Yup, kids can't do math today. And that's up into the twenties. Granted, the most brilliant kids aren't taking those jobs, and certainly anyone with any degree of affluence isn't taking any job anymore (I guess it no longer builds character). But when they can't even make change then you gotta blame their education. However that faulty education was done BEFORE common core.
I did the "rm dir/ *" by mistake once. Ie, a misplaced space there. I hit ctrl-C immediately but it was too late. Student account so no backups but at least it wasn't course work.
We're not talking about ancient OS versions, but a version from 2012 which is the most stable version out there. Updating an OS just because there's something newer is the sort of stupid thing that Windows users do.
The updates are not worth it. Who cares if it's free or not free, it's not worth the pain to upgrade and get a new and broken UI, new broken features (have to turn on secret settings to get root to be root on ElCapitan). Apple has not abandoned those stable releases either. It's like a free tattoo, some may not want the pain or the disfigurement.
Build for Mountain Lion and the code will run on later versions. Mountain Lion is extremely popular and while upgrades to it are cheap/free they are not popular and there's no reason to endure an upgrade to get them. Mountain Lion is essentially new, it's from 2012.
Products are for the customers, not the developers. If developers only did stuff that they felt was convenient then we'd never have software because they'd all be sleeping in to noon every day.
I found this odd. OSX Mountain Lion is essentially new. Apple may be hasty in getting people to upgrade, but Mountain Lion is basically the Windows 7 of the Apple world only newer in that it's the stable version without the newer unloved UI changes.
Clinton had an affair. He lied about it. Big. Fucking. Deal. But Republicans were hopping up and down with glee over it, "finally we caught the sumbitch!", then looked like morons when their impeachment for high crimes predicatably failed. None of those so called fiscal conservatives were ever ashamed at the complete waste of time and tax payer money over that debacle.
Well sure, but if you've got a political agenda to find some dirt on Bill Clinton you'll spend two terms wasting tax payer's money trying to find it, and end up with nothing more than laying about an affair. Then an impeachment that was guaranteed to fail and make everyone calling for it look like a fool. Biggest waste of time ever. That sort of thing should be inexcusable no matter what your political leanings are.
(when I was on a jury trial we actually had one jurist reluctantly admit that the defendant was not guilty of the charges while claiming "but he must be guilty of something!", which sums up the Starr Commission)
True, this is an age old problem. It's all a club now, either the Democrat club or the Republican club, and both have been steadily increasing power of the executive rather than reeling it back in because they want all that power when they're in charge. For awhile we stretched the laws because of war time, then we stretched the laws because of commie fears, then we continue stretching the laws because of terrorist fears.
Washington was one of the most mild. In some ways he didn't really want the job. The presidency changed quickly though because the constitutional convention kicked too many extremely important cans down the road.
Really though, the Obama administration is not taking this to new heights, it's only following well trodden paths.
Interesting that the most recent single-term presidents seem to have the most broad non-partisan appeal whereas the recent two term presidents are highly polarizing.
The taxpayers pick up the costs whether it fails or not. The only win is in reducing the costs. And the standard defense industry has shown that it does not like to reduce the costs. There are all sorts of government rules and regulations designed to make sure they get the best bid, but it doesn't work because the defense industry has learned how to work the system and line their pockets anyway. So this is a way to shake up the system and try to achieve get lower costs.
The mechanics are all ready to show you a bill for $500 to change your oil and then are annoyed when the small shop across the street offers to do it for $25.
No incentives though. Defense contractors don't think very well about how they look long term, not worried that the government is eventually going to suspect that they're paying too much. Their entire industry is built upon the likelihood of having long term contracts. I know that Lockheed appears greatly surprised and dismayed whenever it loses a contract, and I think that surprise is genuine. So there is no incentive to keep costs down, except for personal integrity. I've seen no company, government contractor or not, that is driven by personal integrity.
Sanitizing inputs and such, that's programming, not computer science. Also if you want to be good at cyber security you need math. The subject is more of a graduate level one in many ways, though I agree familiarity with it is important. For the average student cyber security will be more of a rote memorization class rather than one that teaches real understanding of the topics.
