Yeah, there are a lot of assholes. But there's probably nearly an equal number of great or kind people.
Nope. There's a lot more assholes than kind people. Most apparently kind people are assholes in disguise. They are nice and outgoing until they no longer need you or can no longer use you, and then they shed their fake skin and show what and how they truly are. The problem is that most victims don't realize that; just check on how often are your friends calling you for no egocentric reason, just to check on you, no strings attached? I did count, when someone else opened my eyes. It's been 4 years since and the only person who contacts me without needing something from me is my sister. Everyone else contacts me because they need me for something, be it small or important. Furthermore, I have been checking whether my wife encounters something similar, and she does.
Now I'm not saying all those people are assholes by design, it's just they are egocentric. It's society which makes us like that; it's the way things are.
I'm 34. I came to have this opinion AFTER I read a lot of "old" stuff, starting with great classics and ending with pretty obscure stuff. I liked some of it, but I found others to be impossible to digest. A matter of taste, perhaps, but a large part of it was played by anachronisms. Jules Verne is much easier to digest than Dostoievski, for example, both as style and subject.
You seem to think that everything is for the masses? Racing, boxing, porn, horror movies, disturbing art to name a few. They're all for the masses? Is it elitism if I say Lamborghini is not for the masses? It's a fact. Geez.
If it's customizable, feature-packed and "just works", it can spy on my uninteresting, boring, bland person as much as it likes to. A small trade for my life improvement.
The answer is: if it's staged exactly as it was intended to be by its author, it would probably not make a lot of sense, or it would be very difficult to comprehend. On the other hand, you can "adapt" it, making it easier to comprehend, but it would lose its original value. The new value might be good as well, though, but it's going to be different. After all, most art deals with immortal subjects (love, hate, betrayal, war, etc). However, the way they're expressed (or waged) vastly depends on their era. Rough example: why would you have to wait weeks for a letter to be delivered when you can send a text message? A teenager nowadays would have great difficulty understanding the way of things from even 100 years ago, when everything was much, much slower.
Why? I didn't like it either:) I'm definitely an Average Joe in this regard. I don't get all wet from Picasso, Bach, Dostoievski either. And yes, I read/watched/listened to them all. TASTE. learn to get it. Not everyone should automatically love an art product just because it's considered to be "the best". And I seriously doubt someone who says "I love X" without being able to say "because...".
What does this have to do with anything? I'm not discussing wrong or right, I'm saying times change and older products don't keep up. this doesn't mean they don't have historical value, they simply lose mainstream value, which is a different thing.
But yeah, ad hominem attacks are cool... keep using them.
No, I actually read a scholar's edition, which aimed at keeping the exact verse pace and style. Sure, if you Hollywoodize it, it would sound much better.
I love Doyle, and not only the Sherlock Holmes series. As a matter of fact, i firmly believe that the Professor Challenger stories are much, MUCH better. But they're dated regardless. The "poisonous ether" from the "Poison Belt" story makes the whole thing dated. Still good, because I'm able to dive into suspension disbelief and focus on people's reactions and vivid end-of-the-world descriptions (which simply ROCK). But fact remains: the "ether" idea is now proven as childish.
The Iliad is barely readable. Sure, if you're a scholar or really into reading classic literature, it's interesting., it is dated, whether you like it or not. I'm not saying it's not good anymore, but it's definitely not good for the masses.
That doesn't make it any less dated. Yeah, it's useful for scholars, but it is valueless to Average Joe. The same Average Joe who liked it 100 years ago would not touch it with a 10 foot pole right now. It's fact.
Dude... I was referring to "90% of anything is shit" - and while that shit is played (or read, or listened to, or watched) while it's contemporary, it will lose value fast. The 10% which deserves it will become classic (e.g. Star Wars original trilogy) but even so, after long enough it will still lose value.
Take Dante's "Inferno", for example. It's good, but not mainstream at all. It's not even easy to read. A more extreme example is Homer's "Odyssey" which is barely readable unless you're a scholar.
In the woods... They were not "famous" (as in "mainstream") but their work (especially "Omnio") is really shining. Also Haggard, Theatre of Tragedy (up to start of 2000s), even dubstep (as a sub-genre).
Movies made from old books are outside the scope of the conversation:) Just as well you can re-write an old book and make it current, but it's no longer the same book, is it?
Actually, I disagree with your assertions about nobody listening to music from two decades ago.
Yeah, just... I didn't say that.
"Music from 2 decades ago is mostly stuff that nobody listens anymore" In other words, almost all music which was played on the radio 20+ years ago is completely forgotten today, except the top 50-100 or something. Sure, there are dedicated radio stations, but as far as mainstream goes, 3 years seems like a long time as well.
With that being said, I am listening to music which goes back as far as the 30s (classical music aside). Sadly, most of my acquaintances don't even know of it (again, except top 10 or something, and those mostly through remixes).
