Give me a break with the righteous indignation. You don't understand the difference between willfully murdering someone and their simply dying of natural causes? Or are you just willfully stupid and sociopathic?
I don't understand the line-drawing. There is no line. Stop with the line drawing. You don't use magic numbers in your code, and you surely should use them to determine matters of life and death. If it came from humans and develops into a human, it's a human. Pigs don't develop into humans, nor do dogs, sheep, or monkeys. A human is a human at every stage of its development. No line.
The honest question each society must answer is: At what point in a human's life is it okay to murder them for your convenience?
People have been playing music to babies in the womb for years. Many parents are encouraged to speak to their baby while in the womb so the baby learns the sounds of mommy's and daddy's voice. Not new, but it puts some more scientific evidence to what any parent with a kid under 20 (or more?) could have already told you.
Babies get excited and kick when there's commotion outside too -- loud noises and such. They are listening, and with fairly developed infant brains, it's no surprise that they begin getting accustomed to common sounds and tones they hear going on around them.
The only thing stopping this from being painfully obvious is the fact that people don't seem to believe that the baby exists in any real form until it's born. Academically, sure, but for 40 years liars and idiots have tried to tell us that it's not a baby until it's born. "Revelations" like this story will always surprise people who have bought into such intellectual dishonesty. There's no switch that says to the baby brain, "Okay, you're born now, start acting like a real brain." By birth, it's been working like that for many months, and doing what brains do: learning.
It's not strange at all. Why? Because the overall message is still valid. It's this message, not the particulars of the circumstance, that people should pay attention to.
It's easy to see how this text on the master/slave relationship applies to modern life. No, we don't have slaves, but we *do* have people who are in positions of authority over others. We've all experienced cops, parents, or bosses on power trips, and we've probably been on power trips ourselves from time to time. The point is that, if you are in a position of authority, you need to respect the people over whom you exercise that authority and understand that you are really nothing special compared to them in terms of human value. If you are in a position of subservience, then you need to do the best job you can in order to adequately represent yourself, your way of life, upbringing, belief system, and ultimately, your God. In other words, mutual respect between people in authority and the people under them.
The point is to understand that the specific circumstances of position are inconsequential and mean nothing to God. What matters to God is how you acted given the position you were in. Were you a humane and just leader/boss/parent, or a raving lunatic? Were you a good employee/child, or a lazy bastard with an attitude problem?
In truth, both aspects apply to everyone, because everyone "reports" to someone. Even the people who are at the "top" report to voters, shareholders, etc, so figuratively, almost everyone is in the master *and* slave role for their entire lives. What matters is that, no matter where you are on the ladder of life, you don't shit on the people below you or goose the people above you.
I'm not Catholic, but I am a skeptic. Are you saying that modern Catholics sell indulgences? I thought that ended a long time ago. Is it done in the US?
If you're not saying that they are actively selling indulgences, then I'm not sure of your point.
Sorry to reply to self, but I always think of more to say once I hit the "Submit" button.
You'd also need to consider the inevitable marketing campaigns -- direct and through social "undercurrents" that get people to think they're somehow entitled to 6 to 8 years in college, that this is somehow normal for an undergrad, that a masters degree or doctorate should be publicly funded, etc. People will swallow anything that gives them an excuse to slack or demand more free stuff. I guess the point is that it doesn't stop there in a "gimme" culture. Give an inch and be prepared to be robbed for a mile.
But see, Italy and the United States are different cultures. That's the point. It's difficult to apply a rule from one US state to the next, let alone from a country on the other side of the planet. Besides, motivated people are not the ones I'm worried about -- it's the other 90%.
Whenever government money is involved, at least here in the US, there will always be someone to take as much of it as possible. That means the emergence of schools that aren't as tough as your particular engineering school, which (unspoken, of course) cater to those people who want to float for a while. They make it just hard enough to make everyone feel like they're getting their (government's) money's worth, but not so hard that too many people flunk out. Schools of this quality exist today (almost any mid-quality university would do), they'd just need to change their strategy a bit.
In my observation, love or disdain for learning is a lifelong attitude. At best, disdain turns into simple disinterest as they get older. Unfortunately, there seems to be a destructive cultural note that encourages this disdain by making it part of the "cool kid" mentality. It's not only destructive to the individual, but discourages any smart-yet-socially-awkward kids they choose to pick on to prove how cool they are.
