What they do, is write quality code, develop innovative hardware, and usually do it under budget and ahead of schedule.
AMEN! I had as my.sig for awhile, "Code cleverness is proportional to facial hair. OTOH, code quality is inversely proportional." I worked with a lot of programmers on both sides, from the stereotypical geek with huge beard and no life to the anti-geek who look like shouldn't be going near computers.
Without question, the "normal" programmers are the ones who produce the quality products. The "hacker" types typically only program to amuse themselves and glorify their own cleverness, rather than paying any attention to quality, readability, deadlines or even usefulness.
This is like saying the best way for newbies to understand a C++ program is for them to decompile it and look at the assembly!
Actually, often the best way to understand a language is to look at the assembly. When I first learned C (15-20 years ago), I looked at the assembly to see exactly what the expressions meant.
I often think that one of the reasons that we see so many bad programmers out there is a lack of experience in assembly. The way software curriculums are laid out are ass-backwards. They start out with the very highest level of abstraction, and work their way down. No other engineering discipline does it that way. Electronics, for examples, starts with the fundamental components of capacitors, resistors, etc. If they were taught the same way, they would start with plugging cards into PCs!
Someday I hope we start teaching software students correctly by starting with assembly language and working their way up.
--
greatest feat "up to that moment"?
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 2
Good God, man, what would be a great feat since then?? It's still the greatest single engineering achievement in history, yes, even over the Pyramids and the Great Wall.
Some may argue that the Pyramids or Great Wall is greater, but I think what makes it the greatest is the organizational complexity, not the technology. It is by far the biggest project ever undertaken by mankind, and they did it successfully. The Pyramids didn't take nearly as many people as many think, and the Great Wall was a very decentralized project that was completed over multiple eras (not that each era's building wasn't impressive!).
Yeah, well, people had the same reaction in the 1700s when people stated that negroes where, in fact, human and not animals. It was simple biological truth. I predict it will be a few years before this simple biological truth will be generally accepted.
the media dubbed him "black" because his skin tones are similar to those of African-Americans.
I disagree. When they refer to his race, they often call him "African-American", which he clearly is not. Also, when someone is referred to as "black", it implies that someone is African-American, not just "black-colored".
but it is significant who the 1st black champion golfer is.
Exactly my point. He is NOT the 1st primarily black champion golfer. He is the 1st primarily Asian champion golfer. What's wrong with that? It's not as if Asians have been traditionally been invited to join those white-only clubs, either. Why is it so necessary to "paint" (so to speak) Tiger as something he's not?
I think Tiger said it best: "What I realized is that even though I'm mathematically Asian -- if anything -- if you have one drop of black blood in the United States, you're black."
Look, I know you're still in High School and everything and can't be expected to be able to make perfect arguments, but was there an argument in there at all? What does community standards have to do with anything?
Bottom line, Librarians have better things to do than watch Internet workstations all day to see if some teenager (such as yourself) left a porn video running.
A filter is just a tool to help keep order in the library/school/whatever.
P.S. Screaming your point doesn't make it any more or less viable. Although, it does tend to indicate that it can't hold up on its own.
...and people have the right to go to a library without being affected by well-meaning ninnies like you as well, do they not?
No, they do not, because your right to "not have to ask the librarian to unlock the computer" (poor baby) do not extended to denying rights to others, such as a little girl being able to walk through the library without being subjected to images of women having sex with animals.
Wrong. The mother's body is biologically intended to 1) keep the mother alive, and 2) propogate the species. That means that the fetus has the biological right to usage of her body. If a woman doesn't want to share her body, then she shouldn't get pregnant. But once she, then too bad. Her body is being used in biological way it was intended. Therefore, her body is jointly owned.
As for your house analogy, that is not applicable because I don't give you permission to crash at my house. A woman gives implied consent to the fetus by having sex, because that is the biological purpose of sex: reproduction.
