The "average user" who can't be made to understand that "no dammit, the blue e is not the Internet!" is a favorite Slashdot bugaboo. Like everyone else here, I've run into a few of them. I used to try to educate those people, but you know what? Fuck 'em. I will happily give anyone who asks for it advice on what browser to use, and will help them set it up -- but that's it. I don't go around preaching, and after I answer questions in a way that any reasonably intelligent, literate (not necessarily computer-literate, just literate) person should be able to understand, I'm done.
In a strange way, this is an expression of my faith that the "average user" actually isn't a moron. I don't believe that people who simply cannot understand the concepts of hardware, software, applications, operating systems, and networks, and the distinctions between them -- no matter how carefully and reasonably you explain them -- are "average users." I believe they're the bottom of the user barrel. They're hopeless cases. They have mental blocks which ensure that they will never, ever, ever learn how to use a computer with a modicum of sense, and the only thing the rest of us can do is tune out their complaints when their systems are buggy and virus-ridden and crash ten times a day.
There are people who will never be able to learn to drive a car without crashing it ten feet down the road, too, and it's not worth your time to keep trying... and trying... and trying to teach those people how to drive. But most people, with a certain amount of patience and a genuine desire to learn, can be made to understand what the accelerator and brake pedal and steering wheel are for, and why road signs exist and why paying attention to them is a good idea. The hopeless cases? Let 'em walk.
"ethics" of journalism (though that's questionable these days)
On a side note: journalistic ethics "these days" are certainly questionable, but they're much better than they used to be. 19th and early 20th century newspapers make Michael Moore and Fox News today look like paragons of moderation and objectivity by comparison.
Well, Microsoft insists that IE is an integral part of Windows; not even they have the balls to claim it's an integral part of the computer system as a whole. So for liability calculations for IE-related security holes, I'd say the retail price of Windows is a reasonable starting point.
What I said after "apply everywhere" was "[for] any job you think you might possibly be able to do." I was assuming a certain amount of realism with that qualifier -- I'm not suggesting that a CS grad apply for a chem lab position. I meant that he should look carefully at his own education, decide what jobs he thinks he's qualified for (regardless of whether he has 5+ years with buzzword XYZ) and apply for those jobs. That's all.
Seriously. Many of those requirements are written by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Now, in many companies, your resume will just get thrown out because you don't match some HR monkey's checklist -- but with luck, at a few places, your resume will get to someone with some technical knowledge who is willing to at least give you a chance in an interview.
I mean, apply everywhere. Any job you think you might possibly be able to do. If you get one nibble for every hundred resumes -- well, these days, in the post-.bomb world, that's not bad.
Also, I don't know if you're still eligible for this since you've graduated, but most schools' CS departments do have lists of available interniships. The money usually isn't great, but it's real experience, and can lead to a full-time position. (Mine did, though I didn't get it through the school.) They may have some formal job placement services for grads, too.
You know, I'm generally in favor of nuclear power, because I believe the benefits outweigh the risks -- but citing Trashing the Planet as an argument in favor of it is roughly equivalent to citing The Coming Global Superstorm (the Art Bell and Whitley Strieber book which inspired The Day After Tomorrow) in an argument over global warming.
1. He never outlines the numbers he uses to reach that "I would be surprised if the system had a yield as high as 5%" conclusion. Hey, I think there's a 0.367539 probability that USS Clueless is a actually a front organization for al-Qaeda! No, you can't see my numbers, they're classified.
2. 5% of efficiency on (to make some numbers up) an initial power intake of 1 GW beats 50% efficiency on 10 MW every time. He conveniently ignores the fact that we have to expend resources to get the energy for an earth-based coal (or oil, or nuclear) plant; powersats would take advantage of energy that's already there, currently wasted streaming out into space.
3. Beware anyone, anywhere, who leads his argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thanks to its frequent misuse by creationists, it's become the Godwin's Law of scientific arguments online. The 2nd l.o.t. is much more subtle, and its implications much more complex, than most people who invoke it seem to think.
It does indeed, and I regard the use of public funds to do business with a convicted monopolist as a spectacular example of same.
That wasn't really my point, though. My point was that you shouldn't be surprised if almost all your site visitors are Windows users if you only develop for Windows; and public or private, development efforts for only one, dominant platform are a direct contribution to that platform's dominance. If a private company does this, well, that's their choice. When governments do it, it is a betrayal of the taxpaying public they are supposed to serve.
If you ask the people who live there, every place in the world has the worst traffic, the worst weather, the worst crime, the worst government, the worst schools... Every. Single. Place. In. The. World.
My access logs on our website show less than 1% of our visitors are running anything other than Windows, so why should I spend an equal amount of development effort on platforms that are so poorly represented by my user base?
