goggles99

Not well made? It's a book that is a PDF at some point before it hits printing presses. What is there to make at all? The kindle has been out for how many years? how is the book so different when reading it on an e-ink display? He mentions that shortcuts were added, but still - how is it worse than a printed book (there are no links there either).

This seems disingenuous.

Mozilla and Google already want a VM as evidenced by their work. It would not take any convincing to get them there.

if VMs can make the W3C irrelevant, then they will do so regardless of W3C's approval of any particular standard.

Now you're underestimating the power of an established standard. For something to really flourish, enterprise has to adopt it. Without a standard, this will not happen. This is a bit of chicken and the egg scenario.

Original site with almost same description verbiage: https://web.archive.org/web/20110704041631/http://force7.de/...

I don't see this ever happening. They would in effect be eliminating themselves. They would have to find new jobs or even careers.

Once the VM is standardized, what about HTML/JS/CSS. Well who the hell wants to use those slow moving legacy technologies?

So the standardization now becomes for python, for C#, for scala and lisp ETC.(and their associated UI frameworks). Not controlled by the W3C at all - thus their extinction.

It's more than this though. The W3C has an agenda and it is not to advance technology, it is to slow it down. They want everything moving so slowly that standards can be followed across the board. They want JS/CSS/HTML to be the end all not just in the browser, but everywhere. I think that this should be pretty clear if you follow their trail going back 10-15 years.

It is like a socialist government in a way. The promise is to keep everything stable and let everyone be on equal footing (equal here because the technology moves so slowly that nobody can be left behind by it.) They have to kill and silence many revolutionists who want freedom along the way to do so but consider themselves justified in doing so. Meanwhile, in a neighboring free government with limited govt, people flourish. They have more ups and downs true, and mistakes are made along the way, but after 10 years the free country is wealthy and flourishing, while the socialist one is stagnant and poor.

Think of the mere opportunity of innovation that would exist if a language creator could sit down and create a new language and UI framework universally for browsers in a well established and supported way. This lack of freedom is stagnating innovation.

Let the people decide. Make a standardized VM and your HTML/JS/CSS stack and let the people vote with their choice of options that appear.

My point? how long till those getting the stipend are whining again about how poor they are because they make the same amount as today relative to the general population. Now we are back to square one.

That is an interesting notion, but it seems that there is no plan for those who will inevitably blow all their free money on possessions, drugs, gambling ETC. and still need to eat, be clothed, housed, buy cable TV (like most welfare recipients do) ETC.

I hope that they actually pass this new law because it is very interesting. Assuming enough people don't just waste the money and still need the govt cheese this could actually transform a society.

Had to stop here and evaluate if I should read any further. The author is suggesting that we give people money to directly break the law with it?

Even more importantly though, the percentage of welfare recipients who use illegal drugs and are good parents and holding down a job is less than 5%. Thus the requirement seems common sense since we do not wish to merely reinforce and enable bad/illegal behavior.

Startups come and startups go, but family you will always have (unless you blow all their money in a failed startup)

This is a very bad idea.

Online gaming is becoming as much of a time drain. It at least does not have as much of a social, political and interpersonal agenda as television (though it does warp you mind in other ways) but still, what a waste of precious life.

What would the world look like if television was gone tomorrow. No more marketers and hidden agenda writers and directors programming your mind subtlety.

What happened to board games? getting together with family and friends to socialize? I would like to see numbers on what television, media, and gaming has replaced (as far as time spent). Eventually, humans won't even act like traditional humans. All social skills and collaboration, perhaps even empathy one day will be far diminished or lost. Our very humanity.

See how much your demographic watches (or is influenced/brainwashed by): http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-10-21/less-time-i...

some language designers see and fully appreciate the benefits of both. They start putting class synonymous structures in FP languages or FP functionality in OOP languages. This is the future of the mainstream (Ex: EcmaScript 6 has classes/types, C# has Linq, closures, lambdas ETC).

As such, it's nothing but another uninformed rant.

It's likely that most people who own an iPhone don't even know about this feature.

He owned an android phone for a week and did not even see half the features that Android has and IOS lacks. How can you adjust to a totally different UI (and begin to appreciate many of the features and differences) in such a short period of time.

This post was not worth reading.

Wrong, you lack the same basic, problem solving logic that I am referring to.

A good researcher would have asked additional questions such as "On a scale of 1-10" - "how enjoyable is the actual work that you do here?", "how satisfied are you with the amount of money that you are making?", "where do you see yourself in five years". These aren't the best quesions that I could come up with, I am just giving examples off the top of my head.

