to wake up and realize the damage that the Internet can do to their lives. I am a former Internet addict, and after I lost 15 jobs, my house, my car, my dogs, and my immortal soul, I realized what I had done and just stopped. I used to spend more than 20 hours a day surfing the OLGAnon website, reloading it repetitively, looking for new news. I don't know why I did it, but there you go. I hope my story can save another concerned person from destroying their lives with the Internet. It doesn't take a game like Everquest to lead you to the road of futility and destruction. A busybody mother who knows too much HTML for her own good can be just as deadly.
I don't think you've identified a fault in the teaching method, but I do think you've identified the fact that all people learn differently, and a teacher has to be responsive to the needs of the student. Good job to you for seeing this, and responding to your daughter's individual education needs.
Re:Man this one is begging for it too!
on
H2O/IP
·
· Score: 1
I was born in 1968, on December 6th. Apollo 8 orbited the moon later that month.
Therefore, I am the one that saved 1968. You're welcome.
You're right, I was just trying to be more pedantic than you. By radiation I was originally only talking about emitted neutrons, electrons, or photons of a sufficient energy to be classified as gamma.
Re:Why plastic is good(was:I am so tired of plasti
on
Waterproof Books
·
· Score: 1
Excellent points, which I also posted in other places. I'd mod you up if I could.
Re:I am sooooooo tired of plastic!!!
on
Waterproof Books
·
· Score: 1
I totally agree. Instead of putting carbon into a form that is relatively stable and benign (plastic) we've got to put that carbon into the fuel tanks of our SUV's and get it into the air as quickly as possible.
We're not going to get off our asses and colonize the galaxy unless our home isn't quite so comfy. And making relatively safe plastics isn't going to screw Earth up nearly fast enough!
DON'T USE PLASTIC! BURN THE OIL INSTEAD! TO THE STARS!
No. Plastic is made of a lot of carbon that came out of the ground. If you throw that carbon back into the ground, or use the thing made of plastic, that carbon doesn't get into the air where it can cause serious problems. i.e. destroy the Earth.
So use plastic. Use it a lot. Oil that is used to make plastic WON'T get burned in a car.
No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't mean it's true.
Massive amounts of energy won't make something radioactive. Consider heating something until it vaporizes. Lots of energy, no radiation. When you use the term "activated" what you should be saying is that an atom captured a neutron. Neutrons will only be produced if there is actual fusion occurring.
I doubt that anyone is going to get fusion going and sustain it for any length of time with one of these devices. Therefore, there's minimal opportunity for atoms in the device to capture a neutron and become radioactive.
But if they did, it's not a big deal. They used to neutron irradiate dimes at fairs, and those dimes became radioactive. They weren't dangerous though, since the radioactive dimes emitted only low level beta radiation. It could be stopped by a sheet of paper or a few feet of air. And now those dimes aren't radioactive at all. Try doing a search on E-bay for radioactive dime to see an example of what I'm talking about.
The radiation concerns that people have with fusion are around long running reactors, of which there are no examples in existence. After very long exposure, the containment vessel will become pretty hot, and we'll have to throw it in a big hole somewhere for a while. No big deal. This is a very different thing from the pollution that fission reactors can cause.
Did you hear about the guy who won the Powerball lottery? The odds are astronomical! The odds of that man winning the lottery are so low that there's no way he could have won by chance. It must be proof of a god.
This is a Linux on a single chip, a socket, some wires, and a jack to plug in an ethernet cable.
The article also says that all you need is a power supply. You also will need a socket, some wires, and jacks and connectors to plug in ethernet and other ports.
Even my list might be a little thin. Take a look at the developer board PDF on their site. There's some flash memory, capacitors, resistors, and some other stuff too.
This is not intended as a flame, but it entirely my own opinion.
You've tried to provide a common ground for science and religion, and that's commendable. A lot of disagreements can be solved with the technique, and I hope you don't stop doing it.
But I don't think it applies here. Science and religion are diametrically opposed, and there's no way to reconcile them. Elegance seems to be important to you, as it is to me. New ideas are constantly being introduced, and they conflict with religion in many ways. The only solutions we really have is either for religion to capitulate (this can take a long time - see Galileo in your encyclopedia) or for adherents to religion to deny a fact. That's not really an elegant thing at all.
I think that more important than elegance is truthfulness. I think it is truthful to say that religion and science have many disagreements, and no amount of bridge building is going to change the fact that those disagreements will only increase in the future. The best hope for the future is for that truth to be recognized by everyone, and a live and let live attitude be adopted.
