Southern Democrats. And when they were finally forced to treat "negroes" like human beings, they heeded that siren's calls known as "Nixon's Southern Strategy" and switch to the Republican party, turning the Deep South red ever since.
If you disagree with what I just said (pretty much a quote from historical facts), then put your money where your mouth is and show me how this historical narrative is wrong.
Until then, everything you say is just rhetorical bullshit. Kinda like people saying that the Civil War was not about Slavery but State Rights (while omitting the fucking fact that the primary right under contest was the the right to own people as cattle.) Revisionist motherfuckers.
1. In the DOE/DOD related sectors (and equivalent sectors in say, France, Russia or Japan) a systems engineer is a specific specialization field related to the design and architecture of systems integrating other branches of engineering (software, hardware, mechanical, chemical, whatever). This includes specific protocols for such designs, architectures, testing plans, management, etc. This is the realm of systems of systems. Think submarines, rockets and shit like that.
2. In the commercial sector (in particular in the enterprise), a systems engineer is a much more informal role primarily in charge of L3 application support and managed server (JEE/.NET/) administration, systems administration and possibly network administration, deployment, planning and troubleshooting and sometimes hardware/software acquisition. He/she would act as liaisons between developers and full-time system and network administrators. These types of roles have been merging into more formal definitions within the concept of DevOps.
The title name may mean something else (or nothing at all) in other countries or languages.
Except the treaty we signed back then is totally different to the situation now. We've had the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty since - none of which were put to the people in a referendum.
Well, I guess with this new Parliament-related development, and with far more information about what a Brexit entails and how little leadership Farage and whats-his-fuck-face-name provided in the aftermath, the UK can have another referendum THAT INCLUDES all those UK citizens that are currently living in the continental EU (and who will be affected the most.)
If the cause is right and if the support is solid, Brexiters should have no worries about conducting one.
It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Suuuuuuure.
Do you realize that the more educated the Briton was, the more that he/she voted to stay, right? I mean, this claim I'm making is fucking quantifiable.
Air Force Says F-35 Glitches Mean the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely'
This reminds me of the JTRS program and Boeing GMR in particular. This is all thanks to the joint-acquisition mindset that you must build some all encompassing shit that is to do everything for everyone. This goes again all normal notions of sound engineering.
I suggest you read about JTRS and GMR if you haven't (feast yer eyes and weep at the sheer stupidity of it.): http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Having worked in defense (albeit just for a few years), I can attest this shit is all too common. Another one is putting all types of COTS and cobble them together even when they aren't meant to be.
The notion of limiting scope does not exists. Now, it is all fun and traditional to blame defense contractors. To a point, they are. But the biggest culprit is the DoD itself. It sets up incredibly bizantine requirements, forces contractors to divvy-up work in ways that, when coupled with clearance levels, it makes information sharing nearly impossible and costly. Worst of all, it always leaves the door open to increase the scope of shit. Always.
So it is inevitable that contractors end up with project overruns. Now, contractors are already geared to feast on that shit till they are fat (the law of unintended consequences). But the blame sits squarely with the DoD's way of acquiring shit, and joint-acquisition mentality specifically.
It is always better to build tools with specific purposes and scopes and orchestrate them as needed than trying to build the ultimate kitchen-sink uber-toaster. Not for the DoD, though.
I fear that for a long time we were able to pull some good shit despite all of it just by throwing money on it. But times have changed, and we can barely afford to do that anymore.
Either we wise the fuck up, or someone else is eventually going to eat our lunch.
In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it.
Do you own land? Do you think you own the mineral rights to your land if you do? If it's ever determined that there may be valuable mineral resources under your land and someone wants to mine them, you're in for a rude awakening.
Unless your land was purchased in a residential area with HOA bylaws that prohibit mining operations (that is, if you entered into a covenant with a private land owning/land managing entity in which you, on your own free will, agreed not to pursue mining operations), what's underneath belongs to you.
Even in the aforementioned case of signing a purchase agreement that forbids mining (pretty much the contract I signed when I purchased my house), I own what's underneath. I simply cannot access to it (which is no different from me not being able to run a factory on my home within our gated community.
The state can require licenses and permissions to perform mining and require safety expenditures up front. But there is nothing as a law enacted and enforced by a state or the US federal government that says I do not own minerals on land I own.
Reading and doing. Once you accrue a certain amount of expertise, there is really not much that you do in terms of training. You simply read.
