Then why are they sending people to prison for selling weapons to Mexican cartels?
And when I say "they" I mean the exact same literal people who sold weapons to Mexican cartels are sending people to prison for selling weapons to Mexican cartels.
Higher temperatures in the historical record took decades to centuries to get there. And when those high temperatures peaked, they took decades to centuries to come back down.
The answers I got to this were truly disheartening. Not once did I hear that programming is “solving problems."
I'd like to think that's because the majority of programmers (not once? Does that mean all of us?) aren't the sort to bullshit you with CEO-level bullshit about vision and buzzwords that fit into powerpoint slides. It's probably not true, but it's a nice dream.
The problem with defining programming as "solving problems" is that it's too vague. Too high level. You can't even see the code when you're that high up. Hitting nails with hammers could be problem solving. Shooting people could be problem solving. Thinking about existential crisis could be problem solving.
The three buckets: Programming is unobservable - you don't know what something is really going to do. Programming is indirect - code deals with abstractions. Programming is incidentally complex - the tools are a bitch
Something something, he doesn't like piecemeal libraries abstracting things. "Excel is programming". Culture something.
The best path forward for empowering people is to get computation to the point where it is ready for the masses.
We're there dude. We've got more computational power than we know what to do with. Cue "that's not what I meant by 'power'".
What would it be like if the only prerequisite for getting a computer to do stuff was figuring out a rough solution to your problem?
Yep, he's drifting away into a zen-like state where the metaphor is taking over. Huston to Chris, please attempt a re-entry.
AAAAAAAAnd, it's a salespitch:
Great, now what?
We find a foundation that addresses these issues! No problem, right? In my talk at Strange Loop I showed a very early prototype of Aurora, the solution we've been working on to what I've brought up here.
You don't know about "helping to arm the Mexican cartels"?
THEY SOLD ARMS TO THE MEXICAN CARTELS.
DIRECTLY.
Selling marijuana in Baltimore as an intelligence gathering information isn't going to put more weed on the streets.
No, that's simply not true. You could say that would not have an significant impact. That it's a drop in the ocean. But it's simply false to say that it doesn't put more weed on the streets.
that information wasn't really obtained at any expense beyond the basic economic program expense
Plus, you know, helping arm the Mexican cartels. Kinda the opposite of their stated goal. This is a "means" vs. "end" issue. Does beating up the lich justify slaughtering a bunch of orphans on the way there.
If you think it all boils down to money, then sure, it's just some "basic economic expense". But if you take that reasoning, the cost of all those dead vietnam war draftees was just "basic economic expense". Because at the end of the day, it's all comes down to money.
but regardless we've still learned something.
That given the opportunity, the people fighting the war on drugs will blatantly break federal law in a vain attempt in an impossible struggle?
You know, I usually detest any sort of PR speak. That sort of bullshit where they desperately try to spin negative news to their advantage. It's just something I've come to expect from corporations and politicians.
But this?
We believe these changes will also help prevent a fire resulting from an extremely high speed impact that tears the wheels off the car, like the other Model S impact fire, which occurred last year in Mexico. This happened after the vehicle impacted a roundabout at 110 mph, shearing off 15 feet of concrete curbwall and tearing off the left front wheel, then smashing through an eight foot tall buttressed concrete wall on the other side of the road and tearing off the right front wheel, before crashing into a tree. The driver stepped out and walked away with no permanent injuries and a fire, again limited to the front section of the vehicle, started several minutes later. The underbody shields will help prevent a fire even in such a scenario.
That is some mighty fine PR smackdown. Sure, there were other fires, but this one they got covered.
Can we please move to the post-bullshit era where authenticity is expected?
That's really no excuse. You just missed the 7DRL challenge, but there's no reason you can't have a late entry. Or find an itch and scratch it. Or find someone with a problem and help them out.
GO CODE SOME MORE.
It doesn't matter if it's small, or a demo, or outside your current employment's domain. Make it. Release it. Hell, release it under the GPL. Slap it up on sourceforge, Github, wherever.
This sort of bullshit where you can't prove your worth because of proprietary licenses, and NDAs, and non-competes is practically class warfare chaining you down like a serf. And if you really want to be like Tim Sweeney, you'll have to start your own company and go be EPIC.
But really, this guy is in the limelight, standing on stage, talking to people because he's famous. He's famous because he was REALLY early on the scene that literally didn't exist before that and he leveraged that new technology, founded a successful company that succeeded on merit and had some really good ideas. The primary one being that giving the users access to the tools you used to make the game content will mean you have an unlimited amount of free content being made for your game. New industries are great for the free market where you don't have to grease palms and the nerdy types have a shot at simply doing a better job than the next guy, and actually having that matter.
