someone please correct hemo's bad grammer. ^^^^^^^^^^^ It is always amusing to see a self-appointed intellectual stumble on his own "grammer" (I mean gramar, or is garma or karma?) horrors, I mean errors. Me Tarzan, you Jane. Me want banana, you check your grammer. Ugh ugh, unga munga.
Besides, Hemos' mistake is a spelling one. It has nothing to do with grammar. However, I guess you cannot tell (or know) the difference.
A quake hit Taiwan, lots of people can get hurt, yet the first thing some imbecils think about is about RAM prices. That's discusting! Some of you may want to move your asses out of the chairs and do something other than computing. Some of you are devoid of feelings.
Why? How so? I've never seen or heard that CodeWarrior was aimed at hobbies programmers? I've never used it, but I was under the impression that it was a tool as serious as all the others, suitable for professional development. This claim sounds kind of funny. What does it take for an ide (or any tool) for that matter to be aimed for professional development? What is it about CodeWarrior that is aim just for hobbies? The fact that it doesn't have all the features Imprise and Micro$tuff tools have? I don't know man. I don't know what to think about this "hobbies programmers" thing.
Singer thinks that consciousness doesn't begin until a month or more after full-term birth. How did he come to that conclusion? What's consciousness to begin with? We are tying consciousness with life, and at the same time position consciousness above life itself. And based on what? What is the scientific basis for such thinking? A 5 year old child is not aware of the consequences of education? Should it not matter whether he/she gets an education, then? A handicapped 3 year old child will definitedly not be aware of the difficulties that lie ahead. He/she will be conscious that he/she exists, all right, but he/she will not know what the full implications of his/her handicaps are. Would that make this child less unconcious and then more suitable for euthanazing?
Singer's premises will be valid (or wrong) if and only if we clearly and unquestionably know:
1) what consciousness is in the first place, 2) whether there are degrees of consciousness or there are just absolute consciousness or unconsciousness, 3) that we know for sure a newborn is unconscious, and that such fact stop us from treating a newborn and a 1 year old as equals, 3) that human life can be quantify and qualify in terms consciousness, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, 4) the fact that the possibility, however narrow, that a supossed unconscious (and therefore non-sentient) handicapped baby would have prefered to go on living is of no consequence and irrelevant compared to the benefits and whatever moral reasons one would have to kill him/her.
Singer is drawing conclusions using some form of logic which soundness is not that clear, at least to me. There are more thinks to take into account, more questions that remain unanswered or even stated! How can we then make such a leap? Prove me what consciousness is and how it quantify and qualify life. Show me that the benefits of killing a handicapped newborn outweights whatever future choice this baby would have made.
On the contrary, you can attack the conclusions even if the premises are right IF the conclusions leads to morally questionable results or, more importantly, if the logical model that permits such premises is not sound. Singer thinks that consciousness doesn't begin until a month or more after full-term birth. How did he come to that conclusion? What's consciousness to begin with? We are tying consciousness with life, and at the same time position consciousness above life itself. And based on what? What is the scientific basis for such thinking? A 5 year old child is not aware of the consequences of education? Should it not matter whether he/she gets an education, then? A handicapped 3 year old child will definitedly not be aware of the difficulties that lie ahead. He/she will be conscious that he/she exists, all right, but he/she will not know what the full implications of his/her handicaps are. Would that make this child less unconcious and then more suitable for euthanazing?
Singer's premises will be valid (or wrong) if and only if we clearly and unquestionably know:
1) what consciousness is in the first place, 2) whether there are degrees of consciousness or there are just absolute consciousness or unconsciousness, 3) that we know for sure a newborn is unconscious, and that such fact stop us from treating a newborn and a 1 year old as equals, 3) that human life can be quantify and qualify in terms consciousness, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, 4) the fact that the possibility, however narrow, that a supossed unconscious (and therefore non-sentient) handicapped baby would have prefered to go on living is of no consequence and irrelevant compared to the benefits and whatever moral reasons one would have to kill him/her.
Singer is drawing conclusions using some form of logic which soundness is not that clear, at least to me. There are more thinks to take into account, more questions that remain unanswered or even stated! How can we then make such a leap? Prove me what consciousness is and how it quantify and qualify life. Show me that the benefits of killing a handicapped newborn outweights whatever future choice this baby would have made.
Luis Espinal. http://www.cs.fiu.edu
crafting our own coffin
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Even though these horrible massacres are extremely rare events, they nevertheless happen. In Littletown, two kids decided to give in to their anger. Only two. However, how many other harbor the same feelings? How many others accumulate pain and anger and humiliation, day after day? How many will let their pain grow to the point that blinds them with genocidal fury? These two kids were also victims, victims of a society that has failed to provide them guidance and hope for a better tomorrow.
For one thing, we live in a society where parents are not allowed to raise their children with discipline. A parent cannot send his child to his room, or grab him by his arm when he doesn't want to leave the toys section without running the risk of being accused of child abuse. Parents cannot go through their children's belongings and professors and guards cannot check their lockers because they are violating their privacy. How is a parent to know what their children think or what they are up to with such constrains?