Times change. Actual stuff might be less interesting or even plain bad, but the breakthrough would remain in history. The same happens with pretty much any art. Most literature no older than 100 years looks now dated and plain boring (yes, even golden classics). Music from 2 decades ago is mostly stuff that nobody listens anymore (Yes, i know there are exceptions, but few and far between). However, if it was a huge success or a breakthrough (invention, innovation, something fresh, etc), it's worth mentioning and remembering.
Based on my experience (YMMV), corporations love consistency. Their recruiters are uncomfortable with varied background, because they don't think outside the box and don't understand that a person can do more than just the same thing for the entirety of their lives.
My advice: aim for startups. They're looking for skills rather than a consistent, tidy work background.
Well then again, people called bullshit on trains, planes and so on. It is mathematically possible to travel faster than light (e.g. using an Alcubierre drive using the power harnessed by the Casimir effect). It's not physically possible now? True. Time will tell though. I wouldn't completely abandon all hope just yet.
I wouldn't say they're "undocumented". Oracle DB documentation is literally HUGE. In general, Oracle products documentation is so large, it starts caving into itself, for example OBIEE full documentation is 11 GB of text files. That's a pretty big issue: the answer definitely is in the documentation (except for very rare, very customized implementations) but you can't really find it. However, crowdsourcing helps. In this regard, I rarely look at documentation but ask lots of questions in the OTN forums, and other people either answer or at least send me on the right path.
Define "huge data consumers". There are small (in terms of employee size) companies which handle enormous amounts of data. Think a genome sequencing lab. It can have as little as 5 employees, but works with huge data and handles big sums of money. I can think of a few situations where a single person needs to handle very large datasets and handle enough money to justify an Oracle Database.
It's a complex product. of course it has a point-and-grunt installer, but anything else requires configuring the product, and it doesn't have an "easy mode", simply because it's not targeting "simple people".
You're thinking from a tiny point of view (small company or personal). And yes, in this case, oracle DB might not be for you. But a company which makes arguably billions off data located in an oracle DB Cluster doesn't care whether the DB needs 0, 1, or 25 people who manage it. Whatever the costs are, they represent a tiny fraction of the profits.
if your monthly profit is $10K then your DB costs might need to be below $200. However, make your monthly profit $500M, then you can afford spending anywhere between $200K and $1M a month on the DB and its support (licensed or in-house) and even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Asshole detected.
Point proven.
Biggest problem is that you don't know in advance :)
I am not from the US. I didn't even think of US when I posted.
Yeah, there are a lot of assholes. But there's probably nearly an equal number of great or kind people.
Nope.
There's a lot more assholes than kind people.
Most apparently kind people are assholes in disguise. They are nice and outgoing until they no longer need you or can no longer use you, and then they shed their fake skin and show what and how they truly are.
The problem is that most victims don't realize that; just check on how often are your friends calling you for no egocentric reason, just to check on you, no strings attached? I did count, when someone else opened my eyes. It's been 4 years since and the only person who contacts me without needing something from me is my sister. Everyone else contacts me because they need me for something, be it small or important.
Furthermore, I have been checking whether my wife encounters something similar, and she does.
Now I'm not saying all those people are assholes by design, it's just they are egocentric. It's society which makes us like that; it's the way things are.
I'm 34. I came to have this opinion AFTER I read a lot of "old" stuff, starting with great classics and ending with pretty obscure stuff. I liked some of it, but I found others to be impossible to digest. A matter of taste, perhaps, but a large part of it was played by anachronisms.
Jules Verne is much easier to digest than Dostoievski, for example, both as style and subject.
WHAT!
You seem to think that everything is for the masses?
Racing, boxing, porn, horror movies, disturbing art to name a few. They're all for the masses?
Is it elitism if I say Lamborghini is not for the masses? It's a fact.
Geez.
If it's customizable, feature-packed and "just works", it can spy on my uninteresting, boring, bland person as much as it likes to. A small trade for my life improvement.
The answer is: if it's staged exactly as it was intended to be by its author, it would probably not make a lot of sense, or it would be very difficult to comprehend. On the other hand, you can "adapt" it, making it easier to comprehend, but it would lose its original value. The new value might be good as well, though, but it's going to be different.
After all, most art deals with immortal subjects (love, hate, betrayal, war, etc). However, the way they're expressed (or waged) vastly depends on their era. Rough example: why would you have to wait weeks for a letter to be delivered when you can send a text message? A teenager nowadays would have great difficulty understanding the way of things from even 100 years ago, when everything was much, much slower.
Why? I didn't like it either :)
I'm definitely an Average Joe in this regard. I don't get all wet from Picasso, Bach, Dostoievski either. And yes, I read/watched/listened to them all.
TASTE. learn to get it. Not everyone should automatically love an art product just because it's considered to be "the best". And I seriously doubt someone who says "I love X" without being able to say "because...".
What does this have to do with anything?
