You're young, you're rich... Now what? It's a harder question than it looks. Zawinski's situation is endemic in San Francisco and Seattle and every other high-tech hub in the country. Literally thousands of Internet industry worker-bees, yet to see their thirtieth birthday, have ridden boom-time IPOs to instant, enormous wealth. And these twentysomething millionaires are suddenly faced with a question that most people only dream about: after the dust has settled, after you've grown bored or burned-out, after you walk away with more cash than you know what to do with... Now what?
Those poor, poor souls.
Having money forced on them by gullible investors, they now face the ennui that only material prosperity can bring. Fight on, brave ones, against the desolation of not having to work. --
I started learning basic myself (the book "Basic Basic" on my PCjr at age 13. Of course that screwed me for other languages later no. That's probably why I'm not a programmer, that and I don't want to be one.
Same thing happened to me. Same language, same platform. Hard to code when your natural inclination is to use goto statements. I think everything I wrote as a kid revolved around $INKEY statements. Wonder whatever happened to that BASICA cartridge... --
So what are the basics?
Assembly language?
Functions and variables?
Classes and objects?
Command line programming?
GUI programming?
Data types. Loops. Functions. Microsoft development tools just have too much between you and the code I think.
It's just my opinion of course, but I think a command line shell is just a better idea, it gives them the right mental image. That snippet of code you posted (I'm assuming slashdot stripped out the stdio.h after #include) would work on both systems, but the program would be a lot more bloated on windows. Where is the code that defines the window geometry? I'm assuming MS just adds it to the executable, but what happens when we want them to code in a more complex environment? If you hold their hand too much they won't learn the basics, and we'll just have a generation of programmers who only know "visual" languages.
--
For beginning programming, I'd think UNIX would be a lot friendlier than any MS platform; they should be learning the basics, not API calls and cafeteria-style programming. --
NPR mentioned that that county had the 3rd highest number of votes for Buchanan in the last election. The guest speculated that many of
those people may simply still be Buchanan supporters.
That's a very implausible. Palm Beach county has a substantial Jewish, black, and Latino population. The idea that Buchanan would get several times as many votes there as he did in most other Florida counties just doesn't make sense. It's also interesting to note that these allegations didn't just come out of nowhere after the networks called Bush the winner. The allegations made the national news well before the state was called for Bush. It was dismissed as being statistically irrelevant by the news organizations.
--
Hell, I'd go to a meeting (after scoping it out surreptiously to make sure it's safe).
Actually, this whole meeting thing is reminiscent of the meeting listings in the back of 2600. Since the slashdot readership is probably a bit larger than the 2600 one, not sure how well it would work though. --
They may, but more because the Clinton/Gore/Reno administrationhas totally botched what should have been a lead pipe cinch of a case.
I thought they did an excellent job; they totally outmatched Microsoft's lawyers, and in essence they did win. If they lose on appeal it would be because the appeals court is way to the right. Considering Judge Jackson is both conservative, and said before the trial started that he would be averse to splitting up the company, I think they did a phenomenal job. Look how Boies tripped up Bill Gates during the deposition, or how the government damaged the credibility of the economist MS called as witness.
Oh, and remember, this is the same crew that brought you UCITA and the DMCA. Viva Bush!
The DMCA was passed by a Republican congress. And if you think Bush would have vetoed it you are sadly mistaken. --
Leaving aside the fact that attempts to convince me that Gore is some kind of acceptable choice are insulting
You know, I've heard this constantly, and I'm getting a little tired of it. Especially since the people who usually say it have no qualms about trying to convince everyone else to vote for Nader. I'm not settling for Gore; I honestly think he'd make a good president. And even if I had the desire to vote for Nader I wouldn't, because it WOULD be a vote for Bush. Personally I think having the country be led by a competent president is a hell of a lot more important than any personal satisfaction I would feel because I voted for Nader and against Gore. This is NOT a game; it's an extremely important choice, and if you feel that your own personal contentment is worth more than having a real leader, vote Nader. But I'm voting Gore. --
Well, the federal government only runs a handful of colleges, most if not all of them military, so you probably wouldn't qualify. I guess, technically, you're either a city or a state employee, depending on who runs your school. --
despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself
Right wing propaganda. He committed perjury; he lied during an investigation on a matter unrelated to the actual investigation itself. He lied about an affair. Now how does this equate with breaking "every major law"?
