zeraholladay

Abstract Expressionism was the first art movement I really fell in love with, mostly because it wasn't a household name and sounded cool. For those of you who don't know anything about it, here are some links to a few well known artist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_de_Kooning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rothko

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kline

It's important to keep in mind that these paintings are not about technical quality. The argument, "my kid could have done that," is not relevant since your kid didn't do it -- you may as well argue you teenager could have written TS Eliot poems since she knows the vocabulary. These paintings are about energy, form and scale, often lack of form or contrasting forms. They also tend to photograph poorly, so try to appreciate them in person.

I think there's a valid point: we're not totally free agents. There might be some chemicals that are too addictive. For example, the cigarette companies refined tobacco to make it more addictive, enslaving millions to an addictive carcinogen. Decriminalization of harder drugs might be a better method, since it partially removes profit motive for production and refinement but doesn't incentivize use.

I'm in no way implying you're making the slippery slope argument, but it seems to me there's a common fear-based subtext to this question in the America media. So, I'm going to try to address what I see as the slippery slope subtext.

I don't think there's a slippery sloper from marijuana to cocaine, especially if marijuana is legalized. The slippery slope argument is like arguing there's a slippery slope from beer to cocaine -- addictive personalities aren't that simple. Further, any evidence implying a slippery slope from marijuana to harder drugs becomes less relevant after legalization, since marijuana users will then have fewer interactions with criminals and less exposure to harder drugs.

Several theories:

1. The less dominant personality emulates the dominant personality. 2. People that spend a lot of time together form similar habits and interests. Ever noticed how many guys in corporate america like the same thing? 3. People that spend a lot of time together engage in common consumption. For example, one person with bad eating habits will cause others to gain weight.

It was, but if you can show me a person that deals well with failure then you've shown me a CEO or saint.

Yeah, but it wasn't technical. The point of the question was to assess my entrepreneurial IQ, or so I was told after. Generally if an unemployed person's applying for a job, their entrepreneurial IQ is low at the moment and they need money. Nevertheless: I was to acquire a desk to work at, which needed to have certain dimensions for under a certain dollar figure. The internet is down, the local office supply company doesn't have it, etc, etc, until I'm starting to think the interviewer is nuts. OK, I'll sit on the floor. His point was that you need to generate options, which isn't bad advice. But it was a dumb interview question.

Asking relevant questions at an interview is a good idea, but I've noticed that a lot of technical interviewers ask questions it took them weeks to understand and fix when they use this approach. Understanding a problem is often more difficult than solving it ... knowing that the interviewer understands the problem and constraints is even more of a challenge.

I once had an interviewer give me the kobayashi maru without telling me. I thought the guy was a jerk. He could just have pulled a gun on me and demanded my wallet if he wanted to judge my personality. I declined the second round.

I couldn't have said it better. Priorities do change. In my experience they become more focused out of necessity. Basically, I think you're forced to pick what's important. That's usually the baby and only one other thing: reading a book, programming, working, etc. I'm only talking about from the father's perspective. The child tends to engage the mother more for his/her needs. So women tend to have less flexibility since the child demands more from them. For example, after 1.5 years my wife is just starting to get enough free time to pick up her hobbies again.

I'd like discuss your thoughts on hole punching. What sorts of rules do you apply, ethics, etc? What happens when you're successful and you halt trading? What sort of blowback is expected?

What? I know Ivy League graduates that can't pass state issue driving tests. I've read articles about computer scientists that can't configure a thermostat. Badly designed marginal tasks are not an accurate measure of person's performance.

The opinion card trumps the opinion card ad nauseum. However, I prefer well written (and civil) opinionated film reviews if for no other reason a strong opinion creates discussion and interest.

Further, specific and concrete examples of "good teachers" presented by either the film maker or reviewer would have been absurd (but the review's point was the the film didn't even attempt to address the issue of a good teacher). The notion of a "good teacher" is absurd, I think, because it doesn't exist. Consider your kindergarten teacher and advanced math prof. One was probably nurturing and kind, the other an expert in a complex subject. What do these two people have in common that can be communicated in the 90 minutes alloted to a film or the 5 minutes alloted to a blog post?

