I always thought it was to make keyboards look like typewriters.
If keyboards were made to be good for typing, they would look more like the Truly Ergonomic keyboard, which I own and like. It's not quite perfect, but it's pretty close and has these popular Cherry switches.
Windows 7 is not a perfectly fine OS, nor was 2000. They each sucked less than some other versions, but were still way below the threshold of usability. Microsoft never pulled its head out of the ground with respect to Windows, and they never will.
Unix is the only operating system which is above the threshold of usability. Choose your favorite version of Unix, it's the best you can do. If it's not Unix, it's not worth your time.
I guess no, you're not a nerd, if you arrived at the end of your comment and still consider Windows.
Other operating systems have problems, but only Windows is built to be 100% problems in every way. Windows PC for $400? Okay, so that's $500 more than its worth. Mac is $1100? Okay, that's $300 more than it's worth.
For the record, I recommend Macs ONLY for grandmas. I think they are good machines gone awry, like you do. Anyone who doesn't need Mac's warm embrace should scrape by with Linux (or whatever Unix you like), because like I said there is no viable third option. All the third options are unviable.
Hey, nothing is perfect, but Windows is total shit. We don't say that just because Mother Theresa was imperfect means she can be fairly grouped with Vlad the Impaler. Windows stands on its own, a far outlier of crappiness, vastly beyond the mediocreness of other operating systems.
Good point, but I mean net value to society. Some heart surgeries, while nice, can't make up for the incredible disservice he has done to our nation with his disgusting, self-interested campaign of nonsense misinformation.
Yeah but an IT support dweeb isn't a nerd. Nerds have better sense than that, enough to judge platforms for what they are. I wouldn't put my mom on OS/2 Warp in 2013, and I wouldn't put my mom on Windows in 2013. Let me spill out a little prejudice here: any nerd who doesn't hate Windows isn't a nerd.
Seriously. Moving to a Mac isn't an option? Well then move to an Etch-a-Sketch, because Windows isn't an option unless you hate your mother and yourself.
If you bother the police with bullshit complaints, the police don't respond by going after the organization you are complaining about. Phone books are like littering only insofar as a plane flying 30,000 feet over your house is a violation of your personal airspace.
You made that mistake because you relied on your understanding of technology. You won't repeat this mistake if you become an ignorant jackass like the people implementing this CAS nonsense.
I suppose so, but I prefer the phrasing "humans will always desire to participate in human culture". Is it legitimate to permanently legally lock up most products of human culture so that most humans can't access them? In my opinion, no, that is not legitimate. Given the prevalence of downloading such cultural products, my opinion seems to be widely shared.
A balanced approach would be a ten-year non-extendable non-free non-automatic commercial copyright available on complete works to original authors.
* Non-free, non-automatic means you have to register your work and pay a fee. * Commercial means that copyright protects commerce meaning non-commercial use cannot be construed as infringement. * Complete works means sampling and collage cannot be construed as infringement. * Original authors means the actual human beings who created the work; "works for hire" would not be a concept, because a company is not a human so a company by definition cannot "create" anything.
You are right: even traitors have Constitutional rights. I say let's get him convicted as quickly as possible so we can execute him for the Constitutional crime of treason.
If you "get a deal" or do "talks on acquisition" you haven't made anything. You aren't a maker, you are a taker. All that activity you do all day long, at the end of the day look down into the box where you put what you made and the box is empty. There is nothing in the box. You aren't a maker, you are a taker. That's all well and good but since you aren't actually adding anything to the economy the amount that you take out of the economy should be very small, certainly smaller than anyone who actually makes things. So, take your lowest paid employee, subtract a small bit from his pay, and that's about what you deserve as CEO.
If you want to receive things from the economy, you should put things into the economy. Not fake things, not "talks" or "deals" or "stocks" or "arguments", but things. Otherwise you are a leech sucking the value out of the makers.
English, history, civics, and math -- yes. Thank you for listing a few examples. Exactly right, all of those help.
Also, even more important, the trade school classes, which are also post-high-school education. Here's a link to a page talking about "dental hygiene colleges". Note that it says you need a diploma from a dental hygiene college, hence "dental hygienists certainly benefit from a college education". Thank you, again, you pointed out how high school diplomas aren't good enough these days. Thanks for making my point stronger.