There are honest, nerdy, and deeply technical guys in the... say... accounting, or trains, or bottling plants. It's simply a personality trait that a percentage of the populace have. Perhaps that changes over time. Perhaps humanity can be trained into certain roles. Perhaps we can make more of these kind of guys. But I guarantee you that they won't normally be famous and up on stage giving presentations.
Also, his speech lacks a certain something since the Rift was announced.
Yeah, time is valuable. So why the hell do you want to wait in line for a lane to open up just to stand there staring at a human doing what you could be doing just as fast?
Do you think the scanner and bagging is really that complicated? Are you not able to bag groceries? And hey man, that's understandable. These stores should definitely keep some staff to help those who really can't do it themselves. Old folk, or midgets, or armless dudes, or whatever.
Really, I think this is a social thing. Some people just demand to be pampered in certain ways. "A restaurant is one where you sit at a table and someone brings you your food." "Hotels must have a concierge so I can complain to someone and have them call a cab". "Of course only a barman can serve drinks at a bar" "A real concert has humans playing instruments" "It's not a real party unless you have a DJ"
These are all services that people expect. Some people at least. But it's honestly just ritual at this point. These services exist because the customers expect it. And the customers are not rational actors. By far.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ISPs issues. 1) Internet connectivity at the end user level is oversold.
THIS is how you start? Your sympathy derives from the fact that ISPs sold more than they could deliver? Holy shit dude, I don't think you're thinking straight.
It's just the way it works
That's just the way it DOESN'T WORK. Ok, look, once upon a time, people paid per minute because it was literally a phone line connection. Then the new kids came in, bypassed all that, and sold you a flat rate per month/2yearcontractwithateaserrate because the amount of data people could actually pull down was limited by technology. Bandwidth was a selling point, and people wanted their webpages to load faster, but by and far they didn't actually use all the connection they purchased. And so the ISPs oversold their lines. They marketed fat bandwidths still sold on a flat rate, and just hoped people didn't use it. At the start, only a few geeks had the audacity to actually use the connection they paid for. And boy oh boy did the ISPs fight those dispicable few. As time goes on though, geek is becoming the new normal. Streaming videos is old-hat. Everybody does it. And it's called Netflix.
"It's just the way it works" is the cry of the old-busted business model. The gods of the free market shed no tears. Times change.
[netflix exists]...who's responsibility is it to ensure that the peering arrangement is fair?
Some dudes at the ISPs contract division. They wheel and deel about these issues constantly. It's a contract. If there's an imbalance, pay up.
Meanwhile, it's Netflix's ISP's responsibility to make sure that other people on the internet (all of them) can connect to and get content from Netflix. That's what they're paid for.
It is consummer's ISP's responsibility to make sure that the consummers can connect to and get content from Netflix (and the rest of the Internet). That's what they're paid for.
Does the consumer ISP need to pay to make sure that the peering relationship is such that all their users have the ability to stream from Netflix unfettered?
YES. If you use more of the Internet than you supply, then you pay. Imagine a world without peering. Everyone pays for everything they move. Comcast has no peering and must pay for EVERYTHING their user's request that isn't on their network. Likewise, Mediacom must pay to Comcast for everything that mediacom users request from sources in Comcasts's network.
Same damn thing happens even without a "peering relationship in such a way". But with more taxes.
Considering 1) above, is this fair to the ISP?
YES.
They could do so, but to maintain their existing cost structure it'd likely mean that they may have a smaller pipe to another peer. Is it fair to users using those other peers or do they also have simply make sure ALL of their peers are able to fully pass 100% of traffic unfettered at peak times?
I think if an ISP sells a service and it turns out that the service sucks ass because the ISP doesn't actually have the capability, then the ISP is at fault. Oh, are you facing more usage? BUILD MORE PIPE.
if you expect the consumer ISP to allow full bandwidth to all of these sites,
I do. That's what I pay for.
it's going to significantly raise the cost of bandwidth per end user. So we're complaining that consumer ISPs are demanding money from Netflix, but the alternative is to demand more money from the end user or eat the costs
No shit. If more people use the Internet moreso than they do now, then the Internet will cost more money to maintain. And if Comcast is ludicrously expensive, then that'll make a business opportunity for google fiber or another competitor to come in and eat their lunch. Comcast is trying to
They quality will drop for a little bit, but they'll work 80 hours a week to catch up since the alternative is abject poverty and starvation. If the first batch doesn't do it the next one will.
