I think the problem is the disctinction between computer science as a science, and programming as a 9 to 5 job that you can get merely by reading a book and paying for a certificate.
I wouldn't call Haskell "fringe" by any means. Anyone with a real computer science degree since it was invented should have heard of it or something from the same family.
Why should they care though? The cost to make a version that works for everyone probably greatly exceeds the small additional revenue they'd get. This is not a matter of discriminating against an oppressed class of people, or denying a vital service, or even denying a useful service. It's a fricking fashion accessory!
But this ruins the human nature element of some underclass being oppressed by a huge uncaring corporation. Just the sheer horror of some people being unable to get their apple watch to work should shock us into sending money to the Red Cross lest they be forced to do without.
I can't search for anything. I used to do + and -, it was the standard for search engines and no one had to learn SQL or regular expressions. Knowing !keyword is completely news to me. I had just given up on search engines being even moderately helpful, as there is no "help" page anymore to explain how to do smarter searches anymore.
I presume this is just some SQL-like parsing of the search terms, as it would be insanely stupid to have the search engine accept pure SQL and pass it unhindered down to the guts of the back office.
Even if they thought about it, how many users does it affect? Many companies, not just Apple, are very happy to ignore 10% of the potential market base because it costs too much to make it perfect for everyone. If someone is angry about being left out of some luxury consumer product, then join the club with all the other groups being left out of some product or other. It happens. Return the overpriced bauble for a refund.
You can't have a reasonable argument when both sides start calling each other poopie heads. So when words like "socialist agenda" or "fascist" are used, that's the equivalent of an ad hominem attack, you may as well use any other meaningless words for all the difference it will make.
Because those words are indeed meaningless when they're used incorrectly that way, and anyone who honestly believes the democrats are socialists or the republicans are fascists are so clearly out of touch with reality that there's no point in even having a discussion.
So if you have something intelligent to say, make sure you don't nullify your argument by using partisan code words. This applies to BOTH sides of the partisan football game where the hooligans having riots in the parking lot.
The people with money fund both parties because they feel that's the only way to ever get their voices heard. Both parties do have fundamentally different viewpoints, they are not merely right wing vs right wing as so many Europeans want to claim. But just because the corporations are cozying up to both doesn't mean they do the same thing once elected. We wouldn't even have these net neutrality rules dreamed up in the first place is the government was obeying everything the corporations told them to.
Don't forget, the corporations don't agree with each other either. A solar energy company does not have the same goals as an oil importing company. Comcast does not have the same goals as Netflix with regards to net neutrality.
In some sense this is smart. It is stupid to put all your hopes and dreams of one party only, because if they lose then you're out of luck until the next election. For example, a lobbying group wants to increase promotion of HIV drugs in third world countries; if they supported one party only and then snubbed or insulted the other, what happens if their least favorite party gets in office? Do they stop lobbying their least favorite party, or do they continue their efforts even if there is increased resistance to their ideas? Not everything has to be partisan.
Problem is, it lists all the qualifications as identical. When one of them matters every single day, and the others are optional and probably are only necessary once a year, if at all.
Often what happens is that the employer has one person they want, who is generally qualified for the job and who they want to hire. Then things get arranged to get the H1-B process done, basically after the interview or referral is done. Because you can't write a highly specific job app for one person until you know exactly who that one person is.
Some confusion may be that people think unqualified people are taking these jobs but that is often not the case for jobs that actually require a reasonable amount of skill. This may be a person who worked at the company before and who everyone wants to rehire. But because of H1-B requirements they technically need to make sure there's no permanent resident or citizen who can do the job.
Many people in HR don't even see this as unethical, it's the person that the team wants and so they're making that happen. But the problem is that technically it's a misrepresentation of the facts to the government (lying), which you can't get around even if the employee has a competitive salary and is not being pressured into long working hours.
Judicial decisions do affect how things are interpreted when they are vague and when different parts of the law and constitution conflict with each other. And a great many things in the constitution are vague.
