Sounds like something you scream at the TV when the redneck down the street starts talking on his CB and turning the screen to snow right in the middle of your favorite show.
I probably shouldn't reply to your post but here I go way off topic. I grew up as kid during the Vietnam war. I had friends with older brothers that had been to Vietnam and some that did not come back. When I was in college I was very anti-war and anti-military and never considered it for a split second. As a matter of fact your comment sounds like something I would have said back then if someone mentioned the idea.
After finishing my 3rd year of college I was thousands of dollars in dept from tuition and going nowhere. Friends that had graduated where taking jobs as school teachers and making no money. This was in 1981 and believe me the economy sucked and there were no decent jobs. I had a friend in about my same situation and he talked me into looking into the AF. I ended up going in and it was a great experience. I was in four years and it was total peacetime. No action going on anywhere that I was aware of.
The main reason I got out was that the air force eliminated the flight simulator technician job and it became a civilian contract position. My post is not recruiting anyone for that job because it no longer exists in the air force as far as I know.
Oh man I used to love this mag, I had long forgotten about it. I subscribed for several years. I was in college from '78-'81 and that is that main period I remember reading. I read an article about the development of video games and how flight simulator technology was being applied. When I left college I went in the air force and became a flight simulator technician. I chose that job from the list based on reading about it in Omni.
Definitely the best decision I ever made. I found I had a knack for technology and working on/with computers. At my high school there were no computers, most people had never seen one. I never saw a computer in college except maybe in the administration building when they took my money. If I had not read that article and chosen a technology field in the AF I would probably be a burnt out school teacher.
The movie is just an action/romance/comedy movie plot. There are obvious historical references with native Americans. etc. there to help pull the audience in and give them characters they can relate to. What makes the movie notable is that the special effects blur the line between animation and live action in a way not seen in previous movies.
I know all of the hype and trailers are trying to show off the special effects, but after about the first 5 minutes the special effects are no longer much of a factor in the experience of watching the movie. When I walked out of the movie with my group no one was marveling over the special effects, they were relating to the characters and plot. This is where special effects have done their job and not overpowered the movie itself.
I don't think there is a great lesson of humanity or technology intended. The movie is pure entertainment. I believe the simple plot was chosen because it is known to work for a wide audience. To have a complex plot plus a lot of new and unproven special effects could have lead to a box office disaster.
The reason for a geek to watch this movie is to have a historical reference of how and when this movie making technology went mainstream and to maybe have a nice date with your girlfriend. Over the next few years many movies will be made using similar technology. Most likely ones with better plots and more interesting animation.
seconded. Avatar is just a typical Western done in an alien world with great special effects. If it a proven format, formula movie that works every time. It is probably the best way to test out new special effects and techniques because the plot is well proven. Romance/Action/Comedy date movie = big box office.
I will take my chances with surviving climate change over surviving increased government. I think history has proven that oppressive government is the biggest threat to humans.
Really? Can you do any useful programming "point and click"? We do a fair amount of development in.NET. Mostly web based. We found very quickly that using the GUI to create any code is completely useless.
We program in.NET because our upper management mandated it back in 2004 for marketing purposes. They wanted to be able to say that we develop in.NET. Prior to that all of our web application were classic ASP, which was also mandated by management when we started developing web apps.
I thought it would be great to get away from.asp hell and have separation of code and design. NOT! I was horrified when I fist saw.NET..aspx is horrible. Why in the hell did they invent a whole new rendering language rather than just use HTML. Now you have C# plus some jack leg thing that is aspx. So much for having a non-programmer web designer do the HTML coding. At least when we were using asp we could get a graphic artist to create the HTML and then the programmers ad the interactive parts. We had our own simple framework that worked well for authentication session tracking. Now our apps look like crap because programmers cant design and no one will let a designer touch the code.
Also, I just noticed a cool feature in Bing. It has "related searches" in the side bar along with the results. This just helped me refine my search. There is also a "search history" in the side bar! I wonder how this is stored or purged. Hmmm I don't keep any history in my browser settings. There are clear and a turn off features. At least they are transparent about what they are storing. I am not sure if you can retrieve your search history from Google.
Most people will like the design elements of Bing. shopping - so does Google links to other products - so does Google I just pulled up Google and Bing search results side by side, some font on my monitor. I noticed a direct link to a PDF in my results
Have you actually tried Bing?
I just did a couple of searches in Bing and compared the results to Google, got almost the exact same sites.
Never underestimate Microsoft. The worst thing Google can do is get cocky and think MS is not a competitor.
"But [the engineer] stopped me and said: 'These people are actually important to have outside of Google..."
