They are competing unfairly using government subisdies, and because government on both sides makes it impossible for the worker to move freely from one country to the other.
I can do my job a lot cheaper in India too. Except that I can't.
Some companies send programmers to customer sites. This exposes you to presentation risk. Clothes become relevant because somebody else cares. The best programmers in the world may not be qualified for such positions.
If you reread my post, you'll note I did specifically say: a $200 surround sound system.
Between built in tv speakers and audiophile land exists the inexpensive surround system. A cheap ($200) surround system with a good bass will get you to experiencing 90% of what's on the DVD/HD programming.
It may be a matter of source material. If you primarily watch network shows (as opposed to listening to studio music recordings) their sound design is carefully constructed to be perfectly acceptable on the speakers built into a $100 20 inch television. Upgrading to whatever stereophile equipment you want isn't going to help you much. For 90% of DVD movies, all you're going to gain is better bass, and 90% of the benefit there can be captured by a $200 surround sound system.
For most people, for most sources, a cheap sound system is all you need.
I'm afraid that's just a stereoscopic projection trick, not real 3d. If you reach out and put your hand on 'top' of your printer, you'll find it's really quite flat.
Slow brain this morning. Perhaps a more obvious and clear parallel for what I'm doing given the venue of our discussion:
You have moderator points, and notice a really extreme troll post. Do you: 1) Moderate troll. This will presumably lend less credibility to the post, and encourage others to pay it no mind. 2) Engage in carefully reasoned debate. This will cause more people to read it and think about it.
I disagree. I find it implausible that he could have made his argument in good faith. He knows too much. Therefore my best guess is that he's politically or monetarily motivated, and should be called on it. The argument has been widely discredited. Arguing with it more only lends credence and attention to the arguer, when what you really want is shame.
It's much like the president of Iran claiming the holocaust did not happen. Do you engage him in a debate about it, so that people think he's credible, or do you just call him crazy and move on? Does anyone think he really believes this stuff, or is he just using the argument to stir up trouble for his own ends?
Ad hominem would be: Yoo is morally corrupt, therefore his argument is hogwash. (This is considered an ad hominem attack on the argument, because being morally corrupt does not render one's arguments incorrect).
My claim was: Yoo's argument is hogwash, ergo he is morally corrupt. (This is not ad hominem, it is perfectly acceptable to say that someone who makes garbage arguments for personal gain is morally corrupt, that can be quite simply considered definitional).
The whole Akamai argument is a great argument for a non-neutral except for the minor point that Akamai doesn't in any way violate net neutrality.
That's not the point of the Akamai argument. The point is that Akamai is cool, and if you would allow for non-net-neutrality, you could have more cool just like Akamia, but at the next lower level of the internet.
How does programming a robot differ from programming (aka training) a dog? I would suggest that the dog has a greater claim to rights (or really, as the animal welfare movement really desires: protections), as a dog can feel pain.
Please don't take a sociologists opinion on the matter. At best, you might want to read a variety of their research. Unfortunately, most sociology research is utter, utter crap, completely biased by the people doing the studies, and peer reviewed by other people with the same biases. Their study designs are in general so horribly flawed that they should generally be considered wrong unless you've carefully reviewed their procedures (note, generally the detailed procedures are not published to avoid letting you scrutinize all the problems in their research).
This idea of consulting experts might generally be a good one, but sociology was quite possibly the worst possible example to choose. Pick a hard science with repeatable (and repeated!) results like physics or chemistry. Sociology is rife with unrepeatable results, results from tiny samples, etc.
Interestingly enough, I'm becoming convinced that bosses really don't do any real work. I'm currently working for a company with basically no managers, and lo and behold we are burying our competition.
It may or may not be related to our lack of wasteful management layers. It will be interesting to see what happens as we grow from ~1000 employees to more like ~10k over the next couple of years.
It's not like we only get a finite number of them. Didn't you see that other guy's list? We're almost out of letters already. Using up D for this minor derivative of c++ was just plain wasteful.
Slashdot Mirror
42 judges on average got 18/30 right.
That's a total of 126 more right guesses than expected out of 1260 guesses.
The key problem with your 'argument' is that #4 is blatantly, screamingly untrue. See if you can figure out why.
They are competing unfairly using government subisdies, and because government on both sides makes it impossible for the worker to move freely from one country to the other.
I can do my job a lot cheaper in India too. Except that I can't.
Some companies send programmers to customer sites. This exposes you to presentation risk. Clothes become relevant because somebody else cares.
The best programmers in the world may not be qualified for such positions.
If you reread my post, you'll note I did specifically say: a $200 surround sound system.
Between built in tv speakers and audiophile land exists the inexpensive surround system. A cheap ($200) surround system with a good bass will get you to experiencing 90% of what's on the DVD/HD programming.