You need a detailed implementation specification, which should probably be written by someone with technical experience
I agree, but don't make your programmers do it. You'll find that most of them hate estimating. Most of them suck at it. Even if they are eager, they'll be just as inaccurate as someone who doesn't know programming.
If you do a lot of this, it's best to have estimating specialists as part of the organization.
This happens sometimes, but is not sustainable for a few reasons:
-Indian programmers are not supermen. In a lot of cases, they can suck pretty badly. A project that is not technically possible in the US will also not be completed if it is sent to India -All politics are local. Most projects fail because of politics. Indian programmers and managers cannot engage in political games that might be required to finish the project. -Communications are hampered because of language, culture, distance, and schedule. It's inconvenient and therefore expensive to communicate with people who are sleeping. -Intellectual property cannot be protected as effectively in another country.
For these reasons, some companies will eventually move jobs back to the US after a few projects fail in India. On a global scale, there will always be some projects sent to India, but not ALL of them.
Furthermore, the quantity of Indian programmers is very large, but not infinite. The demand for software and computer services might be met by overseas programmers in the short term, but rapid growth will resume and eventually we'll run out of Indian programmers.
Finally, sending contracts to India is something that larger companies will tend to do more often. They are often inefficient, and individual managers in large companies cannot impact the efficiency of the entire organization. They optimize their departments instead, and those optimizations might not make much sense globally. On the other hand, a smaller company would be more efficient to begin with, and efficiencies would be more likely to take place across the organization. Therefore, a smaller company is in a better position to take advantage of the benefit of having a local programming staff with better organizational integration.
Conclusions: smaller companies are less likely to send jobs overseas, but won't suffer for it. Large companies will alternately send work overseas and then recall it. Projects will still fail no matter where they are done. Indian programmers are not going to eat our lunch any more than Japanese autoworkers destroyed American industry. You live in a global economy, though it might not look like it if you drive 5 minutes to work. Nobody said life was going to be easy.
I was considering Borland's C++ compilers for a project that might be starting soon. This article has helped me immensely in my decision making process.
I won't be using Borland's products, because my legal exposure to a company eager to sue its customers would be too high. I'll use some other compiler from a company that cares about its customers.
Thanks again, this article has saved me a lot of time and expense.
Good for you for sticking to the framework that you fit your life into. I'd probably also get thrown out as well, because as an atheist, I'd ask for an alternate secular oath. Swearing "so help me god" means nothing to me, and if I swore that I'd consider it a carte blanche to do whatever I wanted. But if they asked me to swear on my personal honor that I'd tell the truth, do my duty, etc. then that'd mean something, and I'd stick to that oath completely.
I suspect that I'll never have the opportunity to be a juror, though I'd like to serve in that way at least once in my life.
When you say leave the atmosphere, you're not saying much. Even low earth orbit satellites such as the shuttle are in the atmosphere, just a very thin part of it.
If you set some altitude then you can figure out easily which rocket was first.
One of the V2 rockets fired by the United States in 1949 reached an altitude of about 250 miles. This was a modified configuration from the way it was originally built by the Germans.
Monopolies might form naturally because of the mechanisms you describe, and I think there's a good solution to this. Not necessarily the only solution, but one of them.
A monopoly can be drawn in different ways, from a company having a monopoly on all the business for a particular platform, to a particular platform having a monopoly on all the hardware.
Examples: Microsoft has a monopoly on office software, but the UNIX operating system appears to be building towards a monopoly on servers and maybe even the desktop.
One monopoly is restrictive, and the other monopoly is not. I'm playing fast and loose with the definition of monopoly here, I know that. But my point is that open source software can be used to turn the first monopoly into the second. In other words, open source might have a moderative effect on monopolies, preventing a single company from locking up a market for too long a time.
I am not a die hard believer in the ultimate efficiency of the market - sometimes those markets do break down. But where markets do work, we should encourage them to work even better. The natural limitations on monopolies can be encouraged with the appropriate use of open source code so that a monopoly that might have stood for 25 years might only stand for 3 or 4 years, keeping the markets much more open than they otherwise would have been.
I agree with you that another step would be patent reform. Open source is just another tool we can use to improve how the markets work.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a "channels you watch" and a "channels you receive" setup. Just take the Spanish channel out of one or both of them.
And try marking something good UP instead of something bad down.