The civil war was entirely about slavery, because the primary reason the union was in danger of breaking up was because of slavery. Most other issues for the war ultimately led back to slavery as the origin as well. It is true that many in the north were content to just continue being conciliatory and many weren't even concerned that much with slavery. But there was a rising tide as well and many were sick and tired of letting the south get their way out of fear of a union breakup (for example, the fugitive slave act). The fight over whether or not the new western states could have slavery was the hot issue that caused various pro-secession states to mobilize and start taking over union forts. The leaders of the confederacy made it clear in their speeches that the fight was about the right to own slaves, even if in the north the view was to maintain the union.
The Marshall court allowed that the executive was allowed to have regulatory powers in order to implement the law (ie, the law is broad and the executive fills in the details). Later courts have refined this in various ways. The EPA was created by an act of congress, and it was not the first agency to have regulatory duties. If congress disapproves then they can create more restrictive laws, dictate the fines, etc.
There is a very clear constitutional basis. The environment is very key to interstate commerce without any doubt. If you could confine the environment to every state's borders then perhaps things would be different, and Ohio could be full of burning rivers as long as Illinois is not affected.
But according to some nuts, under the constitution the feds can't do anything except manage wars. The constitution as it existed in 1781 is not the same as it is today. People forget all the amendments, all the judicial decisions, and the great big massive war we had that overturned the constitution so that slavery could finally be abolished which resulted in a strong centralized federal government no matter what the hell the founding fathers who owned slaves would have wanted.
EPA is not necessarily a science creating organization, it's a policy creation and enforcement organization. It doesn't necessarily have to have solid science established and well accepted before it is allowed to make regulation. It gets input from many sources, some of which are lies, and then forms a policy. Under some administrations it errs on the side of caution, and with other administrations it errs on the side of profit.
As in, there is evidence that chemical A may cause cancer or is killing off some fisheries. One side wishes that to be enough to limit use of chemical A or to require safety measures against spills. The other side wishes to continue using chemical A until there is absolutely undeniable proof (which will never occur). But the EPA is not creating the science here, instead it is acting in the public's interest based upon existing scientific studies and evidence.
But most universities don't work that way. Instead you spend your money for the privilege of attempting to graduate. Sure there are exceptions but in those cases word gets around and everyone soon knows that the degrees there are worthless. These aren't "ceritificates" like useless Microsoft pieces of paper, but actual degrees.
It was never true, however it is still generally true that students who spend money to take a class will attempt to do well in the class and not engage in behavior that may result in forfeiting that money. This is not true if the students are forced to be there (such as high school) or the cost is very low (junior college). But for Texas A&M this seems surprising. Is there something about the Galveston campus that's less prestigious than the university as a whole?
I think the "we need this class to graduate" may be a factor. A lot of universities have gotten into the pipeline model, where money is received and graduates are produced, regardless of performance. Or perhaps students were well accustomed to slacking off as a general practice at that school (says bad things about A&M though) and the professor showed up expecting to find real students instead of people just serving their time.
A classroom of unruly students is also not the way academics work. These sound like kids from a junior college or high school, not Texas A&M. If I saw that sort of thing when I was a teaching assistant I'd have taken it to the prof, department chair, or the provost. By the time a student is at a university the time for babysitting and classroom control should be over.
This is a university, not a high school, not even a community college. Most professors would expect mature students who are there to learn. University professors are rarely taught how to deal with unruly classrooms because unruly classrooms are rare. That's why teaching assistants can handle courses with no training at all.
My DirecTV never had video on demand, it had pay per view though, as it all came down from satellite as broadcast. The newer model though may have done something with internet, but if your internet sucks then video on demand would be horrid.
I loved DirecTV when I had it. I cut the cord, but not because it sucked but because it felt like a lot of money (still much cheaper than comcast) when almost everything I watched was available for streaming.
The reason for the phone is because there is literally no other way to get data back to the office. Comcast doubles as internet, so there's a two way communication. Same with AT&T. For satellite it's mostly one way only.
Though DirecTV was small, it was often used by people sick of their local cable providers, because it was cheaper and had better service and for a long time better digital quality (especially if local cable monopoly was stuck on analog or charged a huge amount for digital).
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is the disctinction between computer science as a science, and programming as a 9 to 5 job that you can get merely by reading a book and paying for a certificate.
Five, I forgot to fill out the survey last year, sorry.