The other part, I think, is a sort of victim mentality, where underachievers think that successful or smart people don't deserve what they earned or have somehow cheated to get ahead. Instead of looking at success and wanting to achieve it for themselves through hard work, they'd rather deny it to someone else, or at least give them a hard time about it. They think they're a victim because success wasn't handed to them on a silver platter, not realizing that it seldom comes to anyone that way.
I agree completely. I know many countries do exactly as you're saying -- testing early and trying to get people into the track most appropriate for them. Done properly, it's certainly a great idea.
At my high school, we had a very tight relationship with an area "Vo-Tech" (Vocational Technical) school. I'd estimate that about a quarter of the high school would go there during afternoons to take courses in refrigeration, mechanics, electronics repair, data entry, whatever. I have thought for a long time that this is the correct path for a certain type of person who just wants to get out of school and start making cash.
In fact, I think there are probably a lot of trades which are currently learned in universities that could be moved to schools like this instead. Basic programming would be one. All you really need is an apprenticeship and practice to do basic programming. Leave the hardcore R&D and experimental stuff to universities, and teach the basic stuff at vo-tech schools.
Speaking generally to the snobs among us who protest this type of programmer education, consider that many programmers are self-taught, and consider that this would at least formalize the process a bit for them without the expense and tedium of a full-blown university education. They could hire into companies as junior programmers and fight up the ladder like anyone else. If they wanted more than basic programming, they could get into and pay for university. (If you fix refrigerators, you go to Vo-Tech, if you design them, you go to University. Same idea.)
?? Why the attitude? You're so hooked on the idea of socialized education that you can't stomach mild criticism? These things are only contradictory if you consider every person to be exactly the same, which obviously they aren't. The problem with posting here is that the post needs to be short enough that anyone wants to read it, and sometimes pieces of the ideas get compressed out. That said, others didn't seem to have a problem understanding, so maybe it's just you.
I thought it would be assumed that people who would want to stay in college would have first been able to *get there.* Guess you missed that one. I guess you also missed the idea that free is often undervalued and abused, which is a point I didn't think required rigorous argument.
How rigorous are these tests, when almost anyone who did average or better can get in? Why should the state continue to fund people, taking money away from people who are working, to fund even more people who aren't?
At any rate, if you and the people of your state want to socialize education, you go right ahead and do it. Don't try to force it on everyone else from the federal level, though.
First, kids don't value free stuff, but they'll take it anyway. University is already "13th grade" to many people, and by telling kids that they can shirk responsibility and stay in high school as long as they want without paying for it is just crazy. Who wouldn't want to live the college life as long as possible? It's certainly a lot less stressful than "the real world." The only thing saving college from the unmitigated mediocrity of high school is the fact that they know they'll eventually pay for this lifestyle (or their parents are on their case because *they're* already paying for it.)
Second, it isn't required for survival. Many people get along just fine without college degrees, and indeed, don't need them in their day to day lives.
Third, it increases the number of people staying because of the Mom and Dad factor. I'm of the opinion that even the upper grades of *high school* are a waste on a significant number of people, because they simply don't care and are only there because they "have to be." Yes, they could theoretically drop out at 16, but Mom and Dad won't hear of it because they're convinced that little Johnny is throwing away his opportunity to become President one day. The fact that Johnny harbors an *active disdain* for the idea of school and learning in general doesn't ever seem to sink in.
The fact that people pay for University and take on a certain amount of risk means that people have to *think about it* before going or sending their kids. Do they really want to do it? Are they willing to put in the work necessary? How long are they willing to pay for it? Maybe in other countries the culture is different, but I fear in America, the disdain for learning that I observed during my time, and continue to observe in kids today, guarantees that government funding of higher education will be nothing more than another money sink with no tangible benefit. Scholarships, grants, and tuition assistance exist for a reason. Let them pick the people who are qualified for the privilege.
1. Be able to support yourself. 2. Mature in your thinking and philosophies.
#1 can happen by the time you're in your late teens (if you're in a rush), while #2 is a lifelong endeavor.
You're right that history and philosophy are extremely important, but not as important as being able to provide for yourself without being a burden on others. First get a degree that teaches you valuable job skills, move out of your parents' basement and establish yourself in the world, *then* begin your lifelong endeavor to mature in your understanding of the world. If you think that you need a jump start on that part, then double major or minor in history or philosophy while learning something that will earn you a decent living.
You might even find that a little real-world experience colors your liberal arts degrees differently. Things like "Very few things are either-or choices" or "Learning doesn't stop after University" immediately come to mind.