It sounds to me like this guy is trying to protect his job. "Uh.. don't hire him, we need him outside of Google..yeah that's the ticket". I read between the lines that this guy doesn't want anyone smarter than he is too close to his job.
Back in the day when all we had where albums you had to get up to flip the thing over or put on a new one. So more often than not you listened to the whole thing. You were not analyzing each song to decide if it was any good.
Sometimes the album sucked and you never played it again. most of the time it was good or good enough. Some were over the top good and you could not get enough. I think we viewed albums more the way people now view individual songs. Someone would say lets listen to steely dan or yes, etc, not lets listen to reeling in the years or roundabout.
Now you just make a play list of exactly the songs you want. That was very rare when I was listing to albums, about '72-'82. I dont see anyone going back. albums are a lost art.
That is some advanced equipment for a 1200 baud connection, you should be getting at least 19200. All that beep, boop, etc indicates you are connecting two high speed error correcting modems, the aaaaeeeh might even be some data compression. For 1200 all you would hear is a short skuuuussssSSSHHH.
The only reason MS did not suffer any real damage from the trial is that it came to a conclusion at about the same time the internet stock bubble burst. If Bush's administration had kept up the pressure and penalized MS it would have been an even harder blow to the stock market. The powers that be decided to drop the issue.
Of course if you read the article, I know it is a lot to ask, you will find that he is not talking about competition. For the very short summary.
MS Makes money from Windows and Office. Google makes money from search based advertising. Nothing else really matters to either company.
MS attempts at the search ad market and Google's attempts are the OS market are not intended to succeed. They are just the corporate equivalent or "be nice to me or I will fuck your girlfriend". Both side know the other has no chance, but the media loves to talk about it.
I was doing work for a small town ISP a few years ago (1996 or so). They had a policy that if you bring your PC to the office they will configure it for you. A lady showed with with just the CRT monitor and wanted to get set up for internet access. The guy I was working with explained very nicely that he needed the computer and this was just the monitor. She said that she was not sure and would come back with the other part. The really bad part...the lady who brought in the monitor taught computer 101 classes at the local community college.
I don't think the failure of OS/2 had much to do with OS/2 itself. It had to do with the failure of the PS/2 computer which discredited IBM and lead to the rise in clone PCs. All these clone PCs ran Microsoft's MS-DOS. Until the clones started taking over Microsoft had no brand recognition, people were buying IBM and the OS it came with.
Prior to the PS/2 IBM was the absolute ruler of the PC market and the industry just followed their lead. By the time OS/2 was a viable product IBM was no longer the leader in the PC market and Microsoft was a household name.
All of the internal MS and IBM politics and observations of nerds have little to do with what succeeds in the market.
Funny, but very true. A deadline with your paycheck on the line makes you very focused and productive. Maybe if you are an open source programmer and you code strictly for enjoyment there is a better atmosphere, but for those of us that code for a living deadlines make it happen.
first off you should do what makes you happy. if making lots of money makes you happy then a cs degree at 35 with no prior experience is probably not it. you should probably go for a business degree or maybe MIS (or CIS, whatever it is called, IT management type degree).
I started with a IT tech job when I was 22, I am now 48. I didn't really start to make decent money until after about 10 years and changing jobs 3 times. This was all during the very fast paced "pc revolution".
My point is that the Red Hat distribution prior to RHEL was more like Fedora than the current RHEL. RHEL was the new product. RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases. I started with 2.0.2 in 1995 and was on 9 in 2003, the OS changed massively during that time as well.
Anyone that could have dealt with that release pace could deal with Fedora for servers. I like the new RHEL pace for server installs and currently use CentOS. But for the desktop Fedora is much better and the quick upgrade cycle is a good thing.
Why do you say Fedora is crap? I have used it since inception up through 9, have not tried 10 yet. I have also installed and tried various versions of Ubuntu, most recently 8.10. The only difference I have seen is that Ubuntu includes non-free codecs that will will play dvd and mp3 out of the box. With Fedora it takes an extra 2 minutes to get that capability. Other than that the color scheme is different. As far as usability I see no other differences. There may be some deep down feature differences but for my home desktop of web surfing, open office, etc there is no noticeable difference.
yum has been in fedora from the start and was/is just as good or better than up2date.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like something you scream at the TV when the redneck down the street starts talking on his CB and turning the screen to snow right in the middle of your favorite show.
I probably shouldn't reply to your post but here I go way off topic. I grew up as kid during the Vietnam war. I had friends with older brothers that had been to Vietnam and some that did not come back. When I was in college I was very anti-war and anti-military and never considered it for a split second. As a matter of fact your comment sounds like something I would have said back then if someone mentioned the idea.
