Thank you for stating what Barlow missed... today's problem has nothing to do with the Internet. Today's federal government governs via taxes and black mail. They take money from the citizens of every state, then won't give it back unless states bow to their pressure. And the federal taxes are so high, states can't refuse. This allows the federal government to mandate things like speed limits and educational standards, when those issues should be left to the states and other localities. All this based on 'the common good' clause in the constitution, and not allowing states to decide what the 'common good' is for their residents.
One only has to look at the federal income tax for to see this. Standards of living are different in every state, yet tax rates and deductions are all the same at the federal level. The tax structure is upside down... *most* of my taxes should go directly to my city, then the county, state, and feds with the federal government taxing at the lowest rate. Instead, it is top down.. the feds take the biggest bite and dole it out as they see fit, then the states take another bite and do the same. By the time localities create tax rates, there is very little left because their resident's wallets have already been raped.
One way to start to fix this is to reduce the spending habit of the federal government in a controlled manner so that states can pick up the excess. For instance *EVERY* state receives federal highway dollars, which of course is at the whim of the federal government determining who gets what. It's important that states without adequate sources to maintain highways receive assistance, but why then should *EVERY* state??? According to one study, the 'least' amount any state gets is about 70% of what they kicked in. So.. why not decrease federal highway spending by 70%, and not have to put the money through a federal bureaucracy that just gives it back, but only to projects they approve??? States can then increase their taxes to make up the difference, fix what they think needs to be fixed, and we will need fewer bureaucrats in Washington to administer it.
The same is true of many programs.. welfare and education come to mind first. By decreasing the dollars going to the feds, their ability to govern by tax blackmail instead of my constitutional authority decreases.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
What a bunch of bullshit. Feel more superior now??? Feel really good about 'knowing' why I said it was 'sad' without my mentioning why I said that, but jumping to conclusions anyway. Did I say anything about 'Lost' being dumb??
I think it's sad that viewers could get so attached to an hourly waste of time that they feel 'compelled' to see every episode instead of waiting for the DVD to come out. How smart of the writers and producers to create a show that is so compelling that they can make the same group of people sit and stare every week for an hour, 20ish times a year, for six years, to see their advertisements. And were smart enough to realize after year three they didn't have to spend the money on 20 because everyone was hooked now, 14 a year would be enough. Then many of those viewers will go buy their DVDs, even when they know that it will all come back out in syndication.
I watch TV from time to time. One or two shows maybe if I'm really bored and have nothing better to do. My brain is too busy to deal with the interruptions (probably ADD), and I refuse to buy a TiVO and pay their monthly fee. Did put in a TV card, but found I didn't watch what I recorded even when I could skip past the commercials. The only reason I have cable is so I can watch Discover and History channels. I rent movies and read books instead. Maybe someday I'll rent the 'Lost' DVD, at least then I won't have to deal with 20 minutes of commercials every episode. When I get the time and have nothing better to do.
Which isn't to say I don't waste my share of time. Sitting back and playing 'Plants v/s Zombies' is a great way to zone out. Because I can play, one or two rounds, then quit and not feel compelled to have to go back tomorrow at the same time and do it again. Used to buy PC games Fallout, but discovered I spent waaaaayyyy too much time playing them. So I stopped.
But what is even sadder... this sad group of people includes those that will change their relationship on Slashdot to 'foe' simply because someone else said something bad about their favorite TV show. Like Wyatt Earp did below.
I'd write more, but I have other things to do.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Lost was sold as a way to make money for the networks and advertisers. Sadly, thousands (millions??) of people felt it necessary to watch it.
You are absolutely correct. When I was in school, I always scored very high on all the tests so was put into the 'college prep' groups. When I got to high school, I said screw it and only took math and science college prep, because I was good at those, and took the easiest English and shop and other classes that I could get away with to accumulate enough credits to graduate. My guidance councilor wanted me to attend college, I didn't want to and didn't think my parents could afford it, but my senior year she convinced me otherwise and talked me into it. So I stopped taking shop and took a senior English class that I could barely handle. Then went to college in the fall to become a math professor, and hated it. So I only went for one semester. Got a job, bought a TRS-80 because I thought this computer stuff was neat, learned to program, and discovered that you could in fact get a job without a degree, no matter what they told you in high school. By the time my friends graduated with a BA, I was making the same as they were, didn't have any college debt, had four years of work experience, and didn't become a math professor. Today, I earn over $100K and have only taken the college courses I wanted to take to learn what I wanted to learn.
The best things I learned in high school were math and physics and shop. I learned enough English by 9th grade that the stuff in high school really wasn't needed. Today, I would have loved to have taken more history, but it was taught so poorly in high school that I was turned off until my early 40s when I learned that history wasn't just about dates and names and places. I started reading biographies about Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and learned more about the start of the USA than I ever learned in school.
College isn't for smart people. Smart people don't need college to learn. It's a great place to learn, but the truly smart don't need it. It's just more convenient.
College is for the average people who need a piece of paper to convince HR to let them interview. Ok...doctors, lawyers, and a few others need it too. But for the rest of us, trade schools are just fine. We can work AND go to school, then continue our education further at our own pace instead of what some college says we need to take so they can keep all of the professors employed and their expensive buildings paid for. And that nice football stadium which is really useless and has nothing to do with a college education.
Knowing how to code is easy. Using the right tool for the job make's it easy.