The competition is pretty bad though. One company offers most everything for $10. A few competitors also over most everything for $10, the areas that they don't overlap are in the margins. The problem is with all the other competitors offering almost nothing for $8-$10, and are completely oblivious about how bad they look. They think that their own programming is so stupendous that they're overvaluing it, they're probably not even realizing how badly they're doing in the competition. It's possible that they could make more money by licensing Big Bang Theory to Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon rather than having their own flailing streaming service.
Part of the problem I suspect is that Netflix is competing as an alternative to a generic cable provider (even today their original programming is just a sideline). But I think HBO, CBS, and others are compete as content creators. Different sorts of things altogether.
Sure we wanted ala carte cable services for a long time. But reasonable ala carte. So if our cable said we could have the basic service for $50 a month but it doesn't have CBS, or we could also get CBS for $60 month, most reasonable people would say no as the extra $10 isn't worth it for such a limited offering. But if they got CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX for $60 a month more people would consider it. No one ever pays for those on cable though, everyone gets those broadcasts channels more or less "free" as part of the lowest of the low entry level packages. That makes the $10/month price for CBS ridiculously expensive, and I haven't even pointed out how most of it is crap anyway. For that much money I would want ALL back episodes of ALL series they have. (just like airline flights, if we have to pay to get a pillow instead of having it included in the package then most people would not opt in)
This reminds me so much of growing pains in the recording industry. Reluctant to realize that the music industry had changed, out of touch with the market, overvaluing their own importance, and so forth. For example, the average listener also changed to want more current singles for just a few plays rather than wanting full albums. The problems were not around new technology per se but problems in understanding the market and providing what market wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not common core though, that's a stereotype.
Yup, kids can't do math today. And that's up into the twenties. Granted, the most brilliant kids aren't taking those jobs, and certainly anyone with any degree of affluence isn't taking any job anymore (I guess it no longer builds character). But when they can't even make change then you gotta blame their education.
However that faulty education was done BEFORE common core.
I noticed IBM was offline. Maybe it was them.
I make it a point to lump people into the category of "everyone". Then I can despise them all equally without picking and choosing favorites.
I did the "rm dir/ *" by mistake once. Ie, a misplaced space there. I hit ctrl-C immediately but it was too late. Student account so no backups but at least it wasn't course work.
Three words. Blame the intern.
Which only occured many years in after all the other investigations turned up nothing. Basically Starr was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
We're not talking about ancient OS versions, but a version from 2012 which is the most stable version out there. Updating an OS just because there's something newer is the sort of stupid thing that Windows users do.
Well sure, I'll take that pig over Chrome.
The updates are not worth it. Who cares if it's free or not free, it's not worth the pain to upgrade and get a new and broken UI, new broken features (have to turn on secret settings to get root to be root on ElCapitan). Apple has not abandoned those stable releases either. It's like a free tattoo, some may not want the pain or the disfigurement.
Build for Mountain Lion and the code will run on later versions. Mountain Lion is extremely popular and while upgrades to it are cheap/free they are not popular and there's no reason to endure an upgrade to get them. Mountain Lion is essentially new, it's from 2012.
Products are for the customers, not the developers. If developers only did stuff that they felt was convenient then we'd never have software because they'd all be sleeping in to noon every day.
I found this odd. OSX Mountain Lion is essentially new. Apple may be hasty in getting people to upgrade, but Mountain Lion is basically the Windows 7 of the Apple world only newer in that it's the stable version without the newer unloved UI changes.
And I read my first email back in 1982. Stayed on the machine though until you deleted it.
Clinton had an affair. He lied about it. Big. Fucking. Deal. But Republicans were hopping up and down with glee over it, "finally we caught the sumbitch!", then looked like morons when their impeachment for high crimes predicatably failed. None of those so called fiscal conservatives were ever ashamed at the complete waste of time and tax payer money over that debacle.
