I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom.
This is just not a very useful advice.
I would take that 3 year old and put that coat on him without talking that much, then outside, I would tell him to get the coat off. In 10 minutes he'll be asking for the coat back and next time I probably wouldn't have to say much. However if this didn't work I would explain the situation in words a couple of times before turning to conditional education by using Pavlov's methods.
7. Earlier this month, the Vatican declared that Evolution is not contradicting the teachings of the Catholic church, so is Texas declaring itself to be above the Vatican authority?
My IT experience: half a year as a student working for a prof, 6 years full time, and then over 8 years of contract positions. I had 2 very long contracts and I had a year an a half, when I moved 8 times from contract to contract but I never want to be full time employee again.
So the question is, if you are a contractor, why the hell would you want to go full time?
It's not going to be possible to fight this, instead the system should attempt at controlling this by allowing information to the jury but in a way, that is controlled.
So you want to see Google Maps? Well, that's great, but how do you know when the pictures where taken that you are looking at? You don't know, so understand that what is on the picture you are looking at can be totally different from what is the reality right now.
So the controlling feature would be to confirm the date and time, when this particular Google Map picture was taken. Jury should be controlled in this way: it should be explained to them, that information on the internet is not completely reliable (sometimes it is completely unreliable), that 'facts' on the internet are just words/pictures/sounds/videos of something that could have been changed by chance or doctored on purpose.
Basically it should be allowed for the jury to see the information but with a caveat, that this information is only a hearsay.
160 seems very high. I calculated on practice however, that in some cases I am as productive as 99 other developers where I am right now. How do I calculate that? Well, if 3 people deliver a project in 6 months, but then they disappear and maintenance is a nightmare, I take a look and write a tool in 4 days that generates that exact project from the list of 162 (similar number here is just an actual coincidence) XSDs and a data model, and now maintenance is easy: a modified XSD or a modified data model is just used to re-generate the entire project in under 2 minutes, well, let's count: 3 x 6 = 18 man months. At 22 days per month that's 396 man days. 396/4 is 99. Ok, so there is also some extra time (another 2 days) for actual documentation (which wasn't there in the original project) and an extra day for ant task generator. Ok, so it's 56 times.
However considering that 3 people were employed for 6 months, I wouldn't call their work 'stupid', just purposefully inefficient, so I don't really know if I really did that well, however if you don't pay attention to such details, then yes, in our field one person can be dozens, even a hundred times as efficient as the next person.
Anyone can debug code by looking over the shoulder, it's just not everyone will get it to work as intended.
Consider that by looking over someone's shoulder you don't get the picture of what the entire thing is supposed to do. Maybe the entire code-base fits on a single screen? Then it shouldn't take a 'genius' to fix it.
Now if you know already what the code is supposed to do because you are familiar with at least the business case that is being solved (whether it is a device driver or an ordering system, there is some business case there) and you you are looking over someone's shoulder, then I still don't see how you should be a 'genius' programmer to do the fix.
In yet another scenario, the code on the screen is a common algorithm that really can be understood from a single screen and the person in front of the screen doesn't see the obvious. Then anyone, who fixes the obvious code from behind the shoulder would look like a 'genius', and in reality they just may be a programmer, who is experienced enough, educated enough to do just that.
Third case (last one, the way I see it), the person in front of a computer is tired. He has no attention left, he is burned out and the problem on the screen is just bloody obvious to anyone behind the shoulder, still no 'genius' here.
---
My point is that any sufficiently educated/experienced/motivated coder could fix something from behind someone's back on a single terminal as long as they understand the context of the problem, otherwise they will be just as useless as the next guy. Also people need rest. 'Genius' programmers? I think most of them are just quick/educated/experienced/motivated. Now, great designers - this is where you really want someone with that extra quirk maybe, as long as their documentation is useful (don't underestimate just how much I am implying in my definition of 'useful').
Just came to me that with that technology you may as well add voice recognition and imprint your voice into the device and set security on some chosen records, so that the only person who can listen/delete record is the one, whose voice gave specific commands.
Shuffle Play Record $NAME$: OH NO, YOU DON'T. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. Shuffle Play Record $NAME$ Overwrite Security Now: THIS SHUFFLE WILL SELF DESTRUCT IN 5 SECONDS! 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 BAM!!!
disclaimer: I have no MP3 player at all actually, I don't listen to music, but I want to say something about the no-buttons interface.
The new Shuffle talks to the user, excellent, but since it has no buttons, why not allow the user to control the damn thing by voice?