Learning to live within the limitations a language has, being willing to learn something new instead of just using the same old hammer, and knowing the difference between doing something useful and something that is 'cool' is why 90% of the web developers find web development hard.
The playground merry-go-rounds are all gone. No longer can you sit on the edge as your sadistic friend spins it around faster and faster, trapped unless you dare to take a leap unto the asphalt or gravel.
And no longer can you spin it around round faster and faster as your masochistic friends all sit, trapped and unable to flee unless they take a daring leap unto the asphalt or gravel.
Merry go rounds -- bringing sadists and masochists together for generations.
Not buying from a company because they exploit child labor is just as valid as not eating at the local spaghetti restaurant because of their corporate vision to glorify god. In each case, the consumer decides to what extent the behavior causes someone else harm, and then decides if they won't buy goods from them because purchasing those goods supports that behavior.
I could give dozens of reasons why perpetuating the belief in god is more harmful to society than child labor.
But I won't stop going to either place because all the reasons are so much philosophical BS and have little to do with socioeconomic realities. Child labor isn't necessarily bad, and religion doesn't have to be harmful.
The average person is not 'getting screwed'. The average person lacks the intelligence or motivation or is too risk adverse to start their own business, that's why they work for other people. So they have to negotiate wages based on the pool of other average people around them.
If someone is selling their car on Craig's list and no one wants it.. the price goes down until someone buys it. But if everyone wants it, they can command a higher price. I don't know of anyone that said 'oh no.. you don't have to pay me that much, the car isn't worth it' when offered more than they thought it was worth. Or put a car up for sale and actually put down the price they were willing to take. I had a guy buy a junk car from me a couple of months ago... when asked how much I wanted, I told him $500. He talked me down to $200. Fact is.. I would have given it to him for free just to get rid of it. But I was willing to.. using your terms... screw him to get all I could for it.
So go ahead... make it so people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs or their original employees who became rich developing their products have no motivation to get rich. See what it does to the standard of living in the US.
I am an 'average person' and realized a long time ago that I don't have the motivation to become rich and learned to accept it rather than blame other people for my own faults. And then learned how to live on what I could make, instead of what I would like to make or thought I was worth. So I learned how to work with wealthy people and give them the labor they needed to stay that way. A wonderful thing happened.. my income started to go up and I now live very comfortably. Not rich, but I don't have to eat raman noodles for every meal and have no debt other than my house.
I used to install my own exhaust pipes, change my own oil, and do other car maintenance. Now that I make 6 figures, I don't do it anymore. Sure.. it's stupid paying someone a couple hundred bucks to do something I could do. But it makes my life easier. And I don't waste 3 hours doing something they can do in an hour because they have lifts and all the right tools.
That is what in-car DVD systems do. Mom and dad can just plug in the DVD and go. The kids can't throw the player onto the floor, and it's not a missile in a crash. No one has to plug it or worry about keeping the batteries charged.
It would be easy for me to talk down in-car DVD systems because my kids are all grown and I grew up in the days sitting in the middle in the back seat for hours with three brothers and no seat belts. So I could put on my 'get off my lawn' hat and talk about how easy kids have it these days. But if it helps kids actually enjoy a trip and if it makes mom and dad's life easier to not have to deal with a portable DVD player, then why not.
Money doesn't buy power.. it buys choices. People are still paying to buy cheap-ass headphones and watch movies on planes.....you would think someone that can afford a $400 plane ticket a few times a year could afford a portable DVD player. Or load video on their iPhone. My wife has an iTouch and loaded games and a video on it for a recent plane flight. I noticed there was a charge on the credit card for $6 and asked what it was (because we check our accounts daily to make sure no one has stolen the numbers) and she had bought a movie. I teased her about it, but the reality was she had the $6 and got tired of using the iTouch.
I agree with the "don't".. but for a different reason. Let's say the average 'hard' failure is once every two years. That is one station going down about every 5 weeks ((2 years * 52 weeks) / 20 workstations). And unless the failure is a primary hard drive, you can probably swap out the parts.
OS on one drive, data on the other. Back them up. Fix the hardware and restore if necessary. You should be doing the backups anyway....
Anytime there is a failure, you are going to spend a few hours trying to fix it. If your OS is under 20GB, it won't take any time at all to drop in a new hard drive and do the restore. If it's the data drive, it will take longer. Mirror the drives, hard drives are cheap. Or store essential files on the network on a raid-10 device (which gets backed up also).
I love virtualization for web and app servers where you might need to drop in a new one to scale quickly. But it's just not worth it for the desktop for recovery purposes unless you only have a couple different configs. Or everyone is sharing a few massive servers and using VNC (which works for multiple monitors).
Or just back up the virtual image every night and don't worry about it. Tapes and backup disks are damn cheap.
Stop worrying about the 'geek' solution, and pick one that works. Pretend it's your money and time you are wasting.
The judge takes the evidence that is presented and passes judgment. All those cameras also have video recorders, which can be requested by the defendant as evidence (it says so right on the ticket in Arizona.. you have 30 days before it is deleted). The cameras may issue tickets, but it is up to the DAs office to decide whether or not to prosecute. Police arrest, DAs prosecute and call police as witnesses or anyone else they deem to be an 'expert' on the evidence to be presented, and judges adjudicate. Cameras gather evidence, they don't press charges. They are not much different from a security camera catching someone breaking into a building at the same time a robbery took place, except a computer does the initial analysis instead of a person.
