jdlegg

Tell the people who are still waiting for their federal stimulus checks that things are "functioning normally."

360fly | Pittsburgh, PA | ONSITE Hiring Android and iOS engineers. Possibly others too. We make panoramic 360 degree video cameras. Our apps act as primary experience for camera hardware. Our product is in national retail stores now. Bluetooth, graphics programming, OpenGL, math. Strong engineering team. Apply at careers.360fly.com

Fair enough.

I'm thinking boldly here. The French are able to peak at 200-230mph on operating trains running on conventional track. The Japanese and Chinese can push Maglevs up to 360+ mph. As a "disruptive" technology, 300 mph seems like it's attainable or at least worth considering.

It may require new approaches. It would be a monumental engineering effort. It would probably ensure full employment for a decade or more. But I don't think it's any more ridiculous than, say, sending a manned mission to Mars.

Of course Amtrak would issue such a report...

Unattributed, but per Wikipedia: "In mid-2011, scheduled TGV trains operated at the highest speeds in conventional train service in the world,[citation needed] regularly reaching 320 km/h (200 mph) on the LGV Est, LGV Rhin-Rhône and the LGV Méditerranée." [0] You're right, though, that this is different than average speed.

Still, 300 mph would be a stretch goal for sure, but it doesn't seem ridiculous if you're starting from scratch today. The Shanghai system was built over a decade ago. At minimum, automated computer controls should be significantly improved.

I'm also operating with the assumption that the budget for such a project would be unlimited, since it's just a thought exercise.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

I disagree with this assessment.

The distance from Chicago to Houston is roughly 1100 miles. Non-stop flights from O'Hare to Houston Hobby are listed on Kayak.com at 2 hours and 45 minutes. Add approx. 1 hour for pre-flight check-in, security and an average delay factor (it's O'Hare after all). That's a 3 hour and 45 minute trip time. We could add post-flight transportation from the airport to where you actually want to be and probably add another hour, but let's ignore that detail.

In 2007, the French TGV set a speed record on conventional track of 357 mph. The unconventional track (maglev) record belongs to the Japanese SCMaglev and is 368 mph [0]. These were set under very experimental conditions, but if it were possible to realize equivalent speeds in a practical setting (perhaps via underground tunnels), the train trip from Chicago to Houston would require only 3 hours(!).

But let's assume the above is impossible in real operating conditions. French TGV passenger routes regularly attain speeds of 200mph. This makes our Houston trip a little under 5 1/2 hours. That strikes me as quite efficient.

I'm not an expert, but given the deplorable state of American infrastructure, especially rail, implementation of a system like this would most likely require starting from scratch. As such, equivalence of the French TGV seems very attainable.

More likely, new innovation would lead to performance improvements over their system, which was conceived in the 1970s. Is 300mph attainable? I don't know, but it seems like a reasonable goal. That brings our Houston trip to roughly the equivalent of a flight, when including pre-flight check-in procedures. Of course, trains are safer, less energy and infrastructure intensive and a lot more pleasant.

All of this without mentioning the fact that SCNF, the operator of the French TGV, achieved a $1.75 billion operating profit in 2007.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_rail_vehi...

The built-in Reminders app on the iPhone is great for list-crossing-offing.

This strikes me as one of those (many) pieces where TechCrunch (and the Silicon Valley elite) are too far removed to make an accurate assessment. Like colonial explorers, amazed by the "crude" methods of the peoples they encounter.

Libraries are one of few effective public resources that function to address class inequalities in our society. It's not just about access to information, but also a community guide for everything from how to vote, apply to jobs, and file a tax return. They provide entertainment by lending DVDs and CDs (think Netflix for those who can't afford $9/month), as well as books and magazines. They also provide free gathering space for tutoring, job training, and community building.

For millions in America, an iPad or eBook reader is equivalent to two weeks pay or more. For them, the end of libraries would be another sign that they're being abandoned and continue to erode the pretense that an "American Dream" exists for everyone.

I think the most concrete example of what you're describing is the "pattern" we saw with tobacco. Science suggested for a long time that cigarette smoking might be bad for you. As the evidence grew stronger, tobacco companies ran ads with Joe DiMaggio about how healthy their brand was[1].

Eventually the evidence was so irrefutable, and there were enough "casualties," that most reasonable people were forced to accept it.

This seems like a pattern that repeats itself. It begins with anecdotal evidence, followed by a long period of scientific research, then propaganda campaigns and eventual acceptance.