Does the phrase "circular argument" mean anything to you?
Re:How does this differ from other efforts?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but the the federal procurement system is a highly structured process. Politicians have no access to it because these contracts are in the hands of civil servants, who would be risking their careers if they were steering contracts to big political donors.
Your faith in the Glorious People's Contracting System is greatly appreciated, Comrade.
Well, not exactly; they turn into not-quite-as-big, unhealthy people, who are more vulnerable to death by disease or by simple exhaustion. The human body seems to be quite good at adapting to a certain lifelong level of caloric intake, but it doesn't handle sudden changes nearly as well.
Think about it. In the wild (i.e., in the hunter-gatherer mode of living that represents most of human existence to date) it's obviously useful to be strong -- but you also have to be lean enough to be fast on your feet, and be able to run long distances, and most important, not burn up too many calories just sitting there. Big huge people don't handle "lean times" (and no wild animal is ever too far away from potential starvation) nearly as well as little, wiry ones.
The pre-industrial agricultural period (roughly speaking, 8000 BC to 1800 AD -- again, a damn big chunk of time) probably exacerbated this with its frequent episodes of famine. These days, we regard it as an aberration when a few million people are starving to death somewhere; for most of recorded history, that has been a fear with which everyone had to live, all the time.
Dire wolves and sabretooth tigers died out. Grey wolves and mountain lions are still here.
Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Frenchmen still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my grandparents who were there.
Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Americans still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my many relatives who were at Stalingrad, Kursk, and a thousand nameless battles from the Volga to Berlin.
News flash: when your last military presence in a country in which you are fighting is Marine embassy guards trying to keep the crowds back from the evac helicopters, you have lost the war.
We lost in Vietnam. And in so doing, we abandoned our allies to the tender mercies of the re-education camps. You can argue all day about why we lost, but that we lost -- and that we cut and run -- is undeniable. Only fools and fanatics feel otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The "average user" who can't be made to understand that "no dammit, the blue e is not the Internet!" is a favorite Slashdot bugaboo. Like everyone else here, I've run into a few of them. I used to try to educate those people, but you know what? Fuck 'em. I will happily give anyone who asks for it advice on what browser to use, and will help them set it up -- but that's it. I don't go around preaching, and after I answer questions in a way that any reasonably intelligent, literate (not necessarily computer-literate, just literate) person should be able to understand, I'm done.
... and trying ... and trying to teach those people how to drive. But most people, with a certain amount of patience and a genuine desire to learn, can be made to understand what the accelerator and brake pedal and steering wheel are for, and why road signs exist and why paying attention to them is a good idea. The hopeless cases? Let 'em walk.
In a strange way, this is an expression of my faith that the "average user" actually isn't a moron. I don't believe that people who simply cannot understand the concepts of hardware, software, applications, operating systems, and networks, and the distinctions between them -- no matter how carefully and reasonably you explain them -- are "average users." I believe they're the bottom of the user barrel. They're hopeless cases. They have mental blocks which ensure that they will never, ever, ever learn how to use a computer with a modicum of sense, and the only thing the rest of us can do is tune out their complaints when their systems are buggy and virus-ridden and crash ten times a day.
There are people who will never be able to learn to drive a car without crashing it ten feet down the road, too, and it's not worth your time to keep trying
"ethics" of journalism (though that's questionable these days)
On a side note: journalistic ethics "these days" are certainly questionable, but they're much better than they used to be. 19th and early 20th century newspapers make Michael Moore and Fox News today look like paragons of moderation and objectivity by comparison.
Yes.
Says it all, really ...
Well, Microsoft insists that IE is an integral part of Windows; not even they have the balls to claim it's an integral part of the computer system as a whole. So for liability calculations for IE-related security holes, I'd say the retail price of Windows is a reasonable starting point.
What I said after "apply everywhere" was "[for] any job you think you might possibly be able to do." I was assuming a certain amount of realism with that qualifier -- I'm not suggesting that a CS grad apply for a chem lab position. I meant that he should look carefully at his own education, decide what jobs he thinks he's qualified for (regardless of whether he has 5+ years with buzzword XYZ) and apply for those jobs. That's all.
Seriously. Many of those requirements are written by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Now, in many companies, your resume will just get thrown out because you don't match some HR monkey's checklist -- but with luck, at a few places, your resume will get to someone with some technical knowledge who is willing to at least give you a chance in an interview.
I mean, apply everywhere. Any job you think you might possibly be able to do. If you get one nibble for every hundred resumes -- well, these days, in the post-.bomb world, that's not bad.