So yes.. if the DA decides to prosecute, it is up to the defendant to go to court and prove they are not guilty because the DA is going to try and prove they are guilty. If the defendant doesn't do that, then all the judge has to look at is evidence that says they are guilty, because that's all the DA will offer up.
ANYONE can request charges be filed against anyone for speeding or running a red light or reckless driving IF they can prove it, there doesn't even have to be a police officer witnessing it. You just have to convince the DAs office there is enough evidence or witnesses to support the claim. So all those idiots out there saying 'you can't take a camera to court' are just full of bullshit. Anyone can file charges, and anyone can present evidence.
It's the way it has worked for a couple of hundred years around here. The type of evidence has changed, but the proceedings really haven't changed all that much.
I've never understood this 'my browser is faster than your browser' attention. Most people use their browser over the Internet, with download speeds that make any computer wait. There is a ton of time processing 3 or 4 threads simultaneously to still draw page components. I see pages show up in a couple of seconds, it takes far more than that to read them.
So a few web sites want to use some fancy graphics. I only see their fancy graphics... once. When I first visit. Then they are discarded every time as I concentrate on the content of the web site.
Just make the browser work...it's fast enough already.
Look at the full video instead of the propaganda piece. At 2:10, there are what looks like ak47s and a long tube, maybe an RPG. They had been taking fire earlier from RPGs.
It's also an important story when the video emphasizes news cameras by slowing the film down, but doesn't give the same emphasis to the frames showing the RPGs and AK47s being carried and laying around so that the video can be sensationalized.
Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays in order to fast (or at least they used to, that might have changed). Jew don't eat pork, and while not Christian, they do share a common bond in the Old testement and Christians are always touting the ten commandments, which is an old testament story. Mormons abstain from alcohol, caffeine and refined sugar for religions reasons.
Since only 50% of this country is anti-abortion, and approximately 80% call themselves Christian.. at least some Christians seem to believe that abortion is not murder. A quick Google search turned up this minister and the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. They seem to feel that abortion isn't murder, and they claim to be Christian. Or is there some committee that has to approve Christian values???
One can demonstrate the unlikelihood that something exists. I can't prove flying pink unicorns don't exist, but I can demonstrate that based on evolutionary findings and the necessary wingspan needed for a horse to fly that it is highly unlikely.
It is also highly unlikely that heaven exists. The very narration of Genesis violates the laws of thermodynamics (something from nothing). If heaven does exist, where does it get it's energy?? Where is the energy that keeps a soul going?? 'Where' is heaven?? What physical proof is there that such a thing exists at all, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable, plenty of people have seen pink elephants. Where is the necessary energy that this so called 'god' thing gets to manipulate matter and energy. How is it channeled.
So, while I can't prove that god or heaven doesn't exist, I can argue that there is no need for it in order to explain the universe around us, and that the very nature of heaven as defined by the priests violate the laws of physics as we know it.
Sure.. those laws could be wrong. But until they are show to be wrong, and until there is a reason for heaven to exist, it doesn't really matter. So it's existence is not relevant to my daily life. Nor my death. It's no more than wishful thinking or a fairytale.
I might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
First, I don't ask him personally because I don't give a shit. You said that 'Contrary to what popular media would have you believe, you don't go to heaven right away after you die.'. Well.. this minister said the very words I stated, the words 'the very second' was in his little sermon, I did not put them in his mouth. So that Christian seems to not agree with you.
So you are either not a Christian, or one of you is wrong. It is apparent that at least two Christians do not agree when one goes to heaven. Just like all those Christian sects disagree on so many other things.
So.. when all Christians can get together and figure out which sect is right.. please let the rest of us know so we can know what a Christian believes. Until then, I will just have to assume that none of you really know what you are talking about. Heck.. you guys can't even agree on how old the universe is within a few orders of magnitude. Is it 6,000 years old, or 13 billion. At least scientists are only maybe one order of magnitude off... they have a much close agreement on scientific theories than does the Christian community on religious beliefs.
Really.. then you need to talk to the minister that spoke at a funeral I was at on Friday, because he claims that the moment one dies they simultaneously arrive in heaven.
One of you needs to get your story straight. Of course, with over 1,900 different Christian sects, it's hard for me to even believe something like a standard set of 'Christian values' even exists. Heck.. you guys can't even agree on whether or not to eat meat on Friday, or whether abortion is murder.
When all you Christians can get together and agree on just what Christianity is, instead of just claiming that 'your' Christianity is the only right one, let me know so I'll know which 'Christian' church to go visit.
And how far down one is in the power chain determines what their values are. We've just seen what happens when a group of people in power think 'they know what is right for everyone' and will go to any means to install it. Both Republicans and Democrats in the US went nuts trying to implement the health bill language they wanted.
And who decides who gets to be 'in charge' after democracies are shut down?? And since the US and most countries aren't true democracies, I'll assume that what he means is 'no more voting'. I didn't read the interview, but it seems simple to say 'put democracy on hold' when you don't put forth any ideas for determining how to select the people that will be in charge.
So let's take this idea one step further. Tomorrow.. all leaders in in every country who are now 'in charge' will stay that way. They can figure out how to select their predecessors when they step down or die and no more elections.
Explain again why the issues in the last 'climate summit' that degraded into a juvenile 'I'm taking my ball and going home' exchange would be resolved any better. Countries would still be fighting for the upper hand... the third world wants to be able to experience the same growth the rest of the world did so they can experience TV and frozen dinners. The 'civilized world' doesn't want to give up their lifestyle which, by the way, accounts for many of the products the third world wants.