Samsung printers are awesome, and incredible quality for the price ($120 a little over five years ago). I just wrote another post above about my HP m2727nf, which I really liked, but which crapped out in 11 months. It was bought as a replacement for my Samsung ML-1740. Turns out that the Samsung is still going strong at over five years old, and actually wound up saving my butt when the HP died. I have nothing but praise for that printer.
Linux is supported out of the box. It's USB only, but I hooked it up to my Netgear NAS unit, which is Debian-based and has a cups server built into it. Instant shareable network printer.:-)
I agree. HP's got great cross-platform support. I have their Laserjet m2727nf, which is a multi-function network scanner/printer/fax. Linux support is great -- network scanning with anything that uses sane, network faxing and printing through cups.
As for the long-haul, well, let's just say that mine's waiting on warranty replacement. After 11 months, it seemed like the electronics just quit. No trauma or anything - it just went stupid one day. Started hanging, intermittent error 79, whatever that means, and functionality just started dropping away piecemeal over the course of about 2 weeks.
I'm hoping this was a fluke, because HPs stuff is traditionally very solid. I'll have to see how long the replacement lasts, but if it quits in 11 months, HP will be knocked down a peg in my book. In the meantime, my policy is now: 1) Buy the extended replacement warranty, and 2) don't bother with an extra toner cartridge. I didn't even make it through the first one.
Notepad doesn't change the names of existing files, but it does seem to like to force the.txt on new files that it creates.
I don't think 0.0.0.0 is the broadcast address. The only time I've ever seen it used is in combination with a/0 netmask to stand for "all addresses" e.g. 0.0.0.0/0 I believe the broadcast address is generally the last IP in the subnet, so if you're on 192.168.1.0/24, your broadcast would be 192.168.1.255.
I'm no network guru, so maybe I'm off a bit too, but I think I'm closer. I'm sure others will be more than happy to correct me.:-)
Indeed. Everyone here gets their panties in a bunch when non-scientists say "God did it," but these supposedly enlightened people see no problem with saying "Global Warm..*ahem* Global Climate Change did it!" The fact is that no one wants to say "I don't know," and people have been accepting the "Global Warming" and now the more generic "Climate Change" for so long that it's a convenient substitute.
This scapegoating serves no one. It only makes a (more of a) mockery of Global Whatever It Is Now than it was before, and those who have caught on to the scam think much less of the speaker for even trying it.
I think point of this experiment was just to see if they would murder each other on the way. 105 days stuck in a little space with 5 other people and few diversions leaves a lot up to the social dynamics between the people involved. They need to know what sorts of things to prepare for along the way.
For example, they might expect that boredom would be the major problem, but it winds up being B.O. If they know that, they can stock up on deodorants. Point being, by doing experiments like this, they can test their assumptions about the social interactions and try to mitigate any unexpected points of contention.
AC wasn't me, but I guess he might have a point. Now that you mention it, I know I've gotten the neighbor's mail twice in the four years I've lived here. I figured it just got mixed in with mine or maybe they were training someone new. Didn't happen enough to worry about it. One or two mis-deliveries per (guestimating) 1000 or so items per year isn't bad.
Your snark smells moldy. Have you seriously lost mail recently? They've never lost anything for me, with the notable exception of one horrifically mangled letter that they delivered in a Ziplock with a note saying "sorry about that." Even that wasn't technically "lost," though someone should have gotten their $0.35 back.:-)
Not that I know anything about the USPS, but it sounds like you may have answered your question: continual investment. Really, if the prices stay relatively constant and they're rolling the difference into better equipment/software, I don't really have a problem with that. Anyway, they're pretty independent at this point from what I understand, so I figure let 'em charge what they want.
Nobody stays an amateur forever, Master Jedi. If they did, no one would hire or train younglings.
If a junior developer has any potential at all, it's often worth it to take them on, develop them, use the opportunity to teach them the ways of the force, as it were. That way as they develop their skills, they grow in understanding of your project and can potentially be very dedicated and useful later on.
I guess some people aren't really cut out for teaching, but as a general approach to "newbs," you want to look for midiclorians, not mastery of the force.
And no, I don't really know why I went with Jedi on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Give me a break with the righteous indignation. You don't understand the difference between willfully murdering someone and their simply dying of natural causes? Or are you just willfully stupid and sociopathic?
bleh. Missed a word. "...surely should *NOT* use them to determine...".
