Non sequitur. Your life experiences do not dictate universal truth.
Your success as an entrepreneur does not mean that others will find the same success; your 'moral' isn't well supported. The risks of entrepreneurship are well known (and are obviously one of the main reasons we aren't all entrepreneurs). You are demonstrating survivorship bias.
Your point that successful entrepreneurs earn more than company employees, depends on which company employees we look at. I'm willing to bet the top people at Bank of America pull down more than your average entrepreneur, but of course very few employees will ever have the opportunity to get such a position.
Suppose that students with an interest in programming languages (as an end, not just as a means) on average go on to be more successful software engineers. These students are more likely to take the COBOL course (assuming the alternative courses are on topics other than programming languages).
Even if the course teaches them literally nothing, we still expect the students who opted to take the course, to do better than average.
This is correct. From what I'm seeing in the summary at least, there's a very clear selection bias.
This depends somewhat on what is meant by 'elective'. If it means extra-curricular, there's an obvious selection bias on proactiveness. If it instead means you get to choose from this set of courses, then there's still be a selection-bias (perhaps students with an interest in programming languages as an end rather than just a means, are on average more successful as software engineers).
I presume what you're really getting as is that by not Open Sourcing Swift, Apple doesn't have to worry about someone forking Swift, making it better than the Swift mainline, and dividing the Swift universe.
The only Firefox 'forks' I can think of are minor tweaks (even just compiling with different flags) or pure trademark-avoidance; if Apple do a good job, I doubt they'd have much to worry about. (Not to mention that, on Apple platforms, you'd have to use Apple's language; forks have no bearing on that.)
Mono exists, but Microsoft are the unquestioned authority when it comes to the C# language.
I suspect you're best off with a third-party who embodies the changes the people want to see, so that the encumbents can be forced to lean that way, rather than just get generally desperate.
This kind of thinking is why you're all screwed, even if there is some truth to but if I vote for the good guy, the even-worse guy will get in.
If a third party started getting a non-trivial number of votes, that would serve as a wake-up call to the two big parties, even if the third party is crazy.
I can absolutely see this replacing Windows for office workers (presuming they don't mind the few-and-far-between formatting bugs with GDocs importing DOCX)
Err, what? There are several elephants in the room who'd like to be acknowledged.
- Not all organisations trust Google with their documents, which may contain proprietary information
- Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on Google (they're uptime track-record is pretty damn good though, granted)
- Using Google Docs introduces a dependency on an Internet connection
These are the real problems with cloud-based office software. They would apply even if Google Docs were totally free of bugs, and capable of everything that MS Office is capable of.
Of course all those points apply equally to Microsoft's surprisingly good web-based Office offerings, and to any other rival 'cloud-based office software' services.
And here's my alibi, officer: I was at the gym and took a swing at a punching bag.
From the summary:
Study author and criminology professor Charles Loeffler said, "A gunshot is pretty distinctive. You're typically at rest because you're trying to aim, and in a split second, your hand, wrist, and arm experience an impulsive transfer of energy."
Let's not just assuming Loeffler is wrong (not impossible, of course, but I see no reason to assume he is).
Google obviously has a depth of expertise that would be difficult to match but I don't think it's impossible to compete with them if you're sufficiently determined.
This isn't hypothetical: see Bing, and Baidu.
According to Bing, Bing is at least as good as Google in blind-tests. Whether that's really true, I don't know. I admit I don't use Bing - the reason is that unless Bing is really better than Google, why switch? That said, it costs me nothing to switch. Maybe it's just a matter of 'trust'.
Do you seriously think finding a few old geocities pages on archive.org refutes what I'm saying?
Well, yes, because it sounds like Khyber chose an arbitrary, non-remarkable website, looked it up on archive.org, and it was there. Not conclusive, by any means, but it certainly counts for something.
D's a pretty good language, if you're looking for something a little higher-level than C++ and without the C++ warts, and if you can forgive a little language instability. It's not that obscure.
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it
Well obviously. SEO is largely an attempt to cheat the search-engine. Of course the companies investing in it want it. That doesn't mean it's good for Google, the web, or the end-user.
Analogy: a fraudster might be willing to invest heavily in his fraud schemes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a strong opinion on it.
Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
I can't really think of a better way to run things. I wouldn't want Google taking secret pay-offs. I think the current tension between SEO and Google (who occasionally slam websites that play too dirty) is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right of course - and come to think of it, I already knew about Xamarin's offering :P
Do you suffer from a condition that prevents you from reading to the end of a Slashdot comment?
Non sequitur. Your life experiences do not dictate universal truth.
Your success as an entrepreneur does not mean that others will find the same success; your 'moral' isn't well supported. The risks of entrepreneurship are well known (and are obviously one of the main reasons we aren't all entrepreneurs). You are demonstrating survivorship bias.
Your point that successful entrepreneurs earn more than company employees, depends on which company employees we look at. I'm willing to bet the top people at Bank of America pull down more than your average entrepreneur, but of course very few employees will ever have the opportunity to get such a position.