I know.. let's put the UN in charge.. they have such a stellar record of making decisions and reaching agreements. They can just tell the third world they will have to continue to live without running water and stop making so many babies. The rest of us will have to find jobs within walking or biking distance of our home so we don't use gas, walk around naked when it's hot and turn our thermostats down to 55 when it's cold. Since that means a lot of people won't be needed to make things anymore, they will have to be taken care of.
I've been doing this for 30 years.. basic math, algebra, and maybe some trig are all you need for most jobs. Basic statistics is also a good thing to have, but more for testing and analyzing results than for writing code. Do some jobs need them?? Sure.. if you are writing game code and need to do trajectories. Or high level analytics that require lots of statistical analysis. But many jobs are 'I need a TPC report by friday' type jobs that require extracting data from a database, formatting it, and outputting it.
So.. get the education if you can and can afford it, but don't sweat it if you can't. I'm currently working for a firm that does equity analysis for stock decisions. There are PhDs figuring out the statistical models.. I just have to write the code. And most of it is taking data from data sources and putting it into a database for the models to run against. You know.. read a record, insert/update/delete a row in the database. Hardly high-level math stuff. It's nice that I understand what standard deviations, averages, means, etc. are... but someone else tells me where I need to use them because they know the results they want. The type of education I would need to be able to write models from scratch would pigeonhole me into a specific line of work.. and I prefer a more eclectic choice. Oh.. I make a 6 figure income....
That being said.. if there were two programmers of equal stature and one had more music experience or math or physics education, I would choose the musician or math/physics guy. The type of people that are good in those areas seem to also be good at programing. I think it has something to do with spatial and process capabilities and the ability to keep track of code in your head as you are working on it. Or to take all this disparate pieces of code and put them together into something that works.
By another standard, if someone had a degree in chemistry or biology, I probably wouldn't pick them (unless the project needed that type of knowledge). I knew a guy who had a PhD in organic chemistry that was terrible at IT.. he couldn't figure anything out unless it was 100% documented. Those disciplines require someone who has great memory skills, which are helpful in programming but not as good as spatial skills. For some reason, I can't remember faces or chemical formulas, but I can remember all that code. I think it has something to do with process v/s rote memorization. I can remember how something works, I just can't remember the guys name I just talked to.
Motorcycles are not death traps. Morons driving cars are death mobiles. As someone who as AVOIDED numerous crashes (there are no accidents...accidents are unavoidable collisions and most crashes are avoidable), my paranoia also works when I drive a car. It's called 'paying attention'. If more drivers practiced that, there would be fewer crashes for everyone.
Problem is.. most motorcycle riders don't really learn how to ride a bike. They think they can just get on, squeeze the throttle, and take off. My favorite saying is that any moron can ride a motorcycle at 150mph on a straight road.. it's getting it from 150mph to zero quickly that's the hard part.
To be fair.. most people that drive a car don't know what they are doing either. I've read studies that show that an expert driver can stop faster and straighter without anti-lock brakes than with them. In fact, novice drivers often over-react to anti-lock brakes and take their foot OFF the brake because of the funny noise it makes. Besides... anti-lock brakes were not designed to stop a car faster.. they help the moron driver maintain control. As someone who has driven rear-wheel drive cars w/o anti-lock brakes in Maine.. front-wheel drive and anti-lock brakes only make cars safer for someone who hasn't bothered to learn how to drive.
My first comment was disputing the common misconception 'we have enough resolution, why would someone want any more' not 'I only buy crappy cameras... why do I need more crap'. I have four cameras.. my cell, a Canon P&S, and two dSLRs. They each have a purpose.
Except for the cell.. it's damn near useless for anything not because of the lens but because of the noise level in the pictures. I also made mention of that increasing sensitivity in a smaller package would generate more noise. The article noted that these devices would be smaller as well as more sensitive.
Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who takes photographs. It provides better capability to can crop an image to a smaller size, and still have enough resolution to print or display something.
A lot of people just vomit their photos onto Facebook, but many still take the time to do a simple crop/levels/contrast edit. The only people who don't need more megapixels are those that never edit their pictures. And they probably don't care about quality anyway.
Most cameras can take pictures in all but the lowest light levels. I have taken hand-held pictures around a campfire with the proper lens. In fact, this just moves the problem from dark pictures to blown out pictures. Increasing sensitivity without being able to either stop down the lens or to decrease the exposure time is worthless.. daytime pictures come out too bright but you don't need a flash for indoor shots for cheap cell phone cameras.
One issue not mentioned is electronic noise. The closer together you bring elements on a CCD, and the longer the exposure, the more noise that is generated. Poor lens, very small CCDs, and poor camera software are the major causes of poor quality in small cameras. My wife and I have a 14MP and an older 7MP dSLR camera. The 14MP not only provides for the ability to crop, but the noise levels are significantly lower probably due to improved software and electronics. Given the choice, I will grab the 14MP. The images take up more disk space, but it is worth it when it comes time to edit.
It is not an improvement to make a photo-detector smaller and increase the resolution if it can't work in bright sunlight or has a lot of noise at low light levels.
So for now.. I'll mark the article interesting until someone actually produces a working camera that can be tested against current cameras in the same price range.....
