jeremyarussell

I think I get what you mean. I do landscaping and misc. yard work on the weekends to get my "working outside" fix. I'm sure it's different for everyone, but for me I need to really break a sweat out in the sun once and a while to keep my happiness levels up.

As mentioned already you mean gene, but yes you can and he does already with the wheel density, giving the darker ones more mass than the lighter ones.

It takes a special kind of leap to go from "Socially engineered into doing something" to "deserves physical violence because of unpopularity" or "financially unable to get out of an unhealthy situation so isn't deserving of a better situation".

The key difference being that in the prior example the negative impact is you follow someone that may not be of interest to you, in which case you can always un-follow. While a nerd or the poor will find they can't literally click a button to undo the "damage" that was done.

I get what you are trying to say, I disagree that you can apply that to this specific example. It would be better aimed at a rich person who literally thinks everyone on food stamps is a lazy bum.

Hopefully they'll fix the blog thing when they roll out the new site. You're right though, linking to the main site is generally what someone naturally expects a logo to do.

What should we be mad at him for? There are well listed and reasonable pros to maintaining the smaller price point and artificially limiting the battery capacity. The only half decent con anyone can list is dead weight. Which, and I haven't done the math myself but, the consensus seems to be that it's very much negligible (Anyone got some math to back me up by chance, I seem to have forgotten my capacity + weight = range formulas.)

So yeah, I can't say I see what the giant fuss is about, and for the record, you may see everyone here as Musk "lovers" incapable of seeing his selfishness and wastefulness (i think?), while some would say you seem a Musk "hater" incapable of letting reason invade your opinion of the man. But you know, to each his own.

Edit: Grammar

What get's me the most is the overall assumption seems to be that the ladies there were too good looking to be developers. I can't picture a more sexist thought process than "Oh hey there cute girl, who paid you to come to this?" It's probably the single most damaging assumption made, that a good looking female must have never tried being smart because ya know, sexiness and stuff.

The issue I have with the soul mate theory is that people can and do change when they want to, when that happens your "soul mate" would also change, basically nullifying the entire concept.

Edit: I should say though I completely agree (about everything except the predestined part), people need to keep an eye out and know what they want, and not just physical qualities.

That's a valid observation I hadn't made yet, concerning manufacturing in general. You're right about the prototypes being made with software as well, I mostly meant that to physically produce the prototype is different then when you produce the prototype for software, given the click and compile nature of it. All in all though I agree that the terms really need to be reconsidered, but I don't see our legislative branch making an real changes to our governmental system in general, it works out for them pretty good right now.

So I like how he ends with that bit on patents, when I did my presentation at the USPTO Silicon Valley roundtable event a month ago, a couple of the presenters made the case that absolutely nothing needs to change with software patents because computers should be treated the same as any other kind of machine, and so software should be considered the same as every other type of patent. The fact of the matter is this is simply not true, computer software cannot be equated to physical items, and barely equate to business flow and methods. With all the complexities, as well as the fact that to try out a new version of software happens in seconds where making a prototype of some machine or object takes days, weeks or months. It seemed they either didn't fully understand the difference, or they understand and do not want the system to change since it works greatly in their favor.

Anyone who has an opinion on patents, especially software patents, should be keeping up with the roundtable events. And, I'm not saying that because I went either, stuff is being talked about at these events that will either be ignored or shape the patent system in one way or another. In either case, it's in our best interest to stay involved in the process.

Edit: Spelling

The same way lawyers already enforce contracts? If I had to guess. That and having publicly made the statement, they would see a mass exodus of users if they broke their own promise. (Think GoDaddy)

I'd venture to say that it isn't caused by the SimCity fiasco, but could be used as a, "Hey guys we are trying to fix this, see?" Kind of move on EA's part. All I know for sure is there are too many people happy about this for it to not be related at all. (Not trying to say there's causation, just correlation.)

I can't say for certain since I don't live there, but a cursory search for baby kidnappings in Sweden pulled up a famous guy and that baby was stolen from a crib. Baby kidnapping isn't an issue for them, otherwise I imagine they would not be leaving their kids outside. It's like if no one steals stuff, you don't have to always keep your door locked.

And only 999,999 more steps to go.

You obviously have a hard on for guns. Yet the thing that does the most damage to our system is the biggest companies constantly lobbying with their weapon of choice, money, and lots of it. They continue to push for stronger patents, not weaker ones. They want longer time frames and more complicated bureaucracy's so that the massive amount of money they have for lawyers will make sure it's always easy for them to get patents instead of the people working from their garage that invent something and can't afford to get a lawyer and file a patent. All the groups you say your gut tells you want less patents consistently show us via their actions that they want stronger patents.

I'll be the first to advocate for a better understanding of non-violent means for negotiation, but the dynamics of violence and weapons and human psychology goes in a different area other then a patent discussion. Unless you're trying to derail the topic into a flame war or something.