But having an incompetent coder shit all over your projects at 80 hours a week doesn't magically make it all work. Gutting the team, and replacing them allowing a whole new layers of shit be spread over the project doesn't help either. If you get a time estimate for a project from your competent staff, it's not like you can just hand that to an incompetent coder and hope it gets done in twice the timeframe.
Are you really 10 times more productive?
No, I'm infinitely more productive because I have the capability to release code. Hey, there are simple jobs out there that even a sub-par programmer can tackle. A lot of suits need yet another SQL report made from data extracted from X. And there is a lot of work writing *shudder* VBA scripts so their excel file populates fields quickly. And outsourcing that to idiots who can't code probably makes sense, business-wise. But for serious problems? That take any amount of skill? Bad coders have a NEGATIVE impact on those project. Do you understand that? Not only do they not produce the thing you need, the portions of code they do commit, their input at meetings, the documentation they write all actively degrade the output of those around them.
Not that everyone across the drink is an incompetent coder. But the competent ones don't work that cheap. And you can't hire the ones which are actually good at what they do.
'The further you get away from your education the less knowledge you have of the new technologies
*cough*BULLSHIT*cough* Does this guy think that the ONLY place you learn about new things is in school? Is he one of those pointy-haired bosses that doesn't think you know anything unless you have a "cert"?
Technology is always marching forward. EVERYONE needs to march along with it. In real-time. On the job. Constantly.
(That said, I'm an embedded engineer working in C. I'm "revolutionizing" this codeshop by showing them unit testing. And no Larry, just because we refer to them as "units" doesn't mean the blackbox testing we do is "unit-testing". WOOHOO for being on the cutting edge... of the 1970's...)
The tellers at my credit union have always been quite helpful when I asked them for help. What bank do you use that the tellers demand you sign a slip before they even talk to you?
You're naive at best.
Banks are some of the most ruthlessly efficient organizations on the planet, by their very nature.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaahhh oh man. I can't believe you called me naive and then IMMEDIATELY made that claim. That's too good. okokok, lemme just try and sort you out. Baby steps. If banks are "ruthlessly efficient by their very nature", then why are bankers well paid? Why the nice building? Why do you think the "old dude sitting in an office" is "filthy fucking rich"? Does that sound like ruthless efficiency?
If they were ruthlessly efficient, wouldn't they be sckrimping? Hiring the cleaning services only every other day. Struggling to attract employees because the pay was so shitty. Putting branches in old closed McDonalds buildings rather than downtown stonework or ritzy new buildings.
Irony: You think you're smarter because the bank is much more efficient at ripping you off than those stupid old people.
You're pretty argumentative. Do you consider yourself old or something? I never claimed to be smarter. Indeed, I actually like having a teller there. I can walk in without even having that bank card and I can walk out with money. But the ATMs are much more efficient for getting me my money in a hurry.
But no, I recently interviewed at a bank. Er, credit union. They made a big deal about the distinction. SQL-monkey position they tried to hype up. If I took it I imagine I'd have a lot more to say about how their ancient Symitar system running on XP sucks ass. Anyway, during the interview their head of IT was complaining about how they still had to hire tellers in their branches strictly because old people expected there to be tellers and that young people accepted ATMs much better.
So my personal views aside, THE REASON that banks still have tellers is because they're still courting the older demographic. At least per what someone in the industry mentioned to me once. But hey, it makes sense.
'old and busted' got the job done better and cheaper.
and you're not going to break anything in the process.
At least you hope it doesn't break anything. Kinda the same way that you hope all your software will still work when you jump from Win7 to Win8. Maybe less so because a kernel upgrade is less drastic of a change. The bit about having your own distro, hiring others to do it for you, and easily switching is more or less true.
The issue with your platform (which is more than just the kernel) going EOL is still there, but simply put, it's better in Linux.
I think the reason we're hearing about things like this is that XP hitting it's end of life has made a number of clueless suits and subp-par tech workers think about EOL issues for the first time. They do a minimum of digging and hear that Linux does a better job of this. So they report that EOL issues will be solved if they simply switch to Linux.
The real programmers collectively slap their foreheads because that's technically false. The programmers that act as talkers-to-management smile and nod because it's a step in the right direction. And management still doesn't trust anything that's free and kills the whole idea.
People still walk into the bank and talk to a teller asking a person for money withdraws.
Old people.
But they're old people with money, and so we still have offices with bored people behind counters watching you fill out those ridiculous slips rather than telling them what you want.