Now, there are exceptions when it comes to using new tools or when switching to completely different domains.
If you have been an embedded developer all your life, you will require some specific tool training to become a JEE developer (and viceversa.) But the bulk of programming is based on principles that people simply acquire and master as they become old ponies in this rodeo.
At that point, it's just reading and reading and reading.
Are you suggesting that there is nothing of significant value in terms of technology and know-how in the F-35 program? Nothing, nothing at all? Or that if there is something, the ROI is just not enough to warrant salvage?
Please pray tell with citations.
* Now, I'm not suggesting to keep going forward with the F-35, but the notion that everything is a waste (or without value), it simply defies logic.
As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.
Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.
Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.
What's wrong with geting at least some ROI even if it is not ideal? That is lost money that people worked hard for and it may not be ideal but, at least that option should be weighed.
Also, the emotional/logical argument is excessive spending on the latest go gadgets got you into this mess with the sunken cost right? Perhaps, that is not the solution but the problem!
If the sunken costs were dumped chasing the latest and greatest then the answer is stop doing the very things with greater sunken costs later but re-analyze why?
Agreed. We should not scrap everything. The whole/final product might be shit, but there is a lot of tech and know-how developed along the way. It would be stupid to think that there is no value left to extract (though I do think we should just stop working in this joint-acquisition boondoggle.)
I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was
Were you born yesterday? All major powers have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2.
Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.
The internet was NOT British invented, the web was. And you're uneducated if you think the two words are even remotely interchangeable.
I know. It is quite revealing of this current crop of slashdotters that they cannot tell the difference between the two. But hey, it's all the same, the web, the internet, computers. It's all a series of tubes!!!!
You are an idiot if you think "that safe and technology loaded western lifestyle" has even meaning in the vast majority of the World.
America, as any dominating nation, fucks up the World to protect its interests. Don't be naive as to think America is doing everyone a favor or something like that.
As a person who was born in a 3rd world shithole, I can assure you, you are wrong. Sure, there are people who still prefer to live in mud and shit as long as their "traditions" are respected. But a lot more would love to live a decent 1st world life, which, whether you like it or not, has been significantly shaped by western civilization (and American civilization in particular.)
Obviously America has fucked up in many cases, and a lot of people have suffered because of it. But it is idiotic to think all is bad and evil and that there are no redeemable qualities that most people would die (or kill) to enjoy.
anyone who calls someone an asshole generally is one themselves
Some assholes are better than others.
A person who discriminates another by race is an asshole. If calling such a person an asshole makes me an asshole, so be it. Someone has to spell shit out for the lowbrow crowd.
No problem of this nature is fixed by forcing people to change. The only way is to stick it out in the hostile environment until you are a majority. Then you can change the situation simply by acting differently. When you're the majority, you set the tone.
That's assuming there's a problem to begin with, of course.
The Civils Right movement says otherwise. Sometimes you have to force people to be less of an asshole.
I've worked in IT for over 2 decades. This may have existed back in the late 80's, possibly even into the very early 90's, but since about 1995 has been a fallacy perpetrated by those with an agenda to cast this industry as somehow sexist or backwards. If there are any people left who are still truly hostile to females in IT that haven't been weeded out through attrition, harassment claims, or other HR procedures, they must be really good at hiding how they truly feel and therefore it isn't really an issue anymore.
Stop being disingenuous and perpetrating "what if" scenarios to further a divisive agenda you know is going to lose, anyway.
I tend to agree with you that harassment in the workplace is significantly less than what it used to be. The stigma still lingers, however. It doesn't help when geeks make presentations with sexual parts in conferences, either (and no, the answer is not to develop humor or grow thicker skin, but to be less of a pervert.)
Harassment in academia and in other STEM fields still exists, and it is serious enough to make students switch careers and not pursue work in Academia. I've seen it.
I don't understand why they should be "encouraged" to study computer science to just keep up some random statistic vs. encouraging them to do whatever their hearts tell them they should be doing? Stories like this make me so angry because it casts women as unable to decide for themselves and we should be "correcting" their life choices. Whatever...
It is not just to keep up some random statistic. Software careers are among the most profitable, and when a segment of society does not participate in them, society as a whole suffer.
I do agree that the word "encourage" is a bit mystifying. But it is important since there is not enough done from elementary to HS to show that a career in STEM (not just software) is open to anyone, not just boys.
Furthermore, it is important to understand why STEM is so difficult for women. I know for a fact that there is a shitload of harassment, specially in Academia (I've seen it.)