There is also the case that parents do not pay the necessary attention to their children. This is not because they don't care. It is just that they can't or don't know how. After a 9-to-5 job and a 1 hour drive, parents just give up. How many parents out there spend dinner together with their kids? Even worse, how many parents schedule a half hour talk with their children? And quite honestly, there are parents who buy computer gadgets so that their kids stay still for hours while they rest and dream of their lost youth.
There is also the fact that kids in general have no ideals or goals. No heroes, no leading figures to imitate, no useful goals to pursue, that's the world our children live in. Ask any kid at random and ask him who Ghandi, Jesus, Lincoln, Einstein or Neil Armstrong is/was. Most likely all you will get are "I dunno, I don't care" stares. Also, it is not sufficient to know who they were and what they did. Children should have leading figures whose lives were conducted in such a way that inspire imitation. Children must thrive in an environment that nurture their intellects, that keeps their mind busy. There is nothing more wasteful (or more dangerous) that a young mind without clear direction.
Even though there is no clear indication that the media or violent computer games have anything to do with these killings, it will be greatly irresponsible to dismiss them as catalysts in this rampage. Bobby plays DOOM, and Kate likes bloody movies, yet they don't go berserk. Does that mean DOOM or violent media are not variables in this equation? No. One has to differentiate between what we call normal kids and those that are in a pathological state of mind. The effects of violent games and media on these groups cannot possibly be simplified or generalized. A healthy minded person would know better not to live DOOM-like. Can anyone say the same about a socially-abused kid?
One thing for certain is that this society is paving his own path of self-destruction. We have failed our younger generations, and we are not willing to fix it because it may involve giving up many things we dearly hold. I'd rather be a realistic pessimistic than an deluded optimistic. Unless someone proves me wrong, I think we have not seen the worst from our children yet. We'd better think that way and review our social and educational infrastructure than hope these problems are going to go away.
I respect RMS for the contributions he has done, but that as far as my respect go. I don't know the man, but from what I've seen and hear, I cannot but conclude that he is a social inept. He claims that Linus stamped the name Linux w/o acknowledging previous work. Bullshit. Linus made the kernel and named it Linux. People used Linux, add stuff around it, but kept using the kernel name. As far as I can f*cking see, there is no legal aggreement that binds one to name a product GNU-something just because one uses the GNU tools. Not even MS has gone that far. Imagine if we had to call my work VFP Premium Module or VC++ Word Processor or VJ++ homework 1. Whenever I hear Stallman demanding Linux to be called GNU Linux, I think of Hitler. If he were to give me one of his bashing lectures because I called Linux "Linux", I would most likely give him the beating of his life. What the f*ck, if I want to call red green, I do so and that's the end of the story.
I believe Linus has given more than enough honor to Stallman and the GNU "cause" by making the Linux kernel GPL. If I were to develop a program using the GNU tools, I would sure as hell not name it GNU-something. Hell no! For that kind of constrain on my rights of expression, I may just as well bend over to MS.
RMS is just a cry-baby. "Momma, Momma, nobody pay attention to me. Everybody look at the other kid, Linus, but nobody look at me." He doesn't need to be in the press to be acknowledged. If he does good deed not for the sake of fraternity but for glory and fame, then the hell with him. Most of us Linux users know who RMS is and appreciate the work he does. But I'm using the GNU tools because someone out there created a damn good kernel to run them. I use the GNU tools because I'm running Linux. GNU tools were used to create Linux, that I grant. However, it is Linux who make GNU tools ready to run for most of us.
One thing for certain is that Linus has never "cried baby" to be acknowledge. For that he deserves my respect. RMS, listen, behave like a grown-up human once and for all. If you really, really, really want a GNU-OS to bare your cherised GNU name, then forget about Linux and write a kernel yourself. And a finger to those who want to force me to call Linux GNU-Linux and crap like that.
She got a point; that I may not like it, that would be another story. Before I got my hands on WP8 for Linux, it was a pain in the ass whenever one of my windoozer friends sent me a Word document. If they could at least save it in Word 2 or 6 format (or rtf for Christ's sake), I may open it with Applix Words. But no, they insisted (and still do) in sending me Word 97 files (@#$~@&^*... some Klingon cursing... _*&%@!) And when I think about it, it is sad that I had to make a huge download of WP using my 33B modem just so that I could open these stupid Word 97 files.
It is surprising to see people that do not know that there is such a thing as Word versions lower than 97. It is depressing when some of these people have just got their B.S. degree in Computer Science or M.I.S. Scary shit. Scary shit that these people still wonder why the receiver (even in Windooze) cannot a Word document they sent (which btw contained a LINKED Excel spreadsheet which wasn't sent in the mail.) I do not care that much about the general, untamed computer user. They don't need to know the dark secrets and digital mantras of computing, but, man, what about computer people (CS, MIS,...)? That's where illiteracy really is. To them, Linux (or anything non-windooze, even something such as Mac or BeOS) will be too much for their mental capacity (and willigness to learn.) They have chosen to be computer users instead of computer professionals.
