It may be true that it was useful, but I wish they hadn't made so many buisness majors do punch-card programming. I can't tell you how fucking sick I am of hearing some 40-something break into how they took programming in college, so they "know a little about it". This has been from entry level workers to CEO's. None of them had, or have a clue.
I would agree with that, which is why I said *SQL basics*. You won't change the basic reduction down to working with sets no matter what you do with the language or abstractions.
When I close the lid on my MacBook, OS X puts it to sleep. When I open the lid, it wakes up. Every time. Why can't Windows do this? I can't just go to Standby because it drains the battery too much, so I have to Hibernate.
Uh, sleep==standby, although now Macs also write it to disk, just in case (that flashing power light means it still using power to keep the memory running). So you claim to be able to sleep on OSX without battery issues? Maybe you just need to buy better than the $450 laptop at walmart, or a new battery, and the Windows machine will also last a few days in sleep (which it should).
SQL is still SQL. SQL is fixed in a syntax and written with naming conventions and styles that can best be described as neo-Cobal.
Has relational algebra changed (no, it's complete)? Why would the basics of SQL change then? Sounds like you just don't understand relational math and structured informaion basics.
You have fallen for the trap. The issue is not access speeds to the end user; nobody has a problem paying more for a 10mb connection over a 3mb connection. The issues is that if I bought a 10mb connection I want to access my favorite sites at 10mb (let's forget that you never actually get that speed), not at 1mb because they won't pay ATT, and Comcast, and Verizon the protection money that those thugs demand.
This is mafia mentality at it's best. Congrats to the libertarians/anarchist.
Was good for you. Then bad for you. Now has good cholestorol. It's the prime example of why "studies" are nothing but trash. Follow some people, draw a conclusion based on horribly imperfect information and call it science!
This is why sneakernets will never go away; perhaps they become even more valuable in this new era where the government must be able to know all of your communications... just in case, you know.
That was central to the plot of the Matrix; just replace machines with upper caste.
That argument (and it's likely replies) sounds very familiar to MAFIAA and copyright issues. Downloading the song doesn't hurt anyone, but not buying the CD because you can get it free does. Just an interesting comparison.
Web browsers have evolved into operating systems unto themselves
Really? I am unaware of a (common) browser that is able to do much more than work with data...
Let's try to leave the the analogies used to educated luddites out of summaries intended for people that *KNOW* the difference between an OS and an application.
Newspapers publish articles in the newspaper, not the police.
Users, in this case the police, publish data/articles on Facebook, not Facebook. There is a difference.
There are vast differences in a newspaper and Facebook (or any site). With the internet archive and such we can now preserve these things for eternity. We can also search VERY easily.
So not only is a new medium, but it has drastically different abilities to put that information out to EVERYONE, and to keep it FOREVER. This isn't newsprint to magazines, it's a "paradigm shift", to use a buzzword. We have changed the way we disseminate and consume information, however it's doubtful that the founders of this country, or even laws from just a few years ago had any idea that we would have such a change in the way we can communicate. So the laws were written using current standards of how humans communicate and store data. Now that these standards have drastically changed, some of the laws may need to be updated.
This is a great example, because before the internet only people in that local area would see it, and they would have to remember it, or go to the local library and dig up the old newspaper. Now you just google it. This changes the concept of privacy and therefore privacy laws should be reviewed.
Instead of wording the tired old argument "gainst the gubment", let's rephrase it:
Would you rather have choices among a few faceless corporations in which you have absolutely no power to modify ethics, principles, etc. (other than "talking with your feet")? Or would you rather have a group of your peers, appointed by your elected officials, whom you can replace, represent the interest of the consumer in general?
Yeah, you can make it sound *really* bad from both perspectives. Maybe the answer, as usual, is moderation.
It's also a little disingenuous to compare MS to Google here. The attack surface area is at least much different; Google worries about what comes over a few ports; MS worries about that, plus locally run malware, not to mention supporting a million hardware devices and all the extras that running a generic use OS.
How about we compare MS to Apple - and neither pays for bug/vulnerability finds.
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Because BP is responsible for the drilling site. The outsourced it to TransOcean, who hired Haliburton, who probably rented the equipment that installed the part that was made by a supplier in China.