Ha, 99 stores owes me 39 dollars. I'd rather them send it to the red cross or something. I wasn't even expecting there to be anything either. shrugs

Meditation is one of the things that most people should do, it enlightens you as to your faults, bringing them to light so that you may change yourself for the better. It's also nothing to do with making you superior to other people(if it is you have other issues that won't work themselves out until you learn some empathy.)

I think there's something to be said about all the critical thinkers that have simply not yelled loudly about their opinion on the subject either way. And I think everyone who's yelling should consider that before they generalize entire communities.

It could also be that he only writes stuff he views is a fit for hacker news.

I don't mean more disclosure to the doctors on the pills, if that's what you thought, which I'm only assuming because I wasn't attempting to question the validity of clinical trials at all. I was saying given the language the person I was replying to used, it seemed like the doctors were actively trying to figure out what which pills were which, evidenced by the fact that instead of going "dang, we accidentally figured it out and now are susceptible to bias. We should start the trials over right NOW instead of wasting money" They went, lets retest these patients since the outcome isn't coming out like we think it should, something they should know isn't going to fly.

Also not saying specifically that it was malice, but that it's either malice or stupidity, or both.

Also, I have ethical and intellectual standards of doctors doing things that will impact hundreds of thousands of people.

Not sure why you said "Who cares if doctors will figure out which medication is the placebo?" - Since I didn't even insinuate that.

"This "missing information" is available to the people that matter (the FDA)." - That's right, I'm just too unimportant and stupid to be trusted to look at this stuff, also when the issue a lot of people are having is not being able to trust big pharma and the FDA, well hiding stuff isn't going to fix that.

Yes, I was being a bit dramatic for impact.

"The doctors had found a way to determine which patient was receiving which drug." - This implies that they consciously tried to bypass their blindness, physical design of the pill being different would do this sure, but that's not an issue with too much disclosure, that's an issue with people either A) Not doing their job well enough(the pill designers) OR B)Trying to find out which one so they could fudge the results.(Crooked Doctors? Yeah, less disclosure will fix that right up.)

If I'm not mistaken they've already brought many innovations to the field of entirely electronic cars, from the battery placement and chassis design, down to the superchargers. And Tesla is aiming for high end now, but I'm certain Elon Musk has had plans for making even cheaper version once he finds where he can make it truly economical for the average family to buy.

TL;DR - I think Elon will do just fine.

I commend you for doing the right things. The system inherently goes against it's only goal, by sending people out that are almost guaranteed to commit another crime and unleashing even more upset people onto the population. Instead of keeping us safe it makes progressively more savage criminals, people that have to hurt or kill in order to survive in prison don't generally come out better for it.

I think the fact that you are even doing all this will keep your friend on the right track, that he has a friend to talk to may be the thing that keeps him from a depression that will send him towards a life of crime.

Rarely are the minds of people who will go to this level as simple as greed. Often times it's to save a life that is falling apart, the stress of the situation leading you to make decisions that turn out to be bad. Is it selfish? Sometimes. Is it greed? Maybe to an extent. Is it simple? Never. In fact that's the only thing that is simple, that these things are always complicated.

The issue is the author openly admitted to them sending these letters out for laughs when they are from people trying to blow themselves out of proportion.

I like how people forget to check that when saying. "This argument is invalid, it's main support is a fictional character". Obviously the adventures were not real, but the person was. And the advice given, pay attention and be mindful, keep your mind organized, etc. are all good pieces of advice.

I have to say. When I go to the news sites I usually peruse it cleans things up nicely for me. Taking away the side images and garbage I generally don't care about when reading news. And replacing it with a cleaner, more streamlined, article. I'm one of the people that dig words that don't move, I read books a lot though, and when I read ebooks I don't like scrolling, I like "turning" the pages. I'll be keeping this bookmarklet on my computers.

I've been rather content just turning my brightness down when I turn my lights off. That said I keep my room flooded with light so as to not strain my eyes trying to look at a screen or read in the dark. I kind of want to give this a shot though as my eyes are very sensitive to light and changes in light levels.

You must not have read the rest of my comments...

That said, reducing risk isn't what hmexx is doing. Since the risk of quitting your job and starting on your own product is failure to create a good enough product and NOT have a job to go back to. He's not made any warranties about you being able to resume your previous job (nor could he, or should he.)

Again, look at my other comments, where I plainly state this is not for everyone, like people who already can market and recognize an MVP. And it's best for younger people who have crummy jobs and little marketing and/or business experience, and little to lose (like a nice good current job.)

Mostly just that IBM's Watson is so very different then google search. That said you are right, there isn't much of my point that isn't invalidated when you include the ability to exchange data through the internet. Not everyone needs a Watson at home for it to be personable either, they just need IBM to save their personal settings, etc.

I suppose I was just imagining a world where everyone has their own Watson at home and not served through the web.