Tradition man. It's cultural inertia. And it's a massive bloody bitch that usually takes blood to change course.
I grew up during this. I was a geeky nerdy kid, right in the target demographic of these lines of shows. I never saw Bill Nye. I dunno man, I was 10 when it aired. I just never saw it. I saw Beakman, but I honestly didn't like how goofy he was. It was over the top. I preferred Mr. Wizard reruns.
Uuuuuuuuuh Dave, you need to look at your previous post in this chain. You're the one claiming a 40 year old coder should have "leveraged contacts" rather than get hired on merit. And that it's his fault for not having a friend get him a job.
It's not an all or nothing split between "who you know" and "what you do", contacts vs merit, but there's usually a tradeoff. And of course the manager THINKS that his son/friend/friendsfriend has the skills to do the job. Whether he actually has those skills, and how good he is at those skills, is another matter. Nobody knowingly hires an incompetent coder.
The above goes for big business just as much as it goes big government. The larger the organization the larger the mismanagement. And the larger the economic of scale.
Well don't mind me while I whip out my O-scope and probe your SPI line. It's the slave line that listens to the master like a good little peripheral. You know you've got to twiddle those bits as fast as you can least we have any awkward collisions. Then your heavy equipment gets all befuddles and doesn't know what to do. But don't worry baby, me and my O-scope are gonna make it allllllriiiiiight.
Be happy it was a CS test. The engineers in my company don't have any sway with HR. The incoming software engineers don't have to write a scrap of code before they get hired. Instead they're given a generalized IQ test. That's it.
So you don't implement bubble sort on the job, just how often do you pattern match 3 geometric shapes?
The simple CS test is a gate to see if you can code. They probably have a lot of applicants that can't even do this simple test. And doing it in person in real-time solves some major problems.
It's just a puzzle. A simple puzzle to make sure your brain isn't mush. It's just about the same as seeing if you can schmooze with office workers and small-talk with HR drones. And if they're doing it right, it's certainly not the last gate you have to get through before getting hired. Hopefully they quiz you on the higher level skills and yeah, a code review of some previous work sounds like a good idea. (As if I could show any of my military contract work in a job interview).
So hey, reverse this string, write out fizzbuzz, or sort this array. Can't do that? There's the door. If you can do that, then we can move on to the next step.
It's by and far how the managers, salesmen, brownosers, and empty suits get their jobs. Managing people is their bread and butter. Schmoozing is to them as debugging code is to us.
What sucks is that your boss and your future boss expect you to be just like him and have already done all this networking so they look down on hiring people based on their actual skillset and experience. They'd rather hire a friend or a friends friend. And they're the ones in charge of hiring.
No, you see, this is where you're just plain loony. Not all nations are for democracy. China isn't claiming to be for democracy. Their diplomat isn't even sure that the french revolution was a good idea. They have a long history of democracy. Or, at least, "western democracy". They currently have their communist party vote about things, but you have to be part of the party. And the party decides who gets to be in the party.
Russia wasn't being pro-democracy or pro-freedom when unmarked Russian soldiers barred elected Crimean politicians from entering parliament and voting.
You are balls to the walls wrong about this and you are either intentionally spreading false pro-Russian propaganda or you are a delusional pro-Russian nationalist.
Hey, Crimea might be better off being Russian. But this sort of bullshit people like you are spreading makes me highly doubt it.
Because you fill all the available ecological niches with food bearing plants, you never have to weed, and you never have to use pesticides.
Are you fucking with me? Do you know what an "ecological niche" is? Here's one: It eats banana's. It can get to the fruit of a banana tree, it can get through the banana skin, and it can process the fruit of the banana to sustain itself. As long as there are bananas, it has it's niche it can live in. It might not do so well with other fruit, and probably less so with meat or tubers, but it's ok because it has bananas.
And you think that you can fill that ecological niche with another food bearing plant? Wut? And this will mean you never have to use pesticides? Double wut?
Seriously, there are fruit trees, how the hell do you keep fruit flies from eating them?
Slashdot Mirror
Then why are they sending people to prison for selling weapons to Mexican cartels?
And when I say "they" I mean the exact same literal people who sold weapons to Mexican cartels are sending people to prison for selling weapons to Mexican cartels.
Higher temperatures in the historical record took decades to centuries to get there. And when those high temperatures peaked, they took decades to centuries to come back down.
Although there might have been a period when there were more sudden temperature swings. But hey, that's the sort of implied doomsday fear-mongering that makes for a lot of problems in this topic. I'm just suggesting the rate of change means there won't be an overall increase in biomass.