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for stating what Barlow missed ... today's problem has nothing to do with the Internet. Today's federal government governs via taxes and black mail. They take money from the citizens of every state, then won't give it back unless states bow to their pressure. And the federal taxes are so high, states can't refuse. This allows the federal government to mandate things like speed limits and educational standards, when those issues should be left to the states and other localities. All this based on 'the common good' clause in the constitution, and not allowing states to decide what the 'common good' is for their residents.
... *most* of my taxes should go directly to my city, then the county, state, and feds with the federal government taxing at the lowest rate. Instead, it is top down .. the feds take the biggest bite and dole it out as they see fit, then the states take another bite and do the same. By the time localities create tax rates, there is very little left because their resident's wallets have already been raped.
.. why not decrease federal highway spending by 70%, and not have to put the money through a federal bureaucracy that just gives it back, but only to projects they approve??? States can then increase their taxes to make up the difference, fix what they think needs to be fixed, and we will need fewer bureaucrats in Washington to administer it.
.. welfare and education come to mind first. By decreasing the dollars going to the feds, their ability to govern by tax blackmail instead of my constitutional authority decreases.
One only has to look at the federal income tax for to see this. Standards of living are different in every state, yet tax rates and deductions are all the same at the federal level. The tax structure is upside down
One way to start to fix this is to reduce the spending habit of the federal government in a controlled manner so that states can pick up the excess. For instance *EVERY* state receives federal highway dollars, which of course is at the whim of the federal government determining who gets what. It's important that states without adequate sources to maintain highways receive assistance, but why then should *EVERY* state??? According to one study, the 'least' amount any state gets is about 70% of what they kicked in. So
The same is true of many programs
What a bunch of bullshit. Feel more superior now??? Feel really good about 'knowing' why I said it was 'sad' without my mentioning why I said that, but jumping to conclusions anyway. Did I say anything about 'Lost' being dumb??
... this sad group of people includes those that will change their relationship on Slashdot to 'foe' simply because someone else said something bad about their favorite TV show. Like Wyatt Earp did below.
I think it's sad that viewers could get so attached to an hourly waste of time that they feel 'compelled' to see every episode instead of waiting for the DVD to come out. How smart of the writers and producers to create a show that is so compelling that they can make the same group of people sit and stare every week for an hour, 20ish times a year, for six years, to see their advertisements. And were smart enough to realize after year three they didn't have to spend the money on 20 because everyone was hooked now, 14 a year would be enough. Then many of those viewers will go buy their DVDs, even when they know that it will all come back out in syndication.
I watch TV from time to time. One or two shows maybe if I'm really bored and have nothing better to do. My brain is too busy to deal with the interruptions (probably ADD), and I refuse to buy a TiVO and pay their monthly fee. Did put in a TV card, but found I didn't watch what I recorded even when I could skip past the commercials. The only reason I have cable is so I can watch Discover and History channels. I rent movies and read books instead. Maybe someday I'll rent the 'Lost' DVD, at least then I won't have to deal with 20 minutes of commercials every episode. When I get the time and have nothing better to do.
Which isn't to say I don't waste my share of time. Sitting back and playing 'Plants v/s Zombies' is a great way to zone out. Because I can play, one or two rounds, then quit and not feel compelled to have to go back tomorrow at the same time and do it again. Used to buy PC games Fallout, but discovered I spent waaaaayyyy too much time playing them. So I stopped.
But what is even sadder
I'd write more, but I have other things to do.
Lost was sold as a way to make money for the networks and advertisers. Sadly, thousands (millions??) of people felt it necessary to watch it.
Fortunately, I was not one of them.
You are absolutely correct. When I was in school, I always scored very high on all the tests so was put into the 'college prep' groups. When I got to high school, I said screw it and only took math and science college prep, because I was good at those, and took the easiest English and shop and other classes that I could get away with to accumulate enough credits to graduate. My guidance councilor wanted me to attend college, I didn't want to and didn't think my parents could afford it, but my senior year she convinced me otherwise and talked me into it. So I stopped taking shop and took a senior English class that I could barely handle. Then went to college in the fall to become a math professor, and hated it. So I only went for one semester. Got a job, bought a TRS-80 because I thought this computer stuff was neat, learned to program, and discovered that you could in fact get a job without a degree, no matter what they told you in high school. By the time my friends graduated with a BA, I was making the same as they were, didn't have any college debt, had four years of work experience, and didn't become a math professor. Today, I earn over $100K and have only taken the college courses I wanted to take to learn what I wanted to learn.
The best things I learned in high school were math and physics and shop. I learned enough English by 9th grade that the stuff in high school really wasn't needed. Today, I would have loved to have taken more history, but it was taught so poorly in high school that I was turned off until my early 40s when I learned that history wasn't just about dates and names and places. I started reading biographies about Benjamin Franklin and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and learned more about the start of the USA than I ever learned in school.
College isn't for smart people. Smart people don't need college to learn. It's a great place to learn, but the truly smart don't need it. It's just more convenient.
College is for the average people who need a piece of paper to convince HR to let them interview. Ok...doctors, lawyers, and a few others need it too. But for the rest of us, trade schools are just fine. We can work AND go to school, then continue our education further at our own pace instead of what some college says we need to take so they can keep all of the professors employed and their expensive buildings paid for. And that nice football stadium which is really useless and has nothing to do with a college education.
Knowing how to code is easy. Using the right tool for the job make's it easy.
Learning to live within the limitations a language has, being willing to learn something new instead of just using the same old hammer, and knowing the difference between doing something useful and something that is 'cool' is why 90% of the web developers find web development hard.