I would not buy an MP3 player unless it was also a voice recorder, because that would be my usage of it: record voice, play voice back. So if Shuffle featured a microphone, then I could buy it, BUT BUT. I cannot buy something I cannot control, and shuffle is uncontrollable for my use.
So then the question: if a phone I have can be controlled by voice (dial such and such, or dial a number) then why cannot this device be also voice controlled?
Shuffle Play Back Last Record: blah blah blah... Shuffle Delete Record or Shuffle Store Record As $NAME$
Shuffle Play Record $NAME$: blah blah blah... Shuffle Stop Play.
Shuffle Delete Record $NAME$: ARE YOU SURE? Shuffle Yes. Record $NAME$ deleted.
Shuffle List Record Names All: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For Today: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For Yesterday: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For $DATE$: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For Date From $DATE$ To $DATE$: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle Delete All Records Before Date $DATE$: ARE YOU SURE? Shuffle Yes!. ARE YOU FUCKING SURE, CAUSE I AM NOT BRINGING GOING TO TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LOST DATA AND DON'T YELL AT ME LIKE THE LAST TIME: Shuffle, Fucking Delete the Fucking Records! SIR, YES SIR! ALL RECORDS BEFORE $DATE$ DELETED.
--
Now that would be a product I would probably buy: Something useful and someone to talk to:)
Excellent, so at least someone has to work less, but they can buy stuff.
However what happens when government comes over and takes the money? It's the money that is lost in the system, some number of bureaucrats are going to decide what to do with the money that could instead provide comfortable life for people, for who these money was intended in the first place.
This is so funny, evolution itself shows that parents are working for the benefit of their own kids, you want to change that to mean that people should work for the benefit of some meaningless faceless society?
Removing wealth is not useful even for the purposes that you are talking about.
If you take money from someone and give it to someone else, nothing has changed in the total wealth production. It's just the people you gave money to now have fewer reasons to create wealth - now they have it. It's counter-productive to give wealth to anyone at all for no reason, they will not want to work : ) So the people who create wealth and ensure that it stays in the family actually do better for society:
1. they create wealth
2. they take burden of caring for their family off the rest of society
Now, again, if the law is that inheritance is illegal, then simply put, only those with illegal mind-set (most people) will have inheritance. Money can be converted into something valuable, stored away and then, when the dust settles taken back from the cache. Nobody even has to know..
You are mistaken. Where I am right now, where I was before, and before that, and before that... everywhere people are the same. There is always one guy and another guy and another who want it all. They will first kill people around them to subdue them, then they will form organizations that will fight each other while still killing people around them for resources. Eventually one or two will become the dominant force, with their own armies and they will run your neighborhood and you will not have a choice but to buy everything through them, you will not have a choice but to ask them permission if you want to start a business, and they will tell you what their cut is. And if you go against them, you will die. And it maybe me, I could be one of them given the right circumstances. And obviously I would want to be stronger than the other guy and I will set on acquiring the best tools for this, and eventually guns will be back. So don't worry, this will not happen in your life time, in anyone's lifetime. Once we have a weapon, we can only go forward with it, we will not give it up.
Of-course I am against the practice, in 15 years I worked to acquire my properties. More interesting than that, I bought the first house for my parents, not the other way around.
I will make sure that the money I make stay in my family, obviously, you may have objections to it, but I would rather see the money go up in flames than someone coming to me taking it away. I worked for it, so, absolutely seriously, I would sooner liquidate everything and burn the cash than give it away, it's my life, my time=my money. Which way I wish to do with it - dispose of it in a bone fire or give it to someone is entirely up to me.
Of-course I will not have to burn it, I will use every possible last ounce of intellect I've got to not let it go to waste, but to make sure it serves my selfish purposes.
You see, you are going against the desire of people who are actually earning the wealth, that's where I have moral objections with this.
I don't see how you can make any distinction. If someone starts a corporation and his kid joins the corporation, the father retires, the kid stays at the head of it. So who's is it?
If you are born in a house of your parents and they eventually die, how can anyone make a case that the house is not also yours?
However if you go down that path, then consider that the parents would simply have to make sure that all the items they own, are actually owned by an independent immortal entity and the kid would be written up as a co-owner.
It is not easy to argue away inheritance rights, but it is even more difficult to take them away in practice. If one wants, (s)he will come up with a way to liquidate the estate and transfer the money. How about a salary to the kid in form of cost of all of the assets (for some obscure consultations or maybe performances), that will be hanging on the estate as a debt that will have to be disposed of upon death of the parent?