Uh, this has NOTHING to do with the constitution, first amendment, or anything else. For example, you do not have the right to yell your opinions in a library. It's called being a "public nuisance", even though you are doing it on your oh-so-sacred federally-owned land. And guess what? Libraries don't usually carry "debbie does doggie" magazines, either. Oh my god, what an abridgement of your rights!
And even if there were censorship issues involved, the librarian can override it on request. Perhaps you can explain how the requirement that the librarian unlock the computer is an infrigement of your rights. Perhaps you think the library should be left open 24 hours a day just in case you need to access any materials? Perhaps rare books should be open as well, without requiring permission to access them.
I think the only reason that they try to get it is because they can't.
Or they use it to sexually intimidate girls. It's amazing to me how many Slashdotters are so sympathetic to physical bullying, but are completely oblivious to the psychological bullying of porn.
And, of course, those of us who believe that their little girl should be able to walk through the library without having to watch teenagers leaving animal sex videos running should also feel free to show up to these protests and demonstrate support for filters on public internet access terminals.
Once again, it must be pointed out that:
1. Nobody claims filters are perfect. They don't have to be. An argument that they aren't perfect is no argument.
2. If you want to bypass the filter, you can. Simply ask the librarian. Censorship is not an issue.
3. This is about PUBLIC ACCESS. People have a right to be able to go to the library without being intimidated by teenagers leaving porn around as a "joke".
Again, I encourage anyone who believes in reasonable filtering to show up at these rallies so that we don't risk suffering under the tyranny of the minority.
I've also had my movie ruined by talkers. I've had clueless drivers cut me off while they're yakking to their passenger. People talk loudly to each other at the mall.
Just out of curiosity, why are you "anti-cell phone"? I can understand not wanting one just because you don't make enough calls to really want one, but how can someone be "anti"?
Why do I need the listings? My VCR works just fine without them. Yes, it's nice to be able to have a menu, but it's not worth a whole phone line and outrageous monthly charges for them.
--
Re:Once again, the submitter gets it wrong
on
Calling Out TiVo
·
· Score: 2
Oh yeah, and the other thing was his point that they are difficult to use. Dvorak's point is that the necessary phone line is a pain in the ass, and I couldn't agree more. I'm waiting for a TiVo-type device that I can just use.
--
Re:Your thinking is wrong...
on
Explaining SETI
·
· Score: 1
What happens of only 1 in a billion ships survives radiation storms or from being coated in dark-matter dust or whatever para-scientific jibber jabber stuff may or may not be out there.
Well, you can play "what if" games all day long. Given our current state of knowledge, we don't know of any reason why a species wouldn't propagate through interstellar space. Given the amount of time it takes to populate a galaxy, and the amount of time that we've had for it to happen, then you have to conclude that we've never had aliens able to do it.
To tell you the truth, this just sort of backs up my gut feeling that self-aware life is hugely, insanely improbable. It just doesn't seem like it to us, because we obviously didn't sense the passage of time before we came along to think about the fact that we're here. I think there is probably quite a bit of "life" in the galaxy, but self-aware life is most-likely improbable.
But who knows? Maybe the very first alien race populated the galaxy, decided to move to the black hole in the core, and then blasts any ships that try and move between solar systems so that overpopulation doesn't happen again.
It's perfectly natural for humans and other species to have sex for recreational reasons
I didn't say it wasn't "natural" or anything else. The purpose of sex is reproduction. I mean, duh. What do you think it's for? Why do you think it's pleasurable? Why do you think it dominates every part of our psychology and actions? Because if it didn't, then the species probably would have died out long ago.
Or do you think evolution just gave us a gift and metaphorically said, "Here you go, guys, here's something that's really fun! Yeah, you also do it to reproduce, but that's a side effect of the fact that it's fun! I just thought it would be a good idea to give you something to do."
Well, I hate to break it to you, but people get to make up their own minds about what sex is for. You don't get to decide for them.
People can decide for themselves whether the earth is flat or round as well, but that doesn't change the reality.