I want everyone to wake up and realize the damage that the Internet can do to their lives. I am a former Internet addict, and after I lost 15 jobs, my house, my car, my dogs, and my immortal soul, I realized what I had done and just stopped. I used to spend more than 20 hours a day surfing the OLGAnon website, reloading it repetitively, looking for new news. I don't know why I did it, but there you go. I hope my story can save another concerned person from destroying their lives with the Internet. It doesn't take a game like Everquest to lead you to the road of futility and destruction. A busybody mother who knows too much HTML for her own good can be just as deadly.
I don't think you've identified a fault in the teaching method, but I do think you've identified the fact that all people learn differently, and a teacher has to be responsive to the needs of the student. Good job to you for seeing this, and responding to your daughter's individual education needs.
I was born in 1968, on December 6th. Apollo 8 orbited the moon later that month.
Therefore, I am the one that saved 1968. You're welcome.
You're right, I was just trying to be more pedantic than you. By radiation I was originally only talking about emitted neutrons, electrons, or photons of a sufficient energy to be classified as gamma.
Trent Lott shut your damn mouth already.
Excellent points, which I also posted in other places. I'd mod you up if I could.
I totally agree. Instead of putting carbon into a form that is relatively stable and benign (plastic) we've got to put that carbon into the fuel tanks of our SUV's and get it into the air as quickly as possible.
We're not going to get off our asses and colonize the galaxy unless our home isn't quite so comfy. And making relatively safe plastics isn't going to screw Earth up nearly fast enough!
DON'T USE PLASTIC! BURN THE OIL INSTEAD! TO THE STARS!
No. Plastic is made of a lot of carbon that came out of the ground. If you throw that carbon back into the ground, or use the thing made of plastic, that carbon doesn't get into the air where it can cause serious problems. i.e. destroy the Earth.
So use plastic. Use it a lot. Oil that is used to make plastic WON'T get burned in a car.
Imagine a ball on a hill...
I rest my case.
I did the search on Ebay and came up with nothing. Try "irradiated dime" instead. It gave me this dime for example.
No matter how many people believe something, that doesn't mean it's true.
Massive amounts of energy won't make something radioactive. Consider heating something until it vaporizes. Lots of energy, no radiation. When you use the term "activated" what you should be saying is that an atom captured a neutron. Neutrons will only be produced if there is actual fusion occurring.
I doubt that anyone is going to get fusion going and sustain it for any length of time with one of these devices. Therefore, there's minimal opportunity for atoms in the device to capture a neutron and become radioactive.
But if they did, it's not a big deal. They used to neutron irradiate dimes at fairs, and those dimes became radioactive. They weren't dangerous though, since the radioactive dimes emitted only low level beta radiation. It could be stopped by a sheet of paper or a few feet of air. And now those dimes aren't radioactive at all. Try doing a search on E-bay for radioactive dime to see an example of what I'm talking about.
The radiation concerns that people have with fusion are around long running reactors, of which there are no examples in existence. After very long exposure, the containment vessel will become pretty hot, and we'll have to throw it in a big hole somewhere for a while. No big deal. This is a very different thing from the pollution that fission reactors can cause.
Did you hear about the guy who won the Powerball lottery? The odds are astronomical! The odds of that man winning the lottery are so low that there's no way he could have won by chance. It must be proof of a god.
Computer programmers have no trouble with this. Push the nouns onto the stack, and pop them off with verbs. Simple.
Oh great. Now it'll be based on drugs and fucking and projectile diarrhea.
This is a Linux on a single chip, a socket, some wires, and a jack to plug in an ethernet cable.
The article also says that all you need is a power supply. You also will need a socket, some wires, and jacks and connectors to plug in ethernet and other ports.
Even my list might be a little thin. Take a look at the developer board PDF on their site. There's some flash memory, capacitors, resistors, and some other stuff too.
This is not intended as a flame, but it entirely my own opinion.
You've tried to provide a common ground for science and religion, and that's commendable. A lot of disagreements can be solved with the technique, and I hope you don't stop doing it.
But I don't think it applies here. Science and religion are diametrically opposed, and there's no way to reconcile them. Elegance seems to be important to you, as it is to me. New ideas are constantly being introduced, and they conflict with religion in many ways. The only solutions we really have is either for religion to capitulate (this can take a long time - see Galileo in your encyclopedia) or for adherents to religion to deny a fact. That's not really an elegant thing at all.
I think that more important than elegance is truthfulness. I think it is truthful to say that religion and science have many disagreements, and no amount of bridge building is going to change the fact that those disagreements will only increase in the future. The best hope for the future is for that truth to be recognized by everyone, and a live and let live attitude be adopted.