You can drill down to who was responsible for certain portions of this operation, but when the oil bubbles up, it belongs to BP.
You protest the parent post on basis that the ideas he criticizes are actually good. You are right the ideas are actually good. You are conveniently missing the detail how they usually are abused, twisted and fail to perform according to their spirit.
...
When you see government creating an agency and a committee to create regulations, you may be sure it will be a clusterfuck of failure and wastefulness. Not because the concepts are wrong, just because government about never gets them right.
So what is the answer? If they are good ideas, how *do* you implement them, if not through the government?
Can't help but wonder if it might also be that you don't have to be near a place that grows peanuts, but simply near a gas station. The recent ability to buy foods from anywhere has to affect the numbers.
Perhaps he was being polite, but if you aren't saying anything racist, you don't have to sugar-coat saying the guy was black (or whatever "color" the guy was talking about - again just makes it seem like he meant "not white like me"). If he would have just said "young black man", instead of offsetting it, using an odd phrase, and adding quotes, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
As far as "not mentioning this information", that would be true if the discussion was anything about race and crime. But it wasn't. It added nothing. It did come accross as rather insensitive and distasteful. I don't see that it added anything to our discussion, relevant or not, and therefore could have been done without.
So you are stating that the OP thought this happened specifically because he was not "of color" and the perp was (as is true in your statement, if you are referring to the highly publicized case I think you are)? Then it would matter, but nothing in his post indicated that race was a motivation. Proving: You are, in fact, the dipshit.
His choice of adjectives (and quite frankly, what adjective isn't open to deliberate misinterpretation here?) had nothing to do with the causation of the incident,
That's the whole point. The addition of "of color" added absolutely nothing to the discussion. To an American it immediately invokes "colored", and it would be fair to assume he meant the guy was black. But the real catch is why did he choose that adjective? Why not "of height" or "of great mass"? What exactly did his ambigous adjective add?
It added a tone of racism, as if the color of his skin had to do with act of the person. Let's not try to support a racist comment.
I would think it more likely that they believe that homosexuals will be punished (either by God or as a natural consequence of their lifestyle). In that case, it would fit my "those who do not believe the volcano will erupt will make bad decisions" pattern.
So you think gays will be punished by God or "natural consequence"? Well which is it?
If you say God is punishing, then this is exactly what I am talking about - using the fear of eternal damnation to force others into your way of thinking.
If it's "natural consequence" then that's just part of life. But I would love for you to find me any sort of evidence (not that Christians like that stuff) that there is a "natural consequence" for being gay. You may find higher HIV infection rates and so on, but that would be more to do with things like not using condoms (theres some consequences for that, I got the proof at home!) and promiscuity. And I have no problem with you telling people that not using condoms and being a slut are bad decisions. I do have a problem with you telling someone that being gay has "natural consequences".
You're a smart guy that seems to be able to argue a point very well, but I am just not buying your inability to differentiate between a proven bad decision and holding different beliefs. I don't have time to convince you any further.
Except that they believe a book "written" 2000 years ago is the infallable word of God. So if they can go back that far to support their claims, why can't I go back that far to prove they've been full of it the whole time?
Also, I do take a little be of exception to the "Jim Crowe laws" comment. Seperate but equal was only 50 years ago. I may not have been born, you may not have been, but there were people alive then that still are today. Also 50 years isn't a long time for prejudice to fade.
But to be on your side (and again support mine), my ancestors were Native Americans. We have verified they were forcibly removed from their land. Yet I don't think that gives me the right to try to overthrow the Florida government. However that is what Muslims and Christians and others have been fighting about for centuries in the Middle East. The fear of supernatural eternal suffering fans mortal eternal suffering.
Except that in the Bible is clearly states that all humans will sin. Even if you *try* to lead a perfect life, you will absoulutely, without a dbout, fail. Therefore, attempting to state someone is not a Christian simply because they do a single (or even continual) act not in accordance with how you are *supposed* to live, is not in line with "base definition" of being a Christian.
By the way, the actual "base definition" of a Christian is a person that believes Christ was the son of God and accepts him as his savior.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be true that it was useful, but I wish they hadn't made so many buisness majors do punch-card programming. I can't tell you how fucking sick I am of hearing some 40-something break into how they took programming in college, so they "know a little about it". This has been from entry level workers to CEO's. None of them had, or have a clue.