It's just too easy to avoid this for the people who actually have something they can give as inheritance. Just selling all of the assets, opening an off-shore system of accounts (non-profit corps for example) and making the descendant a co-owner.
---
also you say: property that WE create vs property that WE do not create. What about MARKET creating 'value', for example: you buy a house, the house grows in value, you sell a house. YOU didn't do anything really for the house price to go up. Are they money yours?
btw., if by some bizarre chance you manage to kill me, armed with the necessary tools, there will be another one, just like me, right behind me.
The point is - eventually you will fall, since without guns it's all back to fighting face to face with knives, sticks and stones. And nobody can survive that kind of life for too long.
I really hope that you are being sarcastic. Burning coal for hundreds of years is worse for this planet than 100 Chernobyls, however this is not even a problem, Chernobyl cannot happen with breeder reactors that should be built all over the place.
I want one in my back yard now, I want a nuclear powered coffeemaker, gdmt.
No one (or nearly no one) is saying "you can't have", they're saying "this is mine, get your own".
- everyone, or nearly everyone, who is a rich person in the Russian Federation is saying exactly that. "You can't have".
Any town there has a few people who are in all pies at the same time and kill any competition. I mean murder, as in 'termination of life' kill. These people own the businesses and at the same time they are the people who are in the local government. If you have an idea that you want to bake cakes, you have to open shop, well all of the land is already private and is owned by these people, so are the buildings. They make the laws, so they won't allow you to do anything they don't like and if you insist, they'll just terminate you.
I agree with you on that, but I still maintain my position, I don't mind Starbucks as a brand, whatever it is (special Starbucks cups and logo?) and I like the few locations I visit. Cheers
Slashdot Mirror
I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom.
This is just not a very useful advice.
I would take that 3 year old and put that coat on him without talking that much, then outside, I would tell him to get the coat off. In 10 minutes he'll be asking for the coat back and next time I probably wouldn't have to say much. However if this didn't work I would explain the situation in words a couple of times before turning to conditional education by using Pavlov's methods.
7. Earlier this month, the Vatican declared that Evolution is not contradicting the teachings of the Catholic church, so is Texas declaring itself to be above the Vatican authority?
I can't believe I am quoting my father! but as he says: 'common sense is not that common'.
My IT experience: half a year as a student working for a prof, 6 years full time, and then over 8 years of contract positions. I had 2 very long contracts and I had a year an a half, when I moved 8 times from contract to contract but I never want to be full time employee again.
So the question is, if you are a contractor, why the hell would you want to go full time?
It's not going to be possible to fight this, instead the system should attempt at controlling this by allowing information to the jury but in a way, that is controlled.
So you want to see Google Maps? Well, that's great, but how do you know when the pictures where taken that you are looking at? You don't know, so understand that what is on the picture you are looking at can be totally different from what is the reality right now.
So the controlling feature would be to confirm the date and time, when this particular Google Map picture was taken. Jury should be controlled in this way: it should be explained to them, that information on the internet is not completely reliable (sometimes it is completely unreliable), that 'facts' on the internet are just words/pictures/sounds/videos of something that could have been changed by chance or doctored on purpose.
Basically it should be allowed for the jury to see the information but with a caveat, that this information is only a hearsay.
160 seems very high. I calculated on practice however, that in some cases I am as productive as 99 other developers where I am right now. How do I calculate that? Well, if 3 people deliver a project in 6 months, but then they disappear and maintenance is a nightmare, I take a look and write a tool in 4 days that generates that exact project from the list of 162 (similar number here is just an actual coincidence) XSDs and a data model, and now maintenance is easy: a modified XSD or a modified data model is just used to re-generate the entire project in under 2 minutes, well, let's count: 3 x 6 = 18 man months. At 22 days per month that's 396 man days. 396/4 is 99. Ok, so there is also some extra time (another 2 days) for actual documentation (which wasn't there in the original project) and an extra day for ant task generator. Ok, so it's 56 times.
However considering that 3 people were employed for 6 months, I wouldn't call their work 'stupid', just purposefully inefficient, so I don't really know if I really did that well, however if you don't pay attention to such details, then yes, in our field one person can be dozens, even a hundred times as efficient as the next person.
Anyone can debug code by looking over the shoulder, it's just not everyone will get it to work as intended.