This form of ignorance is wide spread at all levels of professional society. So Linux, at least for now, is only used (consistently) by those willing to learn. That's the key, willigness to learn. That, I think, will be the greatest asset of countries like Mexico. Thousands and thousands of students and professionals who would do anything to have a chance to work in a computer (even if it were running DOS 1.x:) They, I believe, will have the willigness to learn Linux which implies learning about the internals of computer far more than learning Windows.
M$ did a good job in creating a massive illiterate population. That way, it ensured a consistent, uninterrupted cash flow to their pockets.
Ladies and gentlemen, behold that the bastard has spoken. This half-sentient, half dog half pig breed, good for nothing abomination of nature has spoken like this before in this site. Whenever someone mentions a 3rd world country, the bastard drools and let his narrow minded crap escape its stinking mouth. This arrogant half-human doesn't even knows how to write, yet it has the audacity to call others illiterate. The bastard is so stupid and moronic that he has all the reasons to fear others. He cannot possibly compete with merits alone.
Yes, you stupid bastard, they have "electroicity", I mean electricity. They cannot afford "electroicity", the same low energy fuel that power your brain cells. This dog is afraid of educated Indians since, next to them, he is nothing but shit. What else are you going to say, pig? When are you going to learn that you are nothing but an extint animal, uncapable to adapt, uncapable to learn and interact with other humans? Either shut up and do what is needed to compete is this brave new world or die! There is no going back. This world is for the taking for those bold enough, intelligent enough, competitive enough. You have no room in this world anymore. Go back to the technological mud pile where you crawled from. Serve humanity by becoming fertilizer. I'm tired to see shit like you bashing on 3rd world countries. If you are so f*cking good and us so f*cking low and illiterate, what are you afraid of? Make fun of Indians all you want. In the end, if they didn't have "electroicity", they would be ingenious enough to use the crack of your ass as a cd-player.
What's the problem if he were to confuse you with Mexico? Do you find it offensive? I don't think he was confusing India with Mexico, but perhaps at that moment he remembered that a 3rd world country was heavy in Linux and though it was India. At least you should be happy that people think of India when thinking of fast adoption of technology. If there is somebody racist, it is you for so quickly assaulting a person you don't even know. What do you think? That everybody is after you or your people? That just because someone make a mistake or don't know enough about your nation that person is an enemy of your race? That is just plain stupid.
Besides, your claim that everybody in India is dark skinned is racist at least. Just ask an Indian from Kashmir. What about Aishwarya Rai? Last time I saw a picture of here, she looked pretty much light skinned. I have many, many friends from India, and I'm glad to say that none of them have such stupid erratic behavior as yours. That gives me comfort to know that you are just a behavioral exception rather than the norm.
Also, why shouldn't he confuse us? Why should someone be an international erudite? Just so that he can please your arrogance? I can ask you a 100 questions about Latin America, and I'm pretty sure you would get a few confused. Would that makes you a racist? By the same token, you could ask me a 100 questions about India and it's very likely I'll confuse some. Would that make me a racist? Think before you bark. Then you will learn to talk. Then you will deserve to be noticed and respected.
I totally agree. It is true that Mexico, Brazil and Pakistan are developing countries, but they have massive resources to pull something like that. Haiti and Ghana, on the other hand could not probably do something like that. The Central American region who at one point could have attempted to do that was beaten to the dust by Hurricane George last year, and they could not possibly spend any resources in the next 3-5 years in anything like this. At least at this time, this kind of projects can only take place in what I call the "developing mastodons", countries that although underdeveloped, have the enough resources (both human, tech and money) to pull (or at least try to pull) something like that. Most of these "mastodons" are in Latin America, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, most Arab countries, Nigeria, and a few other countries in Asia and Africa. For many other smaller countries, projects like that will just not be possible in the near future.
As far as I know, the GPL is a legal document, and as far as I understand it, legal documents are part of the real world. If money were the only driving force and the only valid argument, we wouldn't be seeing the DoJ nailing M$ ass. Ideals are part of the real world, for better or worse. It was idealism what brough many (if not all) of the modern economic systems and theories of today, socialism, syndicalism, communism, even modern regulated capitalism. Ideals are not just euphemistic ideas of people being jolly and jumping in never ending fields of flowers singing "colors, colors, look at the colors." The pursue of legality, common welfare, protection of private property, the enforcement of the right of the needed and the right to make money are also ideals.
Ideals are what regulate the crude reality few try (or do) impose on most of us. The ideal of private property, the ideal of doing business while following acceptable business practices is something sherished by any ambitious and yet honest enteprenour. Ambition and honesty can go hand to hand. I've seen it. Claiming that ideals are not part of the real world demonstrate a good understanding of the real world itself, whatever real world means.
How could you put something like this here? Got any idea how many kiddos browse here? Not that they won't find this crap by themselves if they wanted to. Still, I don't think that kind of stuff was appropriate.
All right, we are going to get spaghetti code from Windooze. At one point, Windows 3.1 and NT may (read may) have had an interesting source code, but with so much shit added to it, and flat uncoherent apis (win32s, win32 and NT), that code would have to be horrible to look at.
