It is just a convenient scapegoat for the general flutuations in the economy. The vast majority of programming jobs require close communication with the client, and these jobs won't be affected.
If, however, your dream is to be the kind of programmer who gets handed a written specdification, sits isolated in his basement in front of his computer with lots of pizza and code for a few weeks, and hand back a finished program, then your dream is in serious danger.
I can tell you that kind of programming gets boring fast.
If you instead can think of yourself as a part of team with a special competance in programming, you will do fine.
The person who wrote the article must be sarcatsic, a picture of a hitman victim having nothing to de with a game about a hitman?
And I'm seriously worried about the guy who though "Sexy or Sexist" is a relevant question. The victim is not pushing any borders for ad standards in terms of being undressed, so the only "sexy" or "sexist" connotation would be for necrophilia.
Their primary goal is to nourish a new generation of developers. Helping free software projects is only a secondary goal.
Of course, developers need to be able to document too, but if a project is solely documentation, it is really a new generation of technical writers they are nourishing.
> The difficulty is not in getting the MegaWatts up, but keeping the > laser trained on the same spot for long enough to penetrate the skin > of a remote missile and cause it to malfunction catastrophically.
And hitting "the same spot" of a moving target for a microsecond is obviously easier than hitting the same spot for a second, which is the main reason the energy output per time (Watt) is extremely important. The other reason is that there will be less time to lead the energy away, so the area being heated is smaller, thus less total energy is needed.
The stated reason for the rejection. There are plenty of good reasons to reject the study, but that the applicantion didn't justify that evolution is correct and id is pseudoscience is not one of them.
Just like you shouldn't need to justify why the kind-of-round Earth theory is correct, and the flat-Earth theory is pseudo-science, when doing an scientific application.
Science builds on science, and some level of scientific literacy, including which theories are part of the scientific consensus and don't need to be defended in an application, must be expected by the people who grant such applications. Without such an awareness it would be impossible to write any scientific application.
With either interpretation of the sentence, the committee members demonstrated that they are unqualified to serve in the committee.
Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct.
This single sentence shows that the spin on the rejection is correct, and exemplify the damage done by the id movement.
And if you don't see the problem with the above sentence in a rejection from a scientific committe, you also exemplify the damage.
It doesn't follow that if the same guy has accounts on/. and Wikipedia, he will write in the same way both places. I have accounts both places, and could easily have written sentences like those you cited (about other subjects, don't care about the Apples) in/. or even on a Wikipedia talk page. But not in a Wikipedia article. Or in a scientific paper. I adjust my writting style for the media. For a discussion forum like/., putting on an edge on your statements is useful, it promotes discussion. But for Wikipedia, the trick is to try to build concensus, not confrontation....
The big caveat about Wikipedia is that you need to know how to use it. You need to understand about talk pages and page history and how articles are formed. If you do, it is a formidable ressource, much better than the treditional encyclopedia. However, if you don't understand Wikipedia, you are better of with a traditional encyclopedia, as they are a more autoritative source.
E.g. while reading an article about Apple Computer, for example recent fight with Beatles Record company, I have even seen people attacking the record company as some "crook company" "not doing anything". Erm, they own the rights of 165 million selling (just in USA!) Beatles.
I couldn't find those statements. They sound unencyclopedic, and would probably be reverted very fast if someone added them.
Who would gain? National and regional leaders would gain power at the expensence of the population, as it would become easier to control the flow of information, and and only give people access to their side of the story.
Passports is similar, it put the power of where you are allowed to travel into the hands of the governments, which is basically a ridiculous idea.
It is worth remembering that the "traditional thinking" isn't that old, just 15-25 years. Before that, it was the rule rather than the exception that government shared that kind of information with the public, and that hardware included full technical specifications.
The anti-sharing craze is not that old, but probably has helped fuel that free software counter movement. RMS mention that his own motivation for starting the GNU project was that he no longer could get the source code to solve problemshimself, as he was used to.