That will make any woman say "fuck it!". Not so much in software, but in other hard sciences like Math and Biology. The solution is not to say "grow a thicker skin", but to be more decent (or rather, less creepy and grabby.)
The problem was the crowded Republican field, and the noisiest got a higher percentage, egged on by the media who not only supports Hillary but sold lots of newspapers and air time.
As a life-long Republican (not for long, I send an voter update to change to independent), I don't buy this. The noisest got a higher percentage because a higher percentage of the constituency are stupid. This is not kindergarten when the teacher ask who can scream "me!" the loudest.
This is a replay of what I saw in 2012, but just worse. Whatever I used to identify myself in the GOP, that's gone, gone for good, eaten inside out by a cancer since 2008, but with cysts growing all over it for the last 20 years.
There is nothing there to salvage, and the constituency has become stupider (or they were stupid all along, but now they have found their voice via the Donald.) Like dodos marching off a cliff, good riddance!
Part of it is idiots crossing party lines to vote for the "easiest to beat" candidate in the party they don't plan to actually vote with in the general.
I get the idea of "strategic" voting, but for the love of freedom, please only do that by voting for "least bad" in the general, rather than sabotaging All of us In the primaries.
Bullshit. Intra-party results in closed primary states mirrored those of the country as a while. There is a lot to debate how Clinton won over Sanders, but there is no debate there were a whole bunch of idiots on the other side of the fence who ENTHUSIASTICALLY went for Trump, hook, line and sinker.
One has to wonder the type of bubble one must live in to buy into that kind of tripe.
Maybe it is because people who pay $700 for their phone and then see someone else who got a phone for under $100 are damn well determined to justify their choice. Even if it has an Intel chip in it rather than a Qualcomm chip.
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
Democrats are the party that made Jim Crow.
Southern Democrats. And when they were finally forced to treat "negroes" like human beings, they heeded that siren's calls known as "Nixon's Southern Strategy" and switch to the Republican party, turning the Deep South red ever since.
If you disagree with what I just said (pretty much a quote from historical facts), then put your money where your mouth is and show me how this historical narrative is wrong.
Until then, everything you say is just rhetorical bullshit. Kinda like people saying that the Civil War was not about Slavery but State Rights (while omitting the fucking fact that the primary right under contest was the the right to own people as cattle.) Revisionist motherfuckers.
Senior System Engineer?
In the US, system engineer has two connotations:
The title name may mean something else (or nothing at all) in other countries or languages.
Except the treaty we signed back then is totally different to the situation now. We've had the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty since - none of which were put to the people in a referendum.
Well, I guess with this new Parliament-related development, and with far more information about what a Brexit entails and how little leadership Farage and whats-his-fuck-face-name provided in the aftermath, the UK can have another referendum THAT INCLUDES all those UK citizens that are currently living in the continental EU (and who will be affected the most.)
If the cause is right and if the support is solid, Brexiters should have no worries about conducting one.
It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Suuuuuuure.
Do you realize that the more educated the Briton was, the more that he/she voted to stay, right? I mean, this claim I'm making is fucking quantifiable.
And yet when you get down to it, it's always the progressives and liberals who turn violent when they don't get their way.
Every time.
Civil Rights people disagree with you.
Air Force Says F-35 Glitches Mean the A-10 Will Keep Flying 'Indefinitely'
This reminds me of the JTRS program and Boeing GMR in particular. This is all thanks to the joint-acquisition mindset that you must build some all encompassing shit that is to do everything for everyone. This goes again all normal notions of sound engineering.
I suggest you read about JTRS and GMR if you haven't (feast yer eyes and weep at the sheer stupidity of it.): http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Having worked in defense (albeit just for a few years), I can attest this shit is all too common. Another one is putting all types of COTS and cobble them together even when they aren't meant to be.
The notion of limiting scope does not exists. Now, it is all fun and traditional to blame defense contractors. To a point, they are. But the biggest culprit is the DoD itself. It sets up incredibly bizantine requirements, forces contractors to divvy-up work in ways that, when coupled with clearance levels, it makes information sharing nearly impossible and costly. Worst of all, it always leaves the door open to increase the scope of shit. Always.
So it is inevitable that contractors end up with project overruns. Now, contractors are already geared to feast on that shit till they are fat (the law of unintended consequences). But the blame sits squarely with the DoD's way of acquiring shit, and joint-acquisition mentality specifically.