Other people owning your body is called slavery, and is outlawed where I live. Two people cannot own the same persons body.
Funny you should bring up slavery. People used to argue that black people weren't really human. The arguments of the time sounded exactly the arguments that people use that fetuses aren't really human.
If a woman doesn't want to give joint ownership of her body, then fine. Don't get pregnant. But once she is, then too bad. Her body is no longer just hers, because there is another person that is using it in a way it was intended, and that's the key point. It's irrelevent what you or anyone thinks, because it's simply how biology works.
Only in your troll world is the purpose of sex only reproduction.
The purpose of sex is reproduction. I never said that one couldn't have sex for recreation, but the purpose of the function is continuation of the species. The fact that it's pleasurable is a side effect to encourage the activity.
By the way, any time you have to call someone a "troll" because you can't refute their argument means you have automatically lost.
Just because you don't have sex for recreation doesn't mean no one else does.
Read what I wrote: "The purpose of sex is reproduction." The pleasurable aspect is just a side effect to encourage the continuation of the species. That you can do it recreationally is irrelevent to the point.
I chose to go take a shower at the gym, knowing full well I might get athlete's foot. See?
The purpose of a shower is not to gain athlete's foot, but the purpose of sex is reproduction. Therefore, if you have sex, then the primary consequence of that action is to possibly create a new life. The process of creating a new life is to have sex, followed by that new life using a host body for the first nine months of growth. In a biological sense, you can't separate the two phases of the process; that's why having sex is giving implicit consent to the utilization of the body.
By that logic, if I "choose" to take a shower at the gym, and contract athlete's foot, I have no right to try to get rid of the athlete's foot, because my body is owned both by myself, and the fungus.
Nope, because you haven't given consent to the fungus to have ownership of your body. A woman gives consent by having sex.
[not to mention that there is a little bit of a value difference between a human life and a fungus...]
Slashdot Mirror
Who was the brave soul who first agreed to that insanity?
Oh my God! They're shining light into people's eyes? What are they, INSANE???
--
What they do, is write quality code, develop innovative hardware, and usually do it under budget and ahead of schedule.
AMEN! I had as my .sig for awhile, "Code cleverness is proportional to facial hair. OTOH, code quality is inversely proportional." I worked with a lot of programmers on both sides, from the stereotypical geek with huge beard and no life to the anti-geek who look like shouldn't be going near computers.
Without question, the "normal" programmers are the ones who produce the quality products. The "hacker" types typically only program to amuse themselves and glorify their own cleverness, rather than paying any attention to quality, readability, deadlines or even usefulness.
Sometimes you can judge a book by the cover.
--
This is like saying the best way for newbies to understand a C++ program is for them to decompile it and look at the assembly!
Actually, often the best way to understand a language is to look at the assembly. When I first learned C (15-20 years ago), I looked at the assembly to see exactly what the expressions meant.
I often think that one of the reasons that we see so many bad programmers out there is a lack of experience in assembly. The way software curriculums are laid out are ass-backwards. They start out with the very highest level of abstraction, and work their way down. No other engineering discipline does it that way. Electronics, for examples, starts with the fundamental components of capacitors, resistors, etc. If they were taught the same way, they would start with plugging cards into PCs!
Someday I hope we start teaching software students correctly by starting with assembly language and working their way up.
--
Good God, man, what would be a great feat since then?? It's still the greatest single engineering achievement in history, yes, even over the Pyramids and the Great Wall.
Some may argue that the Pyramids or Great Wall is greater, but I think what makes it the greatest is the organizational complexity, not the technology. It is by far the biggest project ever undertaken by mankind, and they did it successfully. The Pyramids didn't take nearly as many people as many think, and the Great Wall was a very decentralized project that was completed over multiple eras (not that each era's building wasn't impressive!).
--
Oh, I see.... [backing away]....
Yeah, well, people had the same reaction in the 1700s when people stated that negroes where, in fact, human and not animals. It was simple biological truth. I predict it will be a few years before this simple biological truth will be generally accepted.