> With all due respect to James Hansen, the problem here is simple: just how > many microseconds after scientists attempted to influence politics did you > think it would take before politicians attempted to influence science?
Funny, where I live it is considered a problem that too few scientists participate in the public debate, and it is claimed that we somehow have an obligation to share our knowledge with the general public as well as our fellow scientist (throug scientific publications).
You question indicate that we probably should keep it that way, if we start entering the public debate, the politicians may see it as a carte blanche for editing our results to fit whatever worlview is politically correct at the time.
> OTOH, why invent a new protocol for sending meeting invitations? Why not use email?
I don't want to send a mail to all my collegues that I'm at the dentist next monday. Most of them couldn't care less. However, I want them to be able to see that I will not be available, if they try to arrange something that day.
At work we use GroupWise, and I find the integration most annoying. There is no connection between when I want to check my calendar, and when I want to send or read mail. Not to mention that I hate the GroupWise mail client, and use another when possible. I also hate the GroupWise calendar client, but I don't know if there are alternatives (I obviously need access to the information entered by our secretary, and she need to se the meetings I have entered).
I understand that the calendars for the people in the workgroup need to be synchronized, but is email really the best protocol for that? And if so, does it need to be integrated in the same client?
In Siberia, there is a forestry where the tress grows in pairs right next to each other.
While the common wisdom is that each individual trees need space around it to grow, the theory was that this was only true for capitalist trees. Rather than compete with each other for resources, socialist trees would cooperate for the common good.
Every official report from the forestry shows that the experiment was a great success.
Most people I know use Internet based carriers, where all interaction with the carrier is through a web page. You can use any phone with their service. There is no subscription, you have an account where you can add money as you like, and you can phone as long as there is money on the account. They are, by far, the cheapest carriers, and has won "best service" awards multiple times.
Cash cards are also popular, especially among children. You buy a card, enter a number on the card on your phone, and can not talk for the amount of money the card costed. No subscription or Internet connection required, but they are somewhat expensive.
There are also subscription based sevices. They have very complex price structures, mostly to make their price impossible to compare with the alternatives. The subscription based services are usually sold with a phone that is bound to the carrier in question for six months. After the six months, the carrier is legally bound to tell you how to unlock it. You can also unlock it for US$ 15 at small shops that are everywhere. This is quite legal, but you still have to pay 6 month subscription fee. Often the rebate you get is higher than the price of six month subscription.
And this is not a developing market. It is a mature market that has benefitted from regulation.
If you are mostly interested in the games that will be available near the end of the console life cycle, you should buy the console near the end of its life cycle where it will be much cheaper. Actually, if you are mostly interested in games, systematically buying second hand consoles with second hand games near the end of the life cycle will probably be most rational.
But games and hardware has never been about rationality, it is about the incredible feeling of owning the latest and greatest, and the bragging rights that goes with it.
The newspaper has depicted cartoons of Jesus before. They did reject some unsolisticated cartoons of Jesus, but then again, they reject lots of unsoliticated stuff.
I do agree that the purpose of the cartoons seems solely to be to promote tension between the new muslem community and the ethnic Danes. But it could be that is was merely stupidity.
For some reason, it has become both acceptable and a matter of pride in the mainstream right wing of Danish politics to say things about Islam and moslems that the same people would never say about other groups. These right wing non-extremeists dominate the papers, and congratulate each other on the free tone in the Danish immigtation debate, and claim that it helps release tensions and promote integration.
It is therefore quite possible that these people actually believed that insulting their prophet would help integrate the moslems in the community.
Slashdot Mirror
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
It is just a convenient scapegoat for the general flutuations in the economy. The vast majority of programming jobs require close communication with the client, and these jobs won't be affected.
If, however, your dream is to be the kind of programmer who gets handed a written specdification, sits isolated in his basement in front of his computer with lots of pizza and code for a few weeks, and hand back a finished program, then your dream is in serious danger.