The playground merry-go-rounds are all gone. No longer can you sit on the edge as your sadistic friend spins it around faster and faster, trapped unless you dare to take a leap unto the asphalt or gravel.
And no longer can you spin it around round faster and faster as your masochistic friends all sit, trapped and unable to flee unless they take a daring leap unto the asphalt or gravel.
Merry go rounds -- bringing sadists and masochists together for generations.
Not buying from a company because they exploit child labor is just as valid as not eating at the local spaghetti restaurant because of their corporate vision to glorify god. In each case, the consumer decides to what extent the behavior causes someone else harm, and then decides if they won't buy goods from them because purchasing those goods supports that behavior.
I could give dozens of reasons why perpetuating the belief in god is more harmful to society than child labor.
But I won't stop going to either place because all the reasons are so much philosophical BS and have little to do with socioeconomic realities. Child labor isn't necessarily bad, and religion doesn't have to be harmful.
The average person is not 'getting screwed'. The average person lacks the intelligence or motivation or is too risk adverse to start their own business, that's why they work for other people. So they have to negotiate wages based on the pool of other average people around them.
.. the price goes down until someone buys it. But if everyone wants it, they can command a higher price. I don't know of anyone that said 'oh no .. you don't have to pay me that much, the car isn't worth it' when offered more than they thought it was worth. Or put a car up for sale and actually put down the price they were willing to take. I had a guy buy a junk car from me a couple of months ago ... when asked how much I wanted, I told him $500. He talked me down to $200. Fact is .. I would have given it to him for free just to get rid of it. But I was willing to .. using your terms ... screw him to get all I could for it.
... make it so people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs or their original employees who became rich developing their products have no motivation to get rich. See what it does to the standard of living in the US.
.. my income started to go up and I now live very comfortably. Not rich, but I don't have to eat raman noodles for every meal and have no debt other than my house.
If someone is selling their car on Craig's list and no one wants it
So go ahead
I am an 'average person' and realized a long time ago that I don't have the motivation to become rich and learned to accept it rather than blame other people for my own faults. And then learned how to live on what I could make, instead of what I would like to make or thought I was worth. So I learned how to work with wealthy people and give them the labor they needed to stay that way. A wonderful thing happened
Did you have a point .. or did you just miss mine.....
I used to install my own exhaust pipes, change my own oil, and do other car maintenance. Now that I make 6 figures, I don't do it anymore. Sure .. it's stupid paying someone a couple hundred bucks to do something I could do. But it makes my life easier. And I don't waste 3 hours doing something they can do in an hour because they have lifts and all the right tools.
.. it buys choices. People are still paying to buy cheap-ass headphones and watch movies on planes.....you would think someone that can afford a $400 plane ticket a few times a year could afford a portable DVD player. Or load video on their iPhone. My wife has an iTouch and loaded games and a video on it for a recent plane flight. I noticed there was a charge on the credit card for $6 and asked what it was (because we check our accounts daily to make sure no one has stolen the numbers) and she had bought a movie. I teased her about it, but the reality was she had the $6 and got tired of using the iTouch.
That is what in-car DVD systems do. Mom and dad can just plug in the DVD and go. The kids can't throw the player onto the floor, and it's not a missile in a crash. No one has to plug it or worry about keeping the batteries charged.
It would be easy for me to talk down in-car DVD systems because my kids are all grown and I grew up in the days sitting in the middle in the back seat for hours with three brothers and no seat belts. So I could put on my 'get off my lawn' hat and talk about how easy kids have it these days. But if it helps kids actually enjoy a trip and if it makes mom and dad's life easier to not have to deal with a portable DVD player, then why not.
Money doesn't buy power
I agree with the "don't".. but for a different reason. Let's say the average 'hard' failure is once every two years. That is one station going down about every 5 weeks ((2 years * 52 weeks) / 20 workstations). And unless the failure is a primary hard drive, you can probably swap out the parts.
OS on one drive, data on the other. Back them up. Fix the hardware and restore if necessary. You should be doing the backups anyway....
Anytime there is a failure, you are going to spend a few hours trying to fix it. If your OS is under 20GB, it won't take any time at all to drop in a new hard drive and do the restore. If it's the data drive, it will take longer. Mirror the drives, hard drives are cheap. Or store essential files on the network on a raid-10 device (which gets backed up also).
I love virtualization for web and app servers where you might need to drop in a new one to scale quickly. But it's just not worth it for the desktop for recovery purposes unless you only have a couple different configs. Or everyone is sharing a few massive servers and using VNC (which works for multiple monitors).
Or just back up the virtual image every night and don't worry about it. Tapes and backup disks are damn cheap.
Stop worrying about the 'geek' solution, and pick one that works. Pretend it's your money and time you are wasting.
The judge takes the evidence that is presented and passes judgment. All those cameras also have video recorders, which can be requested by the defendant as evidence (it says so right on the ticket in Arizona .. you have 30 days before it is deleted). The cameras may issue tickets, but it is up to the DAs office to decide whether or not to prosecute. Police arrest, DAs prosecute and call police as witnesses or anyone else they deem to be an 'expert' on the evidence to be presented, and judges adjudicate. Cameras gather evidence, they don't press charges. They are not much different from a security camera catching someone breaking into a building at the same time a robbery took place, except a computer does the initial analysis instead of a person.
