Re:same thing happened in 1990s
on
Parlez-vous Python?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When "English majors" were turning into web-designers. I wonder how many survived into the 2000s?
At least one.
I spent a lot of nights and weekends learning over the last 19 years. Currently employed as a senior software developer, back on web apps the last couple of years, after a few years doing other sorts of programming. And I don't suck. (If I do say so myself.)
But then, I treated my college education as an education, not as job training. I learned how to think, and I learned how to learn. I received my degree in English the same year NCSA Mosaic was released, and spent the next 5 years learning (on my own) before I turned pro in the web development field.
It's really a matter of being smart and working hard. I can learn anything I want to learn, so long as the information is available.
Exactly. Supply and demand is still in effect here. And the U.S. does not have sufficient oil in the ground to produce a sufficient increase in supply to significantly move the price of refined petroleum products, no matter how fast you pump it up and use it. It just lines the pockets of oil investors, and gets fools to vote for pipe dreams.
I think the supply and demand numbers are adequate evidence of the "why". U.S. Domestic oil production is simply too small a share of the global supply to have much impact on prices, and drill all you want, (baby), it never will be.
Where we do have a strong position is on the demand side, where our consumption is far out out of line per capita with most other parts of the world. So, if there were an argument to be made for a unilateral U.S. attempt to manipulate oil prices downward, our best bet would be a drastic reduction in demand. (Good luck with that.)
Which leads me back around to my own "why?" question:
Why would people go to so much effort to rally public opinion in favor of a near useless course of action?
I can think of two groups who stand to benefit. The first is politicians who stand to gain personal power by fooling people into voting for them on false premises. The second is oil producers who would reap massive profits from increased production when prices are high (and will stay high despite the production increase). I suspect the second group is bankrolling the first.
I happily dual boot Win 7 and whichever distro I happen to like at the moment (currently Xubuntu using lxde, might do Arch soon). I find that I default to Linux, but I don't freak out if I have to boot up windows to do something. I am able to use my computer to do the things I want to do with it.
I long ago quit giving a rat's hindquarters what OS other people use, as long as I can use my machine the way I want.
So, if you feel like being an unpaid salesperson for a product that is given away for free and doesn't need your efforts, knock yourself out. I hope you find great success and happiness. But I have no advice to give you.
WTF is wrong with you morons? Install whatever WM or DE you like and run it. I'm running LXDE myself. Works great. If you're too stupid to figure out how to change desktop environments go away, you aren't wanted here, you aren't a nerd, this site is not for you. And get off my lawn.
I just finished reading my (free, of course) Gutenberg ebook copy of A Princess of Mars so that I can have it fresh in my mind and be outraged at what Disney has done to a great classic. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Working on Gods of Mars now.
I have all 11 volumes in paperback, which I read years ago, but those dang paper books are format locked and I can't get them onto my reader. I hope Gutenberg (or someone) finishes publishing the series in electronic format. They only had the first four when I last looked.
Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.
This is a bad idea.
The argument could be made that this is already the case, with "expendable" soldiers acting as the avatars for politicians or other unscrupulous sorts.
Replying to AC considered harmful.... oh well, here goes.
a lot of what's taken as science these days is just theory anyway.
"Science" is one of those tricky words that means different things to different people. In general, the idea is to formulate theories that predict as accurately as possible measurable aspects of reality. Over time, these theories are refined. "Fact" is a nearly unobtainable ideal, but theories can get pretty darned close given enough time and testing.
Climate theories are in a relatively early state along that asymptotic curve, but are getting better rapidly. Some people are discovering things they don't like as a result. Typical human behavior ensues.
Any study that is "pro" or "anti" anything is bad science. Measure reality, hypothesize, test, wash rinse repeat.
There is often a lot of hand wringing and spin doctoring about studies that falsify or cast doubt on one's pet hypotheses, sometimes by the researchers, which is bad, but more often by people not even involved in doing science, which would be laughable if they weren't the ones running the show.
So, I fall back on this: when a small minority with a vested financial interest in the status quo denies the validity of the scientific work done by the vast majority of researchers, accusing them of bias based on "Government Conspiracy"... I smell a rat. I've not seen a government yet that could find its ass with both hands, never mind coordinate an effective global conspiracy for decades.
Same experience here. Oddly enough, reverting to 14 restored everything to working status. I installed 16 last night, but haven't rebooted yet. We'll see.
I wonder what ever happened to the idea of "winning" by profitably serving the needs of your customers?
Nowadays it seems you can't be a "winner" unless you drive all competition out of the market and establish a monopoly. The terms are all "crush" and "dominate" and "destroy". I understand that this is the natural end game of "maximize shareholder value", but in the long run, isn't it a bad thing for the human race, and for the "competition" all of the free market philosophy promotes? It seems self-defeating from an overall market perspective.
At least in the US, 501c3 organizations (most non-profits) are limited in how much they may pay their employees, including leadership staff.
The CEO of a 501c3 makes considerably less than even low level executives (think junior VP) at a for-profit corp.