What is programming?
The answers I got to this were truly disheartening. Not once did I hear that programming is “solving problems."
I'd like to think that's because the majority of programmers (not once? Does that mean all of us?) aren't the sort to bullshit you with CEO-level bullshit about vision and buzzwords that fit into powerpoint slides.
It's probably not true, but it's a nice dream.
The problem with defining programming as "solving problems" is that it's too vague. Too high level. You can't even see the code when you're that high up. Hitting nails with hammers could be problem solving. Shooting people could be problem solving. Thinking about existential crisis could be problem solving.
The three buckets:
Programming is unobservable - you don't know what something is really going to do.
Programming is indirect - code deals with abstractions.
Programming is incidentally complex - the tools are a bitch
Something something, he doesn't like piecemeal libraries abstracting things. "Excel is programming". Culture something.
The best path forward for empowering people is to get computation to the point where it is ready for the masses.
We're there dude. We've got more computational power than we know what to do with.
Cue "that's not what I meant by 'power'".
What would it be like if the only prerequisite for getting a computer to do stuff was figuring out a rough solution to your problem?
Yep, he's drifting away into a zen-like state where the metaphor is taking over. Huston to Chris, please attempt a re-entry.
AAAAAAAAnd, it's a salespitch:
Great, now what?
We find a foundation that addresses these issues! No problem, right? In my talk at Strange Loop I showed a very early prototype of Aurora, the solution we've been working on to what I've brought up here.
You don't know about "helping to arm the Mexican cartels"?
THEY SOLD ARMS TO THE MEXICAN CARTELS.
DIRECTLY.
Selling marijuana in Baltimore as an intelligence gathering information isn't going to put more weed on the streets.
No, that's simply not true. You could say that would not have an significant impact. That it's a drop in the ocean. But it's simply false to say that it doesn't put more weed on the streets.
that information wasn't really obtained at any expense beyond the basic economic program expense
Plus, you know, helping arm the Mexican cartels. Kinda the opposite of their stated goal.
This is a "means" vs. "end" issue. Does beating up the lich justify slaughtering a bunch of orphans on the way there.
If you think it all boils down to money, then sure, it's just some "basic economic expense". But if you take that reasoning, the cost of all those dead vietnam war draftees was just "basic economic expense". Because at the end of the day, it's all comes down to money.
but regardless we've still learned something.
That given the opportunity, the people fighting the war on drugs will blatantly break federal law in a vain attempt in an impossible struggle?
He's pointing out an appeal to probability fallacy.
Possibly Restrospective Determinism as well.
His reasoning behind his complaint is valid, and the claim that "the mexicans would have gotten guns some other way" is an invalid counterpoint.
Just because you've heard of this "logical fallacy" thing doesn't mean you should beat people over the head with it.
You know, I usually detest any sort of PR speak. That sort of bullshit where they desperately try to spin negative news to their advantage. It's just something I've come to expect from corporations and politicians.
But this?
We believe these changes will also help prevent a fire resulting from an extremely high speed impact that tears the wheels off the car, like the other Model S impact fire, which occurred last year in Mexico. This happened after the vehicle impacted a roundabout at 110 mph, shearing off 15 feet of concrete curbwall and tearing off the left front wheel, then smashing through an eight foot tall buttressed concrete wall on the other side of the road and tearing off the right front wheel, before crashing into a tree. The driver stepped out and walked away with no permanent injuries and a fire, again limited to the front section of the vehicle, started several minutes later. The underbody shields will help prevent a fire even in such a scenario.
That is some mighty fine PR smackdown.
Sure, there were other fires, but this one they got covered.
Can we please move to the post-bullshit era where authenticity is expected?
That's really no excuse. You just missed the 7DRL challenge, but there's no reason you can't have a late entry. Or find an itch and scratch it. Or find someone with a problem and help them out.
GO CODE SOME MORE.
It doesn't matter if it's small, or a demo, or outside your current employment's domain. Make it. Release it. Hell, release it under the GPL. Slap it up on sourceforge, Github, wherever.
This sort of bullshit where you can't prove your worth because of proprietary licenses, and NDAs, and non-competes is practically class warfare chaining you down like a serf. And if you really want to be like Tim Sweeney, you'll have to start your own company and go be EPIC.
Fuck yeah, ZZT!
But really, this guy is in the limelight, standing on stage, talking to people because he's famous.