I wouldn't call Haskell "fringe" by any means. Anyone with a real computer science degree since it was invented should have heard of it or something from the same family.
Why should they care though? The cost to make a version that works for everyone probably greatly exceeds the small additional revenue they'd get. This is not a matter of discriminating against an oppressed class of people, or denying a vital service, or even denying a useful service. It's a fricking fashion accessory!
But this ruins the human nature element of some underclass being oppressed by a huge uncaring corporation. Just the sheer horror of some people being unable to get their apple watch to work should shock us into sending money to the Red Cross lest they be forced to do without.
I can't search for anything. I used to do + and -, it was the standard for search engines and no one had to learn SQL or regular expressions. Knowing !keyword is completely news to me. I had just given up on search engines being even moderately helpful, as there is no "help" page anymore to explain how to do smarter searches anymore.
I presume this is just some SQL-like parsing of the search terms, as it would be insanely stupid to have the search engine accept pure SQL and pass it unhindered down to the guts of the back office.
Even if they thought about it, how many users does it affect? Many companies, not just Apple, are very happy to ignore 10% of the potential market base because it costs too much to make it perfect for everyone. If someone is angry about being left out of some luxury consumer product, then join the club with all the other groups being left out of some product or other. It happens. Return the overpriced bauble for a refund.
I hate how C always ruins a good fight just as it gets interesting.
Anyone who can afford an Apple Watch can also afford a new bionic iArm.
You can't have a reasonable argument when both sides start calling each other poopie heads. So when words like "socialist agenda" or "fascist" are used, that's the equivalent of an ad hominem attack, you may as well use any other meaningless words for all the difference it will make.
Because those words are indeed meaningless when they're used incorrectly that way, and anyone who honestly believes the democrats are socialists or the republicans are fascists are so clearly out of touch with reality that there's no point in even having a discussion.
So if you have something intelligent to say, make sure you don't nullify your argument by using partisan code words. This applies to BOTH sides of the partisan football game where the hooligans having riots in the parking lot.
The people with money fund both parties because they feel that's the only way to ever get their voices heard. Both parties do have fundamentally different viewpoints, they are not merely right wing vs right wing as so many Europeans want to claim. But just because the corporations are cozying up to both doesn't mean they do the same thing once elected. We wouldn't even have these net neutrality rules dreamed up in the first place is the government was obeying everything the corporations told them to.
Don't forget, the corporations don't agree with each other either. A solar energy company does not have the same goals as an oil importing company. Comcast does not have the same goals as Netflix with regards to net neutrality.
In some sense this is smart. It is stupid to put all your hopes and dreams of one party only, because if they lose then you're out of luck until the next election. For example, a lobbying group wants to increase promotion of HIV drugs in third world countries; if they supported one party only and then snubbed or insulted the other, what happens if their least favorite party gets in office? Do they stop lobbying their least favorite party, or do they continue their efforts even if there is increased resistance to their ideas? Not everything has to be partisan.
Problem is, it lists all the qualifications as identical. When one of them matters every single day, and the others are optional and probably are only necessary once a year, if at all.
Often what happens is that the employer has one person they want, who is generally qualified for the job and who they want to hire. Then things get arranged to get the H1-B process done, basically after the interview or referral is done. Because you can't write a highly specific job app for one person until you know exactly who that one person is.
Some confusion may be that people think unqualified people are taking these jobs but that is often not the case for jobs that actually require a reasonable amount of skill. This may be a person who worked at the company before and who everyone wants to rehire. But because of H1-B requirements they technically need to make sure there's no permanent resident or citizen who can do the job.
Many people in HR don't even see this as unethical, it's the person that the team wants and so they're making that happen. But the problem is that technically it's a misrepresentation of the facts to the government (lying), which you can't get around even if the employee has a competitive salary and is not being pressured into long working hours.
Judicial decisions do affect how things are interpreted when they are vague and when different parts of the law and constitution conflict with each other. And a great many things in the constitution are vague.
