And seriously "so some UI designer has something to do"? You find that the open source community has too many UI designers? Because I find the exact opposite to be true.
No. I'm pretty sure you're describing the sort of person who would fork a window manager and make it work for them. I'm describing the people who want computing to have frozen in time. The people whom Gnome 3 will never work for because it will never exactly replicate twm.
You mean the HP that had product placement on Project Runway for 2 years that you couldn't buy in the stores, then did a massive partnership with the show at the same time it decided to jettison all the products it was promoting? That HP? Because the only two things I'd listen to them for advice on is how to make printers or slowly become irrelevant.
You're doing the Yogi Berra thing there. Nobody's using Linux anymore because they destroyed it to make it easier for all the new users.
Linux is used by more people each year. And you're still welcome to spin a distro for yourself circa 1992 if that's what you want. There are still window managers with X-mouse. Why are you using gnome - a modern desktop - if you want a mainframe experience? Just because it "Just works" for you, doesn't mean it "just works" for everyone or that we should stay frozen in time so that a few users don't have to stretch out of their comfort zone.
Socialized. Not social. As in "I have learned how to get along with other people". You can be an extreme introvert who is socialized or an extreme extrovert who no one wants to spend time with because you're a pain in the ass.
You are using yourself and your siblings as an example relative to each other, but have you considered that you might have turned out more socially inept had you been home-schooled?
Look for the places that are in the top-10 places to live. Most of the cool jobs (aka use open source) are there. Try places like NY, San Francisco, Seattle or Austin.
Most parents seem to go by number of affluent white children at a school. And those schools tend to be in big suburbs with large schools where averages tend to smooth out kids out aren't learning.
My kid's in a title 1 inner-city school with a dual language immersion program. The parents I know in the suburbs are complaining about a lack of academic rigor. The parents at my school are complaining about it being too rigorous. I honestly think "choosing a school" might be a symptom of the problem. We should make sure all schools are fantastic. There are diminishing returns to your kid attending a fantastic school if the rest of your countrymen are not. After all, what's the value of your kid inventing the next iPhone if there is nobody to buy it?
And really what exactly is the value of a fantastic elementary school anyway? Are the kids going to learn their basics better, stronger, faster? As an adult I assure you that I love to read and am just as skilled at it as the kids who went to the "good schools" in my town. And quite frankly my state school college education pays me the same as my co-worker who went to MIT.
As long as you don't factor socialization as something schools teach. Which I do. Especially since I was home schooled for 2 years and know many home schooled adults. And no special home schooling outings don't count. The socialization schools provide is being with people you don't like day-in day-out. That's a real life skill.
I'm familiar with Paul's views. What I'm saying is that in the completely free market world, or even in the state's rights world where each state got to establish their own security clearances you would end up with states with air service that would probably have a much more stringent security standard than we have now. You could probably fly between New York, California, Washington, and Texas (which for all its rhetoric is a very regulated state when you're not talking about oil and gas), and the rest would have no air service. Or they'd implement even MORE invasive standards to one-up the New Yorks and Californias to try to lure their airports and thus businesses away.
I see zero market based outcomes where searches become LESS invasive in a free-market system. 1 blown up plane is a lot more expensive to an airline than even 1,000,000 grumpy customers.
Well except that he's a libertarian. Which means he is only opposed to this because it's the government doing it. If it was a private corporation's policy to do cavity searches libertarians say (at least in theory) that they're down with it. Which is why I think most libertarians would stop being libertarians the minute they got the government they say they want.
I prefer the government defined by our founding fathers that means we have to debate these things in the public sphere and the government does its best to come up with something that works for everybody.
I still don't buy that. SUVs have the profit margins which is why the auto makers like them. All the manufacturers make station wagons in other countries, they just don't sell them here because they don't want to cannibalize their profits. CAFE forces their hand.
Really? Automakers would disagree. The market had shifted from large trucks and truck chassis SUVs to car chassis SUVs and economy cars. This was a big factor in their recent troubles.