He's famous because he was REALLY early on the scene that literally didn't exist before that and he leveraged that new technology, founded a successful company that succeeded on merit and had some really good ideas. The primary one being that giving the users access to the tools you used to make the game content will mean you have an unlimited amount of free content being made for your game.
New industries are great for the free market where you don't have to grease palms and the nerdy types have a shot at simply doing a better job than the next guy, and actually having that matter.
There are honest, nerdy, and deeply technical guys in the... say... accounting, or trains, or bottling plants. It's simply a personality trait that a percentage of the populace have. Perhaps that changes over time. Perhaps humanity can be trained into certain roles. Perhaps we can make more of these kind of guys. But I guarantee you that they won't normally be famous and up on stage giving presentations.
Also, his speech lacks a certain something since the Rift was announced.
If Valve bought Oculus, we'd be anxiously awaiting the release of DevKit3. Just keep waiting... Any time now....
Yeah, time is valuable. So why the hell do you want to wait in line for a lane to open up just to stand there staring at a human doing what you could be doing just as fast?
Do you think the scanner and bagging is really that complicated? Are you not able to bag groceries? And hey man, that's understandable. These stores should definitely keep some staff to help those who really can't do it themselves. Old folk, or midgets, or armless dudes, or whatever.
Really, I think this is a social thing. Some people just demand to be pampered in certain ways.
"A restaurant is one where you sit at a table and someone brings you your food."
"Hotels must have a concierge so I can complain to someone and have them call a cab".
"Of course only a barman can serve drinks at a bar"
"A real concert has humans playing instruments"
"It's not a real party unless you have a DJ"
These are all services that people expect. Some people at least. But it's honestly just ritual at this point. These services exist because the customers expect it. And the customers are not rational actors. By far.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the ISPs issues.
1) Internet connectivity at the end user level is oversold.
THIS is how you start? Your sympathy derives from the fact that ISPs sold more than they could deliver? Holy shit dude, I don't think you're thinking straight.
It's just the way it works
That's just the way it DOESN'T WORK. Ok, look, once upon a time, people paid per minute because it was literally a phone line connection. Then the new kids came in, bypassed all that, and sold you a flat rate per month/2yearcontractwithateaserrate because the amount of data people could actually pull down was limited by technology. Bandwidth was a selling point, and people wanted their webpages to load faster, but by and far they didn't actually use all the connection they purchased. And so the ISPs oversold their lines. They marketed fat bandwidths still sold on a flat rate, and just hoped people didn't use it.
At the start, only a few geeks had the audacity to actually use the connection they paid for. And boy oh boy did the ISPs fight those dispicable few. As time goes on though, geek is becoming the new normal. Streaming videos is old-hat. Everybody does it. And it's called Netflix.
"It's just the way it works" is the cry of the old-busted business model. The gods of the free market shed no tears. Times change.
[netflix exists] ...who's responsibility is it to ensure that the peering arrangement is fair?
Some dudes at the ISPs contract division. They wheel and deel about these issues constantly. It's a contract. If there's an imbalance, pay up.
Meanwhile, it's Netflix's ISP's responsibility to make sure that other people on the internet (all of them) can connect to and get content from Netflix. That's what they're paid for.
It is consummer's ISP's responsibility to make sure that the consummers can connect to and get content from Netflix (and the rest of the Internet). That's what they're paid for.
Does the consumer ISP need to pay to make sure that the peering relationship is such that all their users have the ability to stream from Netflix unfettered?
YES. If you use more of the Internet than you supply, then you pay.
Imagine a world without peering. Everyone pays for everything they move. Comcast has no peering and must pay for EVERYTHING their user's request that isn't on their network. Likewise, Mediacom must pay to Comcast for everything that mediacom users request from sources in Comcasts's network.
Same damn thing happens even without a "peering relationship in such a way". But with more taxes.
Considering 1) above, is this fair to the ISP?
YES.
They could do so, but to maintain their existing cost structure it'd likely mean that they may have a smaller pipe to another peer. Is it fair to users using those other peers or do they also have simply make sure ALL of their peers are able to fully pass 100% of traffic unfettered at peak times?
I think if an ISP sells a service and it turns out that the service sucks ass because the ISP doesn't actually have the capability, then the ISP is at fault.
Oh, are you facing more usage? BUILD MORE PIPE.
if you expect the consumer ISP to allow full bandwidth to all of these sites,
I do. That's what I pay for.
it's going to significantly raise the cost of bandwidth per end user. So we're complaining that consumer ISPs are demanding money from Netflix, but the alternative is to demand more money from the end user or eat the costs
No shit. If more people use the Internet moreso than they do now, then the Internet will cost more money to maintain.
