typodupeerror

## Comment The juggling analogy again? (Score 5, Interesting)114

As a juggler, it's a little annoying when people use juggling as an analogy and get it wrong. So here's an explanation of juggling and how to do it, whether it's clubs or tasks.

It's all in the throw, not in the catch. If the throw is perfect, the catch happens without any corrections or concious thought.

You may have two hands, but your two eyes can only look at one thing at a time. Jugglers just peep at the object as it arcs over and downwards, and that's enough to tell them where and when to stick out a hand and catch it. This has been confirmed experimentally using opaque glasses to block off the view of the objects except around about the top of the arc.

Once you get beyond juggling three objects, you peep at the object but then you have to remember how it's falling while you peep at another, before you stick out your hand to catch the first object. So 1) consistency is hugely important and 2) you have to practise daily until it's completely automatic.

The most important tool for juggling is gravity. That's how jugglers stack the objects and know where and when they'll fall. If gravity wavered, it'd bring the pattern down. You have to know what to expect. Remember in Firefly how something unexpected would happen, and it'd turn out they'd prepared for that contingency? Same thing, really.

Now let's apply the theory of juggling to 'juggling' a bunch of tasks. You have to be able to give each task some impetus and then move on, knowing the point at which you'll have to return to that task. You have to have some method, equivalent to the way jugglers use gravity, that smoothly handles the tasks while your attention is elsewhere. Finally, you have to make it funny. Or perhaps that only applies to juggling? Well, analogies can only be stretched so far.

## Comment Summary of the full hearings from C-Span (Score 1)784

__________________________________________________________________

* He's being paid 1 dollar a year.
* He gets no bonuses, either way.
* He gets no stocks.
* He didn't sign these contracts, he inherited them.

About the people who tanked AIG:

* They are gone.
* They were few.

* They did not kill AIG
* They were offered these bonuses last year, to stay for another year, and clean up the mess.
* They reduced \$2.7 trillion of shit to \$1.6 trillion of shit.

* They are less than .1% of the bailout money.
* They were offered last year, to retain people until they cleaned up the mess.
* They were NOT meant to retain people for next year.

What if we didn't pay them?

* The people who are (successfully) cleaning up the mess, would leave.
* Then, they would sue (rightfully so).
* AIG would have to try to replace them, while trying to prevent losses on the suddenly 'unmanaged' accounts.
* AIG might be forced into bankruptcy, for defaulting (aka: we lose).
* AIG might survive, but take further losses, and need more help (aka: we lose).

Personal thoughts:

* We should have let them fail, but we didn't, it would be idiotic to let them fail now.
* The current CEO deserves nothing but respect, but instead, he gets death threats.
* The people who stayed on, and cleaned up the mess, deserve to be well paid. They saved us a ton of money, and the bonuses are marginal in comparison.

Analogy:

The people from FP (financial products) are the burger flippers at McDonalds. The people who got the bonuses work the counter at McDonalds. The burger flippers made some seriously shitty burgers. They got fired. The counter crew has spent the last year trying to find places to safely unload those burgers (worm farms, bacteria labs, etc.) It was a dirty job, and Mike Rowe wasn't available.

Yes, I'm contradicting a post I made yesterday. I watched the full hearings on C-Span today http://c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-16464, and learned a hell of a lot from them. Yeah, I changed my mind, but that's what I do when I learn that the facts don't match my perception.
__________________________________________________________________

## Comment Re:I don't get it (Score 1)231

> you have to pay a television licence fee in the UK, even if you NEVER watch the stations financed by that licence.

Not so. I never watch the stations financed by that licence, but I don't pay the fee.

The secret is, you only have to pay if you have a TV.

## Comment Re:What the hell? (Score 1)653

> As for recognizing that they hold some form of authority over you, well, there's an old joke:
> Q. What do you call a six foot negro with a seven foot spear?
> A. Sir!
>
> The simple fact that police carry lethal weapons has more than a little to do with the "sirs"... ... because they might suddenly decide to use it on you, right?

Got it.

## Comment Introversion and Extroversion (Score 2, Interesting)639

No-one's mentioned introversion / extroversion yet? Briefly,

75% of people are extroverts. They gain energy from social interaction.

25% of people are introverts. They lose energy from social interaction, but gain energy from solitary cogitation.

75% of intellectuals are introverts, and only 25% are extroverts. This is probably why the 'socialising for nerds' class is necessary.

## Comment Re:What's the definition of green? (Score 1)165

> Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.

Right, that's going to be my new .sig file.

Thanks!

## Comment Advertising Blitz (Score 1)439

If only advertising could be better targetted. There are garish billboards everywhere, many of which don't apply to lots of the folks who see them.

Advertising directed only at the folk who actually might use the product or service, would give us all back some minutes/hours every day.

# Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Working...