I think the Indian goverment has a sound argument for making this decision. As is it quoted in the article, no software can be exported from the U.S. if it is too strong for the NSA to break it. No one in the US can expect anyone anywhere to trust US "secure" software under these terms. In fact, this should not come as a surprise. If I were a banker or someone runing a military installation in XYZ country, if I had a chance to not to use US encryption software and use something "stronger" I would. Isn't that logical? For tactical and economic reasons, this should be expected.
But no, you got people saying "Indian goverment went to shit", "indian programmers are dumb", "what the f* are they doing here" and some other crap. Even worse, if an Indian replies to these bigot comments, he is bombarded with "get the f* out" replies. What do you people expect, that Indians just take your brainless crap just because you say so? I don't think so.
Everytime there is an article regarding a underdeveloped country you see crap like this. All the time it is the same shit. How do you call that? Racism, just plain racism. You don't need to burn a cross or put somebody in a gas chamber to be a racist. Your attitude, your comments, the stereotypes you hold, they make (or not) you a racist. Lots of people seem to dislike (hate) 3rd world programmers because they are more willing to accept lower salaries than native ones (natives - what an irony.) Is it these people's fault to be resilient and be eager to do whatever it takes to make a living or the companies that take advantage of the situation? Can you blame a company for hiring someone who is willing to work for less? If so, blame yourselves because these companies work as your society allows it. With what right can any of you say "Indians go home"? Unless you are a Native American, you have no right, no right to say that to anybody, period. It seems that you have forgotten that at one point in time your forefathers were foreign too, that they were exploited too, that they were abused, discriminated, labeled as dirty and stupid, that despite all that, they had their dreams and that they adapted and succeeded. This is survival of the fittest or more resilient or more adaptable. This is the law of competition, the American way, the acceptable way unless it's applied to you. Either force companies to pay foreign workers fairly or accept lower salaries (adapt and compete) or take a boat and cross the Atlantic. Doesn't feel good to be told these things, does it?
How illuminating. A sovereign state made a decision, then everybody says the goverment went to shit. I think this is great not only for India, but for all underdeveloped countries. There has been a massive exodus of professionals from these countries to countries which don't really appreciate their contributions. This kind of decisions should (read should) serve as an incentive for the growing software industry. This would give these emigrating professionals a better opportunity to stay in their homelands. Besides, no goverment should depend on software developed in other (potentially competing) countries for mission critical systems.
Most companies, specially middle and large size are very much aware of the law, specially with regards of software piracy and illegal accounting practices. I've seen it. Regardless how much I may dislike many pointy-hairs I know, with regard to business practices, they take a lot of pride in doing pristine transactions. They follow appropriate business practices not because of fear of legal retaliation (at least that's not the main reason); they do it because of ethics. At least that has been my impression of pointy-hairs in the U.S. Like in everything, there are always rotten apples in the basket, but I'm firmly convinced that not every company, in fact most of them do not engage in such practices.
Maybe, maybe not. If it was only one incident being mentioned by the media, I wouldn't worry about. But when one reading personal testimonies of individuals that are EXPERTS and that they can't get a job for months, that's worrysome. Plus, I've seen a couple of managers or interviewers making bold statements such as "that guy is too old to work here. he is a dinosaur. there are younger people with equivalent expertise and cheaper". Besides, we live in a society where it's not uncommon for people to make career changes in their mid 30's or 40's. When Pan Am went down, I knew several people that worked there, and who decided to study computer sciences. They completed their studies, they have a degree AND they have prior working experience in other fields (administration, accounting and so on.) Clearly they (should) have more knowledge and greater potential than a 23 year-old man-teenager with no working experience at all. Yet these "old" people may be denied a chance to make a living since we keep thinking that "at 40 you got to be an expert." Life doesn't end in the mid 30's. Why should we end their professional lives, then? If an older person has the potential, he should not be denied just because of his/her age. Hiring should be done based on credentials and personality. Doing otherwise is no different from discriminating based on one's race. We cannot possibly generalize over these people, nor make conclusions about their job performance and capabilities just because they are "old" or because they don't know the latest stuff. Whatever new hype language or technology there is, it can be learned regardless of age. It is true that being an expert is valuable, but I think it is more important to be an expert in being adaptable, in being job resilient. There has been this old stereotype that programmers in their 40's are stagnant or unable to update their skills, who keep holding on COBOL as a falling monkey holds to a branch. I just wonder how much of that has influenced current ageist practices. What kind of logic it is to not hire a programmer in his 40's because he may not know C++ for instance but hire a youngster fresh out of college that has no experience, and whose C++ programs are just C programs with cout's instead of printf's? For the record, I'm not in my 40's; I'm 29 and concerned about these trends;)
Yeah, there are plenty of jobs as long as one doesn't look too old in the eyes of the interviewer. For many people in their late 30's and early 40's, it doesn't matter if they have a kick-ass resume or if they update their skills over and over. Jobs for the young, that's the hiring philosophy now.
Slashdot Mirror
someone please correct hemo's
bad grammer.