After finishing my 3rd year of college I was thousands of dollars in dept from tuition and going nowhere. Friends that had graduated where taking jobs as school teachers and making no money. This was in 1981 and believe me the economy sucked and there were no decent jobs. I had a friend in about my same situation and he talked me into looking into the AF. I ended up going in and it was a great experience. I was in four years and it was total peacetime. No action going on anywhere that I was aware of.
The main reason I got out was that the air force eliminated the flight simulator technician job and it became a civilian contract position. My post is not recruiting anyone for that job because it no longer exists in the air force as far as I know.
Oh man I used to love this mag, I had long forgotten about it. I subscribed for several years. I was in college from '78-'81 and that is that main period I remember reading. I read an article about the development of video games and how flight simulator technology was being applied. When I left college I went in the air force and became a flight simulator technician. I chose that job from the list based on reading about it in Omni.
Definitely the best decision I ever made. I found I had a knack for technology and working on/with computers. At my high school there were no computers, most people had never seen one. I never saw a computer in college except maybe in the administration building when they took my money. If I had not read that article and chosen a technology field in the AF I would probably be a burnt out school teacher.
Just wait. Maybe they got the story listed on Slashdot as a way to shut them down.
The movie is just an action/romance/comedy movie plot. There are obvious historical references with native Americans. etc. there to help pull the audience in and give them characters they can relate to. What makes the movie notable is that the special effects blur the line between animation and live action in a way not seen in previous movies.
I know all of the hype and trailers are trying to show off the special effects, but after about the first 5 minutes the special effects are no longer much of a factor in the experience of watching the movie. When I walked out of the movie with my group no one was marveling over the special effects, they were relating to the characters and plot. This is where special effects have done their job and not overpowered the movie itself.
I don't think there is a great lesson of humanity or technology intended. The movie is pure entertainment. I believe the simple plot was chosen because it is known to work for a wide audience. To have a complex plot plus a lot of new and unproven special effects could have lead to a box office disaster.
The reason for a geek to watch this movie is to have a historical reference of how and when this movie making technology went mainstream and to maybe have a nice date with your girlfriend. Over the next few years many movies will be made using similar technology. Most likely ones with better plots and more interesting animation.
seconded. Avatar is just a typical Western done in an alien world with great special effects. If it a proven format, formula movie that works every time. It is probably the best way to test out new special effects and techniques because the plot is well proven. Romance/Action/Comedy date movie = big box office.
I will take my chances with surviving climate change over surviving increased government. I think history has proven that oppressive government is the biggest threat to humans.
Really? Can you do any useful programming "point and click"? We do a fair amount of development in .NET. Mostly web based. We found very quickly that using the GUI to create any code is completely useless.
We program in .NET because our upper management mandated it back in 2004 for marketing purposes. They wanted to be able to say that we develop in .NET. Prior to that all of our web application were classic ASP, which was also mandated by management when we started developing web apps.
I thought it would be great to get away from .asp hell and have separation of code and design. NOT! I was horrified when I fist saw .NET. .aspx is horrible. Why in the hell did they invent a whole new rendering language rather than just use HTML. Now you have C# plus some jack leg thing that is aspx. So much for having a non-programmer web designer do the HTML coding. At least when we were using asp we could get a graphic artist to create the HTML and then the programmers ad the interactive parts. We had our own simple framework that worked well for authentication session tracking. Now our apps look like crap because programmers cant design and no one will let a designer touch the code.
Also, I just noticed a cool feature in Bing. It has "related searches" in the side bar along with the results. This just helped me refine my search. There is also a "search history" in the side bar! I wonder how this is stored or purged. Hmmm I don't keep any history in my browser settings. There are clear and a turn off features. At least they are transparent about what they are storing. I am not sure if you can retrieve your search history from Google.
More info
http://help.live.com/help.aspx?mkt=en-us&project=wl_searchv1&querytype=keyword&query=gnolyrotsih
Most people will like the design elements of Bing.
shopping - so does Google
links to other products - so does Google
I just pulled up Google and Bing search results side by side, some font on my monitor.
I noticed a direct link to a PDF in my results
Have you actually tried Bing?
I just did a couple of searches in Bing and compared the results to Google, got almost the exact same sites.
Never underestimate Microsoft. The worst thing Google can do is get cocky and think MS is not a competitor.
"But [the engineer] stopped me and said: 'These people are actually important to have outside of Google..."
It sounds to me like this guy is trying to protect his job. "Uh.. don't hire him, we need him outside of Google..yeah that's the ticket". I read between the lines that this guy doesn't want anyone smarter than he is too close to his job.