Yes, a friend of mine had it; the games were still ports, though (and not particularly good ones, the framerate in virtua fighter was awful), but the controllers worked in a Saturn. I actually think it was an integrated video card and controller port. --
In regards to the computer comments, I don't think it's a big deal that he was beaten by a computer; it's just a matter of raw computational power, like being beaten in the 100 meter dash by a car. It's too his credit that he could give it a good run for it's money; GNUchess trounces me quite easily. --
Well we've got conflicting reports on this thread; just because one RAF public relations officer denies it happens doesn't make it false. And just because someone posts it on an urban legend website doesn't either (can't believe everything you read on the internet you know) --
. The absurd situation in the US where you can't even get a mobile phone without presenting your SS number and photo ID drivers licence (and damn you if you don't have a drivers licence) doesn't exist back in Britain.
As far as I know, all you need to get a mobile phone is a credit card. And it's illegal for SS cards to be used as ID. --
One has to wonder what would have happened if Intel had patented the extended instruction set of the 80386... or the first Pentium chips. No clones?
IIRC, Intel needed to allow others to create clones in order to qualify for government procurement, which requires more than one source exist for technology. Of course, it's quite logical for them to have supposed that a sizeable chunk of their market would be for the government, after all, how many people in the late 70's knew that computers would be in daily household use by now? --
China has shown a remarkable ability to totally ignore environmental concerns with their grandiose projects; the Three Gorges dam for example, is an environmental nightmare. --
There's a reason GWB (disclaimer:yes, he's a moron) is proposing a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans - the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate. Even left-leaning economists are beginning to concede that the wealthy are being disproporionately and perhaps unfialry taxed.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
I don't follow. In your first comment you seem to imply that the wealthy shouldn't be taxed so much. In the second you claim that US policy (presumably tax policy as well) creates prosperity. Which one is it, should the wealthiest be taxed less, or are you saying the system works just fine like this? --
The president need not know anything of ecconomics to run the country when he has capable assistants who can do the job.
By that logic, the president need not know anything about international relations, the military, the environment, law, or domestic affairs either. I find Bush's insistence that he'll have competent advisors somewhat pathetic. During the debates when asked how he'd handle an economic crisis, he said he'd turn to the commerce secretary. Now the man has an MBA from Harvard, which supposedly gives him an advanced knowledge of economic theory; in theory, he should know more about the economy than just about any President we've ever had. Not sure how much time he spent in class though. --
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
Thank you. Last time I brought this point up on slashdot, I was shot down by people who find it easier to group the parties together than actually follow the issues. And I have to agree about Ralph Nader; I'll probably be voting for him because my state seems a lock for Gore, so he doesn't need my vote, and I'd like the Green party to get matching funds. But I haven't been impressed by Nader as much as I would like to be, and if the race was close where I live I doubt I'd vote for him.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
It will be really interesting to see how a really intelligent president will handle things. Clinton's brilliant, but not in a geeky, policy-oriented way, and the last few presidents before him have ranged from moderately intelligent to downright dim. The other comment (besides the both parties being the same one) that always annoys me around election time is the charge that the President "shouldn't be too intelligent" because it will somehow limit their leadership ability. That's a particularly ridiculous claim, and one of the last vestiges of a thread of anti-intellectualism that's run through our country for too long. Gore was blasted for "talking down" to us during the debates; if you're going to avoid voting for someone because you don't like him to express his knowledge, then you deserve the President you get. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't, but we still get stuck with them.
--
there are some [politicians] left with ethical driven visions of what's right and what's not.
Moderators: +1, Funny, please!
The typical response from people who find it easier to believe that every politician is corrupt than to actually follow their actions and arrive at a conclusion based on that. There are 100 U.S. senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives, 50 governors, 1 President, and countless local and state legislators and executives. You really think the idea that ALL of them are corrupt has any basis in truth? Here's some news; they're like us. Some of them are honest, some are not. A lot of them are trapped by the system; they need to accept financial contributions, or else they have no chance of getting elected.
When asked in the street about what they think of issues or candidates, too many Americans come up with the stock answer of "oh, I think none of them candidates are any good", because it's pretty easy to fake lack of knowledge as worldweariness, and it makes them feel better than admitting they don't really know about the issues would.
Yes, I'm an American, and I'm part of a generation that has become "disillusioned with politics" as it's said. Personally, I'm not. Politicians today aren't any better or worse than in the past, and the system has actually improved somewhat in the past few decades.
--
Slashdot Mirror
You're young, you're rich... Now what? It's a harder question than it looks. Zawinski's situation is endemic in San Francisco and Seattle and every other high-tech hub in the country. Literally thousands of Internet industry worker-bees, yet to see their thirtieth birthday, have ridden boom-time IPOs to instant, enormous wealth. And these twentysomething millionaires are suddenly faced with a question that most people only dream about: after the dust has settled, after you've grown bored or burned-out, after you walk away with more cash than you know what to do with... Now what?