--
the media dubbed him "black" because his skin tones are similar to those of African-Americans.
I disagree. When they refer to his race, they often call him "African-American", which he clearly is not. Also, when someone is referred to as "black", it implies that someone is African-American, not just "black-colored".
but it is significant who the 1st black champion golfer is.
Exactly my point. He is NOT the 1st primarily black champion golfer. He is the 1st primarily Asian champion golfer. What's wrong with that? It's not as if Asians have been traditionally been invited to join those white-only clubs, either. Why is it so necessary to "paint" (so to speak) Tiger as something he's not?
I think Tiger said it best: "What I realized is that even though I'm mathematically Asian -- if anything -- if you have one drop of black blood in the United States, you're black."
--
Look, I know you're still in High School and everything and can't be expected to be able to make perfect arguments, but was there an argument in there at all? What does community standards have to do with anything?
Bottom line, Librarians have better things to do than watch Internet workstations all day to see if some teenager (such as yourself) left a porn video running.
A filter is just a tool to help keep order in the library/school/whatever.
P.S. Screaming your point doesn't make it any more or less viable. Although, it does tend to indicate that it can't hold up on its own.
--
His dad is black, American Indian and Caucasian. I'm not sure of the exact percentages.
--
No, they do not, because your right to "not have to ask the librarian to unlock the computer" (poor baby) do not extended to denying rights to others, such as a little girl being able to walk through the library without being subjected to images of women having sex with animals.
--
Absolutely not. It is simple biological truth. See recent discussion if you want to see the rationale: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/04/17/16282 28&cid=480.
--
Wrong. The mother's body is biologically intended to 1) keep the mother alive, and 2) propogate the species. That means that the fetus has the biological right to usage of her body. If a woman doesn't want to share her body, then she shouldn't get pregnant. But once she, then too bad. Her body is being used in biological way it was intended. Therefore, her body is jointly owned.
As for your house analogy, that is not applicable because I don't give you permission to crash at my house. A woman gives implied consent to the fetus by having sex, because that is the biological purpose of sex: reproduction.
--
Uh, this has NOTHING to do with the constitution, first amendment, or anything else. For example, you do not have the right to yell your opinions in a library. It's called being a "public nuisance", even though you are doing it on your oh-so-sacred federally-owned land. And guess what? Libraries don't usually carry "debbie does doggie" magazines, either. Oh my god, what an abridgement of your rights!
And even if there were censorship issues involved, the librarian can override it on request. Perhaps you can explain how the requirement that the librarian unlock the computer is an infrigement of your rights. Perhaps you think the library should be left open 24 hours a day just in case you need to access any materials? Perhaps rare books should be open as well, without requiring permission to access them.
--
I think the only reason that they try to get it is because they can't.
Or they use it to sexually intimidate girls. It's amazing to me how many Slashdotters are so sympathetic to physical bullying, but are completely oblivious to the psychological bullying of porn.
--
And, of course, those of us who believe that their little girl should be able to walk through the library without having to watch teenagers leaving animal sex videos running should also feel free to show up to these protests and demonstrate support for filters on public internet access terminals.
Once again, it must be pointed out that:
1. Nobody claims filters are perfect. They don't have to be. An argument that they aren't perfect is no argument.
2. If you want to bypass the filter, you can. Simply ask the librarian. Censorship is not an issue.
3. This is about PUBLIC ACCESS. People have a right to be able to go to the library without being intimidated by teenagers leaving porn around as a "joke".
Again, I encourage anyone who believes in reasonable filtering to show up at these rallies so that we don't risk suffering under the tyranny of the minority.
--
I've also had my movie ruined by talkers. I've had clueless drivers cut me off while they're yakking to their passenger. People talk loudly to each other at the mall.
What's your point?
--
Just out of curiosity, why are you "anti-cell phone"? I can understand not wanting one just because you don't make enough calls to really want one, but how can someone be "anti"?