.. if the DA decides to prosecute, it is up to the defendant to go to court and prove they are not guilty because the DA is going to try and prove they are guilty. If the defendant doesn't do that, then all the judge has to look at is evidence that says they are guilty, because that's all the DA will offer up.
So yes
ANYONE can request charges be filed against anyone for speeding or running a red light or reckless driving IF they can prove it, there doesn't even have to be a police officer witnessing it. You just have to convince the DAs office there is enough evidence or witnesses to support the claim. So all those idiots out there saying 'you can't take a camera to court' are just full of bullshit. Anyone can file charges, and anyone can present evidence.
It's the way it has worked for a couple of hundred years around here. The type of evidence has changed, but the proceedings really haven't changed all that much.
I've never understood this 'my browser is faster than your browser' attention. Most people use their browser over the Internet, with download speeds that make any computer wait. There is a ton of time processing 3 or 4 threads simultaneously to still draw page components. I see pages show up in a couple of seconds, it takes far more than that to read them.
... once. When I first visit. Then they are discarded every time as I concentrate on the content of the web site.
So a few web sites want to use some fancy graphics. I only see their fancy graphics
Just make the browser work...it's fast enough already.
Look at the full video instead of the propaganda piece. At 2:10, there are what looks like ak47s and a long tube, maybe an RPG. They had been taking fire earlier from RPGs.
It's also an important story when the video emphasizes news cameras by slowing the film down, but doesn't give the same emphasis to the frames showing the RPGs and AK47s being carried and laying around so that the video can be sensationalized.
Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays in order to fast (or at least they used to, that might have changed). Jew don't eat pork, and while not Christian, they do share a common bond in the Old testement and Christians are always touting the ten commandments, which is an old testament story. Mormons abstain from alcohol, caffeine and refined sugar for religions reasons.
.. at least some Christians seem to believe that abortion is not murder. A quick Google search turned up this minister and the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. They seem to feel that abortion isn't murder, and they claim to be Christian. Or is there some committee that has to approve Christian values???
Since only 50% of this country is anti-abortion, and approximately 80% call themselves Christian
Bzzt....not accurate.
.. those laws could be wrong. But until they are show to be wrong, and until there is a reason for heaven to exist, it doesn't really matter. So it's existence is not relevant to my daily life. Nor my death. It's no more than wishful thinking or a fairytale.
One can demonstrate the unlikelihood that something exists. I can't prove flying pink unicorns don't exist, but I can demonstrate that based on evolutionary findings and the necessary wingspan needed for a horse to fly that it is highly unlikely.
It is also highly unlikely that heaven exists. The very narration of Genesis violates the laws of thermodynamics (something from nothing). If heaven does exist, where does it get it's energy?? Where is the energy that keeps a soul going?? 'Where' is heaven?? What physical proof is there that such a thing exists at all, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable, plenty of people have seen pink elephants. Where is the necessary energy that this so called 'god' thing gets to manipulate matter and energy. How is it channeled.
So, while I can't prove that god or heaven doesn't exist, I can argue that there is no need for it in order to explain the universe around us, and that the very nature of heaven as defined by the priests violate the laws of physics as we know it.
Sure
I might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
First, I don't ask him personally because I don't give a shit. You said that 'Contrary to what popular media would have you believe, you don't go to heaven right away after you die.'. Well .. this minister said the very words I stated, the words 'the very second' was in his little sermon, I did not put them in his mouth. So that Christian seems to not agree with you.
.. when all Christians can get together and figure out which sect is right .. please let the rest of us know so we can know what a Christian believes. Until then, I will just have to assume that none of you really know what you are talking about. Heck .. you guys can't even agree on how old the universe is within a few orders of magnitude. Is it 6,000 years old, or 13 billion. At least scientists are only maybe one order of magnitude off ... they have a much close agreement on scientific theories than does the Christian community on religious beliefs.
So you are either not a Christian, or one of you is wrong. It is apparent that at least two Christians do not agree when one goes to heaven. Just like all those Christian sects disagree on so many other things.
So
Really .. then you need to talk to the minister that spoke at a funeral I was at on Friday, because he claims that the moment one dies they simultaneously arrive in heaven.
.. you guys can't even agree on whether or not to eat meat on Friday, or whether abortion is murder.
One of you needs to get your story straight. Of course, with over 1,900 different Christian sects, it's hard for me to even believe something like a standard set of 'Christian values' even exists. Heck
When all you Christians can get together and agree on just what Christianity is, instead of just claiming that 'your' Christianity is the only right one, let me know so I'll know which 'Christian' church to go visit.
There is no reason to explain or prove something that doesn't exist....
And how far down one is in the power chain determines what their values are. We've just seen what happens when a group of people in power think 'they know what is right for everyone' and will go to any means to install it. Both Republicans and Democrats in the US went nuts trying to implement the health bill language they wanted.
.. all leaders in in every country who are now 'in charge' will stay that way. They can figure out how to select their predecessors when they step down or die and no more elections.
... the third world wants to be able to experience the same growth the rest of the world did so they can experience TV and frozen dinners. The 'civilized world' doesn't want to give up their lifestyle which, by the way, accounts for many of the products the third world wants.
.. let's put the UN in charge .. they have such a stellar record of making decisions and reaching agreements. They can just tell the third world they will have to continue to live without running water and stop making so many babies. The rest of us will have to find jobs within walking or biking distance of our home so we don't use gas, walk around naked when it's hot and turn our thermostats down to 55 when it's cold. Since that means a lot of people won't be needed to make things anymore, they will have to be taken care of.
