simonjoe

Cool story, bro.

Why do sociologists break their own rules when it suits their ends? "More ethical" doesn't have a meaning in a world where morality isn't purely objective. Either this article was written by an idiot or his sources don't word good. Wait…washington post…it's both.

Damn you, hacker news, for linking to this crap. I was hoping it would be interesting. Is there a way to neg rep the OP or is that just a forum thing?

Cool…that's not what the link sent me to. It was a 3-page I9 from–iirc–1991 that said nothing about paperwork reduction.

Yeah, me too. The reply to your question wasn't helpful as the link is to the I-9, none of which appears to have anything to do with paperwork reduction. The link off HN also mentioned page 3, which only lists valid forms of ID.

I'm missing something.

Yours is the first intelligent commentary I've read. Thank you.

You would be importing a LOT of stuff necessary to keep your city going.

Every time I read a facebook story here or elsewhere, I get the overwhelming desire to delete my account. The only problem is that there may be people I want to interact with that I don't have other contact information for. The sad thing is that I don't remember.

I might just do it anyway…they can't be that important, right?

The one thing I've learned from one of the most prestigious technical universities in the world is that results are more important than integrity.

I disagree wholeheartedly with his analysis. Yes, Apple is more closed. But…you can do a lot with OS X, other than the window manager and desktop system.

I rooted my iPhone. Just like a lot of people.

I script everything.

I don't run the apple versions of openssh or openssl or a bunch of other things, all just done with the ordering of folders in my path.

Almost everything I want to do on Linux, I can do on OS X. And the things that I can't aren't GUI-based, so ssh works fine.

It's worth having to run another computer (or a virtual machine) to run some OSX/Windows-only apps. And it's not worth running windows.

The hacker culture is alive and well on OS X, and I don't see Apple as doing anything to stop it…you just have to learn a bit more…in a lot of cases, that's not even necessary.

But, I guess that fits…because it's all about user experience instead of coding the actual OS.

Plus…keep calm and carry on. The British are going to be slow to adopt net neutrality because they may as well just let the market sort it out until the market f*s up too badly, then they'll look at it.

I live in atlanta…pretty accurate. Except for the comment about the weather. Yeah we have all 4 seasons…but we also have all 4 seasons once a week during the so-called "fall" and "spring." And there's no snow. One morning or so a year, there's a half-inch of snow on the ground. Occasionally, it's followed by ice that the DOT covers with sand instead of salt for reasons that have never been adequately explained.

Oh, and there's no such thing as clean local politics. Want something passed…pay for it. Period.

That would be a big deal if they supported virtualization on other hardware. Is it possible that it's a first step towards a more open (in regards to hardware requirements) OS X in general?

I–personally–like OS X server for a lot of applications. But, the bottom line is important for businesses and private consumers. XServes never fit into that consideration as well as they could have.

+1 for Apples. I have run virtual machines in the past when necessary, but I find that I don't do it anymore as there isn't any software I have to use right now that doesn't run natively. OS X has a few decent package managers, though none as good as apt-get or portage, so that might be a concern if you're used to that kind of thing. If you're not aware that the software you mentioned is available for OS X and specifically mentioned ubuntu, i'm willing to bet that's not the case…but I have a bad image of ubuntu users, mostly because I used gentoo back when I was on linux.

Well, if you're willing to accept that a wing–as described–produces lift in it's 'natural' upward direction (see other replies for some links as this step is a bit complicated), then there's only one way a plane can fly upside down. That reason is that it can also create lift opposite that direction.

Wings are not static. Wings either use flaps or some mechanism that causes them to bend that alters how much lift they produce at a given speed, angle of attack, etc.. The thing is that the reference frame you choose is important.

If you have 0 lift, you're in free fall…a phenomenon that a lot of planes can do. If you can push whatever that distortion in wing shape (flaps or bending) a bit farther, then you can dive faster than freefall, that is producing lift in the downward direction.

Now, just turn the plane upside down and do the same thing.

The freakier thing is that helicopters can theoretically fly upside-down. Same thing: if they can drop faster than free fall, they can fly upside down. The catch is that it's a VERY unstable equilibrium that is a huge stress on basically all of the parts of the motor, steering mechanism, structure, etc..

Or, it's because your parents' are Santa Claus. That's really equivalent.

The author is a moron. This movie is amazing, but it's also insanely straightforward. It doesn't require that kind of analysis; almost nothing does.

I'm growing increasingly disheartened at the blogosphere simply because it gives people as stupid as this author a way for even stupider people to reinforce his bad behaviors.

Maybe that'll happen to me eventually. It wasn't a 28-hour cycle, certainly, but I've been on the overdrive until crash sleep schedule basically since I was born.

I don't see any end in sight. I have to stay up for almost 48 hours every few weeks when I actually have commitments (like a job) in the morning as a reset. It's annoying.

admitted.

Obviously, you never went to college.

I've used this sleep schedule before. It's extremely liberating, if only a little lonely at the beginning of each week.

It's not hard to switch back and forth as long as you use one of the bedtimes that's normal for both schedules and just wake up with an alarm when you're supposed to on the new one.

The best thing about it was that I was actually tired (on the 20/8 variation) when it was time to go to bed, and I usually woke up a few minutes before my alarm starting on about the third day. These two phenomena never happen with any variation on a 24 hour day that I've tried. I was more productive (got my normal work done; started cycling regularly again; wrote more; and was averaging 2-3 books per week) and happier. I can't think of anything bad to say about it except that the last few hours of each "day" are a bit sluggish. I'm convinced that helped me sleep.

The only reason that I went off it was because my girlfriend has a fairly restrictive (yet changing) schedule. I was looking at not seeing her at all for a week if I continued it.

I should say that if I just go to bed when I'm tired, my body defaults to something pretty close to a 28-hour day regardless of light levels and the other people I've known to try it had negative experiences.

She's just mad because women suck at computers.

Move away from china. There's nothing for us there.

Actually, alzheimer's can't be diagnosed premortem. It's only diagnosed by characteristic neural striations during a necropsy. Before death, the only conclusion that one can draw (along those lines) is some kind of dementia, not the particular kind. (citation: Dr. Corballis, GT PSYC 3020 - Biopsychology)