Also, I don't know if you're still eligible for this since you've graduated, but most schools' CS departments do have lists of available interniships. The money usually isn't great, but it's real experience, and can lead to a full-time position. (Mine did, though I didn't get it through the school.) They may have some formal job placement services for grads, too.
You know, I'm generally in favor of nuclear power, because I believe the benefits outweigh the risks -- but citing Trashing the Planet as an argument in favor of it is roughly equivalent to citing The Coming Global Superstorm (the Art Bell and Whitley Strieber book which inspired The Day After Tomorrow) in an argument over global warming.
A critique of the critique:
1. He never outlines the numbers he uses to reach that "I would be surprised if the system had a yield as high as 5%" conclusion. Hey, I think there's a 0.367539 probability that USS Clueless is a actually a front organization for al-Qaeda! No, you can't see my numbers, they're classified.
2. 5% of efficiency on (to make some numbers up) an initial power intake of 1 GW beats 50% efficiency on 10 MW every time. He conveniently ignores the fact that we have to expend resources to get the energy for an earth-based coal (or oil, or nuclear) plant; powersats would take advantage of energy that's already there, currently wasted streaming out into space.
3. Beware anyone, anywhere, who leads his argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thanks to its frequent misuse by creationists, it's become the Godwin's Law of scientific arguments online. The 2nd l.o.t. is much more subtle, and its implications much more complex, than most people who invoke it seem to think.
"Virus" itself, in the modern sense, is a made-up word -- or did you think Caesar and Octavian talked about smallpox vaccination?
Well, it sure is a good thing all them fancy-pants scientists with their crazy ideas and book-learnin have you around to set them straight!
It does indeed, and I regard the use of public funds to do business with a convicted monopolist as a spectacular example of same.
That wasn't really my point, though. My point was that you shouldn't be surprised if almost all your site visitors are Windows users if you only develop for Windows; and public or private, development efforts for only one, dominant platform are a direct contribution to that platform's dominance. If a private company does this, well, that's their choice. When governments do it, it is a betrayal of the taxpaying public they are supposed to serve.
If you ask the people who live there, every place in the world has the worst traffic, the worst weather, the worst crime, the worst government, the worst schools ... Every. Single. Place. In. The. World.
I prefer "operating system produced by a convicted monopolist," thanks.
My access logs on our website show less than 1% of our visitors are running anything other than Windows, so why should I spend an equal amount of development effort on platforms that are so poorly represented by my user base?
Does the phrase "circular argument" mean anything to you?
Sorry, but the the federal procurement system is a highly structured process. Politicians have no access to it because these contracts are in the hands of civil servants, who would be risking their careers if they were steering contracts to big political donors.
Your faith in the Glorious People's Contracting System is greatly appreciated, Comrade.
Well, not exactly; they turn into not-quite-as-big, unhealthy people, who are more vulnerable to death by disease or by simple exhaustion. The human body seems to be quite good at adapting to a certain lifelong level of caloric intake, but it doesn't handle sudden changes nearly as well.
Starvation.
Think about it. In the wild (i.e., in the hunter-gatherer mode of living that represents most of human existence to date) it's obviously useful to be strong -- but you also have to be lean enough to be fast on your feet, and be able to run long distances, and most important, not burn up too many calories just sitting there. Big huge people don't handle "lean times" (and no wild animal is ever too far away from potential starvation) nearly as well as little, wiry ones.
The pre-industrial agricultural period (roughly speaking, 8000 BC to 1800 AD -- again, a damn big chunk of time) probably exacerbated this with its frequent episodes of famine. These days, we regard it as an aberration when a few million people are starving to death somewhere; for most of recorded history, that has been a fear with which everyone had to live, all the time.
Dire wolves and sabretooth tigers died out. Grey wolves and mountain lions are still here.
That was my first thought too. "In Germany? Ja, naturlich!"
Right. And "5.56 NATO" sounds reasonably dangerous too, while ".223" sounds way too much like ".22", which everyone knows is a toy gun.
You can't drive through the Chunnel?
Did you cap him with your nine?
The smartest people are in the private sector
That's a pretty big generalization you got there, pilgrim.
Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Frenchmen still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my grandparents who were there.
Touchy? Sure. On the other hand, a large fraction of Americans still believe that they defeated the German army with just a little help from the rest of the Allies. This is an insult to my many relatives who were at Stalingrad, Kursk, and a thousand nameless battles from the Volga to Berlin.
News flash: when your last military presence in a country in which you are fighting is Marine embassy guards trying to keep the crowds back from the evac helicopters, you have lost the war.
We lost in Vietnam. And in so doing, we abandoned our allies to the tender mercies of the re-education camps. You can argue all day about why we lost, but that we lost -- and that we cut and run -- is undeniable. Only fools and fanatics feel otherwise.