I would agree with that, which is why I said *SQL basics*. You won't change the basic reduction down to working with sets no matter what you do with the language or abstractions.
When I close the lid on my MacBook, OS X puts it to sleep. When I open the lid, it wakes up. Every time. Why can't Windows do this? I can't just go to Standby because it drains the battery too much, so I have to Hibernate.
Uh, sleep==standby, although now Macs also write it to disk, just in case (that flashing power light means it still using power to keep the memory running). So you claim to be able to sleep on OSX without battery issues? Maybe you just need to buy better than the $450 laptop at walmart, or a new battery, and the Windows machine will also last a few days in sleep (which it should).
SQL is still SQL. SQL is fixed in a syntax and written with naming conventions and styles that can best be described as neo-Cobal.
Has relational algebra changed (no, it's complete)? Why would the basics of SQL change then? Sounds like you just don't understand relational math and structured informaion basics.
You have fallen for the trap. The issue is not access speeds to the end user; nobody has a problem paying more for a 10mb connection over a 3mb connection. The issues is that if I bought a 10mb connection I want to access my favorite sites at 10mb (let's forget that you never actually get that speed), not at 1mb because they won't pay ATT, and Comcast, and Verizon the protection money that those thugs demand. This is mafia mentality at it's best. Congrats to the libertarians/anarchist.
Eggs.
Was good for you. Then bad for you. Now has good cholestorol. It's the prime example of why "studies" are nothing but trash. Follow some people, draw a conclusion based on horribly imperfect information and call it science!
This is why sneakernets will never go away; perhaps they become even more valuable in this new era where the government must be able to know all of your communications... just in case, you know.
That was central to the plot of the Matrix; just replace machines with upper caste.
It's not hard to imagine pockets of happy sponges in liquid water hanging around for millions of years (what else are sponges going to do anyway?).
Okay Jim, let's give the sponges a bottle of 409 and see if the lazy fuckers can clean up some of that oil!
Thanks,
Tony Haywired
VP of Desperation
That argument (and it's likely replies) sounds very familiar to MAFIAA and copyright issues. Downloading the song doesn't hurt anyone, but not buying the CD because you can get it free does. Just an interesting comparison.
I recently heard on NPR that there are now more Women than Men employed.
Web browsers have evolved into operating systems unto themselves
Really? I am unaware of a (common) browser that is able to do much more than work with data...
Let's try to leave the the analogies used to educated luddites out of summaries intended for people that *KNOW* the difference between an OS and an application.
Newspapers publish articles in the newspaper, not the police.
Users, in this case the police, publish data/articles on Facebook, not Facebook.
There is a difference.
There are vast differences in a newspaper and Facebook (or any site). With the internet archive and such we can now preserve these things for eternity. We can also search VERY easily.
So not only is a new medium, but it has drastically different abilities to put that information out to EVERYONE, and to keep it FOREVER. This isn't newsprint to magazines, it's a "paradigm shift", to use a buzzword. We have changed the way we disseminate and consume information, however it's doubtful that the founders of this country, or even laws from just a few years ago had any idea that we would have such a change in the way we can communicate. So the laws were written using current standards of how humans communicate and store data. Now that these standards have drastically changed, some of the laws may need to be updated.
This is a great example, because before the internet only people in that local area would see it, and they would have to remember it, or go to the local library and dig up the old newspaper. Now you just google it. This changes the concept of privacy and therefore privacy laws should be reviewed.
Instead of wording the tired old argument "gainst the gubment", let's rephrase it:
Would you rather have choices among a few faceless corporations in which you have absolutely no power to modify ethics, principles, etc. (other than "talking with your feet")? Or would you rather have a group of your peers, appointed by your elected officials, whom you can replace, represent the interest of the consumer in general?
Yeah, you can make it sound *really* bad from both perspectives. Maybe the answer, as usual, is moderation.
Well, if the guy is right, shouldn't there be an easy way to check?
It's also a little disingenuous to compare MS to Google here. The attack surface area is at least much different; Google worries about what comes over a few ports; MS worries about that, plus locally run malware, not to mention supporting a million hardware devices and all the extras that running a generic use OS.
How about we compare MS to Apple - and neither pays for bug/vulnerability finds.