It would be easy to see how unhappy these workers are with other things in their lives rather than if they were in a cubicle vs a private office.

Having 8 kids does not have to be as expensive as you think. You can get clothes for next to nothing (or free if you are really poor), rooms can be shared, hand-me-down toys and clothes.

Food is really the only expense that multiplies. But if you are making big batches of food and using raw materials (large bags of rice, pasta or beans from Costco come to mind) it really does not have to be that expensive.

The author states how important it was to them to keep the kids in the best schools. This suggests that hey had fallen into a trap that many have. They believe that their kids will be better off if they have the best of everything (clothes, schooling, food, housing). This simply is not true. Look at what happened. The family was completely split into pieces. Some of the kids became almost foster kids. The mother abandoned some of the younger ones. Is this really better than a middle class family that stays together and has a lower standard of living?

The other part of this is, parents are fooled into thinking that they should work 60hrs a week so their kids will be better off. Their kids meanwhile are being raised by some strangers most of the time (day-care, after school care). The kids would rather just have the parent around than a bunch of extra toys, clothes and video games. The worst part is, the parent is not there teaching them haw to be upstanding and respectable men and women. Teaching them work ethic, discipline, values, morality, ETC.

How foolish this man was. He deserves the life he has been relegated to. His kids don't though - and I do feel sorry for them.

Disagree with me? This man made over 10 million dollars during his life and he is only in his early fifties.

I don't buy this. He knew that writer's jobs rarely lasted into their 50's. He knew the end was coming but didn't save enough, and continued to spend 400k per year while being unemployed.

All this calamity for this family of 10 came from bad planning. This guy had a career that would have likely lasted until retirement, but he took a risk and quit it. That was a smallish risk, not nearly the risk he took while in his next job.

He admits that writers careers don't usually don't last into their 50s. Why did he not save more money so he could retire early? Why did he choose to have more and more children? Why did he not position himself for transition into another job as his writing career progressed? Why did he just quit without having another (less demanding) job lined up?

He was making upwards of a million dollars a year at one point. I had some neighbors while growing up in the 90s, they had 8 kids too and their father probably make 2-3 million dollars over his entire life. They were never homeless (in fact they had a pretty nice 5bd house), never hungry, cold, had decently new cars and clothes, ETC. This guy blew his wad all at once like a pro athlete.

All bad choices.

After his job, why did they not cut back on their spending? They should have downsized and cut back dramatically rather than continuing their expensive lifestyle.

At the time he quit, he was probably worth over 2 million dollars Add half a million that they borrowed after that and you still can't make that last more than 6 years?

I know someone who did something similar. The person that I know took a couple of years off like this. He got so used to it that when he started looking for a job again - it was half-assed (he was spoiled with still living lavish on savings and not having to work). He sabotaged many interviews, turned down some for bogus reasons and when he got jobs, he could not keep them for long (self sabotage again). It was like he was mentally ready for retirement already, but he was only 40.

It is a sad story, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who has grossed over 10 million dollars over his lifetime but squandered it.

Really? you don't think that he people with personal offices are not in better, higher paying, less menial jobs to begin with? I think that would be obvious and clearly a better reason that they are happier. If there are some distractions and lack of total privacy, but you love what you are doing, do you really think that you are going to be miserable?

Please stop with the correlation posts where there is more obvious potential conclusions. So annoying.

On top of this, your criticism is not even valid. Let me explain why.

You clearly have never given birth with or even assisted in an obstructed delivery? Corks, prototypes, and dummies are not made to fit as tight as an obstructed birth canal and do not even try to replicate this scenario.

If you've read the article carefully, and paid attention to the details you would know the live births used are no evidence that his will work when it is actually needed.

>So far, the device has been safety-tested only on 30 Argentine women, all of whom were in hospitals, had given birth before and were in normal labor.

So the diameter of these women's birth canals were far larger than typical obstructed ones because they had given birth before. They also were in normal labor. There would be far more room available to use this device when it is not actually needed. Try shoving something like this down and around a curved surface with an obstruction preventing it's passage. The material would have to be very stiff, but to curve properly around the head and face, it would have to be very flexible. These things are mutually exclusive. Even if you managed to get it worked into place eventually (without it folding over someplace) it would take a fairly long period of time to work it into place. Suction is very quick to attach and is often used when that baby is already in distress (needs to come out in a hurry).

Here are some more reasons this won't work.