The civil war was entirely about slavery, because the primary reason the union was in danger of breaking up was because of slavery. Most other issues for the war ultimately led back to slavery as the origin as well. It is true that many in the north were content to just continue being conciliatory and many weren't even concerned that much with slavery. But there was a rising tide as well and many were sick and tired of letting the south get their way out of fear of a union breakup (for example, the fugitive slave act). The fight over whether or not the new western states could have slavery was the hot issue that caused various pro-secession states to mobilize and start taking over union forts. The leaders of the confederacy made it clear in their speeches that the fight was about the right to own slaves, even if in the north the view was to maintain the union.
The Marshall court allowed that the executive was allowed to have regulatory powers in order to implement the law (ie, the law is broad and the executive fills in the details). Later courts have refined this in various ways. The EPA was created by an act of congress, and it was not the first agency to have regulatory duties. If congress disapproves then they can create more restrictive laws, dictate the fines, etc.
There is a very clear constitutional basis. The environment is very key to interstate commerce without any doubt. If you could confine the environment to every state's borders then perhaps things would be different, and Ohio could be full of burning rivers as long as Illinois is not affected.
But according to some nuts, under the constitution the feds can't do anything except manage wars. The constitution as it existed in 1781 is not the same as it is today. People forget all the amendments, all the judicial decisions, and the great big massive war we had that overturned the constitution so that slavery could finally be abolished which resulted in a strong centralized federal government no matter what the hell the founding fathers who owned slaves would have wanted.
The reason people don't want EPA to cover CO2 is not because of science, but because it potentially eats into oil and energy profits.
EPA is not necessarily a science creating organization, it's a policy creation and enforcement organization. It doesn't necessarily have to have solid science established and well accepted before it is allowed to make regulation. It gets input from many sources, some of which are lies, and then forms a policy. Under some administrations it errs on the side of caution, and with other administrations it errs on the side of profit.
As in, there is evidence that chemical A may cause cancer or is killing off some fisheries. One side wishes that to be enough to limit use of chemical A or to require safety measures against spills. The other side wishes to continue using chemical A until there is absolutely undeniable proof (which will never occur). But the EPA is not creating the science here, instead it is acting in the public's interest based upon existing scientific studies and evidence.
The pope is a Jesuit, an organization that contains a large number of scientists, scholars, professors, and so forth.
But most universities don't work that way. Instead you spend your money for the privilege of attempting to graduate. Sure there are exceptions but in those cases word gets around and everyone soon knows that the degrees there are worthless. These aren't "ceritificates" like useless Microsoft pieces of paper, but actual degrees.
It was never true, however it is still generally true that students who spend money to take a class will attempt to do well in the class and not engage in behavior that may result in forfeiting that money. This is not true if the students are forced to be there (such as high school) or the cost is very low (junior college). But for Texas A&M this seems surprising. Is there something about the Galveston campus that's less prestigious than the university as a whole?
I think the "we need this class to graduate" may be a factor. A lot of universities have gotten into the pipeline model, where money is received and graduates are produced, regardless of performance. Or perhaps students were well accustomed to slacking off as a general practice at that school (says bad things about A&M though) and the professor showed up expecting to find real students instead of people just serving their time.
A classroom of unruly students is also not the way academics work. These sound like kids from a junior college or high school, not Texas A&M. If I saw that sort of thing when I was a teaching assistant I'd have taken it to the prof, department chair, or the provost. By the time a student is at a university the time for babysitting and classroom control should be over.
This is a university, not a high school, not even a community college. Most professors would expect mature students who are there to learn. University professors are rarely taught how to deal with unruly classrooms because unruly classrooms are rare. That's why teaching assistants can handle courses with no training at all.
My DirecTV never had video on demand, it had pay per view though, as it all came down from satellite as broadcast. The newer model though may have done something with internet, but if your internet sucks then video on demand would be horrid.
I loved DirecTV when I had it. I cut the cord, but not because it sucked but because it felt like a lot of money (still much cheaper than comcast) when almost everything I watched was available for streaming.
The reason for the phone is because there is literally no other way to get data back to the office. Comcast doubles as internet, so there's a two way communication. Same with AT&T. For satellite it's mostly one way only.
Though DirecTV was small, it was often used by people sick of their local cable providers, because it was cheaper and had better service and for a long time better digital quality (especially if local cable monopoly was stuck on analog or charged a huge amount for digital).