What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?
Assuming you're not trolling, the answer is that it entails exploitation of the weak. In particular for some fraction of people who gamble, it becomes an addictive behavior. Those people, in risking more than is rational, do damage to themselves and their loved ones (who may also be relying on them financially).
Over and above that, at a broader level it promotes greed and a "something for nothing" mentality that is corrosive to society.
The particulars might be in dispute, but you'd have to be blind to not see that gambling causes considerable suffering. I thank my lucky stars that I have other options for gainful employment available to me.
At some point around 1984, I was using a Microsoft Basic compiler on a PC XT (or AT, I can't remember), in an office full of secretaries. While compiling for the first time, I discovered that the compiler rang the computer's (obnoxiously loud, ugly) bell for every syntax error in the entire program.
After I got done crawling under my desk from embarrassment, I immediately switched back to Turbo Pascal...
If you're thinking about the way pilots are (or ought to be) evaluated, or you think grades are a good stick with which to beat kids, this probably sounds like utter crap. But if you're really concerned about how to motivate kids, the picture is much more complex.
If you've never read it Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has an interesting passage related to this subject. (It's one of my favorite books--you really should just read it in its entirety.)
...I've got some really bad news for you. Chefs sometimes spit in the pizza. Babysitters slap kids. CEOs steal money that could be used to save dozens of lives. There's good and bad everywhere.
Conveniently enough, people that don't want to go to schools that do dumb stuff like this will tend to be rejected by schools that do dumb stuff like this.
In addition, schools that do dumb stuff like this will also tend to reject many applicants whose helpful buddies (or stalkers) have posted derogatory information (true or not) about them on the Internet.
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on just this question in 2004, and estimated that file deletion was not productive unless we could do it at a rate of at least 17MB per minute (of labor). Four years later the threshold is probably at least 45MB per minute.
Generally, this means that if we can blow away whole disks or huge directories of data, it may pay off. Users going through their files one by one is usually an absolute waste.
Before you get huffy, consider that with any luck, this is an indication that the company's management actually cares about technical competence and that your future coworkers will also have passed this screen. If you've been in the field long enough to get a sense of just how many idiots peddle themselves as computer-competent, you'll appreciate the value of this.
Personally, I've always been fairly let down by companies that didn't do some sort of technical assessment. My thought was that they didn't really have any inkling of what level I was at, which made me fear that (1) they were more-or-less looking for a warm body, and (2) I was going to end up being the sharpest technical person in the outfit (i.e., with no one to learn from). I can't tell you how many times this turned out to be the case.
Now, if the company is actually taking a disrespectful tone, that certainly indicates a problem. But this is going to be a problem with or without testing. Try withholding your pay history and you'll find out just what your future employer is really like...
I don't know that you really save money by doing it yourself, and it may actually end up costing you more when you figure in the price of your time and other non-obvious costs, but there is still one killer advantage to doing it yourself, which is that nobody will care as much as you do about getting it done right.
Over the years, I'd say 20% of the tradesmen I've hired have done a great job, 40% are mediocre, doing almost as good as I might do if I was in a hurry. The other 40% are chimpanzees, and it can cost a lot of time and grief to unroll their messes. Unfortunately I'm not very good at prospectively telling the difference between these groups.
If you seriously think the national healthcare bit is going to turn out any differently than social security your [sic] insane.
I hope that it doesn't. Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs in all of human history. (The smears and pilfering from conservatives notwithstanding.)
Second, Europe doesn't hate America now; certainly not as much as the Americans seem to hate the French.
I wouldn't take that too seriously. Half of America couldn't find France on a map of Europe, nor tell you what language the French speak. Our leaders told us the French were bad, so we ate a few fewer French fries for a while, and stopped showing Pepe Le Pew reruns.
That's been over for a few years now--I doubt anyone recalls it. We hate foreigners on principle of course, but I think everyone's concentrated on the Mexicans at the moment. (Taco Bell sales are down dramatically...)
The submitter hasn't figured out that outside of academia, nobody really cares where you went to school only what you can actually do.