Sizing. Babies craniums are vastly different sizes. Either they will need 8 sized of these hanging on the wall, or the inflation part will have to allow for dramatic size differences. If there is only one size, and the baby's head is small, you are increasing the size of the object that needs to pass through the canal by a large margin (Actually adding to the problem). I suppose that big hospitals could have 8 sizes of these on hand, but not third world midwives.

If there is enough room for this thing to fit on, there is enough room for the Dr or midwife to just use their hands. This is far better anyway as they will have far more tactile feel.

Really? you mean these things are going to be available at WalMart so that untrained people can use them?

I really cannot see this being adopted. how are you going to slip this thing past the cervix and pubic bone? The whole reason that you need this thing in the first place is that there is literally zero room there. Also, the inflation is going to cause an even larger object to have to move through the birth canal thus exacerbating the original problem.

How are you even going to know if you have it on completely? you really cannot see in that tight space.

What about fetal distress? I cannot imagine that this thing squishing their entire cranium would bode well for distress which leads to many potential complications.

Maybe most importantly is the fact that this device would likely prevent the infant from ingesting the very important birth canal bacteria which colonized as flora in the baby's gut. c-section births lack this as well and they are at much higher risks for many things because of it.

This is a poor replacement for vacuum extractions (suction cup method) IMO. Maybe in developing countries it could be helpful (MAYBE safer for untrained midwives), but I doubt even that, given it's own disadvantages.

The point is, most don't think that the design would even work. The specs defy many laws of physics. It is more of a concept or dream at this stage. It would be an extremely high risk investment - thus, no takers.

By comparison, Instagram had a proven and popular product. Why would you compare something so very different?

Wow, this is like saying their clothes look different from ours because their sowing machines are too old. Their hair styles are different because their scissors have longer blades, their food is different because they use chopsticks - ETC.

Their web design is different because they are different culturally. Their tastes and preferences are stylistically different. just because their gardens are liked in the west, does not mean we like all of their stylistic preferences. This blog post is completely wrong IMO. "Enough said".

Of course if you file bankruptcy, this all changes.

IMO people should have to pay back money they have borrowed no matter how long it takes. I have known too many people who rack up a bunch of debt with the "I want it now and I will pay for it later" attitude. It is easy to have this attitude when these people can just declare bankruptcy if they get in too deep (as many people I have known have done). With no strong deterrent, of course people are going to be lackadaisical about this.

If this was a law, everyone would run up a bunch of debt and settle it for pennies on the dollar (nearly free money). How could a credit system survive if there is little consequence for being a dead beat?

Why don't I just borrow a million dollars, buy gold with it and bury most of it in a field. When they come for it, I'll just give them $1000 and then go dig up the gold and retire.

(I am not disputing the claim of the author's story and that experience, I am merely pointing out that his example is not the case most of the time.)

It is true that a very small minority of people dress and talk nicely because they realize that they will be treated better by the middle and upper class. Now in this group, some spend lavish amounts of money (like in the article), and some shop at thrift stores and/or buy knock off designer purses, belts, ETC. This fact alone blurs the argument that the author is presenting. It is very possible (and proven so) to live in poverty in America and dress well by choosing alternative resources.

The other (and more devastating) counter argument that applies to other poor people is merely by observation of what the status symbols that many in these groups purchase.

Let me use the example that was laid out in the article. The typical poor black women/man in a white world scenario. Well then why do the majority of poor black men and women who make expensive status symbol purchases look ghetto and drive "ghetto" cars? I don't mean beat up and worn out clothes and cars, I mean the style of clothing/jewelry and pimped out cars. These same people aren't talking "nicely" either. Their heavy use of Ebonics/Redneck/Slang and constant expletives while wearing their gold chains, starter athletic jerseys and Le-Brons (expensive basketball shoes) ETC. Tell a different story. They are seeking status among their piers, not the middle/upper class that they envy. They are not doing it to help them work their way up economically. It is in fact keeping them down. How are they better off overall now? They could have saved that money and invested it on going to school or moving to an area of better geographic opportunity. Now instead they just look like more expensively dressed thugs.

My personal belief is that most poor people live for today. They don't have long term goals and plans. They were never taught good habits like saving up money and conveying to the non-minority class that they don't have a ghetto mentality or live in the rap/hip hop culture (during job interviews ETC).

They have no hope, because they have no vision or dreams. All that they typically observe is their small world and the twisted fantasy of television/movies/commercials. Sure, it feels great to go into a department store and feel wealthy for a day, wear expensive things and feel better about yourself, but most poor people buying designer status symbols - this is what it is really all about. Living a fantasy with no real benefit to their actual social, economic, or productive member of society status.