The poor having SUVs hurts the poor. Government policy has little to nothing to do with it. A gas tax hike and something cash for clunkers would probably do a lot more for the poor than just hoping the price of gas stays low.
You're basically saying let's not enact a policy because we know there will be pain in the short-term. Lets instead wait and see if it becomes a horrible problem that is nearly impossible to solve. We could have war with Iran, and completely screw diplomatic relations with the Saudis and see gas prices quadruple in a couple months. So really the problem gets back to the fact that people are being irresponsible and buying gas guzzlers. And the market wants to sell them to them because they have huge profit margins. This is exactly like the housing bubble. The government can chose to act now, or they can wait until it blows up in their face and voters are demanding the government give them a credit to buy a new car. A slow rise in the gas tax over a decade could very easily slow the pain and change people's choices in a reasonable manner.
And SUVs are only great in adverse marketing conditions. Most truck chassis based SUVs I've encountered have trouble getting over a speed bump.
If consumers should be able to choose what vehicles they want to drive, then they should be able to choose to deal with $7/gallon gas in a car that gets less than 15mpg. I chose to drive a (standard gasoline) car that gets 30mpg because I want to minimize the variability of gas prices on my wallet. I could afford an SUV, but I'm making a choice. As are SUV drivers.
Both parties are not the same. People keep saying "Democrats don't want to cut programs and they want to raise taxes", but consistently time and time again the party that both cut (or raised) taxes responsibly and cut programs have been the Democrats. Sure Obama passed a massive temporary stimulus, but unlike Bush he's also been cutting at fundamental programs in the budget as well, and he's been working to fix Medicare. You may not like the Obamacare bill, but remember rather than fix the problem the last Republican president passed a massive NEW entitlement without the ability to negotiate for lower drug prices. Democrats are not perfect and Republicans aren't all bad, but Democrats have definitely proven over the past couple decades that they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
It's especially hard to deal with Republican rhetoric since they are exactly the ones who are responsible for me knowing that a budget deficit in a recession is often cleared up once you get back into a boom time, and slashing jobs during a recession prolongs the recession. Republican campaign rhetoric taught me that. It's pretty obvious that the Tea Party has one goal and they're willing to give up things like payroll tax cuts to do it - "keep the economy bad so that Obama can't get re-elected". They're willing to keep millions unemployed to achieve that goal. And obviously there's a large part of the mainstream Republican party who doesn't think that way, but there's a strong enough faction of economic terrorists that do. And comparing them to Democrats or even mainstream Republicans is extremely disingenuous.
Yeah, no joke. Honestly Democrats have never had the stomach for dirty tricks. Pointing out facts and video featuring a candidate isn't exactly "dirty". If Anthony Breitbart was heading this up I'm sure it would be a porn site with videos doctored to look like Mr and Mrs Gingrich.
I think for this to be dirty tricks a Democratic SuperPAC would actually have to domain hijack Newt's real website. That seems more in line with dirty tricks like the Watergate Burglary.
If you want fantastic dev tools you have Apple. If you want cross-platform dev tools you have Android. I cannot come up with a reason why you'd be interested in developing for the Windows phone. If they want to overtake Android, Microsoft is going to have to port their awesome dev tools to OSX and Linux. Otherwise it's going to continue to make the most sense for mobile companies to buy an Apple and have their developers develop for Android and IOS on that and ignore Microsoft completely.
It's because the stock market is so pathetic. Economic incentive is to get bought out rather than tempt fate on a stock market that people have lost faith is in any way valuing things correctly. If the stock market were to somehow regain the public trust I bet we'd see far more IPOs and far less buyouts.
Have you considered moving? Do a search on craigslist by various cities and see where the Drupal jobs are. Then move there. It's completely possible that you're just not where the jobs are.
Slashdot Mirror
Because funding comes from Congress that is usually the opposite party of the president?
And seriously "so some UI designer has something to do"? You find that the open source community has too many UI designers? Because I find the exact opposite to be true.