Perhaps that's the way it should be, but that's not been my experience. Rightly or wrongly, my MS degree from a tier-1.5 (my estimate) school has gotten me some advantage, even years later.
Furthermore, I believe that people in the business world care more about this than people in academia, who seem much more concentrated on "what have you done?".
Almost any other place in the world have higher taxes than the US
Only if you use Bush/Neocon/GOP math. That is, if you only consider taxes a negative and do not weigh the value of what is received in return, then the US looks like a good deal.
If you develop a major illness, you will not necessarily think that it is such a good deal.
(If you would prefer not to have millions of people killed in your name, you may also not consider it such a good deal, but that's a separate conversation.)
I've been programming and sysadmining in a large number of environments for over 20 years, and I've never worked in a place that cared about software quality in more than a perfunctory way. I've lost sleep over it, but I've never been able to make a difference in the situation.
My advice: Since it's inevitable, you may as well enjoy it. Position yourself as the knowledgeable guy that saves the day when disaster strikes. Don't point out that management caused the disaster by their dereliction--just concentrate on your rescue role.
Or, alternatively, you can seek greener pastures. Not sure there are any...
Yeah, my state's solid Republican, with only the occasional Democrat-in-drag for color. So I'm basically completely alienated from the political process at all levels.
I happened to be traveling in Canada during one of their national elections. The difference between ours and theirs is quite dramatic--theirs felt like a real democracy, like what you hear about or see in old movies...
I believe you're suffering from post hoc ergo prompter hoc. There are a great many things that "caused" Bush to win the election, but no particular reason to believe that Nader voters somehow were the overarching cause. We already know, for example, that many more prior Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader, so clearly the Nader voters were irrelevant in Bush's win.
I know it's blasphemy, but I plan to vote for whoever seems to the most decent and honorable fellow (or gal), and right now McCain and Obama (and Clinton) have dropped themselves off of that list.
Do you have anything to support your claim that it sends a powerful message? If it does, it's a rather wishy-washy message, because while it may indicate some dislike for the major party candidates, what it tends to actually accomplish is to put the guy you dislike the MOST in office. I think that's the real, lasting message.
How much did Bill Clinton shift his policies to honor Perot's followers after they gave him the win over George Bush? How much attention did Dubya pay to Nader's supporters after they arguably sunk Gore?
I believe that simple mathematics supports my claim. If there are 1000 Green Party voters in my state, versus 1000000 each of Dem and Repub, I have the power to increase the Green Party vote by 0.1%, which is reasonably noticeable, whereas the increase from 1000000 to 1000001 is for all intents and purposes completely unnoticeable.
The idea that a 2000 vote for Nader sent a message of support for Bush is just silly. If I wanted to send a message of support for Bush, a vote for Bush would have sent that message more powerfully.
Re 2000, of course W is not going "reward" Nader voters because Repubs and Greens don't have similar political views (and probably generally greatly dislike each other). Obviously they are political enemies and not allies. The message being sent in 2000, in my opinion, was that if the Democrats continue to position themselves as Repub-lites, they cannot expect the support of those on the left. As of today, it appears that they are continuing to resist this message, so 2008 may very well turn out to be another administration of the clue stick, even though by all rights it should otherwise be a complete blowout for the Dems.
I do not find the argument that I should vote as others tell me to to be compelling.
I don't necessarily disagree--I'm just pointing out that voting for someone other than a two-party candidate is and option and does send a powerful message.
Slashdot Mirror
It gives me no joy to say that sooner or later you will slam into reality and see the error of what you are saying.
What the hell is so fundamentally wrong with gambling?
Assuming you're not trolling, the answer is that it entails exploitation of the weak. In particular for some fraction of people who gamble, it becomes an addictive behavior. Those people, in risking more than is rational, do damage to themselves and their loved ones (who may also be relying on them financially).
Over and above that, at a broader level it promotes greed and a "something for nothing" mentality that is corrosive to society.