Well sure, but if you've got a political agenda to find some dirt on Bill Clinton you'll spend two terms wasting tax payer's money trying to find it, and end up with nothing more than laying about an affair. Then an impeachment that was guaranteed to fail and make everyone calling for it look like a fool. Biggest waste of time ever. That sort of thing should be inexcusable no matter what your political leanings are.
(when I was on a jury trial we actually had one jurist reluctantly admit that the defendant was not guilty of the charges while claiming "but he must be guilty of something!", which sums up the Starr Commission)
True, this is an age old problem. It's all a club now, either the Democrat club or the Republican club, and both have been steadily increasing power of the executive rather than reeling it back in because they want all that power when they're in charge. For awhile we stretched the laws because of war time, then we stretched the laws because of commie fears, then we continue stretching the laws because of terrorist fears.
Washington was one of the most mild. In some ways he didn't really want the job. The presidency changed quickly though because the constitutional convention kicked too many extremely important cans down the road.
Really though, the Obama administration is not taking this to new heights, it's only following well trodden paths.
Interesting that the most recent single-term presidents seem to have the most broad non-partisan appeal whereas the recent two term presidents are highly polarizing.
Shiny and chrome, just like an Edsel.
The taxpayers pick up the costs whether it fails or not. The only win is in reducing the costs. And the standard defense industry has shown that it does not like to reduce the costs. There are all sorts of government rules and regulations designed to make sure they get the best bid, but it doesn't work because the defense industry has learned how to work the system and line their pockets anyway. So this is a way to shake up the system and try to achieve get lower costs.
The mechanics are all ready to show you a bill for $500 to change your oil and then are annoyed when the small shop across the street offers to do it for $25.
No incentives though. Defense contractors don't think very well about how they look long term, not worried that the government is eventually going to suspect that they're paying too much. Their entire industry is built upon the likelihood of having long term contracts. I know that Lockheed appears greatly surprised and dismayed whenever it loses a contract, and I think that surprise is genuine. So there is no incentive to keep costs down, except for personal integrity. I've seen no company, government contractor or not, that is driven by personal integrity.
It's all so that Putin has more tigers to ride on.
And they should. Their internally created code is crap.
Sanitizing inputs and such, that's programming, not computer science. Also if you want to be good at cyber security you need math. The subject is more of a graduate level one in many ways, though I agree familiarity with it is important. For the average student cyber security will be more of a rote memorization class rather than one that teaches real understanding of the topics.
Good news, everyone!
I have not seen Bethesda's more recent games as bugfests. The games are playable all the way through before even the first (mandatory) patch.
The competition is pretty bad though. One company offers most everything for $10. A few competitors also over most everything for $10, the areas that they don't overlap are in the margins. The problem is with all the other competitors offering almost nothing for $8-$10, and are completely oblivious about how bad they look. They think that their own programming is so stupendous that they're overvaluing it, they're probably not even realizing how badly they're doing in the competition. It's possible that they could make more money by licensing Big Bang Theory to Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon rather than having their own flailing streaming service.
Part of the problem I suspect is that Netflix is competing as an alternative to a generic cable provider (even today their original programming is just a sideline). But I think HBO, CBS, and others are compete as content creators. Different sorts of things altogether.
Sure we wanted ala carte cable services for a long time. But reasonable ala carte. So if our cable said we could have the basic service for $50 a month but it doesn't have CBS, or we could also get CBS for $60 month, most reasonable people would say no as the extra $10 isn't worth it for such a limited offering. But if they got CBS/ABC/NBC/FOX for $60 a month more people would consider it. No one ever pays for those on cable though, everyone gets those broadcasts channels more or less "free" as part of the lowest of the low entry level packages. That makes the $10/month price for CBS ridiculously expensive, and I haven't even pointed out how most of it is crap anyway. For that much money I would want ALL back episodes of ALL series they have. (just like airline flights, if we have to pay to get a pillow instead of having it included in the package then most people would not opt in)
This reminds me so much of growing pains in the recording industry. Reluctant to realize that the music industry had changed, out of touch with the market, overvaluing their own importance, and so forth. For example, the average listener also changed to want more current singles for just a few plays rather than wanting full albums. The problems were not around new technology per se but problems in understanding the market and providing what market wanted.