.. just breathing emits CO2....
And who decides who gets to be 'in charge' after democracies are shut down?? And since the US and most countries aren't true democracies, I'll assume that what he means is 'no more voting'. I didn't read the interview, but it seems simple to say 'put democracy on hold' when you don't put forth any ideas for determining how to select the people that will be in charge.
So let's take this idea one step further. Tomorrow
Explain again why the issues in the last 'climate summit' that degraded into a juvenile 'I'm taking my ball and going home' exchange would be resolved any better. Countries would still be fighting for the upper hand
I know
After all
I've been doing this for 30 years .. basic math, algebra, and maybe some trig are all you need for most jobs. Basic statistics is also a good thing to have, but more for testing and analyzing results than for writing code. Do some jobs need them?? Sure .. if you are writing game code and need to do trajectories. Or high level analytics that require lots of statistical analysis. But many jobs are 'I need a TPC report by friday' type jobs that require extracting data from a database, formatting it, and outputting it.
.. get the education if you can and can afford it, but don't sweat it if you can't. I'm currently working for a firm that does equity analysis for stock decisions. There are PhDs figuring out the statistical models .. I just have to write the code. And most of it is taking data from data sources and putting it into a database for the models to run against. You know .. read a record, insert/update/delete a row in the database. Hardly high-level math stuff. It's nice that I understand what standard deviations, averages, means, etc. are ... but someone else tells me where I need to use them because they know the results they want. The type of education I would need to be able to write models from scratch would pigeonhole me into a specific line of work .. and I prefer a more eclectic choice. Oh .. I make a 6 figure income ....
.. if there were two programmers of equal stature and one had more music experience or math or physics education, I would choose the musician or math/physics guy. The type of people that are good in those areas seem to also be good at programing. I think it has something to do with spatial and process capabilities and the ability to keep track of code in your head as you are working on it. Or to take all this disparate pieces of code and put them together into something that works.
.. he couldn't figure anything out unless it was 100% documented. Those disciplines require someone who has great memory skills, which are helpful in programming but not as good as spatial skills. For some reason, I can't remember faces or chemical formulas, but I can remember all that code. I think it has something to do with process v/s rote memorization. I can remember how something works, I just can't remember the guys name I just talked to.
So
That being said
By another standard, if someone had a degree in chemistry or biology, I probably wouldn't pick them (unless the project needed that type of knowledge). I knew a guy who had a PhD in organic chemistry that was terrible at IT
Motorcycles are not death traps. Morons driving cars are death mobiles. As someone who as AVOIDED numerous crashes (there are no accidents...accidents are unavoidable collisions and most crashes are avoidable), my paranoia also works when I drive a car. It's called 'paying attention'. If more drivers practiced that, there would be fewer crashes for everyone.
.. most motorcycle riders don't really learn how to ride a bike. They think they can just get on, squeeze the throttle, and take off. My favorite saying is that any moron can ride a motorcycle at 150mph on a straight road .. it's getting it from 150mph to zero quickly that's the hard part.
.. most people that drive a car don't know what they are doing either. I've read studies that show that an expert driver can stop faster and straighter without anti-lock brakes than with them. In fact, novice drivers often over-react to anti-lock brakes and take their foot OFF the brake because of the funny noise it makes. Besides ... anti-lock brakes were not designed to stop a car faster .. they help the moron driver maintain control. As someone who has driven rear-wheel drive cars w/o anti-lock brakes in Maine .. front-wheel drive and anti-lock brakes only make cars safer for someone who hasn't bothered to learn how to drive.
Problem is
To be fair
My first comment was disputing the common misconception 'we have enough resolution, why would someone want any more' not 'I only buy crappy cameras ... why do I need more crap'. I have four cameras .. my cell, a Canon P&S, and two dSLRs. They each have a purpose.
.. it's damn near useless for anything not because of the lens but because of the noise level in the pictures. I also made mention of that increasing sensitivity in a smaller package would generate more noise. The article noted that these devices would be smaller as well as more sensitive.
Except for the cell
Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who takes photographs. It provides better capability to can crop an image to a smaller size, and still have enough resolution to print or display something.
.. daytime pictures come out too bright but you don't need a flash for indoor shots for cheap cell phone cameras.
.. I'll mark the article interesting until someone actually produces a working camera that can be tested against current cameras in the same price range.....
A lot of people just vomit their photos onto Facebook, but many still take the time to do a simple crop/levels/contrast edit. The only people who don't need more megapixels are those that never edit their pictures. And they probably don't care about quality anyway.
Most cameras can take pictures in all but the lowest light levels. I have taken hand-held pictures around a campfire with the proper lens. In fact, this just moves the problem from dark pictures to blown out pictures. Increasing sensitivity without being able to either stop down the lens or to decrease the exposure time is worthless
One issue not mentioned is electronic noise. The closer together you bring elements on a CCD, and the longer the exposure, the more noise that is generated. Poor lens, very small CCDs, and poor camera software are the major causes of poor quality in small cameras. My wife and I have a 14MP and an older 7MP dSLR camera. The 14MP not only provides for the ability to crop, but the noise levels are significantly lower probably due to improved software and electronics. Given the choice, I will grab the 14MP. The images take up more disk space, but it is worth it when it comes time to edit.
It is not an improvement to make a photo-detector smaller and increase the resolution if it can't work in bright sunlight or has a lot of noise at low light levels.
So for now