Consider that by looking over someone's shoulder you don't get the picture of what the entire thing is supposed to do. Maybe the entire code-base fits on a single screen? Then it shouldn't take a 'genius' to fix it.
Now if you know already what the code is supposed to do because you are familiar with at least the business case that is being solved (whether it is a device driver or an ordering system, there is some business case there) and you you are looking over someone's shoulder, then I still don't see how you should be a 'genius' programmer to do the fix.
In yet another scenario, the code on the screen is a common algorithm that really can be understood from a single screen and the person in front of the screen doesn't see the obvious. Then anyone, who fixes the obvious code from behind the shoulder would look like a 'genius', and in reality they just may be a programmer, who is experienced enough, educated enough to do just that.
Third case (last one, the way I see it), the person in front of a computer is tired. He has no attention left, he is burned out and the problem on the screen is just bloody obvious to anyone behind the shoulder, still no 'genius' here.
---
My point is that any sufficiently educated/experienced/motivated coder could fix something from behind someone's back on a single terminal as long as they understand the context of the problem, otherwise they will be just as useless as the next guy. Also people need rest. 'Genius' programmers? I think most of them are just quick/educated/experienced/motivated. Now, great designers - this is where you really want someone with that extra quirk maybe, as long as their documentation is useful (don't underestimate just how much I am implying in my definition of 'useful').
Great, now Slashdot is going to be sued by a sheriff in Illinois.
Stop pimping here, go back to craigslist!
Just came to me that with that technology you may as well add voice recognition and imprint your voice into the device and set security on some chosen records, so that the only person who can listen/delete record is the one, whose voice gave specific commands.
Shuffle Play Record $NAME$: OH NO, YOU DON'T. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. Shuffle Play Record $NAME$ Overwrite Security Now: THIS SHUFFLE WILL SELF DESTRUCT IN 5 SECONDS! 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 BAM!!!
disclaimer: I have no MP3 player at all actually, I don't listen to music, but I want to say something about the no-buttons interface.
The new Shuffle talks to the user, excellent, but since it has no buttons, why not allow the user to control the damn thing by voice?
I would not buy an MP3 player unless it was also a voice recorder, because that would be my usage of it: record voice, play voice back. So if Shuffle featured a microphone, then I could buy it, BUT BUT. I cannot buy something I cannot control, and shuffle is uncontrollable for my use.
So then the question: if a phone I have can be controlled by voice (dial such and such, or dial a number) then why cannot this device be also voice controlled?
Shuffle Start Record: blah blah blah... Shuffle Stop Record.
Shuffle Play Back Last Record: blah blah blah... Shuffle Delete Record or Shuffle Store Record As $NAME$
Shuffle Play Record $NAME$: blah blah blah... Shuffle Stop Play.
Shuffle Delete Record $NAME$: ARE YOU SURE? Shuffle Yes. Record $NAME$ deleted.
Shuffle List Record Names All: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For Today: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For Yesterday: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For $DATE$: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle List Record Names For Date From $DATE$ To $DATE$: $NAME$ $NAME$
Shuffle Delete All Records Before Date $DATE$: ARE YOU SURE? Shuffle Yes!. ARE YOU FUCKING SURE, CAUSE I AM NOT BRINGING GOING TO TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LOST DATA AND DON'T YELL AT ME LIKE THE LAST TIME: Shuffle, Fucking Delete the Fucking Records! SIR, YES SIR! ALL RECORDS BEFORE $DATE$ DELETED.
--
Now that would be a product I would probably buy: Something useful and someone to talk to :)
Aaaaaa, circletimescocksucker, is that you? He-he.
Delay-no-more my grass-mud-horse.
I would rather people didn't try to change the nature of people, it ends badly.
Excellent, so at least someone has to work less, but they can buy stuff.
However what happens when government comes over and takes the money? It's the money that is lost in the system, some number of bureaucrats are going to decide what to do with the money that could instead provide comfortable life for people, for who these money was intended in the first place.
This is so funny, evolution itself shows that parents are working for the benefit of their own kids, you want to change that to mean that people should work for the benefit of some meaningless faceless society?
Again, I'd rather burn my money in a fire.
Removing wealth is not useful even for the purposes that you are talking about.
If you take money from someone and give it to someone else, nothing has changed in the total wealth production. It's just the people you gave money to now have fewer reasons to create wealth - now they have it. It's counter-productive to give wealth to anyone at all for no reason, they will not want to work : ) So the people who create wealth and ensure that it stays in the family actually do better for society:
1. they create wealth
2. they take burden of caring for their family off the rest of society
Now, again, if the law is that inheritance is illegal, then simply put, only those with illegal mind-set (most people) will have inheritance. Money can be converted into something valuable, stored away and then, when the dust settles taken back from the cache. Nobody even has to know..