^^^^^^^^^^^
It is always amusing to see a self-appointed intellectual stumble on his own "grammer" (I mean gramar, or is garma or karma?) horrors, I mean errors. Me Tarzan, you Jane. Me want banana, you check your grammer. Ugh ugh, unga munga.
Besides, Hemos' mistake is a spelling one. It has nothing to do with grammar. However, I guess you cannot tell (or know) the difference.
A quake hit Taiwan, lots of people can get hurt, yet the first thing some imbecils think about is about RAM prices. That's discusting! Some of you may want to move your asses out of the chairs and do something other than computing. Some of you are devoid of feelings.
Ok, that makes more sense.
Peace.
Why? How so? I've never seen or heard that CodeWarrior was aimed at hobbies programmers? I've never used it, but I was under the impression that it was a tool as serious as all the others, suitable for professional development. This claim sounds kind of funny. What does it take for an ide (or any tool) for that matter to be aimed for professional development? What is it about CodeWarrior that is aim just for hobbies? The fact that it doesn't have all the features Imprise and Micro$tuff tools have? I don't know man. I don't know what to think about this "hobbies programmers" thing.
Luis Espinal.
Singer thinks that consciousness doesn't begin until a month or more after full-term birth. How did he come to that conclusion? What's consciousness to begin with? We are tying consciousness with life, and at the same time position consciousness above life itself. And based on what? What is the scientific basis for such thinking? A 5 year old child is not aware of the consequences of education? Should it not matter whether he/she gets an education, then? A handicapped 3 year old child will definitedly not be aware of the difficulties that lie ahead. He/she will be conscious that he/she exists, all right, but he/she will not know what the full implications of his/her handicaps are. Would that make this child less unconcious and then more suitable for euthanazing?
Singer's premises will be valid (or wrong) if and only if we clearly and unquestionably know:
1) what consciousness is in the first place,
2) whether there are degrees of consciousness or there are just absolute consciousness or unconsciousness,
3) that we know for sure a newborn is unconscious, and that such fact stop us from treating a newborn and a 1 year old as equals,
3) that human life can be quantify and qualify in terms consciousness, and MORE IMPORTANTLY,
4) the fact that the possibility, however narrow, that a supossed unconscious (and therefore non-sentient) handicapped baby would have prefered to go on living is of no consequence and irrelevant compared to the benefits and whatever moral reasons one would have to kill him/her.
Singer is drawing conclusions using some form of logic which soundness is not that clear, at least to me. There are more thinks to take into account, more questions that remain unanswered or even stated! How can we then make such a leap? Prove me what consciousness is and how it quantify and qualify life. Show me that the benefits of killing a handicapped newborn outweights whatever future choice this baby would have made.
Luis Espinal.
http://www.cs.fiu.edu
On the contrary, you can attack the conclusions even if the premises are right IF the conclusions leads to morally questionable results or, more importantly, if the logical model that permits such premises is not sound. Singer thinks that consciousness doesn't begin until a month or more after full-term birth. How did he come to that conclusion? What's consciousness to begin with? We are tying consciousness with life, and at the same time position consciousness above life itself. And based on what? What is the scientific basis for such thinking? A 5 year old child is not aware of the consequences of education? Should it not matter whether he/she gets an education, then? A handicapped 3 year old child will definitedly not be aware of the difficulties that lie ahead. He/she will be conscious that he/she exists, all right, but he/she will not know what the full implications of his/her handicaps are. Would that make this child less unconcious and then more suitable for euthanazing?
Singer's premises will be valid (or wrong) if and only if we clearly and unquestionably know:
1) what consciousness is in the first place,
2) whether there are degrees of consciousness or there are just absolute consciousness or unconsciousness,
3) that we know for sure a newborn is unconscious, and that such fact stop us from treating a newborn and a 1 year old as equals,
3) that human life can be quantify and qualify in terms consciousness, and MORE IMPORTANTLY,
4) the fact that the possibility, however narrow, that a supossed unconscious (and therefore non-sentient) handicapped baby would have prefered to go on living is of no consequence and irrelevant compared to the benefits and whatever moral reasons one would have to kill him/her.
Singer is drawing conclusions using some form of logic which soundness is not that clear, at least to me. There are more thinks to take into account, more questions that remain unanswered or even stated! How can we then make such a leap? Prove me what consciousness is and how it quantify and qualify life. Show me that the benefits of killing a handicapped newborn outweights whatever future choice this baby would have made.
Luis Espinal.
http://www.cs.fiu.edu
Even though these horrible massacres are extremely rare events, they nevertheless happen. In Littletown, two kids decided to give in to their anger. Only two. However, how many other harbor the same feelings? How many others accumulate pain and anger and humiliation, day after day? How many will let their pain grow to the point that blinds them with genocidal fury? These two kids were also victims, victims of a society that has failed to provide them guidance and hope for a better tomorrow.
For one thing, we live in a society where parents are not allowed to raise their children with discipline. A parent cannot send his child to his room, or grab him by his arm when he doesn't want to leave the toys section without running the risk of being accused of child abuse. Parents cannot go through their children's belongings and professors and guards cannot check their lockers because they are violating their privacy. How is a parent to know what their children think or what they are up to with such constrains?