I can tell you that kind of programming gets boring fast.
If you instead can think of yourself as a part of team with a special competance in programming, you will do fine.
The Lineage numbers are mostly from Korean computer cafes, and not easily comparable to US/EU subscriptions.
And even make me curius, so it is a good ad.
The pun is somewhat silly though.
The person who wrote the article must be sarcatsic, a picture of a hitman victim having nothing to de with a game about a hitman?
And I'm seriously worried about the guy who though "Sexy or Sexist" is a relevant question. The victim is not pushing any borders for ad standards in terms of being undressed, so the only "sexy" or "sexist" connotation would be for necrophilia.
A clue might be that US$ 4500 for three months is better paid than his current job...
Of course, developers need to be able to document too, but if a project is solely documentation, it is really a new generation of technical writers they are nourishing.
> all e-mail must be stored for two months
except here it is part of an "anti-terrorism" law package.
> The difficulty is not in getting the MegaWatts up, but keeping the
> laser trained on the same spot for long enough to penetrate the skin
> of a remote missile and cause it to malfunction catastrophically.
And hitting "the same spot" of a moving target for a microsecond is obviously easier than hitting the same spot for a second, which is the main reason the energy output per time (Watt) is extremely important. The other reason is that there will be less time to lead the energy away, so the area being heated is smaller, thus less total energy is needed.
Anything positive in such a report won't be trusted, since they are selling Linux but not Windows.
The stated reason for the rejection. There are plenty of good reasons to reject the study, but that the applicantion didn't justify that evolution is correct and id is pseudoscience is not one of them.
Just like you shouldn't need to justify why the kind-of-round Earth theory is correct, and the flat-Earth theory is pseudo-science, when doing an scientific application.
Science builds on science, and some level of scientific literacy, including which theories are part of the scientific consensus and don't need to be defended in an application, must be expected by the people who grant such applications. Without such an awareness it would be impossible to write any scientific application.
With either interpretation of the sentence, the committee members demonstrated that they are unqualified to serve in the committee.
This single sentence shows that the spin on the rejection is correct, and exemplify the damage done by the id movement.
And if you don't see the problem with the above sentence in a rejection from a scientific committe, you also exemplify the damage.
It doesn't follow that if the same guy has accounts on /. and Wikipedia, he will write in the same way both places. I have accounts both places, and could easily have written sentences like those you cited (about other subjects, don't care about the Apples) in /. or even on a Wikipedia talk page. But not in a Wikipedia article. Or in a scientific paper. I adjust my writting style for the media. For a discussion forum like /., putting on an edge on your statements is useful, it promotes discussion. But for Wikipedia, the trick is to try to build concensus, not confrontation. ...
The big caveat about Wikipedia is that you need to know how to use it. You need to understand about talk pages and page history and how articles are formed. If you do, it is a formidable ressource, much better than the treditional encyclopedia. However, if you don't understand Wikipedia, you are better of with a traditional encyclopedia, as they are a more autoritative source.
I couldn't find those statements. They sound unencyclopedic, and would probably be reverted very fast if someone added them.
Who would gain? National and regional leaders would gain power at the expensence of the population, as it would become easier to control the flow of information, and and only give people access to their side of the story.
Passports is similar, it put the power of where you are allowed to travel into the hands of the governments, which is basically a ridiculous idea.
It is amazing what we, the people, put up with.
It is worth remembering that the "traditional thinking" isn't that old, just 15-25 years. Before that, it was the rule rather than the exception that government shared that kind of information with the public, and that hardware included full technical specifications.
The anti-sharing craze is not that old, but probably has helped fuel that free software counter movement. RMS mention that his own motivation for starting the GNU project was that he no longer could get the source code to solve problemshimself, as he was used to.