I'm not discussing wrong or right, I'm saying times change and older products don't keep up.
this doesn't mean they don't have historical value, they simply lose mainstream value, which is a different thing.
But yeah, ad hominem attacks are cool... keep using them.
No, I actually read a scholar's edition, which aimed at keeping the exact verse pace and style. Sure, if you Hollywoodize it, it would sound much better.
I love Doyle, and not only the Sherlock Holmes series. As a matter of fact, i firmly believe that the Professor Challenger stories are much, MUCH better.
But they're dated regardless. The "poisonous ether" from the "Poison Belt" story makes the whole thing dated. Still good, because I'm able to dive into suspension disbelief and focus on people's reactions and vivid end-of-the-world descriptions (which simply ROCK). But fact remains: the "ether" idea is now proven as childish.
The Iliad is barely readable. Sure, if you're a scholar or really into reading classic literature, it's interesting.,
it is dated, whether you like it or not. I'm not saying it's not good anymore, but it's definitely not good for the masses.
That doesn't make it any less dated.
Yeah, it's useful for scholars, but it is valueless to Average Joe. The same Average Joe who liked it 100 years ago would not touch it with a 10 foot pole right now. It's fact.
Dude... I was referring to "90% of anything is shit" - and while that shit is played (or read, or listened to, or watched) while it's contemporary, it will lose value fast. The 10% which deserves it will become classic (e.g. Star Wars original trilogy) but even so, after long enough it will still lose value.
Take Dante's "Inferno", for example. It's good, but not mainstream at all. It's not even easy to read. A more extreme example is Homer's "Odyssey" which is barely readable unless you're a scholar.
In the woods...
They were not "famous" (as in "mainstream") but their work (especially "Omnio") is really shining.
Also Haggard, Theatre of Tragedy (up to start of 2000s), even dubstep (as a sub-genre).
Movies made from old books are outside the scope of the conversation :)
Just as well you can re-write an old book and make it current, but it's no longer the same book, is it?
Actually, I disagree with your assertions about nobody listening to music from two decades ago.
Yeah, just... I didn't say that.
"Music from 2 decades ago is mostly stuff that nobody listens anymore"
In other words, almost all music which was played on the radio 20+ years ago is completely forgotten today, except the top 50-100 or something. Sure, there are dedicated radio stations, but as far as mainstream goes, 3 years seems like a long time as well.
With that being said, I am listening to music which goes back as far as the 30s (classical music aside). Sadly, most of my acquaintances don't even know of it (again, except top 10 or something, and those mostly through remixes).
100 years ago was start of 1900, dude.
That's literature from before the first World War.
And yeah, most of it is dated.
Times change. Actual stuff might be less interesting or even plain bad, but the breakthrough would remain in history.
The same happens with pretty much any art. Most literature no older than 100 years looks now dated and plain boring (yes, even golden classics). Music from 2 decades ago is mostly stuff that nobody listens anymore (Yes, i know there are exceptions, but few and far between). However, if it was a huge success or a breakthrough (invention, innovation, something fresh, etc), it's worth mentioning and remembering.
Based on my experience (YMMV), corporations love consistency. Their recruiters are uncomfortable with varied background, because they don't think outside the box and don't understand that a person can do more than just the same thing for the entirety of their lives.
My advice: aim for startups. They're looking for skills rather than a consistent, tidy work background.
Well then again, people called bullshit on trains, planes and so on.
It is mathematically possible to travel faster than light (e.g. using an Alcubierre drive using the power harnessed by the Casimir effect). It's not physically possible now? True. Time will tell though. I wouldn't completely abandon all hope just yet.
I wouldn't say they're "undocumented". Oracle DB documentation is literally HUGE. In general, Oracle products documentation is so large, it starts caving into itself, for example OBIEE full documentation is 11 GB of text files.
That's a pretty big issue: the answer definitely is in the documentation (except for very rare, very customized implementations) but you can't really find it. However, crowdsourcing helps. In this regard, I rarely look at documentation but ask lots of questions in the OTN forums, and other people either answer or at least send me on the right path.
Define "huge data consumers".
There are small (in terms of employee size) companies which handle enormous amounts of data. Think a genome sequencing lab. It can have as little as 5 employees, but works with huge data and handles big sums of money. I can think of a few situations where a single person needs to handle very large datasets and handle enough money to justify an Oracle Database.
It's a complex product. of course it has a point-and-grunt installer, but anything else requires configuring the product, and it doesn't have an "easy mode", simply because it's not targeting "simple people".
You're thinking from a tiny point of view (small company or personal). And yes, in this case, oracle DB might not be for you. But a company which makes arguably billions off data located in an oracle DB Cluster doesn't care whether the DB needs 0, 1, or 25 people who manage it. Whatever the costs are, they represent a tiny fraction of the profits.
if your monthly profit is $10K then your DB costs might need to be below $200. However, make your monthly profit $500M, then you can afford spending anywhere between $200K and $1M a month on the DB and its support (licensed or in-house) and even more.