There is also the case that parents do not pay the necessary attention to their children. This is not because they don't care. It is just that they can't or don't know how. After a 9-to-5 job and a 1 hour drive, parents just give up. How many parents out there spend dinner together with their kids? Even worse, how many parents schedule a half hour talk with their children? And quite honestly, there are parents who buy computer gadgets so that their kids stay still for hours while they rest and dream of their lost youth.
There is also the fact that kids in general have no ideals or goals. No heroes, no leading figures to imitate, no useful goals to pursue, that's the world our children live in. Ask any kid at random and ask him who Ghandi, Jesus, Lincoln, Einstein or Neil Armstrong is/was. Most likely all you will get are "I dunno, I don't care" stares. Also, it is not sufficient to know who they were and what they did. Children should have leading figures whose lives were conducted in such a way that inspire imitation. Children must thrive in an environment that nurture their intellects, that keeps their mind busy. There is nothing more wasteful (or more dangerous) that a young mind without clear direction.
Even though there is no clear indication that the media or violent computer games have anything to do with these killings, it will be greatly irresponsible to dismiss them as catalysts in this rampage. Bobby plays DOOM, and Kate likes bloody movies, yet they don't go berserk. Does that mean DOOM or violent media are not variables in this equation? No. One has to differentiate between what we call normal kids and those that are in a pathological state of mind. The effects of violent games and media on these groups cannot possibly be simplified or generalized. A healthy minded person would know better not to live DOOM-like. Can anyone say the same about a socially-abused kid?
One thing for certain is that this society is paving his own path of self-destruction. We have failed our younger generations, and we are not willing to fix it because it may involve giving up many things we dearly hold. I'd rather be a realistic pessimistic than an deluded optimistic. Unless someone proves me wrong, I think we have not seen the worst from our children yet. We'd better think that way and review our social and educational infrastructure than hope these problems are going to go away.
I respect RMS for the contributions he has done, but that as far as my respect go. I don't know the man, but from what I've seen and hear, I cannot but conclude that he is a social inept. He claims that Linus stamped the name Linux w/o acknowledging previous work. Bullshit. Linus made the kernel and named it Linux. People used Linux, add stuff around it, but kept using the kernel name. As far as I can f*cking see, there is no legal aggreement that binds one to name a product GNU-something just because one uses the GNU tools. Not even MS has gone that far. Imagine if we had to call my work VFP Premium Module or VC++ Word Processor or VJ++ homework 1. Whenever I hear Stallman demanding Linux to be called GNU Linux, I think of Hitler. If he were to give me one of his bashing lectures because I called Linux "Linux", I would most likely give him the beating of his life. What the f*ck, if I want to call red green, I do so and that's the end of the story.
I believe Linus has given more than enough honor to Stallman and the GNU "cause" by making the Linux kernel GPL. If I were to develop a program using the GNU tools, I would sure as hell not name it GNU-something. Hell no! For that kind of constrain on my rights of expression, I may just as well bend over to MS.
RMS is just a cry-baby. "Momma, Momma, nobody pay attention to me. Everybody look at the other kid, Linus, but nobody look at me." He doesn't need to be in the press to be acknowledged. If he does good deed not for the sake of fraternity but for glory and fame, then the hell with him. Most of us Linux users know who RMS is and appreciate the work he does. But I'm using the GNU tools because someone out there created a damn good kernel to run them. I use the GNU tools because I'm running Linux. GNU tools were used to create Linux, that I grant. However, it is Linux who make GNU tools ready to run for most of us.
One thing for certain is that Linus has never "cried baby" to be acknowledge. For that he deserves my respect. RMS, listen, behave like a grown-up human once and for all. If you really, really, really want a GNU-OS to bare your cherised GNU name, then forget about Linux and write a kernel yourself. And a finger to those who want to force me to call Linux GNU-Linux and crap like that.
She got a point; that I may not like it, that would be another story. Before I got my hands on WP8 for Linux, it was a pain in the ass whenever one of my windoozer friends sent me a Word document. If they could at least save it in Word 2 or 6 format (or rtf for Christ's sake), I may open it with Applix Words. But no, they insisted (and still do) in sending me Word 97 files (@#$~@&^* ... some Klingon cursing ... _*&%@!) And when I think about it, it is sad that I had to make a huge download of WP using my 33B modem just so that I could open these stupid Word 97 files.
...)? That's where illiteracy really is. To them, Linux (or anything non-windooze, even something such as Mac or BeOS) will be too much for their mental capacity (and willigness to learn.) They have chosen to be computer users instead of computer professionals.
:) They, I believe, will have the willigness to learn Linux which implies learning about the internals of computer far more than learning Windows.