Doesn't matter. There's still a selection bias.
Suppose that students with an interest in programming languages (as an end, not just as a means) on average go on to be more successful software engineers. These students are more likely to take the COBOL course (assuming the alternative courses are on topics other than programming languages).
Even if the course teaches them literally nothing, we still expect the students who opted to take the course, to do better than average.
This is correct. From what I'm seeing in the summary at least, there's a very clear selection bias.
This depends somewhat on what is meant by 'elective'. If it means extra-curricular, there's an obvious selection bias on proactiveness. If it instead means you get to choose from this set of courses, then there's still be a selection-bias (perhaps students with an interest in programming languages as an end rather than just a means, are on average more successful as software engineers).
I presume what you're really getting as is that by not Open Sourcing Swift, Apple doesn't have to worry about someone forking Swift, making it better than the Swift mainline, and dividing the Swift universe.
The only Firefox 'forks' I can think of are minor tweaks (even just compiling with different flags) or pure trademark-avoidance; if Apple do a good job, I doubt they'd have much to worry about. (Not to mention that, on Apple platforms, you'd have to use Apple's language; forks have no bearing on that.)
Mono exists, but Microsoft are the unquestioned authority when it comes to the C# language.
Even after the 'Xbox One' disaster, they're going with One?
Did they forget that Android is already versioned using incrementing numbers, and that they're now way beyond 1?
I guess they'll loosen Microsoft's hold on the "One" name, but really, this is just stupid.
I suspect you're best off with a third-party who embodies the changes the people want to see, so that the encumbents can be forced to lean that way, rather than just get generally desperate.
Neat. Does it sync back with Google's 'cloud' when it's back online, though?
Freedom of expression is not freedom from criticism, idiot.
Christ, will this moronic excuse for a counterpoint never die?
When I transition from "should not" to "I will have the government prevent you from saying that", then you get to mention freedom of expression.
If you're going to have crime then it's better to have it organized and out in the open.
Nice job defending the indefensible.
Reminder: corruption is bad, and should not be normalised.
This kind of thinking is why you're all screwed, even if there is some truth to but if I vote for the good guy, the even-worse guy will get in.
If a third party started getting a non-trivial number of votes, that would serve as a wake-up call to the two big parties, even if the third party is crazy.
I can absolutely see this replacing Windows for office workers (presuming they don't mind the few-and-far-between formatting bugs with GDocs importing DOCX)
Err, what? There are several elephants in the room who'd like to be acknowledged.
These are the real problems with cloud-based office software. They would apply even if Google Docs were totally free of bugs, and capable of everything that MS Office is capable of.
Of course all those points apply equally to Microsoft's surprisingly good web-based Office offerings, and to any other rival 'cloud-based office software' services.
sounds more reasonable
So... you have no idea, then.
And here's my alibi, officer: I was at the gym and took a swing at a punching bag.
From the summary:
Study author and criminology professor Charles Loeffler said, "A gunshot is pretty distinctive. You're typically at rest because you're trying to aim, and in a split second, your hand, wrist, and arm experience an impulsive transfer of energy."
Let's not just assuming Loeffler is wrong (not impossible, of course, but I see no reason to assume he is).
Sounds like a yes, then.
Google obviously has a depth of expertise that would be difficult to match but I don't think it's impossible to compete with them if you're sufficiently determined.
This isn't hypothetical: see Bing, and Baidu.
According to Bing, Bing is at least as good as Google in blind-tests. Whether that's really true, I don't know. I admit I don't use Bing - the reason is that unless Bing is really better than Google, why switch? That said, it costs me nothing to switch. Maybe it's just a matter of 'trust'.
Do you seriously think finding a few old geocities pages on archive.org refutes what I'm saying?
Well, yes, because it sounds like Khyber chose an arbitrary, non-remarkable website, looked it up on archive.org, and it was there. Not conclusive, by any means, but it certainly counts for something.
I never cease to be amazed by the progress made in shrinking transistors. I wonder how long the trend will continue.
Microphone still working?
So smoking is good for you?
Probably not, no. Don't be stupid.
FORTH go conquer and
How people get their heads around that paradigm I don't think I'll ever know.
D's a pretty good language, if you're looking for something a little higher-level than C++ and without the C++ warts, and if you can forgive a little language instability. It's not that obscure.
(Was TIOBE always such a JavaScript-only mess?)
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it
Well obviously. SEO is largely an attempt to cheat the search-engine. Of course the companies investing in it want it. That doesn't mean it's good for Google, the web, or the end-user.
Analogy: a fraudster might be willing to invest heavily in his fraud schemes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a strong opinion on it.
Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
I can't really think of a better way to run things. I wouldn't want Google taking secret pay-offs. I think the current tension between SEO and Google (who occasionally slam websites that play too dirty) is a good thing.
The "cost of entry" is astronomical.
I think what u38cg meant was that there's no cost to a person using the search-engine, to switch search-engine.
Of course it costs millions to start your own search-engine.
Google is the only entity in the world that has the history of the web stored
Wrong.