Those poor, poor souls.
Having money forced on them by gullible investors, they now face the ennui that only material prosperity can bring. Fight on, brave ones, against the desolation of not having to work.
--
I started learning basic myself (the book "Basic Basic" on my PCjr at age 13. Of course that screwed me for other languages later no. That's probably why I'm not a programmer, that and I don't want to be one.
Same thing happened to me. Same language, same platform. Hard to code when your natural inclination is to use goto statements. I think everything I wrote as a kid revolved around $INKEY statements. Wonder whatever happened to that BASICA cartridge...
--
So what are the basics?
Assembly language?
Functions and variables?
Classes and objects?
Command line programming?
GUI programming?
Data types. Loops. Functions. Microsoft development tools just have too much between you and the code I think.
It's just my opinion of course, but I think a command line shell is just a better idea, it gives them the right mental image. That snippet of code you posted (I'm assuming slashdot stripped out the stdio.h after #include) would work on both systems, but the program would be a lot more bloated on windows. Where is the code that defines the window geometry? I'm assuming MS just adds it to the executable, but what happens when we want them to code in a more complex environment? If you hold their hand too much they won't learn the basics, and we'll just have a generation of programmers who only know "visual" languages.
--
For beginning programming, I'd think UNIX would be a lot friendlier than any MS platform; they should be learning the basics, not API calls and cafeteria-style programming.
--
So we go from people complaining that new technology can be used to track them to complaining that new technology can't be used to track them.
--
Looks like the directory structure is there, but nobody decided to see if it works...
--
NPR mentioned that that county had the 3rd highest number of votes for Buchanan in the last election. The guest speculated that many of those people may simply still be Buchanan supporters.
That's a very implausible. Palm Beach county has a substantial Jewish, black, and Latino population. The idea that Buchanan would get several times as many votes there as he did in most other Florida counties just doesn't make sense. It's also interesting to note that these allegations didn't just come out of nowhere after the networks called Bush the winner. The allegations made the national news well before the state was called for Bush. It was dismissed as being statistically irrelevant by the news organizations.
--
Hell, I'd go to a meeting (after scoping it out surreptiously to make sure it's safe).
Actually, this whole meeting thing is reminiscent of the meeting listings in the back of 2600. Since the slashdot readership is probably a bit larger than the 2600 one, not sure how well it would work though.
--
They may, but more because the Clinton/Gore/Reno administrationhas totally botched what should have been a lead pipe cinch of a case.
I thought they did an excellent job; they totally outmatched Microsoft's lawyers, and in essence they did win. If they lose on appeal it would be because the appeals court is way to the right. Considering Judge Jackson is both conservative, and said before the trial started that he would be averse to splitting up the company, I think they did a phenomenal job. Look how Boies tripped up Bill Gates during the deposition, or how the government damaged the credibility of the economist MS called as witness.
Oh, and remember, this is the same crew that brought you UCITA and the DMCA. Viva Bush!
The DMCA was passed by a Republican congress. And if you think Bush would have vetoed it you are sadly mistaken.
--
Leaving aside the fact that attempts to convince me that Gore is some kind of acceptable choice are insulting
You know, I've heard this constantly, and I'm getting a little tired of it. Especially since the people who usually say it have no qualms about trying to convince everyone else to vote for Nader. I'm not settling for Gore; I honestly think he'd make a good president. And even if I had the desire to vote for Nader I wouldn't, because it WOULD be a vote for Bush. Personally I think having the country be led by a competent president is a hell of a lot more important than any personal satisfaction I would feel because I voted for Nader and against Gore. This is NOT a game; it's an extremely important choice, and if you feel that your own personal contentment is worth more than having a real leader, vote Nader. But I'm voting Gore.
--
Well, the federal government only runs a handful of colleges, most if not all of them military, so you probably wouldn't qualify. I guess, technically, you're either a city or a state employee, depending on who runs your school.
--
despite that he's broken every major law, and most of the minor ones himself
Right wing propaganda. He committed perjury; he lied during an investigation on a matter unrelated to the actual investigation itself. He lied about an affair. Now how does this equate with breaking "every major law"?
I'm proud I voted for him; I'd do it again.
--
Yes, a friend of mine had it; the games were still ports, though (and not particularly good ones, the framerate in virtua fighter was awful), but the controllers worked in a Saturn. I actually think it was an integrated video card and controller port.
--
Considering how well google works, is this that bad? I get the feeling this thing might be able to grab a few things that google might miss...
--
In regards to the computer comments, I don't think it's a big deal that he was beaten by a computer; it's just a matter of raw computational power, like being beaten in the 100 meter dash by a car. It's too his credit that he could give it a good run for it's money; GNUchess trounces me quite easily.