It is surprising to see people that do not know that there is such a thing as Word versions lower than 97. It is depressing when some of these people have just got their B.S. degree in Computer Science or M.I.S. Scary shit. Scary shit that these people still wonder why the receiver (even in Windooze) cannot a Word document they sent (which btw contained a LINKED Excel spreadsheet which wasn't sent in the mail.) I do not care that much about the general, untamed computer user. They don't need to know the dark secrets and digital mantras of computing, but, man, what about computer people (CS, MIS,
This form of ignorance is wide spread at all levels of professional society. So Linux, at least for now, is only used (consistently) by those willing to learn. That's the key, willigness to learn. That, I think, will be the greatest asset of countries like Mexico. Thousands and thousands of students and professionals who would do anything to have a chance to work in a computer (even if it were running DOS 1.x
M$ did a good job in creating a massive illiterate population. That way, it ensured a consistent, uninterrupted cash flow to their pockets.
Ladies and gentlemen, behold that the bastard has spoken. This half-sentient, half dog half pig breed, good for nothing abomination of nature has spoken like this before in this site. Whenever someone mentions a 3rd world country, the bastard drools and let his narrow minded crap escape its stinking mouth. This arrogant half-human doesn't even knows how to write, yet it has the audacity to call others illiterate. The bastard is so stupid and moronic that he has all the reasons to fear others. He cannot possibly compete with merits alone.
Yes, you stupid bastard, they have "electroicity", I mean electricity. They cannot afford "electroicity", the same low energy fuel that power your brain cells. This dog is afraid of educated Indians since, next to them, he is nothing but shit. What else are you going to say, pig? When are you going to learn that you are nothing but an extint animal, uncapable to adapt, uncapable to learn and interact with other humans? Either shut up and do what is needed to compete is this brave new world or die! There is no going back. This world is for the taking for those bold enough, intelligent enough, competitive enough. You have no room in this world anymore. Go back to the technological mud pile where you crawled from. Serve humanity by becoming fertilizer. I'm tired to see shit like you bashing on 3rd world countries. If you are so f*cking good and us so f*cking low and illiterate, what are you afraid of? Make fun of Indians all you want. In the end, if they didn't have "electroicity", they would be ingenious enough to use the crack of your ass as a cd-player.
What's the problem if he were to confuse you with Mexico? Do you find it offensive? I don't think he was confusing India with Mexico, but perhaps at that moment he remembered that a 3rd world country was heavy in Linux and though it was India. At least you should be happy that people think of India when thinking of fast adoption of technology. If there is somebody racist, it is you for so quickly assaulting a person you don't even know. What do you think? That everybody is after you or your people? That just because someone make a mistake or don't know enough about your nation that person is an enemy of your race? That is just plain stupid.
Besides, your claim that everybody in India is dark skinned is racist at least. Just ask an Indian from Kashmir. What about Aishwarya Rai? Last time I saw a picture of here, she looked pretty much light skinned. I have many, many friends from India, and I'm glad to say that none of them have such stupid erratic behavior as yours. That gives me comfort to know that you are just a behavioral exception rather than the norm.
Also, why shouldn't he confuse us? Why should someone be an international erudite? Just so that he can please your arrogance? I can ask you a 100 questions about Latin America, and I'm pretty sure you would get a few confused. Would that makes you a racist? By the same token, you could ask me a 100 questions about India and it's very likely I'll confuse some. Would that make me a racist? Think before you bark. Then you will learn to talk. Then you will deserve to be noticed and respected.
I totally agree. It is true that Mexico, Brazil and Pakistan are developing countries, but they have massive resources to pull something like that. Haiti and Ghana, on the other hand could not probably do something like that. The Central American region who at one point could have attempted to do that was beaten to the dust by Hurricane George last year, and they could not possibly spend any resources in the next 3-5 years in anything like this. At least at this time, this kind of projects can only take place in what I call the "developing mastodons", countries that although underdeveloped, have the enough resources (both human, tech and money) to pull (or at least try to pull) something like that. Most of these "mastodons" are in Latin America, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, most Arab countries, Nigeria, and a few other countries in Asia and Africa. For many other smaller countries, projects like that will just not be possible in the near future.
As far as I know, the GPL is a legal document, and as far as I understand it, legal documents are part of the real world. If money were the only driving force and the only valid argument, we wouldn't be seeing the DoJ nailing M$ ass. Ideals are part of the real world, for better or worse. It was idealism what brough many (if not all) of the modern economic systems and theories of today, socialism, syndicalism, communism, even modern regulated capitalism. Ideals are not just euphemistic ideas of people being jolly and jumping in never ending fields of flowers singing "colors, colors, look at the colors." The pursue of legality, common welfare, protection of private property, the enforcement of the right of the needed and the right to make money are also ideals.
Ideals are what regulate the crude reality few try (or do) impose on most of us. The ideal of private property, the ideal of doing business while following acceptable business practices is something sherished by any ambitious and yet honest enteprenour. Ambition and honesty can go hand to hand. I've seen it. Claiming that ideals are not part of the real world demonstrate a good understanding of the real world itself, whatever real world means.
How could you put something like this here? Got any idea how many kiddos browse here? Not that they won't find this crap by themselves if they wanted to. Still, I don't think that kind of stuff was appropriate.
All right, we are going to get spaghetti code from Windooze. At one point, Windows 3.1 and NT may (read may) have had an interesting source code, but with so much shit added to it, and flat uncoherent apis (win32s, win32 and NT), that code would have to be horrible to look at.