Not all bullying situations are necessarily toxic or dangerous. Consider hazing and boot camp, both of which are essentially sanctioned bullying. I suspect a good number of people actually enjoy hazing (joining a fraternity) and others believe military training builds character, etc.

Likewise, try entertaining the idea that childhood bullying (within reason) might serve a social purpose. I've heard multiple first hand accounts of former targets overcoming bullies to become protectors, for one. Perhaps bullying creates a social order, a sense of empathy for victims, etc? I'm not arguing that all bullying is constructive, but I'm not also willing to say it's all destructive either.

To elaborate on your point, I also think it's awesome that the wraith of forgotten memory forms a rich 3-dimensional idea.

I joined Facebook to experiment with the API for a real estate and social network site. I shortly had a longish list of friends, people I'd known for years, family, coworkers, baby pictures, etc. It was fun, but it was a lot of parts of my life in one place.

Most of us live compartmental lives. We're constantly separating various aspects of our lives, cultures and relationships. People, I think, form pretty cool organic amalgamations like large cities, universities, internets, etc. But planned spaces, such as malls, airports and suburbs, tend to be insipid. Facebook is the insipid mixture, IMHO.

I don't know if all social networking sites are equally doomed, but I think it's about the next thing and not necessarily the "next best thing."

My wife was raised Buddhist. We talked extensively about the affects of meditation after reading an article on the over-use, abuse and misunderstanding of meditation in some Western mainstream practices. The article covered a few obvious but damaging cases: depressed and marginal personalities attempting to meditate for hours during a first attempt. What struck me when talking about it with my wife is that meditation is a skill; it's something you have to learn to do and something someone else should probably teach you so that you use it responsibly.

Well, that's really just an unfair value judgment.

True, everybody's identity comes from somewhere. The question is, where they get it from? My identity tells me that waiting in line for 6-10 hours for an iPhone is ridiculous ... categorically rejecting it. Life's too short to derive meaning or identity from an iPhone. You shouldn't rationalize by arguing, "Everyone's identity comes from somewhere."

My apologies if my comment generalizes Facebook users but I have a difficult time entertaining any comparison between Facebook and Google. What about myspace, Yahoo, AOL? Each of these social sites failed since they catered to the LCD. The next wave of net users thought they were lame. The net doesn't work like other entertainment in that if you don't like the content, then you can make your own or go somewhere else. Facebook is doomed the day pics of grandchildren quit getting uploaded or everybody realizes they've friended their employer.

Most Facebook users can't even find facebook.com without Google: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_yo.... Am I missing something?

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. -- H. L. Mencken

Human beings can be selectively bred for various traits, but I don't think this is the issue for any intelligent, educated person since science is pretty clear on the matter. I take issue with the idea that human being can be improved, specifically with the word "improved" or any other such term used instead. Improved is subjective at best and totally repulsive when one considers what "improved" might actually mean to those defining an improvement (Nazi eugenics program). Human nature is such that any human designed program to selectively breed human beings will ultimately become a gross perversion, since the program would require institutionalization, planned breeding, castration and outright murder. We humans tend to be somewhat ethical and decent on an individual level but on a social or national level we're repulsive, greedy, disgusting monsters. Frankly, we can't trust ourselves.

Very cool. I've had a slight desire to make a simple machine to attract fireflies with a webcam, computer and LED. Apparently male fireflies use a single pulse and females respond with two pulses, but I've never tested or observed this independently.

News at 11: Witless, soulless corporate management seduced by consulting firm. "I really liked the cool golf shirt and the free lunches," said Jerry from middle management, "but we really need to blame our failure on someone outside of the company. It didn't take long to realize consulting firm X was only interested in our money and this very cool golf shirt is still not worth the couple million dollars we spent [on consulting firm X]. I'm still trying to come to terms with the concept of a 'free market.'"

Question: "Even though the value was comparable [cans of sodas and a dollar] --and thus the situations were supposed to be equivalent--people responded in opposite ways. Why is that?"

Answer: Sane people leave six packs of sodas in refrigerators so the sodas get cold and in case those with access to the refrigerator get thirsty. The old idiom applies: treat others as you would want to be treated.

Dollar bills generally do not belong in refrigerators. Thus there is no social norm reasonably explaining the purpose of the dollars in the refrigerator. The researcher needs to provide an explanation as to why the situations are supposed to be equivalent.