Fuck, it is incredibly frustrating to be sitting here defending education. Am I debating with a bunch of fucking Republicans or something? Who the fuck else opposes education? I know Slashdot ideologues get their jollies from opposing conventional wisdom, but you guys are going to try to oppose education? Mothershit, that is stupid.
Yeah. Poor people who try to live like middle-class people are making a big mistake. It might be too late for you. Let your story be a lesson to others! Your problem isn't an inability to afford college but rather an inability to even borrow the money to pay for college because your current debt load might make you ineligible for regular student loans. If not, though, then education is still a good way to pay off that 20k+tuition.
Likewise studying for your PhD doesn't mean you aren't doing unskilled labor. If you are doing full-time work and earning 20k per year, then it's hard to imagine you are doing a skilled job. My guess is you are doing less than full-time work (typical for graduate students) or are in a job which has non-monetary pay, such as experience as a journeyman lecturer (also typical for graduate students).
But it's true that there are exceptions. Volunteer work is a trivial example.
Do the math again. Think harder about it this time.
If you have the college degree you are earning a margin enough to pay the loan debt. That means you earn all the money you would make without the degree, PLUS extra to pay the debt. That's how you pay the debt, right? That's what the "it takes 20 years to earn that much" means, right? So you have exactly the same amount for house and car and whatever, PLUS the extra for the student loan payments. And all that time you are enjoying a preferable job and not suffering ignorance. And of course, it's not twenty years, it's a few years for almost everybody. That's why it's a good deal even in your fake concocted twenty-year-payoff scenario.
Americans with zero dollars can afford a college education in America. You can borrow 100% of the cost if you have to, and even in that crappy situation it's still better than the alternative. The only people for whom college isn't worth the cost is people who are either not smart enough to make it through or so smart (or talented) that they don't need it in the first place, and that second group is tiny.
Those are good questions. I don't think the answer is to give brown people jobs they aren't qualified for, but it's a strong argument in favor of racial-preference admissions for colleges and for racial-preference programs in earlier education. What do you think?
That depends, do you expect to have a career lasting more than 10-20 years? If so, then yes, I would say that sounds like a good idea. And I personally expect to have a career quite a bit longer than that, do you?
In that case, if you had $20,000 in loans for each of four years, then maybe it would take you three years to pay that off instead of nine months. You might think that's crazy long and crazy expensive, but I don't. I expect to work much, much longer than three years.
But yes, it was nice to graduate with that debt load. I could have easily handled four times that amount. It helped that I was poor going to a need-blind school. High-academic poor students like me have that option. Average-academic poor students might have to go to a public university, where the education is just about as good and the diploma is exactly as good.
The first guy said something like "I'd rather have my bad job than to be stuck in an impossibly rarely terrible situation with a college education". My response to that was basically "there is no reason for you to think that would happen to you, that's nonsense".
The other guy said "I don't need college, I did very well without it". My response was "sweet, a small number of people are able to do that."
Those situations do not compare. The first guy is in a crap job and trying to rationalize why he didn't get an education -- because hey, it's possible but unreasonably unlikely that something bad could happen. That's an excuse, not a reason.
Superstars are rare. If you are one, then you don't need an education (though it might help). But superstars don't wash cars for more than a summer. The first guy isn't a superstar, he's average, and average people benefit wildly from education. I don't think anything I've said contradicts this thesis.
There may be people for whom higher education doesn't work out financially, but they are definitely the exception not the rule. On average every year of education post high school nets the earner 8% higher salary. So a four-year degree is worth about an extra third in salary, on average. That includes all the fools who took out huge loans in exchange for degrees in stupid majors. If you aren't one of those fools, you can expect to do even better like I did.
I hear you, and that is possible, but I never did shit with my Ivy League degree. I'm just a schmo, totally unexceptional. I can't prove it, but I think what I did with my degree (not much) I could have done with almost any bachelor degree. Also, if you stay away from elite schools you save a ton of money which makes the math work out easier.
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood why keyboards tilt backwards
I always thought it was to make keyboards look like typewriters.
If keyboards were made to be good for typing, they would look more like the Truly Ergonomic keyboard, which I own and like. It's not quite perfect, but it's pretty close and has these popular Cherry switches.