I'm sorry I can't quote the numbers for you right now, but a few months ago my brother in law made the same claim you just did, justifying his aversion to charitable giving. My wife pulled out her smartphone and looked up the facts and debunked his claims to his face. It was sweet.
There *is* waste and fraud and incompetence in the non-profit sector, as in any human endeavor, but if you think people work there because it's the easy way to riches, you're fooling yourself. Most of the people I hear making such nonsense claims are rationalizing their own selfishness, or at best lazily repeating the claims of others without giving it any thought or investigation.
As far as I can tell, the main difference between Republican and Democrat politicians is which set of freedoms they want to destroy at the behest of their corporate masters.
Nope, although I am saying that you are mildly funny with that comment. About a half chuckle, but that's better than none.:)
For those who don't get it:
I was clarifying an apparent error in the previous post. General MacArthur and Senator McCarthy were to some extent contemporaries on the world stage, at least during the first half of the 1950s. I guessed that the earlier poster got the two names mixed up, producing "McArthur". oodaloop then made a funny reference to Senator McCarthy's infamous smear campaign tactics.
The strategic purposes for which people choose to employ terrorism are many, but chief among them are publicity and the effect produced in the target audience. Those who carry out suicidal terror missions are rarely the strategists who planned them. Both can be referred to as "terrorists".
It is believable to me that the government and societal over-reaction and erosion of rights experienced in the US after the attacks in 2001 was one of the goals toward which the attacks were aimed. Although I can't cite source (someone check me here) I believe that senior Al Qaeda planners stated such as the case, or intentions to that effect.
Given that, I would say that the attacks succeeded beyond the wildest expectations of the instigators.
As for the "leaders" of the Western democracies...
I refer back to the interview with Hermann Goering during the Nuremburg trials, as reported by Gustave Gilbert in his memoir "Nuremburg Diary", which occurred on 18 April, 1946:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Slashdot Mirror
When "English majors" were turning into web-designers. I wonder how many survived into the 2000s?
At least one.
I spent a lot of nights and weekends learning over the last 19 years. Currently employed as a senior software developer, back on web apps the last couple of years, after a few years doing other sorts of programming. And I don't suck. (If I do say so myself.)
But then, I treated my college education as an education, not as job training. I learned how to think, and I learned how to learn. I received my degree in English the same year NCSA Mosaic was released, and spent the next 5 years learning (on my own) before I turned pro in the web development field.
It's really a matter of being smart and working hard. I can learn anything I want to learn, so long as the information is available.
Now if they could just learn to read and follow a flow chart...
Exactly. Supply and demand is still in effect here. And the U.S. does not have sufficient oil in the ground to produce a sufficient increase in supply to significantly move the price of refined petroleum products, no matter how fast you pump it up and use it. It just lines the pockets of oil investors, and gets fools to vote for pipe dreams.
I think the supply and demand numbers are adequate evidence of the "why". U.S. Domestic oil production is simply too small a share of the global supply to have much impact on prices, and drill all you want, (baby), it never will be.
Where we do have a strong position is on the demand side, where our consumption is far out out of line per capita with most other parts of the world. So, if there were an argument to be made for a unilateral U.S. attempt to manipulate oil prices downward, our best bet would be a drastic reduction in demand. (Good luck with that.)
Which leads me back around to my own "why?" question:
Why would people go to so much effort to rally public opinion in favor of a near useless course of action?
I can think of two groups who stand to benefit. The first is politicians who stand to gain personal power by fooling people into voting for them on false premises. The second is oil producers who would reap massive profits from increased production when prices are high (and will stay high despite the production increase). I suspect the second group is bankrolling the first.
I happily dual boot Win 7 and whichever distro I happen to like at the moment (currently Xubuntu using lxde, might do Arch soon). I find that I default to Linux, but I don't freak out if I have to boot up windows to do something. I am able to use my computer to do the things I want to do with it.
I long ago quit giving a rat's hindquarters what OS other people use, as long as I can use my machine the way I want.
So, if you feel like being an unpaid salesperson for a product that is given away for free and doesn't need your efforts, knock yourself out. I hope you find great success and happiness. But I have no advice to give you.
WTF is wrong with you morons? Install whatever WM or DE you like and run it. I'm running LXDE myself. Works great. If you're too stupid to figure out how to change desktop environments go away, you aren't wanted here, you aren't a nerd, this site is not for you. And get off my lawn.
Wait a minute, my house, built in the late 90s, has rounded interior corners. I should be suing someone.
I just finished reading my (free, of course) Gutenberg ebook copy of A Princess of Mars so that I can have it fresh in my mind and be outraged at what Disney has done to a great classic. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Working on Gods of Mars now.
I have all 11 volumes in paperback, which I read years ago, but those dang paper books are format locked and I can't get them onto my reader. I hope Gutenberg (or someone) finishes publishing the series in electronic format. They only had the first four when I last looked.
Take that away, and war becomes just a pointless exercise in killing... without purpose, and maybe even without end.
This is a bad idea.