I don't understand the line-drawing. There is no line. Stop with the line drawing. You don't use magic numbers in your code, and you surely should use them to determine matters of life and death. If it came from humans and develops into a human, it's a human. Pigs don't develop into humans, nor do dogs, sheep, or monkeys. A human is a human at every stage of its development. No line.
The honest question each society must answer is: At what point in a human's life is it okay to murder them for your convenience?
People have been playing music to babies in the womb for years. Many parents are encouraged to speak to their baby while in the womb so the baby learns the sounds of mommy's and daddy's voice. Not new, but it puts some more scientific evidence to what any parent with a kid under 20 (or more?) could have already told you.
Babies get excited and kick when there's commotion outside too -- loud noises and such. They are listening, and with fairly developed infant brains, it's no surprise that they begin getting accustomed to common sounds and tones they hear going on around them.
The only thing stopping this from being painfully obvious is the fact that people don't seem to believe that the baby exists in any real form until it's born. Academically, sure, but for 40 years liars and idiots have tried to tell us that it's not a baby until it's born. "Revelations" like this story will always surprise people who have bought into such intellectual dishonesty. There's no switch that says to the baby brain, "Okay, you're born now, start acting like a real brain." By birth, it's been working like that for many months, and doing what brains do: learning.
It's not strange at all. Why? Because the overall message is still valid. It's this message, not the particulars of the circumstance, that people should pay attention to.
It's easy to see how this text on the master/slave relationship applies to modern life. No, we don't have slaves, but we *do* have people who are in positions of authority over others. We've all experienced cops, parents, or bosses on power trips, and we've probably been on power trips ourselves from time to time. The point is that, if you are in a position of authority, you need to respect the people over whom you exercise that authority and understand that you are really nothing special compared to them in terms of human value. If you are in a position of subservience, then you need to do the best job you can in order to adequately represent yourself, your way of life, upbringing, belief system, and ultimately, your God. In other words, mutual respect between people in authority and the people under them.
The point is to understand that the specific circumstances of position are inconsequential and mean nothing to God. What matters to God is how you acted given the position you were in. Were you a humane and just leader/boss/parent, or a raving lunatic? Were you a good employee/child, or a lazy bastard with an attitude problem?
In truth, both aspects apply to everyone, because everyone "reports" to someone. Even the people who are at the "top" report to voters, shareholders, etc, so figuratively, almost everyone is in the master *and* slave role for their entire lives. What matters is that, no matter where you are on the ladder of life, you don't shit on the people below you or goose the people above you.
Excuse me, Sir. I think you may be holding your keyboard upside-down. The price is clearly $666.
I'm not Catholic, but I am a skeptic. Are you saying that modern Catholics sell indulgences? I thought that ended a long time ago. Is it done in the US?
If you're not saying that they are actively selling indulgences, then I'm not sure of your point.
Sorry to reply to self, but I always think of more to say once I hit the "Submit" button.
You'd also need to consider the inevitable marketing campaigns -- direct and through social "undercurrents" that get people to think they're somehow entitled to 6 to 8 years in college, that this is somehow normal for an undergrad, that a masters degree or doctorate should be publicly funded, etc. People will swallow anything that gives them an excuse to slack or demand more free stuff. I guess the point is that it doesn't stop there in a "gimme" culture. Give an inch and be prepared to be robbed for a mile.
But see, Italy and the United States are different cultures. That's the point. It's difficult to apply a rule from one US state to the next, let alone from a country on the other side of the planet. Besides, motivated people are not the ones I'm worried about -- it's the other 90%.
Whenever government money is involved, at least here in the US, there will always be someone to take as much of it as possible. That means the emergence of schools that aren't as tough as your particular engineering school, which (unspoken, of course) cater to those people who want to float for a while. They make it just hard enough to make everyone feel like they're getting their (government's) money's worth, but not so hard that too many people flunk out. Schools of this quality exist today (almost any mid-quality university would do), they'd just need to change their strategy a bit.
In my observation, love or disdain for learning is a lifelong attitude. At best, disdain turns into simple disinterest as they get older. Unfortunately, there seems to be a destructive cultural note that encourages this disdain by making it part of the "cool kid" mentality. It's not only destructive to the individual, but discourages any smart-yet-socially-awkward kids they choose to pick on to prove how cool they are.