--
Why do I need the listings? My VCR works just fine without them. Yes, it's nice to be able to have a menu, but it's not worth a whole phone line and outrageous monthly charges for them.
--
Oh yeah, and the other thing was his point that they are difficult to use. Dvorak's point is that the necessary phone line is a pain in the ass, and I couldn't agree more. I'm waiting for a TiVo-type device that I can just use.
--
What happens of only 1 in a billion ships survives radiation storms or from being coated in dark-matter dust or whatever para-scientific jibber jabber stuff may or may not be out there.
Well, you can play "what if" games all day long. Given our current state of knowledge, we don't know of any reason why a species wouldn't propagate through interstellar space. Given the amount of time it takes to populate a galaxy, and the amount of time that we've had for it to happen, then you have to conclude that we've never had aliens able to do it.
To tell you the truth, this just sort of backs up my gut feeling that self-aware life is hugely, insanely improbable. It just doesn't seem like it to us, because we obviously didn't sense the passage of time before we came along to think about the fact that we're here. I think there is probably quite a bit of "life" in the galaxy, but self-aware life is most-likely improbable.
But who knows? Maybe the very first alien race populated the galaxy, decided to move to the black hole in the core, and then blasts any ships that try and move between solar systems so that overpopulation doesn't happen again.
--
It's perfectly natural for humans and other species to have sex for recreational reasons
I didn't say it wasn't "natural" or anything else. The purpose of sex is reproduction. I mean, duh. What do you think it's for? Why do you think it's pleasurable? Why do you think it dominates every part of our psychology and actions? Because if it didn't, then the species probably would have died out long ago.
Or do you think evolution just gave us a gift and metaphorically said, "Here you go, guys, here's something that's really fun! Yeah, you also do it to reproduce, but that's a side effect of the fact that it's fun! I just thought it would be a good idea to give you something to do."
--
Well, I hate to break it to you, but people get to make up their own minds about what sex is for. You don't get to decide for them.
People can decide for themselves whether the earth is flat or round as well, but that doesn't change the reality.
Other people owning your body is called slavery, and is outlawed where I live. Two people cannot own the same persons body.
Funny you should bring up slavery. People used to argue that black people weren't really human. The arguments of the time sounded exactly the arguments that people use that fetuses aren't really human.
If a woman doesn't want to give joint ownership of her body, then fine. Don't get pregnant. But once she is, then too bad. Her body is no longer just hers, because there is another person that is using it in a way it was intended, and that's the key point. It's irrelevent what you or anyone thinks, because it's simply how biology works.
--
Only in your troll world is the purpose of sex only reproduction.
The purpose of sex is reproduction. I never said that one couldn't have sex for recreation, but the purpose of the function is continuation of the species. The fact that it's pleasurable is a side effect to encourage the activity.
By the way, any time you have to call someone a "troll" because you can't refute their argument means you have automatically lost.
--
Just because you don't have sex for recreation doesn't mean no one else does.
Read what I wrote: "The purpose of sex is reproduction." The pleasurable aspect is just a side effect to encourage the continuation of the species. That you can do it recreationally is irrelevent to the point.
--
I chose to go take a shower at the gym, knowing full well I might get athlete's foot. See?
The purpose of a shower is not to gain athlete's foot, but the purpose of sex is reproduction. Therefore, if you have sex, then the primary consequence of that action is to possibly create a new life. The process of creating a new life is to have sex, followed by that new life using a host body for the first nine months of growth. In a biological sense, you can't separate the two phases of the process; that's why having sex is giving implicit consent to the utilization of the body.
--
By that logic, if I "choose" to take a shower at the gym, and contract athlete's foot, I have no right to try to get rid of the athlete's foot, because my body is owned both by myself, and the fungus.
Nope, because you haven't given consent to the fungus to have ownership of your body. A woman gives consent by having sex.
[not to mention that there is a little bit of a value difference between a human life and a fungus...]
--