It is always better to build tools with specific purposes and scopes and orchestrate them as needed than trying to build the ultimate kitchen-sink uber-toaster. Not for the DoD, though.
I fear that for a long time we were able to pull some good shit despite all of it just by throwing money on it. But times have changed, and we can barely afford to do that anymore.
Either we wise the fuck up, or someone else is eventually going to eat our lunch.
that's the birthright of all mankind
Just because something exists doesn't mean it's a birthright for everyone.
Just because something is a resource doesn't mean anyone is able to use it.
The few control it because that's what they are good at. Finding something is somewhat trivial compared to making use of it.
I suggest you learn about the Is/Ought fallacy.
In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it.
Do you own land? Do you think you own the mineral rights to your land if you do? If it's ever determined that there may be valuable mineral resources under your land and someone wants to mine them, you're in for a rude awakening.
Unless your land was purchased in a residential area with HOA bylaws that prohibit mining operations (that is, if you entered into a covenant with a private land owning/land managing entity in which you, on your own free will, agreed not to pursue mining operations), what's underneath belongs to you.
Even in the aforementioned case of signing a purchase agreement that forbids mining (pretty much the contract I signed when I purchased my house), I own what's underneath. I simply cannot access to it (which is no different from me not being able to run a factory on my home within our gated community.
The state can require licenses and permissions to perform mining and require safety expenditures up front. But there is nothing as a law enacted and enforced by a state or the US federal government that says I do not own minerals on land I own.
What Training Helps Older Programmers Most?
Reading and doing. Once you accrue a certain amount of expertise, there is really not much that you do in terms of training. You simply read.
Now, there are exceptions when it comes to using new tools or when switching to completely different domains.
If you have been an embedded developer all your life, you will require some specific tool training to become a JEE developer (and viceversa.) But the bulk of programming is based on principles that people simply acquire and master as they become old ponies in this rodeo.
At that point, it's just reading and reading and reading.
You assume gains have been made.
Are you suggesting that there is nothing of significant value in terms of technology and know-how in the F-35 program? Nothing, nothing at all? Or that if there is something, the ROI is just not enough to warrant salvage?
Please pray tell with citations.
* Now, I'm not suggesting to keep going forward with the F-35, but the notion that everything is a waste (or without value), it simply defies logic.
As background, here's how to avoid the sunk cost fallacy. In accounting one should evaluate the cost/benefits by weighing both choices going forward. Money spent in the past should be ignored in the calculations because that cannot be changed.
Human nature has a tendency to favor options that one has invested a lot of time or money in. But that's often a mistake, kind of like grading on effort instead of merit.
Thus, the question is, if we scrapped the F-35 now, would we get a better military for the same money than if we kept it. The fact that lots has been invested in the past should be ignored.
What's wrong with geting at least some ROI even if it is not ideal? That is lost money that people worked hard for and it may not be ideal but, at least that option should be weighed.
Also, the emotional/logical argument is excessive spending on the latest go gadgets got you into this mess with the sunken cost right? Perhaps, that is not the solution but the problem!
If the sunken costs were dumped chasing the latest and greatest then the answer is stop doing the very things with greater sunken costs later but re-analyze why?
Agreed. We should not scrap everything. The whole/final product might be shit, but there is a lot of tech and know-how developed along the way. It would be stupid to think that there is no value left to extract (though I do think we should just stop working in this joint-acquisition boondoggle.)
I could certainly see us fighting Russia or China in a proxy fight in my lifetime, much like Vietnam was
Were you born yesterday? All major powers have been fighting proxy wars since the end of WW2.
Nothing of the scale seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. I grew up in the cold war, right in the middle of one of those proxy wars. There has been nothing approaching any of that shit since 1989.
Syria invited the Russians.
Assad did. LMFTFY.
The internet was NOT British invented, the web was. And you're uneducated if you think the two words are even remotely interchangeable.
I know. It is quite revealing of this current crop of slashdotters that they cannot tell the difference between the two. But hey, it's all the same, the web, the internet, computers. It's all a series of tubes!!!!
The web was invented by tim berniers lee, a brit working in cern, a european city.
Based on ARPANET.
You are an idiot if you think "that safe and technology loaded western lifestyle" has even meaning in the vast majority of the World.
America, as any dominating nation, fucks up the World to protect its interests. Don't be naive as to think America is doing everyone a favor or something like that.