You need a detailed implementation specification, which should probably be written by someone with technical experience
I agree, but don't make your programmers do it. You'll find that most of them hate estimating. Most of them suck at it. Even if they are eager, they'll be just as inaccurate as someone who doesn't know programming.
If you do a lot of this, it's best to have estimating specialists as part of the organization.
This happens sometimes, but is not sustainable for a few reasons:
-Indian programmers are not supermen. In a lot of cases, they can suck pretty badly. A project that is not technically possible in the US will also not be completed if it is sent to India
-All politics are local. Most projects fail because of politics. Indian programmers and managers cannot engage in political games that might be required to finish the project.
-Communications are hampered because of language, culture, distance, and schedule. It's inconvenient and therefore expensive to communicate with people who are sleeping.
-Intellectual property cannot be protected as effectively in another country.
For these reasons, some companies will eventually move jobs back to the US after a few projects fail in India. On a global scale, there will always be some projects sent to India, but not ALL of them.
Furthermore, the quantity of Indian programmers is very large, but not infinite. The demand for software and computer services might be met by overseas programmers in the short term, but rapid growth will resume and eventually we'll run out of Indian programmers.
Finally, sending contracts to India is something that larger companies will tend to do more often. They are often inefficient, and individual managers in large companies cannot impact the efficiency of the entire organization. They optimize their departments instead, and those optimizations might not make much sense globally. On the other hand, a smaller company would be more efficient to begin with, and efficiencies would be more likely to take place across the organization. Therefore, a smaller company is in a better position to take advantage of the benefit of having a local programming staff with better organizational integration.
Conclusions: smaller companies are less likely to send jobs overseas, but won't suffer for it. Large companies will alternately send work overseas and then recall it. Projects will still fail no matter where they are done. Indian programmers are not going to eat our lunch any more than Japanese autoworkers destroyed American industry. You live in a global economy, though it might not look like it if you drive 5 minutes to work. Nobody said life was going to be easy.
I was considering Borland's C++ compilers for a project that might be starting soon. This article has helped me immensely in my decision making process.
I won't be using Borland's products, because my legal exposure to a company eager to sue its customers would be too high. I'll use some other compiler from a company that cares about its customers.
Thanks again, this article has saved me a lot of time and expense.
And politely remind them that barratry is a serious offense that could cause their lawyers to lose their licenses.
Good for you for sticking to the framework that you fit your life into. I'd probably also get thrown out as well, because as an atheist, I'd ask for an alternate secular oath. Swearing "so help me god" means nothing to me, and if I swore that I'd consider it a carte blanche to do whatever I wanted. But if they asked me to swear on my personal honor that I'd tell the truth, do my duty, etc. then that'd mean something, and I'd stick to that oath completely.
I suspect that I'll never have the opportunity to be a juror, though I'd like to serve in that way at least once in my life.
When you say leave the atmosphere, you're not saying much. Even low earth orbit satellites such as the shuttle are in the atmosphere, just a very thin part of it.
If you set some altitude then you can figure out easily which rocket was first.
One of the V2 rockets fired by the United States in 1949 reached an altitude of about 250 miles. This was a modified configuration from the way it was originally built by the Germans.
Male trees are the ones that make all the pollen. So, you've got to pick - allergies, or fluff in the yard.
Monopolies might form naturally because of the mechanisms you describe, and I think there's a good solution to this. Not necessarily the only solution, but one of them.
A monopoly can be drawn in different ways, from a company having a monopoly on all the business for a particular platform, to a particular platform having a monopoly on all the hardware.
Examples: Microsoft has a monopoly on office software, but the UNIX operating system appears to be building towards a monopoly on servers and maybe even the desktop.
One monopoly is restrictive, and the other monopoly is not. I'm playing fast and loose with the definition of monopoly here, I know that. But my point is that open source software can be used to turn the first monopoly into the second. In other words, open source might have a moderative effect on monopolies, preventing a single company from locking up a market for too long a time.
I am not a die hard believer in the ultimate efficiency of the market - sometimes those markets do break down. But where markets do work, we should encourage them to work even better. The natural limitations on monopolies can be encouraged with the appropriate use of open source code so that a monopoly that might have stood for 25 years might only stand for 3 or 4 years, keeping the markets much more open than they otherwise would have been.
I agree with you that another step would be patent reform. Open source is just another tool we can use to improve how the markets work.