The particulars might be in dispute, but you'd have to be blind to not see that gambling causes considerable suffering. I thank my lucky stars that I have other options for gainful employment available to me.
At some point around 1984, I was using a Microsoft Basic compiler on a PC XT (or AT, I can't remember), in an office full of secretaries. While compiling for the first time, I discovered that the compiler rang the computer's (obnoxiously loud, ugly) bell for every syntax error in the entire program.
After I got done crawling under my desk from embarrassment, I immediately switched back to Turbo Pascal...
If you're thinking about the way pilots are (or ought to be) evaluated, or you think grades are a good stick with which to beat kids, this probably sounds like utter crap. But if you're really concerned about how to motivate kids, the picture is much more complex.
If you've never read it Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has an interesting passage related to this subject. (It's one of my favorite books--you really should just read it in its entirety.)
...I've got some really bad news for you. Chefs sometimes spit in the pizza. Babysitters slap kids. CEOs steal money that could be used to save dozens of lives. There's good and bad everywhere.
Be reasonable, but not hysterical.
Conveniently enough, people that don't want to go to schools that do dumb stuff like this will tend to be rejected by schools that do dumb stuff like this.
In addition, schools that do dumb stuff like this will also tend to reject many applicants whose helpful buddies (or stalkers) have posted derogatory information (true or not) about them on the Internet.
Yay.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If you're ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
--Howard Aiken (maybe)
I think.
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation on just this question in 2004, and estimated that file deletion was not productive unless we could do it at a rate of at least 17MB per minute (of labor). Four years later the threshold is probably at least 45MB per minute.
Generally, this means that if we can blow away whole disks or huge directories of data, it may pay off. Users going through their files one by one is usually an absolute waste.
"In other news, vets will also be asking pet owners to provide a cheek swab..."
Before you get huffy, consider that with any luck, this is an indication that the company's management actually cares about technical competence and that your future coworkers will also have passed this screen. If you've been in the field long enough to get a sense of just how many idiots peddle themselves as computer-competent, you'll appreciate the value of this.
Personally, I've always been fairly let down by companies that didn't do some sort of technical assessment. My thought was that they didn't really have any inkling of what level I was at, which made me fear that (1) they were more-or-less looking for a warm body, and (2) I was going to end up being the sharpest technical person in the outfit (i.e., with no one to learn from). I can't tell you how many times this turned out to be the case.
Now, if the company is actually taking a disrespectful tone, that certainly indicates a problem. But this is going to be a problem with or without testing. Try withholding your pay history and you'll find out just what your future employer is really like...
I don't know that you really save money by doing it yourself, and it may actually end up costing you more when you figure in the price of your time and other non-obvious costs, but there is still one killer advantage to doing it yourself, which is that nobody will care as much as you do about getting it done right.
Over the years, I'd say 20% of the tradesmen I've hired have done a great job, 40% are mediocre, doing almost as good as I might do if I was in a hurry. The other 40% are chimpanzees, and it can cost a lot of time and grief to unroll their messes. Unfortunately I'm not very good at prospectively telling the difference between these groups.
maybe when your [sic] a bare foot [sic] long haired [sic] hippy like stallman... [blah, blah, blah]
So you're saying that RedHat is now the Linux for suits? Quality is not the highest priority? I for one am not quite ready to believe it...
I'm just wondering how exactly this threat was phrased. "If you destroy the world, then so help me I'm going to kill you dead!"
No kidding. No one serious is making any threats--they're out buying Uzis and plane tickets. And last year--not this week.
I think your analogy choo-choo has jumped the track like a snake in the grass gnawing at the base of our ship of state... :-)
If you seriously think the national healthcare bit is going to turn out any differently than social security your [sic] insane.
I hope that it doesn't. Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs in all of human history. (The smears and pilfering from conservatives notwithstanding.)
Second, Europe doesn't hate America now; certainly not as much as the Americans seem to hate the French.
I wouldn't take that too seriously. Half of America couldn't find France on a map of Europe, nor tell you what language the French speak. Our leaders told us the French were bad, so we ate a few fewer French fries for a while, and stopped showing Pepe Le Pew reruns.