--
Well we've got conflicting reports on this thread; just because one RAF public relations officer denies it happens doesn't make it false. And just because someone posts it on an urban legend website doesn't either (can't believe everything you read on the internet you know)
--
. The absurd situation in the US where you can't even get a mobile phone without presenting your SS number and photo ID drivers licence (and damn you if you don't have a drivers licence) doesn't exist back in Britain.
As far as I know, all you need to get a mobile phone is a credit card. And it's illegal for SS cards to be used as ID.
--
One has to wonder what would have happened if Intel had patented the extended instruction set of the 80386... or the first Pentium chips. No clones?
IIRC, Intel needed to allow others to create clones in order to qualify for government procurement, which requires more than one source exist for technology. Of course, it's quite logical for them to have supposed that a sizeable chunk of their market would be for the government, after all, how many people in the late 70's knew that computers would be in daily household use by now?
--
China has shown a remarkable ability to totally ignore environmental concerns with their grandiose projects; the Three Gorges dam for example, is an environmental nightmare.
--
There's a reason GWB (disclaimer:yes, he's a moron) is proposing a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans - the top 10% is current paying at least 1/3 of all taxes, by even the most conservative estimate. Even left-leaning economists are beginning to concede that the wealthy are being disproporionately and perhaps unfialry taxed.
The US is prosperous while Europe continues to plod along with a lame-duck currency. This isn't by accident - its a result of policy.
I don't follow. In your first comment you seem to imply that the wealthy shouldn't be taxed so much. In the second you claim that US policy (presumably tax policy as well) creates prosperity. Which one is it, should the wealthiest be taxed less, or are you saying the system works just fine like this?
--
The president need not know anything of ecconomics to run the country when he has capable assistants who can do the job.
By that logic, the president need not know anything about international relations, the military, the environment, law, or domestic affairs either. I find Bush's insistence that he'll have competent advisors somewhat pathetic. During the debates when asked how he'd handle an economic crisis, he said he'd turn to the commerce secretary. Now the man has an MBA from Harvard, which supposedly gives him an advanced knowledge of economic theory; in theory, he should know more about the economy than just about any President we've ever had. Not sure how much time he spent in class though.
--
Well, for one thing, I utterly reject the silly platitude going around that says the republican and democratic parties are just the same. What hogwash!
Thank you. Last time I brought this point up on slashdot, I was shot down by people who find it easier to group the parties together than actually follow the issues. And I have to agree about Ralph Nader; I'll probably be voting for him because my state seems a lock for Gore, so he doesn't need my vote, and I'd like the Green party to get matching funds. But I haven't been impressed by Nader as much as I would like to be, and if the race was close where I live I doubt I'd vote for him.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
It will be really interesting to see how a really intelligent president will handle things. Clinton's brilliant, but not in a geeky, policy-oriented way, and the last few presidents before him have ranged from moderately intelligent to downright dim. The other comment (besides the both parties being the same one) that always annoys me around election time is the charge that the President "shouldn't be too intelligent" because it will somehow limit their leadership ability. That's a particularly ridiculous claim, and one of the last vestiges of a thread of anti-intellectualism that's run through our country for too long. Gore was blasted for "talking down" to us during the debates; if you're going to avoid voting for someone because you don't like him to express his knowledge, then you deserve the President you get. Unfortunately, the rest of us don't, but we still get stuck with them.
--
Glad to know the Allies have it back safely; now let's win that war, boys!
--
What's interesting is the "founding fathers" of the US did themselves write under pseudonyms occasionally.
--
there are some [politicians] left with ethical driven visions of what's right and what's not.
Moderators: +1, Funny, please!
The typical response from people who find it easier to believe that every politician is corrupt than to actually follow their actions and arrive at a conclusion based on that. There are 100 U.S. senators, 435 members of the House of Representatives, 50 governors, 1 President, and countless local and state legislators and executives. You really think the idea that ALL of them are corrupt has any basis in truth? Here's some news; they're like us. Some of them are honest, some are not. A lot of them are trapped by the system; they need to accept financial contributions, or else they have no chance of getting elected.
When asked in the street about what they think of issues or candidates, too many Americans come up with the stock answer of "oh, I think none of them candidates are any good", because it's pretty easy to fake lack of knowledge as worldweariness, and it makes them feel better than admitting they don't really know about the issues would.
Yes, I'm an American, and I'm part of a generation that has become "disillusioned with politics" as it's said. Personally, I'm not. Politicians today aren't any better or worse than in the past, and the system has actually improved somewhat in the past few decades.
--