We're currently seeing it, about halfway through the curve, in the food industry with sugar. It's also happened previously with lead, seatbelts, asbestos, gambling, mercury, alcohol & driving, cholesterol, tanning booths, etc.

And now, perhaps, it's starting on the effect of information consumption. I use the term "information consumption" because it seems to be about much more than just teenagers and their phones.

[1] http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6149/6012309554_2c177196a8_z.j...

Verizon FIOS has the same sort of behavior.

In the grand scheme of things, going paperless is not really a significant tactic to mitigate climate change or other environmental impacts. The paper industry has one of the best environmental track records and paper is one of the only truly sustainable products in existence.

In contrast, computers, data centers, mobile phones, and communication networks are well on their way to becoming one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions on the planet. Heavy metals, lead, and other hazardous materials are also frequently present in electronic products.

Paper itself is one of the most recycled products. Its production often lends itself to easy use of renewable energy sources (like hydro power) and proper forest management provides a sustainable source of raw materials as well as a carbon-sink [1].

[1] http://www.paperbecause.com/paper-is-sustainable/paper-truth...

"It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” – Steve Jobs

Temperatures have not been rising for 150 years or more. You need to check your facts.

Direct instrumental measurements only go back ~150 years, but another direct mechanism exists: borehole measurements [1]. This gives us a very good measurement of temperature over ~500 years. These show that at no time have temperature averages been as high as they are now.

We can go back even further, to the tune of 1000 years, through proxy data obtained via things like tree rings, coral growth, stalagmite layers, etc. This covers the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" and these data show the last century to be warmer than any other in the data set.

Not enough? Antarctic ice core analysis provides a record of the glacial-interglacial cycle over 100s of thousands of years. These data show that current average temperatures are higher than they've been over the last 100,000+ years. This is documented in Figure 2.22 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report [2].

[1] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html [2] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...

You are wrong. My dictionary defines consensus as "general agreement" and this is clearly the case when it comes to climate science.

No one in the climate science arena disagrees that the changes in CO2 levels are 1) created by burning fossil fuels 2) driving the observed warming effect and 3) that the observed warming trends are outside the levels of natural variability.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report [1] outlines this in much detail. This report has been signed-off on by dozens of international science academies, including the Science Council of Japan, the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Other institutions endorsing the IPCC report include NASA's Goddard Institute, NOAA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Geophysical Union, and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

If this doesn't constitute "consensus" then I would like to hear what you WOULD consider sufficient. There are MANY debates in climate science, but they are generally about the HOW's not the IF's or WHY's.

[1] http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/clim...

This is almost the definition of false analogy.

Actually, it's working great for China (in the short-term at least). Though they probably wouldn't call their system "communist" anymore, in preference for the new description: "state capitalism."

There's another way to "raise" the average and it's already beginning to happen. It is the organization of workers into unions and other democratic labor organizations. It parallels the movements that occurred in the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Except it's happening in China (and other "globalized" competitors).

Chinese workers will not put up with unsafe, low-pay factory conditions forever, despite what everyone seems to think. Most of China's population doesn't have access to reasonable healthcare, for example, and many of these factory workers live in slum-like dormitories located on the factory campus. This is to say nothing of the literal death-traps that exist in day-to-day working conditions.

The Arab-spring is evidence that, even in the 21st century, or perhaps more-so in the 21st century, collective action can provoke change. It's odd why so many see the process of globalization as a race to the bottom. In the short-term, yes, but in the long-term, no way.

Transportation, energy and other transaction costs could make it costlier to produce in China what can be produced in the United States when labor costs approach parity. At worst, the workers in China and the "average" workers in the west will meet somewhere in the middle.

I think the use cases you are describing are accomplished as follows:

1. Starting at the "root" directory. You can control what the finder window initially opens with on the General pane of the Finder Preferences. By default it should be your home folder (/Users/name).

2. Tracking your location. It sounds like you're not using the Path Bar. I believe it's disabled by default. Try View -> Show Path Bar. This presents your current location (in all view types) at the bottom. It also allows for navigational "jumps" to parent locations.

If you have OS X Lion you can open your Finder location in Terminal by enabling a Service in System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Keyboard Shortcuts. It's called "New Terminal at Folder" or "New Terminal Tab at Folder." See this Stack Overflow answer for more details: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/420456/open-terminal-here...

I think S-Q-L gets clunky with names like Microsoft SQL Server.

"Lud must have been here."