That's been over for a few years now--I doubt anyone recalls it. We hate foreigners on principle of course, but I think everyone's concentrated on the Mexicans at the moment. (Taco Bell sales are down dramatically...)
The submitter hasn't figured out that outside of academia, nobody really cares where you went to school only what you can actually do.
Perhaps that's the way it should be, but that's not been my experience. Rightly or wrongly, my MS degree from a tier-1.5 (my estimate) school has gotten me some advantage, even years later.
Furthermore, I believe that people in the business world care more about this than people in academia, who seem much more concentrated on "what have you done?".
Almost any other place in the world have higher taxes than the US
Only if you use Bush/Neocon/GOP math. That is, if you only consider taxes a negative and do not weigh the value of what is received in return, then the US looks like a good deal.
If you develop a major illness, you will not necessarily think that it is such a good deal.
(If you would prefer not to have millions of people killed in your name, you may also not consider it such a good deal, but that's a separate conversation.)
What you have to look for is a more even distribution of manure.
I'm going to put this on a sign over my desk...
...so turn it to your benefit if you can.
I've been programming and sysadmining in a large number of environments for over 20 years, and I've never worked in a place that cared about software quality in more than a perfunctory way. I've lost sleep over it, but I've never been able to make a difference in the situation.
My advice: Since it's inevitable, you may as well enjoy it. Position yourself as the knowledgeable guy that saves the day when disaster strikes. Don't point out that management caused the disaster by their dereliction--just concentrate on your rescue role.
Or, alternatively, you can seek greener pastures. Not sure there are any...
Yeah, my state's solid Republican, with only the occasional Democrat-in-drag for color. So I'm basically completely alienated from the political process at all levels.
I happened to be traveling in Canada during one of their national elections. The difference between ours and theirs is quite dramatic--theirs felt like a real democracy, like what you hear about or see in old movies...
P.S. Bush?!
I believe you're suffering from post hoc ergo prompter hoc. There are a great many things that "caused" Bush to win the election, but no particular reason to believe that Nader voters somehow were the overarching cause. We already know, for example, that many more prior Democrats voted for Bush than voted for Nader, so clearly the Nader voters were irrelevant in Bush's win.
I know it's blasphemy, but I plan to vote for whoever seems to the most decent and honorable fellow (or gal), and right now McCain and Obama (and Clinton) have dropped themselves off of that list.
Do you have anything to support your claim that it sends a powerful message? If it does, it's a rather wishy-washy message, because while it may indicate some dislike for the major party candidates, what it tends to actually accomplish is to put the guy you dislike the MOST in office. I think that's the real, lasting message.
How much did Bill Clinton shift his policies to honor Perot's followers after they gave him the win over George Bush? How much attention did Dubya pay to Nader's supporters after they arguably sunk Gore?
I believe that simple mathematics supports my claim. If there are 1000 Green Party voters in my state, versus 1000000 each of Dem and Repub, I have the power to increase the Green Party vote by 0.1%, which is reasonably noticeable, whereas the increase from 1000000 to 1000001 is for all intents and purposes completely unnoticeable.
The idea that a 2000 vote for Nader sent a message of support for Bush is just silly. If I wanted to send a message of support for Bush, a vote for Bush would have sent that message more powerfully.
Re 2000, of course W is not going "reward" Nader voters because Repubs and Greens don't have similar political views (and probably generally greatly dislike each other). Obviously they are political enemies and not allies. The message being sent in 2000, in my opinion, was that if the Democrats continue to position themselves as Repub-lites, they cannot expect the support of those on the left. As of today, it appears that they are continuing to resist this message, so 2008 may very well turn out to be another administration of the clue stick, even though by all rights it should otherwise be a complete blowout for the Dems.
I do not find the argument that I should vote as others tell me to to be compelling.
I don't necessarily disagree--I'm just pointing out that voting for someone other than a two-party candidate is and option and does send a powerful message.