And if Comcast is ludicrously expensive, then that'll make a business opportunity for google fiber or another competitor to come in and eat their lunch. Comcast is trying to
They quality will drop for a little bit, but they'll work 80 hours a week to catch up since the alternative is abject poverty and starvation. If the first batch doesn't do it the next one will.
But having an incompetent coder shit all over your projects at 80 hours a week doesn't magically make it all work. Gutting the team, and replacing them allowing a whole new layers of shit be spread over the project doesn't help either. If you get a time estimate for a project from your competent staff, it's not like you can just hand that to an incompetent coder and hope it gets done in twice the timeframe.
Are you really 10 times more productive?
No, I'm infinitely more productive because I have the capability to release code.
Hey, there are simple jobs out there that even a sub-par programmer can tackle. A lot of suits need yet another SQL report made from data extracted from X. And there is a lot of work writing *shudder* VBA scripts so their excel file populates fields quickly. And outsourcing that to idiots who can't code probably makes sense, business-wise. But for serious problems? That take any amount of skill? Bad coders have a NEGATIVE impact on those project. Do you understand that? Not only do they not produce the thing you need, the portions of code they do commit, their input at meetings, the documentation they write all actively degrade the output of those around them.
Not that everyone across the drink is an incompetent coder. But the competent ones don't work that cheap. And you can't hire the ones which are actually good at what they do.
'The further you get away from your education the less knowledge you have of the new technologies
*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*
Does this guy think that the ONLY place you learn about new things is in school? Is he one of those pointy-haired bosses that doesn't think you know anything unless you have a "cert"?
Technology is always marching forward. EVERYONE needs to march along with it. In real-time. On the job. Constantly.
(That said, I'm an embedded engineer working in C. I'm "revolutionizing" this codeshop by showing them unit testing. And no Larry, just because we refer to them as "units" doesn't mean the blackbox testing we do is "unit-testing". WOOHOO for being on the cutting edge... of the 1970's...)
The tellers at my credit union have always been quite helpful when I asked them for help.
What bank do you use that the tellers demand you sign a slip before they even talk to you?
You're naive at best.
Banks are some of the most ruthlessly efficient organizations on the planet, by their very nature.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaahhh oh man. I can't believe you called me naive and then IMMEDIATELY made that claim. That's too good.
okokok, lemme just try and sort you out. Baby steps. If banks are "ruthlessly efficient by their very nature", then why are bankers well paid? Why the nice building? Why do you think the "old dude sitting in an office" is "filthy fucking rich"? Does that sound like ruthless efficiency?
If they were ruthlessly efficient, wouldn't they be sckrimping? Hiring the cleaning services only every other day. Struggling to attract employees because the pay was so shitty. Putting branches in old closed McDonalds buildings rather than downtown stonework or ritzy new buildings.
Irony: You think you're smarter because the bank is much more efficient at ripping you off than those stupid old people.
You're pretty argumentative. Do you consider yourself old or something? I never claimed to be smarter. Indeed, I actually like having a teller there. I can walk in without even having that bank card and I can walk out with money. But the ATMs are much more efficient for getting me my money in a hurry.
But no, I recently interviewed at a bank. Er, credit union. They made a big deal about the distinction. SQL-monkey position they tried to hype up. If I took it I imagine I'd have a lot more to say about how their ancient Symitar system running on XP sucks ass. Anyway, during the interview their head of IT was complaining about how they still had to hire tellers in their branches strictly because old people expected there to be tellers and that young people accepted ATMs much better.
So my personal views aside, THE REASON that banks still have tellers is because they're still courting the older demographic. At least per what someone in the industry mentioned to me once. But hey, it makes sense.
'old and busted' got the job done better and cheaper.
You've never employed someone have you?
and you're not going to break anything in the process.
At least you hope it doesn't break anything. Kinda the same way that you hope all your software will still work when you jump from Win7 to Win8. Maybe less so because a kernel upgrade is less drastic of a change. The bit about having your own distro, hiring others to do it for you, and easily switching is more or less true.
The issue with your platform (which is more than just the kernel) going EOL is still there, but simply put, it's better in Linux.
I think the reason we're hearing about things like this is that XP hitting it's end of life has made a number of clueless suits and subp-par tech workers think about EOL issues for the first time. They do a minimum of digging and hear that Linux does a better job of this. So they report that EOL issues will be solved if they simply switch to Linux.
The real programmers collectively slap their foreheads because that's technically false.