Windows 7 is not a perfectly fine OS, nor was 2000. They each sucked less than some other versions, but were still way below the threshold of usability. Microsoft never pulled its head out of the ground with respect to Windows, and they never will.
Unix is the only operating system which is above the threshold of usability. Choose your favorite version of Unix, it's the best you can do. If it's not Unix, it's not worth your time.
I guess no, you're not a nerd, if you arrived at the end of your comment and still consider Windows.
Other operating systems have problems, but only Windows is built to be 100% problems in every way. Windows PC for $400? Okay, so that's $500 more than its worth. Mac is $1100? Okay, that's $300 more than it's worth.
For the record, I recommend Macs ONLY for grandmas. I think they are good machines gone awry, like you do. Anyone who doesn't need Mac's warm embrace should scrape by with Linux (or whatever Unix you like), because like I said there is no viable third option. All the third options are unviable.
Hey, nothing is perfect, but Windows is total shit. We don't say that just because Mother Theresa was imperfect means she can be fairly grouped with Vlad the Impaler. Windows stands on its own, a far outlier of crappiness, vastly beyond the mediocreness of other operating systems.
No true Scotsman
Good point, but I mean net value to society. Some heart surgeries, while nice, can't make up for the incredible disservice he has done to our nation with his disgusting, self-interested campaign of nonsense misinformation.
Yeah but an IT support dweeb isn't a nerd. Nerds have better sense than that, enough to judge platforms for what they are. I wouldn't put my mom on OS/2 Warp in 2013, and I wouldn't put my mom on Windows in 2013. Let me spill out a little prejudice here: any nerd who doesn't hate Windows isn't a nerd.
Seriously. Moving to a Mac isn't an option? Well then move to an Etch-a-Sketch, because Windows isn't an option unless you hate your mother and yourself.
Really? No, not really.
If you bother the police with bullshit complaints, the police don't respond by going after the organization you are complaining about. Phone books are like littering only insofar as a plane flying 30,000 feet over your house is a violation of your personal airspace.
You made that mistake because you relied on your understanding of technology. You won't repeat this mistake if you become an ignorant jackass like the people implementing this CAS nonsense.
"People will always want free stuff"
I suppose so, but I prefer the phrasing "humans will always desire to participate in human culture". Is it legitimate to permanently legally lock up most products of human culture so that most humans can't access them? In my opinion, no, that is not legitimate. Given the prevalence of downloading such cultural products, my opinion seems to be widely shared.
A balanced approach would be a ten-year non-extendable non-free non-automatic commercial copyright available on complete works to original authors.
* Non-free, non-automatic means you have to register your work and pay a fee.
* Commercial means that copyright protects commerce meaning non-commercial use cannot be construed as infringement.
* Complete works means sampling and collage cannot be construed as infringement.
* Original authors means the actual human beings who created the work; "works for hire" would not be a concept, because a company is not a human so a company by definition cannot "create" anything.
You are right: even traitors have Constitutional rights. I say let's get him convicted as quickly as possible so we can execute him for the Constitutional crime of treason.
If you "get a deal" or do "talks on acquisition" you haven't made anything. You aren't a maker, you are a taker. All that activity you do all day long, at the end of the day look down into the box where you put what you made and the box is empty. There is nothing in the box. You aren't a maker, you are a taker. That's all well and good but since you aren't actually adding anything to the economy the amount that you take out of the economy should be very small, certainly smaller than anyone who actually makes things. So, take your lowest paid employee, subtract a small bit from his pay, and that's about what you deserve as CEO.
If you want to receive things from the economy, you should put things into the economy. Not fake things, not "talks" or "deals" or "stocks" or "arguments", but things. Otherwise you are a leech sucking the value out of the makers.
English, history, civics, and math -- yes. Thank you for listing a few examples. Exactly right, all of those help.
Also, even more important, the trade school classes, which are also post-high-school education. Here's a link to a page talking about "dental hygiene colleges". Note that it says you need a diploma from a dental hygiene college, hence "dental hygienists certainly benefit from a college education". Thank you, again, you pointed out how high school diplomas aren't good enough these days. Thanks for making my point stronger.