The other part, I think, is a sort of victim mentality, where underachievers think that successful or smart people don't deserve what they earned or have somehow cheated to get ahead. Instead of looking at success and wanting to achieve it for themselves through hard work, they'd rather deny it to someone else, or at least give them a hard time about it. They think they're a victim because success wasn't handed to them on a silver platter, not realizing that it seldom comes to anyone that way.
I agree completely. I know many countries do exactly as you're saying -- testing early and trying to get people into the track most appropriate for them. Done properly, it's certainly a great idea.
At my high school, we had a very tight relationship with an area "Vo-Tech" (Vocational Technical) school. I'd estimate that about a quarter of the high school would go there during afternoons to take courses in refrigeration, mechanics, electronics repair, data entry, whatever. I have thought for a long time that this is the correct path for a certain type of person who just wants to get out of school and start making cash.
In fact, I think there are probably a lot of trades which are currently learned in universities that could be moved to schools like this instead. Basic programming would be one. All you really need is an apprenticeship and practice to do basic programming. Leave the hardcore R&D and experimental stuff to universities, and teach the basic stuff at vo-tech schools.
Speaking generally to the snobs among us who protest this type of programmer education, consider that many programmers are self-taught, and consider that this would at least formalize the process a bit for them without the expense and tedium of a full-blown university education. They could hire into companies as junior programmers and fight up the ladder like anyone else. If they wanted more than basic programming, they could get into and pay for university. (If you fix refrigerators, you go to Vo-Tech, if you design them, you go to University. Same idea.)
?? Why the attitude? You're so hooked on the idea of socialized education that you can't stomach mild criticism? These things are only contradictory if you consider every person to be exactly the same, which obviously they aren't. The problem with posting here is that the post needs to be short enough that anyone wants to read it, and sometimes pieces of the ideas get compressed out. That said, others didn't seem to have a problem understanding, so maybe it's just you.
I thought it would be assumed that people who would want to stay in college would have first been able to *get there.* Guess you missed that one. I guess you also missed the idea that free is often undervalued and abused, which is a point I didn't think required rigorous argument.
How rigorous are these tests, when almost anyone who did average or better can get in? Why should the state continue to fund people, taking money away from people who are working, to fund even more people who aren't?
At any rate, if you and the people of your state want to socialize education, you go right ahead and do it. Don't try to force it on everyone else from the federal level, though.
Higher education isn't free for several reasons.
First, kids don't value free stuff, but they'll take it anyway. University is already "13th grade" to many people, and by telling kids that they can shirk responsibility and stay in high school as long as they want without paying for it is just crazy. Who wouldn't want to live the college life as long as possible? It's certainly a lot less stressful than "the real world." The only thing saving college from the unmitigated mediocrity of high school is the fact that they know they'll eventually pay for this lifestyle (or their parents are on their case because *they're* already paying for it.)
Second, it isn't required for survival. Many people get along just fine without college degrees, and indeed, don't need them in their day to day lives.
Third, it increases the number of people staying because of the Mom and Dad factor. I'm of the opinion that even the upper grades of *high school* are a waste on a significant number of people, because they simply don't care and are only there because they "have to be." Yes, they could theoretically drop out at 16, but Mom and Dad won't hear of it because they're convinced that little Johnny is throwing away his opportunity to become President one day. The fact that Johnny harbors an *active disdain* for the idea of school and learning in general doesn't ever seem to sink in.
The fact that people pay for University and take on a certain amount of risk means that people have to *think about it* before going or sending their kids. Do they really want to do it? Are they willing to put in the work necessary? How long are they willing to pay for it? Maybe in other countries the culture is different, but I fear in America, the disdain for learning that I observed during my time, and continue to observe in kids today, guarantees that government funding of higher education will be nothing more than another money sink with no tangible benefit. Scholarships, grants, and tuition assistance exist for a reason. Let them pick the people who are qualified for the privilege.
First things first.
1. Be able to support yourself.
2. Mature in your thinking and philosophies.
#1 can happen by the time you're in your late teens (if you're in a rush), while #2 is a lifelong endeavor.
You're right that history and philosophy are extremely important, but not as important as being able to provide for yourself without being a burden on others. First get a degree that teaches you valuable job skills, move out of your parents' basement and establish yourself in the world, *then* begin your lifelong endeavor to mature in your understanding of the world. If you think that you need a jump start on that part, then double major or minor in history or philosophy while learning something that will earn you a decent living.
You might even find that a little real-world experience colors your liberal arts degrees differently. Things like "Very few things are either-or choices" or "Learning doesn't stop after University" immediately come to mind.