This reminds me of an essay by Thomas Pynchon: "Is it OK to be a Luddite." Possibly posted to HN recently.

http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_luddite....

Pynchon's point seems to be that the Luddites were not opposed to technology for the reasons we commonly imagine: fear of change, fear of submission to the machine, fear of obsolescence.

Instead, Ned Lud (an historically obscure, possibly fictional character) was a Hero who stood up to and mocked the machinery of a ruling class. Machinery that, incidentally, put many human beings out of work.

Ludditism was more a sideshow act in an evolving campaign of class-warfare. But also a kind of myth.

Cell phones are interesting in this context because they're a double-edged sword. They are both liberating and totalitarian. To give up your cell phone is to avoid the demands of possible higher-ups, but also risk missing timely receipt of profitable information ("The stock market's crashing, sell quick!").

As Mark Twain said: "Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty."

Show business, being primarily driven by the profit motive, tends to focus on ideas to which an audience can relate and enjoy. The story of the RMS Titanic, being one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in history, is generally antagonistic toward these ends because most (not all) people don't like thinking about the possibility of dying on an ocean-liner and do not enjoy watching it happen to others.

It should be clear how these two are in opposition. For this reason alone, conventional thinking would call a movie about the Titanic a "bad idea."

The movie worked, though, and made a billion dollars because the director executed it in such a way that it actually wasn't about a sinking ship and people drowning, it was about something else. And this other thing (call it the human spirit or what-have-you), overcomes the tragedy of the situation to make it something the movie-going audience could relate to and enjoy.

From a more technical perspective, the Titanic story could be considered a "bad idea" because, on the surface, the plot should hold no surprises to anyone: boat sets sail, boat hits iceberg, boat sinks, passengers are drowned.

The remarkable thing about the Titanic film is that EVERYONE knows how it's going to end, even before they sit down to watch it. This, according to conventional wisdom, would be a bad idea as far as show business is concerned. Who wants to see a movie like that? Yet audiences returned to theaters multiple times. It is a credit to Cameron's direction that the film could overcome such a large, inherent obstacle in the Titanic storyline.

"Blood Meridian" by Cormac McCarthy "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy "What to Listen For in Music" by Aaron Copland

I often see startups and software development referred to as "creative professions." But the industry is lousy at practicing habits based on knowledge of creativity from psychology.

Take the four stages of creativity, for example: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. Work habits like those discussed here all but destroy any potential for unconscious incubation of creative solutions.

Another oddity about this industry: perks like ping-pong tables, free food, and Rock Band tournaments. These seem to be attempts to lessen the psychological load, with the ulterior motive of getting longer hours from workers. If you believe in the psychological theories of creativity, such benefits should have no great effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_(psychology)

I've spent a lot of time thinking and learning about this. Speed reading doesn't seem to be a "myth" exactly, but you are making a big tradeoff between speed and comprehension. There isn't a magic technique that can enhance your ability to retain information, which is arguably the most important part of reading.

Proper reading conditions are very important for reading and comprehension ability. Despite the difficulty of achieving this, an extremely quiet environment is best. You just cannot focus, absorb and retain the information nearly as effectively if you're reading in front of the television or while listening to music.

I also don't bother reading non-fiction/educational material until I'm actively trying to implement or learn the technique/language/software/idea I'm reading about. This is because I forget the information too quickly to make it useful in my job unless I use it right away. Reading on a regular basis is important to keep the skill up, though, so I read lots of fiction and magazines with long-form content (Scientific American, The Atlantic, NYT Sunday Magazine). The New York Times is the only newspaper I read because most others are severely lacking in depth and quality. This isn't a political persuasion, it's an intellectual/taste concern.

Re: the so little time problem. If you set aside regular reading time, even 20-30 minutes per day, it's amazing how fast you will be finishing books. If you can read a page per minute (~average depending on the text). That's a 200-250 page book every two weeks.

Is this a Zen thing?

By gratuitously recapping the top 1% of humanity's absurd privilege through a litany of self-congratulating narcissism disguised as advice are we supposed to reach some sort of nirvana?

In addition to Douglas Crockford's book, which is excellent, I'd also recommend the 2nd edition of "Professional Javascript for Web Developers" by Nicholas Zakas.

I would say at most 8. I don't necessarily believe in working less than 8 hours per day has a particular benefit, but I don't really have evidence, even anecdotally, for that belief. 10 or 12 hour days are OK as one-offs, once-in-a-blue-moon (I mean that literally). But doing that for many days in a row has major negative impacts on my productivity and my general mood.