No. I'm pretty sure you're describing the sort of person who would fork a window manager and make it work for them. I'm describing the people who want computing to have frozen in time. The people whom Gnome 3 will never work for because it will never exactly replicate twm.
The only problem is those people are anti-change. So a *new* release of WindowMaker won't work for them either.
You mean the HP that had product placement on Project Runway for 2 years that you couldn't buy in the stores, then did a massive partnership with the show at the same time it decided to jettison all the products it was promoting? That HP?
Because the only two things I'd listen to them for advice on is how to make printers or slowly become irrelevant.
You're doing the Yogi Berra thing there. Nobody's using Linux anymore because they destroyed it to make it easier for all the new users.
Linux is used by more people each year. And you're still welcome to spin a distro for yourself circa 1992 if that's what you want. There are still window managers with X-mouse. Why are you using gnome - a modern desktop - if you want a mainframe experience? Just because it "Just works" for you, doesn't mean it "just works" for everyone or that we should stay frozen in time so that a few users don't have to stretch out of their comfort zone.
Every day. At work. As a developer. For over 6 years now.
I use gnome 3 on 2 monitors with unmaximized windows every day and I love the new task switcher. The Linux community is ridiculously conservative.
Sounds like someone's got a case of wanting to be a product manager instead of a tester.
Socialized. Not social. As in "I have learned how to get along with other people". You can be an extreme introvert who is socialized or an extreme extrovert who no one wants to spend time with because you're a pain in the ass.
You are using yourself and your siblings as an example relative to each other, but have you considered that you might have turned out more socially inept had you been home-schooled?
Look for the places that are in the top-10 places to live. Most of the cool jobs (aka use open source) are there. Try places like NY, San Francisco, Seattle or Austin.
Most parents seem to go by number of affluent white children at a school. And those schools tend to be in big suburbs with large schools where averages tend to smooth out kids out aren't learning.
My kid's in a title 1 inner-city school with a dual language immersion program. The parents I know in the suburbs are complaining about a lack of academic rigor. The parents at my school are complaining about it being too rigorous. I honestly think "choosing a school" might be a symptom of the problem. We should make sure all schools are fantastic. There are diminishing returns to your kid attending a fantastic school if the rest of your countrymen are not. After all, what's the value of your kid inventing the next iPhone if there is nobody to buy it?
And really what exactly is the value of a fantastic elementary school anyway? Are the kids going to learn their basics better, stronger, faster? As an adult I assure you that I love to read and am just as skilled at it as the kids who went to the "good schools" in my town. And quite frankly my state school college education pays me the same as my co-worker who went to MIT.
As long as you don't factor socialization as something schools teach. Which I do. Especially since I was home schooled for 2 years and know many home schooled adults. And no special home schooling outings don't count. The socialization schools provide is being with people you don't like day-in day-out. That's a real life skill.
I'm familiar with Paul's views. What I'm saying is that in the completely free market world, or even in the state's rights world where each state got to establish their own security clearances you would end up with states with air service that would probably have a much more stringent security standard than we have now. You could probably fly between New York, California, Washington, and Texas (which for all its rhetoric is a very regulated state when you're not talking about oil and gas), and the rest would have no air service. Or they'd implement even MORE invasive standards to one-up the New Yorks and Californias to try to lure their airports and thus businesses away.
I see zero market based outcomes where searches become LESS invasive in a free-market system. 1 blown up plane is a lot more expensive to an airline than even 1,000,000 grumpy customers.
When did we "try it both ways" exactly?
Well except that he's a libertarian. Which means he is only opposed to this because it's the government doing it. If it was a private corporation's policy to do cavity searches libertarians say (at least in theory) that they're down with it. Which is why I think most libertarians would stop being libertarians the minute they got the government they say they want.
I prefer the government defined by our founding fathers that means we have to debate these things in the public sphere and the government does its best to come up with something that works for everybody.
I still don't buy that. SUVs have the profit margins which is why the auto makers like them. All the manufacturers make station wagons in other countries, they just don't sell them here because they don't want to cannibalize their profits. CAFE forces their hand.