Fuck, it is incredibly frustrating to be sitting here defending education. Am I debating with a bunch of fucking Republicans or something? Who the fuck else opposes education? I know Slashdot ideologues get their jollies from opposing conventional wisdom, but you guys are going to try to oppose education? Mothershit, that is stupid.
Yeah. Poor people who try to live like middle-class people are making a big mistake. It might be too late for you. Let your story be a lesson to others! Your problem isn't an inability to afford college but rather an inability to even borrow the money to pay for college because your current debt load might make you ineligible for regular student loans. If not, though, then education is still a good way to pay off that 20k+tuition.
Likewise studying for your PhD doesn't mean you aren't doing unskilled labor. If you are doing full-time work and earning 20k per year, then it's hard to imagine you are doing a skilled job. My guess is you are doing less than full-time work (typical for graduate students) or are in a job which has non-monetary pay, such as experience as a journeyman lecturer (also typical for graduate students).
But it's true that there are exceptions. Volunteer work is a trivial example.
Do the math again. Think harder about it this time.
If you have the college degree you are earning a margin enough to pay the loan debt. That means you earn all the money you would make without the degree, PLUS extra to pay the debt. That's how you pay the debt, right? That's what the "it takes 20 years to earn that much" means, right? So you have exactly the same amount for house and car and whatever, PLUS the extra for the student loan payments. And all that time you are enjoying a preferable job and not suffering ignorance. And of course, it's not twenty years, it's a few years for almost everybody. That's why it's a good deal even in your fake concocted twenty-year-payoff scenario.
Americans with zero dollars can afford a college education in America. You can borrow 100% of the cost if you have to, and even in that crappy situation it's still better than the alternative. The only people for whom college isn't worth the cost is people who are either not smart enough to make it through or so smart (or talented) that they don't need it in the first place, and that second group is tiny.
2002. Tuition at my school has increased $10,000 since then and to pay the sticker price you have to have rich parents who contribute on your behalf.
And no, it is literally impossible to get $100,000 debt at an in-state public university because the most expensive public university is only $15,000 so four years doesn't add up so far.
People who have $100,000 student debts have the titles "doctor" and "esquire". That debt load sucks, but those jobs pay well.
Those are good questions. I don't think the answer is to give brown people jobs they aren't qualified for, but it's a strong argument in favor of racial-preference admissions for colleges and for racial-preference programs in earlier education. What do you think?
That depends, do you expect to have a career lasting more than 10-20 years? If so, then yes, I would say that sounds like a good idea. And I personally expect to have a career quite a bit longer than that, do you?
In that case, if you had $20,000 in loans for each of four years, then maybe it would take you three years to pay that off instead of nine months. You might think that's crazy long and crazy expensive, but I don't. I expect to work much, much longer than three years.
But yes, it was nice to graduate with that debt load. I could have easily handled four times that amount. It helped that I was poor going to a need-blind school. High-academic poor students like me have that option. Average-academic poor students might have to go to a public university, where the education is just about as good and the diploma is exactly as good.
The first guy said something like "I'd rather have my bad job than to be stuck in an impossibly rarely terrible situation with a college education". My response to that was basically "there is no reason for you to think that would happen to you, that's nonsense".
The other guy said "I don't need college, I did very well without it". My response was "sweet, a small number of people are able to do that."
Those situations do not compare. The first guy is in a crap job and trying to rationalize why he didn't get an education -- because hey, it's possible but unreasonably unlikely that something bad could happen. That's an excuse, not a reason.
Superstars are rare. If you are one, then you don't need an education (though it might help). But superstars don't wash cars for more than a summer. The first guy isn't a superstar, he's average, and average people benefit wildly from education. I don't think anything I've said contradicts this thesis.
There may be people for whom higher education doesn't work out financially, but they are definitely the exception not the rule. On average every year of education post high school nets the earner 8% higher salary. So a four-year degree is worth about an extra third in salary, on average. That includes all the fools who took out huge loans in exchange for degrees in stupid majors. If you aren't one of those fools, you can expect to do even better like I did.
I hear you, and that is possible, but I never did shit with my Ivy League degree. I'm just a schmo, totally unexceptional. I can't prove it, but I think what I did with my degree (not much) I could have done with almost any bachelor degree. Also, if you stay away from elite schools you save a ton of money which makes the math work out easier.