I think the Indian goverment has a sound argument for making this decision. As is it quoted in the article, no software can be exported from the U.S. if it is too strong for the NSA to break it. No one in the US can expect anyone anywhere to trust US "secure" software under these terms. In fact, this should not come as a surprise. If I were a banker or someone runing a military installation in XYZ country, if I had a chance to not to use US encryption software and use something "stronger" I would. Isn't that logical? For tactical and economic reasons, this should be expected.
But no, you got people saying "Indian goverment went to shit", "indian programmers are dumb", "what the f* are they doing here" and some other crap. Even worse, if an Indian replies to these bigot comments, he is bombarded with "get the f* out" replies. What do you people expect, that Indians just take your brainless crap just because you say so? I don't think so.
Everytime there is an article regarding a underdeveloped country you see crap like this. All the time it is the same shit. How do you call that? Racism, just plain racism. You don't need to burn a cross or put somebody in a gas chamber to be a racist. Your attitude, your comments, the stereotypes you hold, they make (or not) you a racist. Lots of people seem to dislike (hate) 3rd world programmers because they are more willing to accept lower salaries than native ones (natives - what an irony.) Is it these people's fault to be resilient and be eager to do whatever it takes to make a living or the companies that take advantage of the situation? Can you blame a company for hiring someone who is willing to work for less? If so, blame yourselves because these companies work as your society allows it. With what right can any of you say "Indians go home"? Unless you are a Native American, you have no right, no right to say that to anybody, period. It seems that you have forgotten that at one point in time your forefathers were foreign too, that they were exploited too, that they were abused, discriminated, labeled as dirty and stupid, that despite all that, they had their dreams and that they adapted and succeeded. This is survival of the fittest or more resilient or more adaptable. This is the law of competition, the American way, the acceptable way unless it's applied to you. Either force companies to pay foreign workers fairly or accept lower salaries (adapt and compete) or take a boat and cross the Atlantic. Doesn't feel good to be told these things, does it?
How illuminating. A sovereign state made a decision, then everybody says the goverment went to shit. I think this is great not only for India, but for all underdeveloped countries. There has been a massive exodus of professionals from these countries to countries which don't really appreciate their contributions. This kind of decisions should (read should) serve as an incentive for the growing software industry. This would give these emigrating professionals a better opportunity to stay in their homelands. Besides, no goverment should depend on software developed in other (potentially competing) countries for mission critical systems.
Most companies, specially middle and large size are very much aware of the law, specially with regards of software piracy and illegal accounting practices. I've seen it. Regardless how much I may dislike many pointy-hairs I know, with regard to business practices, they take a lot of pride in doing pristine transactions. They follow appropriate business practices not because of fear of legal retaliation (at least that's not the main reason); they do it because of ethics. At least that has been my impression of pointy-hairs in the U.S. Like in everything, there are always rotten apples in the basket, but I'm firmly convinced that not every company, in fact most of them do not engage in such practices.
Maybe, maybe not. If it was only one incident being mentioned by the media, I wouldn't worry about. But when one reading personal testimonies of individuals that are EXPERTS and that they can't get a job for months, that's worrysome. Plus, I've seen a couple of managers or interviewers making bold statements such as "that guy is too old to work here. he is a dinosaur. there are younger people with equivalent expertise and cheaper". Besides, we live in a society where it's not uncommon for people to make career changes in their mid 30's or 40's. When Pan Am went down, I knew several people that worked there, and who decided to study computer sciences. They completed their studies, they have a degree AND they have prior working experience in other fields (administration, accounting and so on.) Clearly they (should) have more knowledge and greater potential than a 23 year-old man-teenager with no working experience at all. Yet these "old" people may be denied a chance to make a living since we keep thinking that "at 40 you got to be an expert." Life doesn't end in the mid 30's. Why should we end their professional lives, then? If an older person has the potential, he should not be denied just because of his/her age. Hiring should be done based on credentials and personality. Doing otherwise is no different from discriminating based on one's race. We cannot possibly generalize over these people, nor make conclusions about their job performance and capabilities just because they are "old" or because they don't know the latest stuff. Whatever new hype language or technology there is, it can be learned regardless of age. It is true that being an expert is valuable, but I think it is more important to be an expert in being adaptable, in being job resilient. There has been this old stereotype that programmers in their 40's are stagnant or unable to update their skills, who keep holding on COBOL as a falling monkey holds to a branch. I just wonder how much of that has influenced current ageist practices. What kind of logic it is to not hire a programmer in his 40's because he may not know C++ for instance but hire a youngster fresh out of college that has no experience, and whose C++ programs are just C programs with cout's instead of printf's? For the record, I'm not in my 40's; I'm 29 and concerned about these trends;)
Peace too;)
Yeah, there are plenty of jobs as long as one doesn't look too old in the eyes of the interviewer. For many people in their late 30's and early 40's, it doesn't matter if they have a kick-ass resume or if they update their skills over and over. Jobs for the young, that's the hiring philosophy now.