Samsung printers are awesome, and incredible quality for the price ($120 a little over five years ago). I just wrote another post above about my HP m2727nf, which I really liked, but which crapped out in 11 months. It was bought as a replacement for my Samsung ML-1740. Turns out that the Samsung is still going strong at over five years old, and actually wound up saving my butt when the HP died. I have nothing but praise for that printer.
Linux is supported out of the box. It's USB only, but I hooked it up to my Netgear NAS unit, which is Debian-based and has a cups server built into it. Instant shareable network printer. :-)
I agree. HP's got great cross-platform support. I have their Laserjet m2727nf, which is a multi-function network scanner/printer/fax. Linux support is great -- network scanning with anything that uses sane, network faxing and printing through cups.
As for the long-haul, well, let's just say that mine's waiting on warranty replacement. After 11 months, it seemed like the electronics just quit. No trauma or anything - it just went stupid one day. Started hanging, intermittent error 79, whatever that means, and functionality just started dropping away piecemeal over the course of about 2 weeks.
I'm hoping this was a fluke, because HPs stuff is traditionally very solid. I'll have to see how long the replacement lasts, but if it quits in 11 months, HP will be knocked down a peg in my book. In the meantime, my policy is now: 1) Buy the extended replacement warranty, and 2) don't bother with an extra toner cartridge. I didn't even make it through the first one.
Notepad doesn't change the names of existing files, but it does seem to like to force the .txt on new files that it creates.
I don't think 0.0.0.0 is the broadcast address. The only time I've ever seen it used is in combination with a /0 netmask to stand for "all addresses" e.g. 0.0.0.0/0 I believe the broadcast address is generally the last IP in the subnet, so if you're on 192.168.1.0/24, your broadcast would be 192.168.1.255.
I'm no network guru, so maybe I'm off a bit too, but I think I'm closer. I'm sure others will be more than happy to correct me. :-)
Indeed. Everyone here gets their panties in a bunch when non-scientists say "God did it," but these supposedly enlightened people see no problem with saying "Global Warm..*ahem* Global Climate Change did it!" The fact is that no one wants to say "I don't know," and people have been accepting the "Global Warming" and now the more generic "Climate Change" for so long that it's a convenient substitute.
This scapegoating serves no one. It only makes a (more of a) mockery of Global Whatever It Is Now than it was before, and those who have caught on to the scam think much less of the speaker for even trying it.
I think point of this experiment was just to see if they would murder each other on the way. 105 days stuck in a little space with 5 other people and few diversions leaves a lot up to the social dynamics between the people involved. They need to know what sorts of things to prepare for along the way.
For example, they might expect that boredom would be the major problem, but it winds up being B.O. If they know that, they can stock up on deodorants. Point being, by doing experiments like this, they can test their assumptions about the social interactions and try to mitigate any unexpected points of contention.
AC wasn't me, but I guess he might have a point. Now that you mention it, I know I've gotten the neighbor's mail twice in the four years I've lived here. I figured it just got mixed in with mine or maybe they were training someone new. Didn't happen enough to worry about it. One or two mis-deliveries per (guestimating) 1000 or so items per year isn't bad.
Your snark smells moldy. Have you seriously lost mail recently? They've never lost anything for me, with the notable exception of one horrifically mangled letter that they delivered in a Ziplock with a note saying "sorry about that." Even that wasn't technically "lost," though someone should have gotten their $0.35 back. :-)
Not that I know anything about the USPS, but it sounds like you may have answered your question: continual investment. Really, if the prices stay relatively constant and they're rolling the difference into better equipment/software, I don't really have a problem with that. Anyway, they're pretty independent at this point from what I understand, so I figure let 'em charge what they want.
(a. k. a. "Binging") on the Web.
Why would I "binge" on the web? Do I then need to "purge" my cache?
Sorry, Steve. Your attempt to verb your new search engine will be thwarted by literate people.
Actually, it was a precipitation superposition here today, so I find both of your claims highly suspect and extremely plausible.
Nobody stays an amateur forever, Master Jedi. If they did, no one would hire or train younglings.
If a junior developer has any potential at all, it's often worth it to take them on, develop them, use the opportunity to teach them the ways of the force, as it were. That way as they develop their skills, they grow in understanding of your project and can potentially be very dedicated and useful later on.
I guess some people aren't really cut out for teaching, but as a general approach to "newbs," you want to look for midiclorians, not mastery of the force.
And no, I don't really know why I went with Jedi on this one.