> With all due respect to James Hansen, the problem here is simple: just how
> many microseconds after scientists attempted to influence politics did you
> think it would take before politicians attempted to influence science?
Funny, where I live it is considered a problem that too few scientists participate in the public debate, and it is claimed that we somehow have an obligation to share our knowledge with the general public as well as our fellow scientist (throug scientific publications).
You question indicate that we probably should keep it that way, if we start entering the public debate, the politicians may see it as a carte blanche for editing our results to fit whatever worlview is politically correct at the time.
The sad thing is that I wouldn't know if that is true. The interface is so byzantine that I have no clue about the capabilities of the product.
Anyone know of a good, free calendar client that can hook up to whatever GroupWise use for a server?
Their mail server has a pop3 interface, so I can use any client.
> OTOH, why invent a new protocol for sending meeting invitations? Why not use email?
I don't want to send a mail to all my collegues that I'm at the dentist next monday. Most of them couldn't care less. However, I want them to be able to see that I will not be available, if they try to arrange something that day.
At work we use GroupWise, and I find the integration most annoying. There is no connection between when I want to check my calendar, and when I want to send or read mail. Not to mention that I hate the GroupWise mail client, and use another when possible. I also hate the GroupWise calendar client, but I don't know if there are alternatives (I obviously need access to the information entered by our secretary, and she need to se the meetings I have entered).
I understand that the calendars for the people in the workgroup need to be synchronized, but is email really the best protocol for that? And if so, does it need to be integrated in the same client?
I did wonder if the connection was too subtle for /., but at least nobody has moderated me off-topic yet.
It is no joke though, one of my co-workers visited it during a field trip.
In Siberia, there is a forestry where the tress grows in pairs right next to each other.
While the common wisdom is that each individual trees need space around it to grow, the theory was that this was only true for capitalist trees. Rather than compete with each other for resources, socialist trees would cooperate for the common good.
Every official report from the forestry shows that the experiment was a great success.
Most people I know use Internet based carriers, where all interaction with the carrier is through a web page. You can use any phone with their service. There is no subscription, you have an account where you can add money as you like, and you can phone as long as there is money on the account. They are, by far, the cheapest carriers, and has won "best service" awards multiple times.
Cash cards are also popular, especially among children. You buy a card, enter a number on the card on your phone, and can not talk for the amount of money the card costed. No subscription or Internet connection required, but they are somewhat expensive.
There are also subscription based sevices. They have very complex price structures, mostly to make their price impossible to compare with the alternatives. The subscription based services are usually sold with a phone that is bound to the carrier in question for six months. After the six months, the carrier is legally bound to tell you how to unlock it. You can also unlock it for US$ 15 at small shops that are everywhere. This is quite legal, but you still have to pay 6 month subscription fee. Often the rebate you get is higher than the price of six month subscription.
And this is not a developing market. It is a mature market that has benefitted from regulation.
If you are mostly interested in the games that will be available near the end of the console life cycle, you should buy the console near the end of its life cycle where it will be much cheaper. Actually, if you are mostly interested in games, systematically buying second hand consoles with second hand games near the end of the life cycle will probably be most rational.
But games and hardware has never been about rationality, it is about the incredible feeling of owning the latest and greatest, and the bragging rights that goes with it.
The newspaper has depicted cartoons of Jesus before. They did reject some unsolisticated cartoons of Jesus, but then again, they reject lots of unsoliticated stuff.
I do agree that the purpose of the cartoons seems solely to be to promote tension between the new muslem community and the ethnic Danes. But it could be that is was merely stupidity.
For some reason, it has become both acceptable and a matter of pride in the mainstream right wing of Danish politics to say things about Islam and moslems that the same people would never say about other groups. These right wing non-extremeists dominate the papers, and congratulate each other on the free tone in the Danish immigtation debate, and claim that it helps release tensions and promote integration.
It is therefore quite possible that these people actually believed that insulting their prophet would help integrate the moslems in the community.