The argument could be made that this is already the case, with "expendable" soldiers acting as the avatars for politicians or other unscrupulous sorts.
Replying to AC considered harmful.... oh well, here goes.
a lot of what's taken as science these days is just theory anyway.
"Science" is one of those tricky words that means different things to different people. In general, the idea is to formulate theories that predict as accurately as possible measurable aspects of reality. Over time, these theories are refined. "Fact" is a nearly unobtainable ideal, but theories can get pretty darned close given enough time and testing.
Climate theories are in a relatively early state along that asymptotic curve, but are getting better rapidly. Some people are discovering things they don't like as a result. Typical human behavior ensues.
Any study that is "pro" or "anti" anything is bad science. Measure reality, hypothesize, test, wash rinse repeat.
There is often a lot of hand wringing and spin doctoring about studies that falsify or cast doubt on one's pet hypotheses, sometimes by the researchers, which is bad, but more often by people not even involved in doing science, which would be laughable if they weren't the ones running the show.
So, I fall back on this: when a small minority with a vested financial interest in the status quo denies the validity of the scientific work done by the vast majority of researchers, accusing them of bias based on "Government Conspiracy"... I smell a rat. I've not seen a government yet that could find its ass with both hands, never mind coordinate an effective global conspiracy for decades.
Same experience here. Oddly enough, reverting to 14 restored everything to working status. I installed 16 last night, but haven't rebooted yet. We'll see.
While it is more commonly used as an adjective, it may, with a suitable object, be used as a verb. Please refer to a good dictionary.
I wonder what ever happened to the idea of "winning" by profitably serving the needs of your customers?
Nowadays it seems you can't be a "winner" unless you drive all competition out of the market and establish a monopoly. The terms are all "crush" and "dominate" and "destroy". I understand that this is the natural end game of "maximize shareholder value", but in the long run, isn't it a bad thing for the human race, and for the "competition" all of the free market philosophy promotes? It seems self-defeating from an overall market perspective.
At least in the US, 501c3 organizations (most non-profits) are limited in how much they may pay their employees, including leadership staff.
The CEO of a 501c3 makes considerably less than even low level executives (think junior VP) at a for-profit corp.
I'm sorry I can't quote the numbers for you right now, but a few months ago my brother in law made the same claim you just did, justifying his aversion to charitable giving. My wife pulled out her smartphone and looked up the facts and debunked his claims to his face. It was sweet.
There *is* waste and fraud and incompetence in the non-profit sector, as in any human endeavor, but if you think people work there because it's the easy way to riches, you're fooling yourself. Most of the people I hear making such nonsense claims are rationalizing their own selfishness, or at best lazily repeating the claims of others without giving it any thought or investigation.
Now, go have a nice day. :)
"Direct Democracy" works well for the demagogues who control the opinions of the poorly informed majority. It has some drawbacks for everyone else.
As far as I can tell, the main difference between Republican and Democrat politicians is which set of freedoms they want to destroy at the behest of their corporate masters.
I dunno, which one makes you most afraid?
Lua is the one I don't know, and humans fear what they don't understand, so I'm picking that one.
Nope, although I am saying that you are mildly funny with that comment. About a half chuckle, but that's better than none. :)
For those who don't get it:
I was clarifying an apparent error in the previous post. General MacArthur and Senator McCarthy were to some extent contemporaries on the world stage, at least during the first half of the 1950s. I guessed that the earlier poster got the two names mixed up, producing "McArthur". oodaloop then made a funny reference to Senator McCarthy's infamous smear campaign tactics.
I think you are referring to Senator Joseph McCarthy and not General Douglas MacArthur. Right?
I'd accept them anyway.
And still some people think "the government" has invincible secret agents out there protecting them from super-villains.
Wake up people, "the government" is a pack of human beings just as incompetent as you are. And so are "the enemies".
I will continue to give "credit" to Bush for the damage he did for as long as that damage continues to exist.
As a corollary, I will give "credit" to Obama for the damage he has done or will do.
I will give "extra credit" to the morons that reelect proven scoundrels, whatever criminal political gang they happen to come from.
The blame lies at the feet of the voters.
The strategic purposes for which people choose to employ terrorism are many, but chief among them are publicity and the effect produced in the target audience. Those who carry out suicidal terror missions are rarely the strategists who planned them. Both can be referred to as "terrorists".
It is believable to me that the government and societal over-reaction and erosion of rights experienced in the US after the attacks in 2001 was one of the goals toward which the attacks were aimed. Although I can't cite source (someone check me here) I believe that senior Al Qaeda planners stated such as the case, or intentions to that effect.
Given that, I would say that the attacks succeeded beyond the wildest expectations of the instigators.
As for the "leaders" of the Western democracies...
I refer back to the interview with Hermann Goering during the Nuremburg trials, as reported by Gustave Gilbert in his memoir "Nuremburg Diary", which occurred on 18 April, 1946:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
What's to stop antivirus makers from adding the hashes of popular movies to their virus databases[...]
Add a byte to the file.