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Because BP is responsible for the drilling site. The outsourced it to TransOcean, who hired Haliburton, who probably rented the equipment that installed the part that was made by a supplier in China.
You can drill down to who was responsible for certain portions of this operation, but when the oil bubbles up, it belongs to BP.
You protest the parent post on basis that the ideas he criticizes are actually good. You are right the ideas are actually good. You are conveniently missing the detail how they usually are abused, twisted and fail to perform according to their spirit.
...
When you see government creating an agency and a committee to create regulations, you may be sure it will be a clusterfuck of failure and wastefulness. Not because the concepts are wrong, just because government about never gets them right.
So what is the answer? If they are good ideas, how *do* you implement them, if not through the government?
Can't help but wonder if it might also be that you don't have to be near a place that grows peanuts, but simply near a gas station. The recent ability to buy foods from anywhere has to affect the numbers.
Perhaps he was being polite, but if you aren't saying anything racist, you don't have to sugar-coat saying the guy was black (or whatever "color" the guy was talking about - again just makes it seem like he meant "not white like me"). If he would have just said "young black man", instead of offsetting it, using an odd phrase, and adding quotes, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
As far as "not mentioning this information", that would be true if the discussion was anything about race and crime. But it wasn't. It added nothing. It did come accross as rather insensitive and distasteful. I don't see that it added anything to our discussion, relevant or not, and therefore could have been done without.
So you are stating that the OP thought this happened specifically because he was not "of color" and the perp was (as is true in your statement, if you are referring to the highly publicized case I think you are)? Then it would matter, but nothing in his post indicated that race was a motivation. Proving: You are, in fact, the dipshit.
His choice of adjectives (and quite frankly, what adjective isn't open to deliberate misinterpretation here?) had nothing to do with the causation of the incident,
That's the whole point. The addition of "of color" added absolutely nothing to the discussion. To an American it immediately invokes "colored", and it would be fair to assume he meant the guy was black. But the real catch is why did he choose that adjective? Why not "of height" or "of great mass"? What exactly did his ambigous adjective add?
It added a tone of racism, as if the color of his skin had to do with act of the person. Let's not try to support a racist comment.
I would think it more likely that they believe that homosexuals will be punished (either by God or as a natural consequence of their lifestyle). In that case, it would fit my "those who do not believe the volcano will erupt will make bad decisions" pattern.
So you think gays will be punished by God or "natural consequence"? Well which is it?
If you say God is punishing, then this is exactly what I am talking about - using the fear of eternal damnation to force others into your way of thinking.
If it's "natural consequence" then that's just part of life. But I would love for you to find me any sort of evidence (not that Christians like that stuff) that there is a "natural consequence" for being gay. You may find higher HIV infection rates and so on, but that would be more to do with things like not using condoms (theres some consequences for that, I got the proof at home!) and promiscuity. And I have no problem with you telling people that not using condoms and being a slut are bad decisions. I do have a problem with you telling someone that being gay has "natural consequences".
You're a smart guy that seems to be able to argue a point very well, but I am just not buying your inability to differentiate between a proven bad decision and holding different beliefs. I don't have time to convince you any further.
Except that they believe a book "written" 2000 years ago is the infallable word of God. So if they can go back that far to support their claims, why can't I go back that far to prove they've been full of it the whole time?
Also, I do take a little be of exception to the "Jim Crowe laws" comment. Seperate but equal was only 50 years ago. I may not have been born, you may not have been, but there were people alive then that still are today. Also 50 years isn't a long time for prejudice to fade.
But to be on your side (and again support mine), my ancestors were Native Americans. We have verified they were forcibly removed from their land. Yet I don't think that gives me the right to try to overthrow the Florida government. However that is what Muslims and Christians and others have been fighting about for centuries in the Middle East. The fear of supernatural eternal suffering fans mortal eternal suffering.
Except that in the Bible is clearly states that all humans will sin. Even if you *try* to lead a perfect life, you will absoulutely, without a dbout, fail. Therefore, attempting to state someone is not a Christian simply because they do a single (or even continual) act not in accordance with how you are *supposed* to live, is not in line with "base definition" of being a Christian.
By the way, the actual "base definition" of a Christian is a person that believes Christ was the son of God and accepts him as his savior.