You are mistaken. Where I am right now, where I was before, and before that, and before that... everywhere people are the same. There is always one guy and another guy and another who want it all. They will first kill people around them to subdue them, then they will form organizations that will fight each other while still killing people around them for resources. Eventually one or two will become the dominant force, with their own armies and they will run your neighborhood and you will not have a choice but to buy everything through them, you will not have a choice but to ask them permission if you want to start a business, and they will tell you what their cut is. And if you go against them, you will die. And it maybe me, I could be one of them given the right circumstances. And obviously I would want to be stronger than the other guy and I will set on acquiring the best tools for this, and eventually guns will be back. So don't worry, this will not happen in your life time, in anyone's lifetime. Once we have a weapon, we can only go forward with it, we will not give it up.
Of-course I am against the practice, in 15 years I worked to acquire my properties. More interesting than that, I bought the first house for my parents, not the other way around.
I will make sure that the money I make stay in my family, obviously, you may have objections to it, but I would rather see the money go up in flames than someone coming to me taking it away. I worked for it, so, absolutely seriously, I would sooner liquidate everything and burn the cash than give it away, it's my life, my time=my money. Which way I wish to do with it - dispose of it in a bone fire or give it to someone is entirely up to me.
Of-course I will not have to burn it, I will use every possible last ounce of intellect I've got to not let it go to waste, but to make sure it serves my selfish purposes.
You see, you are going against the desire of people who are actually earning the wealth, that's where I have moral objections with this.
I don't see how you can make any distinction. If someone starts a corporation and his kid joins the corporation, the father retires, the kid stays at the head of it. So who's is it?
If you are born in a house of your parents and they eventually die, how can anyone make a case that the house is not also yours?
However if you go down that path, then consider that the parents would simply have to make sure that all the items they own, are actually owned by an independent immortal entity and the kid would be written up as a co-owner.
It is not easy to argue away inheritance rights, but it is even more difficult to take them away in practice. If one wants, (s)he will come up with a way to liquidate the estate and transfer the money. How about a salary to the kid in form of cost of all of the assets (for some obscure consultations or maybe performances), that will be hanging on the estate as a debt that will have to be disposed of upon death of the parent?
It's just too easy to avoid this for the people who actually have something they can give as inheritance. Just selling all of the assets, opening an off-shore system of accounts (non-profit corps for example) and making the descendant a co-owner.
---
also you say: property that WE create vs property that WE do not create. What about MARKET creating 'value', for example: you buy a house, the house grows in value, you sell a house. YOU didn't do anything really for the house price to go up. Are they money yours?
etc.etc.etc.
btw., if by some bizarre chance you manage to kill me, armed with the necessary tools, there will be another one, just like me, right behind me.
The point is - eventually you will fall, since without guns it's all back to fighting face to face with knives, sticks and stones. And nobody can survive that kind of life for too long.
not before your head would fall to the ground.
So if I work and make some money, are they mine or do they not belong to me at all? If they are not mine, then I don't want to work, fuck that.
I'll be standing right there with a machete, crossbow a spear and some bolas, waiting for the flames to engulf your protection.
I really hope that you are being sarcastic. Burning coal for hundreds of years is worse for this planet than 100 Chernobyls, however this is not even a problem, Chernobyl cannot happen with breeder reactors that should be built all over the place.
I want one in my back yard now, I want a nuclear powered coffeemaker, gdmt.
No one (or nearly no one) is saying "you can't have", they're saying "this is mine, get your own".
- everyone, or nearly everyone, who is a rich person in the Russian Federation is saying exactly that. "You can't have".
Any town there has a few people who are in all pies at the same time and kill any competition. I mean murder, as in 'termination of life' kill. These people own the businesses and at the same time they are the people who are in the local government. If you have an idea that you want to bake cakes, you have to open shop, well all of the land is already private and is owned by these people, so are the buildings. They make the laws, so they won't allow you to do anything they don't like and if you insist, they'll just terminate you.
This is the ultimate: "you can't have", isn't it?
I agree with you on that, but I still maintain my position, I don't mind Starbucks as a brand, whatever it is (special Starbucks cups and logo?) and I like the few locations I visit.
Cheers