I'm pretty sure they're using HDMI 1.3 for the input, which will play nice with both DRM and non-drm material.
1920x1080 = 2073600
1600x1200 = 1920000
I think you may be wrong about which way the 10% goes.
It may be a matter of source material. If you primarily watch network shows (as opposed to listening to studio music recordings) their sound design is carefully constructed to be perfectly acceptable on the speakers built into a $100 20 inch television. Upgrading to whatever stereophile equipment you want isn't going to help you much. For 90% of DVD movies, all you're going to gain is better bass, and 90% of the benefit there can be captured by a $200 surround sound system.
For most people, for most sources, a cheap sound system is all you need.
I'm afraid that's just a stereoscopic projection trick, not real 3d. If you reach out and put your hand on 'top' of your printer, you'll find it's really quite flat.
I can't bring myself to do it...
Oh come on, it's not like 4.5" isn't a perfectly respectable width, I'll admit mine is only a little wider.
Slow brain this morning. Perhaps a more obvious and clear parallel for what I'm doing given the venue of our discussion:
You have moderator points, and notice a really extreme troll post. Do you:
1) Moderate troll. This will presumably lend less credibility to the post, and encourage others to pay it no mind.
2) Engage in carefully reasoned debate. This will cause more people to read it and think about it.
I chose #1.
I disagree. I find it implausible that he could have made his argument in good faith. He knows too much. Therefore my best guess is that he's politically or monetarily motivated, and should be called on it. The argument has been widely discredited. Arguing with it more only lends credence and attention to the arguer, when what you really want is shame.
It's much like the president of Iran claiming the holocaust did not happen. Do you engage him in a debate about it, so that people think he's credible, or do you just call him crazy and move on? Does anyone think he really believes this stuff, or is he just using the argument to stir up trouble for his own ends?
I don't think ad hominem means what you think it means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem would be:
Yoo is morally corrupt, therefore his argument is hogwash. (This is considered an ad hominem attack on the argument, because being morally corrupt does not render one's arguments incorrect).
My claim was:
Yoo's argument is hogwash, ergo he is morally corrupt. (This is not ad hominem, it is perfectly acceptable to say that someone who makes garbage arguments for personal gain is morally corrupt, that can be quite simply considered definitional).
See the difference?
Bah, unstable shockwave giving a pulsar its spin! Ridiculous! Pulsars obviously spin through Intelligent Exploding!
The sad thing about this argument is that it's clear in the original Aramaic that they meant Imploding.
Yes, that's how a gaming router works.
However, note that this works only at your own router/hardware. Your packet prioritization has no effect on the rest of the network.
However, neither is helping the notion that the Yoo family produces a lot of morally corrupt professors.
Good troll, btw, you got a lot of bites with that.
The whole Akamai argument is a great argument for a non-neutral except for the minor point that Akamai doesn't in any way violate net neutrality.
That's not the point of the Akamai argument. The point is that Akamai is cool, and if you would allow for non-net-neutrality, you could have more cool just like Akamia, but at the next lower level of the internet.
How does programming a robot differ from programming (aka training) a dog?
I would suggest that the dog has a greater claim to rights (or really, as the animal welfare movement really desires: protections), as a dog can feel pain.
I would have thought that UID was made just for that post, but it's far too low a number.
Please don't take a sociologists opinion on the matter. At best, you might want to read a variety of their research. Unfortunately, most sociology research is utter, utter crap, completely biased by the people doing the studies, and peer reviewed by other people with the same biases. Their study designs are in general so horribly flawed that they should generally be considered wrong unless you've carefully reviewed their procedures (note, generally the detailed procedures are not published to avoid letting you scrutinize all the problems in their research).
This idea of consulting experts might generally be a good one, but sociology was quite possibly the worst possible example to choose. Pick a hard science with repeatable (and repeated!) results like physics or chemistry. Sociology is rife with unrepeatable results, results from tiny samples, etc.
....and, all this time, I've been using sugarless gum.
You really ought to try sugared gum once, because the difference is like dog vomit vs filet mignon. Trust me.
Interestingly enough, I'm becoming convinced that bosses really don't do any real work. I'm currently working for a company with basically no managers, and lo and behold we are burying our competition.
It may or may not be related to our lack of wasteful management layers. It will be interesting to see what happens as we grow from ~1000 employees to more like ~10k over the next couple of years.
Indeed, that lying is socially beneficial is scientifically proven.
As a scientist, it would be wrong of me not to lie in some situations.
It's not like we only get a finite number of them.
Didn't you see that other guy's list? We're almost out of letters already. Using up D for this minor derivative of c++ was just plain wasteful.