Why in the world does the summary list to some stupid guys take on Mark Cubans blog post instead of the actual post?
http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/13/google-murdoch-madoff/
Not that it answers any of your questions, other than maybe he is a publicity hound.
Back in the day when all we had where albums you had to get up to flip the thing over or put on a new one. So more often than not you listened to the whole thing. You were not analyzing each song to decide if it was any good.
Sometimes the album sucked and you never played it again. most of the time it was good or good enough. Some were over the top good and you could not get enough. I think we viewed albums more the way people now view individual songs. Someone would say lets listen to steely dan or yes, etc, not lets listen to reeling in the years or roundabout.
Now you just make a play list of exactly the songs you want. That was very rare when I was listing to albums, about '72-'82. I dont see anyone going back. albums are a lost art.
oh, okay, I missed the "T". I must admit I have not heard a modem dial in while, thank god.
That is some advanced equipment for a 1200 baud connection, you should be getting at least 19200. All that beep, boop, etc indicates you are connecting two high speed error correcting modems, the aaaaeeeh might even be some data compression. For 1200 all you would hear is a short skuuuussssSSSHHH.
Most likely because they have ads on their web page. This guy is stealing from a revenue stream (in their mind).
The only reason MS did not suffer any real damage from the trial is that it came to a conclusion at about the same time the internet stock bubble burst. If Bush's administration had kept up the pressure and penalized MS it would have been an even harder blow to the stock market. The powers that be decided to drop the issue.
Of course if you read the article, I know it is a lot to ask, you will find that he is not talking about competition. For the very short summary.
MS Makes money from Windows and Office.
Google makes money from search based advertising.
Nothing else really matters to either company.
MS attempts at the search ad market and Google's attempts are the OS market are not intended to succeed. They are just the corporate equivalent or "be nice to me or I will fuck your girlfriend". Both side know the other has no chance, but the media loves to talk about it.
I was doing work for a small town ISP a few years ago (1996 or so). They had a policy that if you bring your PC to the office they will configure it for you. A lady showed with with just the CRT monitor and wanted to get set up for internet access. The guy I was working with explained very nicely that he needed the computer and this was just the monitor. She said that she was not sure and would come back with the other part. The really bad part...the lady who brought in the monitor taught computer 101 classes at the local community college.
Makes perfect sense, E-Z Wider 1 1/2 for sure. What was the article about again?
I don't think the failure of OS/2 had much to do with OS/2 itself. It had to do with the failure of the PS/2 computer which discredited IBM and lead to the rise in clone PCs. All these clone PCs ran Microsoft's MS-DOS. Until the clones started taking over Microsoft had no brand recognition, people were buying IBM and the OS it came with.
Prior to the PS/2 IBM was the absolute ruler of the PC market and the industry just followed their lead. By the time OS/2 was a viable product IBM was no longer the leader in the PC market and Microsoft was a household name.
All of the internal MS and IBM politics and observations of nerds have little to do with what succeeds in the market.
Funny, but very true. A deadline with your paycheck on the line makes you very focused and productive. Maybe if you are an open source programmer and you code strictly for enjoyment there is a better atmosphere, but for those of us that code for a living deadlines make it happen.
first off you should do what makes you happy. if making lots of money makes you happy then a cs degree at 35 with no prior experience is probably not it. you should probably go for a business degree or maybe MIS (or CIS, whatever it is called, IT management type degree).
I started with a IT tech job when I was 22, I am now 48. I didn't really start to make decent money until after about 10 years and changing jobs 3 times. This was all during the very fast paced "pc revolution".
My point is that the Red Hat distribution prior to RHEL was more like Fedora than the current RHEL. RHEL was the new product. RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases. I started with 2.0.2 in 1995 and was on 9 in 2003, the OS changed massively during that time as well.
Take a look at the version history here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux
Anyone that could have dealt with that release pace could deal with Fedora for servers. I like the new RHEL pace for server installs and currently use CentOS. But for the desktop Fedora is much better and the quick upgrade cycle is a good thing.
Why do you say Fedora is crap? I have used it since inception up through 9, have not tried 10 yet. I have also installed and tried various versions of Ubuntu, most recently 8.10. The only difference I have seen is that Ubuntu includes non-free codecs that will will play dvd and mp3 out of the box. With Fedora it takes an extra 2 minutes to get that capability. Other than that the color scheme is different. As far as usability I see no other differences. There may be some deep down feature differences but for my home desktop of web surfing, open office, etc there is no noticeable difference.
yum has been in fedora from the start and was/is just as good or better than up2date.