LifeHacker had a great article on accessing hidden parts of the internet.
All very good advice…
Lego mindstorm robots have been tearing up the puzzle problems. First, Rubik’s cube, then Suduku. I feel so inadequate…
As seen on Seen On Slash (my favorite place to go for a obscure laugh):
There are lies, then there are damned lies, and finally there are statistics.
Indeed. For example: there are two popes per square kilometer in Vatican.
I’ve run across these videos a few times, and I think that they do a great job of capturing the financial meltdown in all it’s glory. Hat tip to My Money Blog for reminded me
Starbucks Frappuccino drinks are my stress beverage of choice. They’re also pretty expensive. To get around that, I did what I think anyone would do – checked the internet. I found several ways to make a frappuccino, and tried this one.
To fake out the 1/2 cup espresso, I did
I’ve got almost everything figured out except how to get the pectin to integrate without clumping. I don’t know if it’s the pectin that I have or I’m missing the trick. I’ve ended up skimming chunks of pectin off the top to get it right, but that is time consuming. This will require more thinking.
Every once in a while, people on the internet just rock.
Wired had a great article on how failure and defeat occur in the scientific process. A money quote:
Dunbar came away from his in vivo studies with an unsettling insight: Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. Although the researchers were mostly using established techniques, more than 50 percent of their data was unexpected. (In some labs, the figure exceeded 75 percent.) “The scientists had these elaborate theories about what was supposed to happen,” Dunbar says. “But the results kept contradicting their theories. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn’t make sense.” Perhaps they hoped to see a specific protein but it wasn’t there. Or maybe their DNA sample showed the presence of an aberrant gene. The details always changed, but the story remained the same: The scientists were looking for X, but they found Y.
This was just weird to watch. It’s animation, flip-book style
parkour motion reel from saggyarmpit on Vimeo.
I stumbled on to this article about wealth creation from a buddy’s blog. He seemed more interested in the topics around corporate cubicle farms, but this quote was the more interesting portion to me:
Use difficulty as a guide not just in selecting the overall aim of your company, but also at decision points along the way. At Viaweb one of our rules of thumb was run upstairs. Suppose you are a little, nimble guy being chased by a big, fat, bully. You open a door and find yourself in a staircase. Do you go up or down? I say up. The bully can probably run downstairs as fast as you can. Going upstairs his bulk will be more of a disadvantage. Running upstairs is hard for you but even harder for him.
What this meant in practice was that we deliberately sought hard problems. If there were two features we could add to our software, both equally valuable in proportion to their difficulty, we’d always take the harder one. Not just because it was more valuable, but because it was harder. We delighted in forcing bigger, slower competitors to follow us over difficult ground. Like guerillas, startups prefer the difficult terrain of the mountains, where the troops of the central government can’t follow. I can remember times when we were just exhausted after wrestling all day with some horrible technical problem. And I’d be delighted, because something that was hard for us would be impossible for our competitors.
This is a good summary of how smart and small teams stay ahead of big corporations.
I’ve been a fan of nuclear power, but mostly the concept of nuclear power done correctly. This can be best summed up by “our current ways do not represent our best thinking”. This video explains why: