Through my twenties I would browse through bookstores for the hell out if and casually pick up a paperback. Doing that now would cost me $6 - $8.
One of the essential points of books is that they are low cost easily handled methods of communication. They can be made out recycled tree guts or even help which grows fast. Even an average book can last decades if not centuries. Dropped from buildings, still usable ( try that with a kindle ).
I've gotten book printed by small nonprofit presses in the 3rd world that still deliver on these basics and they were *cheap*.
I don't think making books cheap again will solve American aliteracy ( being able to read, but choosing not too ), but it would remove a barrier.
Why would someone go to the inconvenience of getting into their car, driving to such a store, finding parking and risking that the trip will be wasted if the book is not there if they can just order it through the convenience of their computers. Likely at a discount and delivered to their door?
This would have been infuriating news several years ago before
- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg ordered members private information made public, without consent, without notice, without apology and then told people they would learn to like it.
- Google enrolling people into buzz by default exposing information about them to people who they might not want to see it.
- Yahoo, giving you notice, but mining your address book for its social network, information you thought would never be used.
Microsoft leaving some privacy stuff out or turned off by default makes very limp new these days. Zuckerberg did raise the bar
Fine. Lets keep the current system going, with few, very small reactors, under very disciplined and very controlled conditions to learn how to keep improving things. Lets do that for many decades until they get ridiculously improved and have it as a backup card in case other sources of energy don't fit the entire bill.
I agree with you, but those weren't the points I was arguing.
The original poster, the person I replied to, claimed that Java and C# were old school languages, on par with the programming world that the retired programmer left and were about the same bad way of doing things. First, Java was just being created in the 90s, C# came after 2000. Second, the point I made, was that Java was designed against those very things. It comes down to the point you and I made that those problems were the result of ignorant and/or lazy programmers, not the languages/tools. People who don't what they are doing, like the original poster who didn't know the philosophy behind the two languages he was dismissing.
That makes sense, the older languages where I saw that had *some* modularization, if only functions/procedures. The people who did it were probably just lazy and or ignorant.
Usually bring out nuclear power fanboys telling us how much the technology has improved "since then". Makes me less inclined towards nuclear power.......a non-renewable resource. If those kinds of safety improvements happen over just a few decades, I say the technology is not mature and lets let it improve over a few more decades.
That reminds me, I have to send a card to first adopters for subsidizing the development of my technology for me:).
Well, in this case the money is partially mine since it is supplied by tax dollars, but I will gladly pay for something that contributes to cleaner air, more energy independence and more manufacturing jobs for Americans.
I don't mean to insult the author of this comment, but I think he is very wrong.
If by "old style coding", he means procedural programming, with a column of hundreds of lines of code then that isn't Java. Java is Object Orientated language. Every hear of encapsulation with that? Everything is separated into modules.
I have seen old school programmers put hundreds of lines, procedural style, into a JSP or one monolithic function, but that just means they are ignorant of OO and using the language wrong.
I knew this was the wrong thread to read, feeling slightly tense and anxious today.
I can always count on programmers and Slashdot for a "can't do" attitude. Yes, you have to deal with reality, but fog colored glasses are just as unreal as rose colored glasses.
Yes, we are all going to die in intense pain after living on the streets, in the rain, going hungry and living in humiliation for decades first. Toto will die. *Evil Laugh*. Oy.
Slate.com has been publishing a number of articles without fully researching the facts or thinking their arguments through. IMHO, Slate.com is losing credibility. It also seems like they are pulling that tired old BS of "publish or perish" writers in printing provocative trash to get attention.
On Slashdot, we have seen the cycle of new technology many times. We all know that cutting edge technology is expensive until enough of it is sold to pay for the R&D. My tax money goes to so much garbage, like tobacco and *OIL* subsidies/unfair tax breaks. I don't mind if a little bit of it goes to help get electric cars going.....something that will someday benefit many people with cleaner air and energy independence.
Tobacco and Oil benefit no one but some already filthy rich people.
I saw similar articles spelling doom for hybrid cars from the get-go, yet years later the Prius has been a popular car and SUVs have been on their way out.
I think electric cars might be around longer than slate.com
BTW, the Volt will be leasing for about $350 a month
Easier said than done. I don't think Microsoft has successfully followed Apples lead in years. The best they have done is making mediocre second place stuff that has only done modestly well. I think Apple found a way to escape the MS Borg tactic of embrace and extend by being innovative with hardware.
I personally would love it if nuclear power dropped out of the alternative energy debate, but I don't see it happening, even with this good news.
One thing that retards renewable energy is that it is a lot harder for one organization to control.
Nuclear power, like oil and coal, is centralized. If you want that electricity you have to go to some big org to pay for it.
Investors would rather fund a business where the customers have to keep coming back instead of being sold something that will let them good off on their own.
If he is familiar with the concept of a bank account, he will not be poor. However, it will be fun to see that smug and arrogant look get wiped off of his face as his the number of his users dwindle.
I see articles everyday that satisfaction is low among Facebook users. They are hanging around, in part, because there aren't any worthy alternatives from their perspective.
Once Diaspora is out, I'm getting a few good friends to sign up with me, then I'm deleting my Facebook account.
If Facebook pulls another "We did this, we didn't tell you, we don't care and you'll like it" stunt after that point, many other Facebook users will dump them too.
He would end up selling his stake to someone, who would then have majority control and who would then have the authority to put Zuckerberg in a position other than CEO.
I hate to put it this superficially, but about 60% of the trouble is in can be traced back to CEO Mark Zuckerberg's immaturity with handling people. If someone does indeed own 84% of Facebook they could simply order him to stop making public statements.
In fact, he could take it a step further and put out spin how FB is under new derangement, with new policies and better tech coming down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Through my twenties I would browse through bookstores for the hell out if and casually pick up a paperback. Doing that now would cost me $6 - $8.
One of the essential points of books is that they are low cost easily handled methods of communication. They can be made out recycled tree guts or even help which grows fast. Even an average book can last decades if not centuries. Dropped from buildings, still usable ( try that with a kindle ).
I've gotten book printed by small nonprofit presses in the 3rd world that still deliver on these basics and they were *cheap*.
I don't think making books cheap again will solve American aliteracy ( being able to read, but choosing not too ), but it would remove a barrier.
I wish you were right, but I do not agree.
Why would someone go to the inconvenience of getting into their car, driving to such a store, finding parking and risking that the trip will be wasted if the book is not there if they can just order it through the convenience of their computers. Likely at a discount and delivered to their door?
This would have been infuriating news several years ago before
- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg ordered members private information made public, without consent, without notice, without apology and then told people they would learn to like it.
- Google enrolling people into buzz by default exposing information about them to people who they might not want to see it.
- Yahoo, giving you notice, but mining your address book for its social network, information you thought would never be used.
Microsoft leaving some privacy stuff out or turned off by default makes very limp new these days. Zuckerberg did raise the bar
Flamebate? One thing I like about a score of -1 is that it can't go any lower :). It is stable, unlike nuclear power. Doh! :)
Fine. Lets keep the current system going, with few, very small reactors, under very disciplined and very controlled conditions to learn how to keep improving things. Lets do that for many decades until they get ridiculously improved and have it as a backup card in case other sources of energy don't fit the entire bill.
I agree with you, but those weren't the points I was arguing.
The original poster, the person I replied to, claimed that Java and C# were old school languages, on par with the programming world that the retired programmer left and were about the same bad way of doing things. First, Java was just being created in the 90s, C# came after 2000. Second, the point I made, was that Java was designed against those very things. It comes down to the point you and I made that those problems were the result of ignorant and/or lazy programmers, not the languages/tools. People who don't what they are doing, like the original poster who didn't know the philosophy behind the two languages he was dismissing.
That makes sense, the older languages where I saw that had *some* modularization, if only functions/procedures. The people who did it were probably just lazy and or ignorant.
Usually bring out nuclear power fanboys telling us how much the technology has improved "since then". Makes me less inclined towards nuclear power.......a non-renewable resource. If those kinds of safety improvements happen over just a few decades, I say the technology is not mature and lets let it improve over a few more decades.
That reminds me, I have to send a card to first adopters for subsidizing the development of my technology for me :).
Well, in this case the money is partially mine since it is supplied by tax dollars, but I will gladly pay for something that contributes to cleaner air, more energy independence and more manufacturing jobs for Americans.
I don't mean to insult the author of this comment, but I think he is very wrong.
If by "old style coding", he means procedural programming, with a column of hundreds of lines of code then that isn't Java. Java is Object Orientated language. Every hear of encapsulation with that? Everything is separated into modules.
I have seen old school programmers put hundreds of lines, procedural style, into a JSP or one monolithic function, but that just means they are ignorant of OO and using the language wrong.
Sheeesh.
I knew this was the wrong thread to read, feeling slightly tense and anxious today.
I can always count on programmers and Slashdot for a "can't do" attitude. Yes, you have to deal with reality, but fog colored glasses are just as unreal as rose colored glasses.
Yes, we are all going to die in intense pain after living on the streets, in the rain, going hungry and living in humiliation for decades first. Toto will die. *Evil Laugh*. Oy.
Slate.com has been publishing a number of articles without fully researching the facts or thinking their arguments through. IMHO, Slate.com is losing credibility. It also seems like they are pulling that tired old BS of "publish or perish" writers in printing provocative trash to get attention.
On Slashdot, we have seen the cycle of new technology many times. We all know that cutting edge technology is expensive until enough of it is sold to pay for the R&D. My tax money goes to so much garbage, like tobacco and *OIL* subsidies/unfair tax breaks. I don't mind if a little bit of it goes to help get electric cars going.....something that will someday benefit many people with cleaner air and energy independence.
Tobacco and Oil benefit no one but some already filthy rich people.
I saw similar articles spelling doom for hybrid cars from the get-go, yet years later the Prius has been a popular car and SUVs have been on their way out.
I think electric cars might be around longer than slate.com
BTW, the Volt will be leasing for about $350 a month
Easier said than done. I don't think Microsoft has successfully followed Apples lead in years. The best they have done is making mediocre second place stuff that has only done modestly well. I think Apple found a way to escape the MS Borg tactic of embrace and extend by being innovative with hardware.
I personally would love it if nuclear power dropped out of the alternative energy debate, but I don't see it happening, even with this good news.
One thing that retards renewable energy is that it is a lot harder for one organization to control.
Nuclear power, like oil and coal, is centralized. If you want that electricity you have to go to some big org to pay for it.
Investors would rather fund a business where the customers have to keep coming back instead of being sold something that will let them good off on their own.
If he is familiar with the concept of a bank account, he will not be poor. However, it will be fun to see that smug and arrogant look get wiped off of his face as his the number of his users dwindle.
I see articles everyday that satisfaction is low among Facebook users. They are hanging around, in part, because there aren't any worthy alternatives from their perspective.
Once Diaspora is out, I'm getting a few good friends to sign up with me, then I'm deleting my Facebook account.
If Facebook pulls another "We did this, we didn't tell you, we don't care and you'll like it" stunt after that point, many other Facebook users will dump them too.
I haven't kept up on it. What will be special about GNOME 3, particularly from an end user's perspective?
Someone who got a 'D' in a class really didn't learn enough to have anything of value.
You forget that Europe is about to extend basic human rights to the great apes.
California is screwing itself on economics if the rules that apply to other businesses in the US apply to growing pot.
Smaller businesses supply more jobs,
Larger businesses pay less taxes.
These findings are not a surprise to me.
Thanks to the innovation of the internet I've had probably thousands of arguments with people committed to a particular viewpoint.
The usual mentality is not curiosity, listening and interest in discovering truth.
It is a verbal boxing match with both sides flinging opinions and links until someone gets tired and stops
It is good that these facts have been "formalized" by studies, but these facts are hardly a surprise to anyone talking to committed partisans.
Especially on the internet :).
When all else fails people just choose to believe that the other person's sources are faulty or biased.
That tactic is the great panic button for baling out of a failing argument and having to change your views.
He would end up selling his stake to someone, who would then have majority control and who would then have the authority to put Zuckerberg in a position other than CEO.
This could be a good thing for Facebook.
I hate to put it this superficially, but about 60% of the trouble is in can be traced back to CEO Mark Zuckerberg's immaturity with handling people. If someone does indeed own 84% of Facebook they could simply order him to stop making public statements.
In fact, he could take it a step further and put out spin how FB is under new derangement, with new policies and better tech coming down the road.
Ah yes, bigotry, the standard fare of people unhappy with their lives and themselves.