The programmers that act as talkers-to-management smile and nod because it's a step in the right direction.
And management still doesn't trust anything that's free and kills the whole idea.
People still walk into the bank and talk to a teller asking a person for money withdraws.
Old people.
But they're old people with money, and so we still have offices with bored people behind counters watching you fill out those ridiculous slips rather than telling them what you want.
Tradition man. It's cultural inertia. And it's a massive bloody bitch that usually takes blood to change course.
I grew up during this. I was a geeky nerdy kid, right in the target demographic of these lines of shows.
I never saw Bill Nye. I dunno man, I was 10 when it aired. I just never saw it.
I saw Beakman, but I honestly didn't like how goofy he was. It was over the top.
I preferred Mr. Wizard reruns.
Uuuuuuuuuh Dave, you need to look at your previous post in this chain. You're the one claiming a 40 year old coder should have "leveraged contacts" rather than get hired on merit. And that it's his fault for not having a friend get him a job.
It's not an all or nothing split between "who you know" and "what you do", contacts vs merit, but there's usually a tradeoff. And of course the manager THINKS that his son/friend/friendsfriend has the skills to do the job. Whether he actually has those skills, and how good he is at those skills, is another matter. Nobody knowingly hires an incompetent coder.
The above goes for big business just as much as it goes big government. The larger the organization the larger the mismanagement. And the larger the economic of scale.
Well don't mind me while I whip out my O-scope and probe your SPI line. It's the slave line that listens to the master like a good little peripheral. You know you've got to twiddle those bits as fast as you can least we have any awkward collisions. Then your heavy equipment gets all befuddles and doesn't know what to do. But don't worry baby, me and my O-scope are gonna make it allllllriiiiiight.
Be happy it was a CS test. The engineers in my company don't have any sway with HR. The incoming software engineers don't have to write a scrap of code before they get hired. Instead they're given a generalized IQ test. That's it.
So you don't implement bubble sort on the job, just how often do you pattern match 3 geometric shapes?
The simple CS test is a gate to see if you can code. They probably have a lot of applicants that can't even do this simple test. And doing it in person in real-time solves some major problems.
It's just a puzzle. A simple puzzle to make sure your brain isn't mush. It's just about the same as seeing if you can schmooze with office workers and small-talk with HR drones. And if they're doing it right, it's certainly not the last gate you have to get through before getting hired. Hopefully they quiz you on the higher level skills and yeah, a code review of some previous work sounds like a good idea. (As if I could show any of my military contract work in a job interview).
So hey, reverse this string, write out fizzbuzz, or sort this array. Can't do that? There's the door. If you can do that, then we can move on to the next step.
It's by and far how the managers, salesmen, brownosers, and empty suits get their jobs. Managing people is their bread and butter. Schmoozing is to them as debugging code is to us.
What sucks is that your boss and your future boss expect you to be just like him and have already done all this networking so they look down on hiring people based on their actual skillset and experience. They'd rather hire a friend or a friends friend. And they're the ones in charge of hiring.
Whelp. So much for "no shots fired"
Warning shots fired. They kept out a force trying to enter Crimea.
At least no one has been arrested, tortured, and killed. well damn
No, you see, this is where you're just plain loony. Not all nations are for democracy. China isn't claiming to be for democracy. Their diplomat isn't even sure that the french revolution was a good idea. They have a long history of democracy. Or, at least, "western democracy". They currently have their communist party vote about things, but you have to be part of the party. And the party decides who gets to be in the party.
Russia wasn't being pro-democracy or pro-freedom when unmarked Russian soldiers barred elected Crimean politicians from entering parliament and voting.
You are balls to the walls wrong about this and you are either intentionally spreading false pro-Russian propaganda or you are a delusional pro-Russian nationalist.
Hey, Crimea might be better off being Russian. But this sort of bullshit people like you are spreading makes me highly doubt it.
Because you fill all the available ecological niches with food bearing plants, you never have to weed, and you never have to use pesticides.
Are you fucking with me?
Do you know what an "ecological niche" is?
Here's one: It eats banana's. It can get to the fruit of a banana tree, it can get through the banana skin, and it can process the fruit of the banana to sustain itself.
As long as there are bananas, it has it's niche it can live in. It might not do so well with other fruit, and probably less so with meat or tubers, but it's ok because it has bananas.
And you think that you can fill that ecological niche with another food bearing plant? Wut? And this will mean you never have to use pesticides? Double wut?
Seriously, there are fruit trees, how the hell do you keep fruit flies from eating them?