Really? Automakers would disagree. The market had shifted from large trucks and truck chassis SUVs to car chassis SUVs and economy cars. This was a big factor in their recent troubles.
I base this upon the fact anytime I'm behind an SUV they have to come to nearly a complete stop before driving over.
No clue what the second half of your comment meant.
The poor having SUVs hurts the poor. Government policy has little to nothing to do with it. A gas tax hike and something cash for clunkers would probably do a lot more for the poor than just hoping the price of gas stays low.
You're basically saying let's not enact a policy because we know there will be pain in the short-term. Lets instead wait and see if it becomes a horrible problem that is nearly impossible to solve. We could have war with Iran, and completely screw diplomatic relations with the Saudis and see gas prices quadruple in a couple months. So really the problem gets back to the fact that people are being irresponsible and buying gas guzzlers. And the market wants to sell them to them because they have huge profit margins. This is exactly like the housing bubble. The government can chose to act now, or they can wait until it blows up in their face and voters are demanding the government give them a credit to buy a new car. A slow rise in the gas tax over a decade could very easily slow the pain and change people's choices in a reasonable manner.
And SUVs are only great in adverse marketing conditions. Most truck chassis based SUVs I've encountered have trouble getting over a speed bump.
If consumers should be able to choose what vehicles they want to drive, then they should be able to choose to deal with $7/gallon gas in a car that gets less than 15mpg. I chose to drive a (standard gasoline) car that gets 30mpg because I want to minimize the variability of gas prices on my wallet. I could afford an SUV, but I'm making a choice. As are SUV drivers.
Both parties are not the same. People keep saying "Democrats don't want to cut programs and they want to raise taxes", but consistently time and time again the party that both cut (or raised) taxes responsibly and cut programs have been the Democrats. Sure Obama passed a massive temporary stimulus, but unlike Bush he's also been cutting at fundamental programs in the budget as well, and he's been working to fix Medicare. You may not like the Obamacare bill, but remember rather than fix the problem the last Republican president passed a massive NEW entitlement without the ability to negotiate for lower drug prices. Democrats are not perfect and Republicans aren't all bad, but Democrats have definitely proven over the past couple decades that they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
It's especially hard to deal with Republican rhetoric since they are exactly the ones who are responsible for me knowing that a budget deficit in a recession is often cleared up once you get back into a boom time, and slashing jobs during a recession prolongs the recession. Republican campaign rhetoric taught me that. It's pretty obvious that the Tea Party has one goal and they're willing to give up things like payroll tax cuts to do it - "keep the economy bad so that Obama can't get re-elected". They're willing to keep millions unemployed to achieve that goal. And obviously there's a large part of the mainstream Republican party who doesn't think that way, but there's a strong enough faction of economic terrorists that do. And comparing them to Democrats or even mainstream Republicans is extremely disingenuous.
Yeah, no joke. Honestly Democrats have never had the stomach for dirty tricks. Pointing out facts and video featuring a candidate isn't exactly "dirty". If Anthony Breitbart was heading this up I'm sure it would be a porn site with videos doctored to look like Mr and Mrs Gingrich.
I think for this to be dirty tricks a Democratic SuperPAC would actually have to domain hijack Newt's real website. That seems more in line with dirty tricks like the Watergate Burglary.
If you want fantastic dev tools you have Apple. If you want cross-platform dev tools you have Android. I cannot come up with a reason why you'd be interested in developing for the Windows phone. If they want to overtake Android, Microsoft is going to have to port their awesome dev tools to OSX and Linux. Otherwise it's going to continue to make the most sense for mobile companies to buy an Apple and have their developers develop for Android and IOS on that and ignore Microsoft completely.
It's because the stock market is so pathetic. Economic incentive is to get bought out rather than tempt fate on a stock market that people have lost faith is in any way valuing things correctly. If the stock market were to somehow regain the public trust I bet we'd see far more IPOs and far less buyouts.
Have you considered moving? Do a search on craigslist by various cities and see where the Drupal jobs are. Then move there. It's completely possible that you're just not where the jobs are.