As a person who was born in a 3rd world shithole, I can assure you, you are wrong. Sure, there are people who still prefer to live in mud and shit as long as their "traditions" are respected. But a lot more would love to live a decent 1st world life, which, whether you like it or not, has been significantly shaped by western civilization (and American civilization in particular.)
Obviously America has fucked up in many cases, and a lot of people have suffered because of it. But it is idiotic to think all is bad and evil and that there are no redeemable qualities that most people would die (or kill) to enjoy.
So babies are assholes: http://www.latimes.com/science...
They are good assholes.
anyone who calls someone an asshole generally is one themselves
Some assholes are better than others.
A person who discriminates another by race is an asshole. If calling such a person an asshole makes me an asshole, so be it. Someone has to spell shit out for the lowbrow crowd.
anyone who calls someone an asshole generally is one themselves
Some assholes are better than others.
No problem of this nature is fixed by forcing people to change. The only way is to stick it out in the hostile environment until you are a majority. Then you can change the situation simply by acting differently. When you're the majority, you set the tone.
That's assuming there's a problem to begin with, of course.
The Civils Right movement says otherwise. Sometimes you have to force people to be less of an asshole.
I've worked in IT for over 2 decades. This may have existed back in the late 80's, possibly even into the very early 90's, but since about 1995 has been a fallacy perpetrated by those with an agenda to cast this industry as somehow sexist or backwards. If there are any people left who are still truly hostile to females in IT that haven't been weeded out through attrition, harassment claims, or other HR procedures, they must be really good at hiding how they truly feel and therefore it isn't really an issue anymore.
Stop being disingenuous and perpetrating "what if" scenarios to further a divisive agenda you know is going to lose, anyway.
I tend to agree with you that harassment in the workplace is significantly less than what it used to be. The stigma still lingers, however. It doesn't help when geeks make presentations with sexual parts in conferences, either (and no, the answer is not to develop humor or grow thicker skin, but to be less of a pervert.)
Harassment in academia and in other STEM fields still exists, and it is serious enough to make students switch careers and not pursue work in Academia. I've seen it.
I don't understand why they should be "encouraged" to study computer science to just keep up some random statistic vs. encouraging them to do whatever their hearts tell them they should be doing? Stories like this make me so angry because it casts women as unable to decide for themselves and we should be "correcting" their life choices. Whatever...
It is not just to keep up some random statistic. Software careers are among the most profitable, and when a segment of society does not participate in them, society as a whole suffer.
I do agree that the word "encourage" is a bit mystifying. But it is important since there is not enough done from elementary to HS to show that a career in STEM (not just software) is open to anyone, not just boys.
Furthermore, it is important to understand why STEM is so difficult for women. I know for a fact that there is a shitload of harassment, specially in Academia (I've seen it.)
That will make any woman say "fuck it!". Not so much in software, but in other hard sciences like Math and Biology. The solution is not to say "grow a thicker skin", but to be more decent (or rather, less creepy and grabby.)
The problem was the crowded Republican field, and the noisiest got a higher percentage, egged on by the media who not only supports Hillary but sold lots of newspapers and air time.
As a life-long Republican (not for long, I send an voter update to change to independent), I don't buy this. The noisest got a higher percentage because a higher percentage of the constituency are stupid. This is not kindergarten when the teacher ask who can scream "me!" the loudest.
This is a replay of what I saw in 2012, but just worse. Whatever I used to identify myself in the GOP, that's gone, gone for good, eaten inside out by a cancer since 2008, but with cysts growing all over it for the last 20 years.
There is nothing there to salvage, and the constituency has become stupider (or they were stupid all along, but now they have found their voice via the Donald.) Like dodos marching off a cliff, good riddance!
Part of it is idiots crossing party lines to vote for the "easiest to beat" candidate in the party they don't plan to actually vote with in the general.
I get the idea of "strategic" voting, but for the love of freedom, please only do that by voting for "least bad" in the general, rather than sabotaging All of us In the primaries.
Bullshit. Intra-party results in closed primary states mirrored those of the country as a while. There is a lot to debate how Clinton won over Sanders, but there is no debate there were a whole bunch of idiots on the other side of the fence who ENTHUSIASTICALLY went for Trump, hook, line and sinker.
One has to wonder the type of bubble one must live in to buy into that kind of tripe.
Maybe it is because people who pay $700 for their phone and then see someone else who got a phone for under $100 are damn well determined to justify their choice. Even if it has an Intel chip in it rather than a Qualcomm chip.
My thoughts exactly.