Have you seen the people American universities have been churning out in recent years? It's awful. It's almost like they come into the workforce with negative experience, and have to make it up. It started with the for profit schools like Devry that passed pretty much everyone into a "degree." But of late, this trend has spread to the public universities as well. Maybe in your time, a degree was a viable record of some useful accomplishment. I would argue that as of the last decade (at least in North America) you get a piece of paper that's not worth much. Take it from someone who trains fresh grads on a regular basis. I would rather deal with someone who doesn't have a degree with just two year of experience, than a degreed kid I need to teach to unlearn the awful practices he picked up in school.
I don't even use the degree when considering someone for a role at my company anymore. There's no difference between schooled/unschooled candidates that have been doing this for awhile, and a huge difference in the ones out of school. If you're fresh out of school with an Information Technology degree, it's going to scare me a little. Some of these fresh grads know less after four years of school than the guy who spent six weeks in his basement obsessing about a new programming language. A lot of them don't have the skill or the experience, and they all feel like they should be able to command top salaries while they "learn the ropes." There's a difference between learning the ropes, and building a skill set which they should have been able to develop in school.
Also, I wish people would stop using the terms "self taught" as though you could magically just know something. There's no such thing.
Right, but probable cause isn't spying. If there's grounds for a warrant, there's ground to take out the phone hard drive. They do it with desktop computers and laptops all the time. How are phones different?
Look man, you can think whatever you want, but the facts on it don't lie. They're very clear. Every time this has ever been studied, the results have been the same. Cutting the nicotine in people's cigarettes will only increase the chances of getting cancer, the same way that people who smoked light cigarettes were three times more likely to get lung cancer when the tobacco companies tried it. Turned out that lowering the amount of nicotine in cigarettes actually increased the amount of tar and nicotine that the user got because they puffed harder on it. What you guys are proposing is absurd on it's face.
Nicotine is the least dangerous thing in an analog cigarette. Why do we keep pushing for abstinence on these things? It doesn't work, it's never worked, and it never will work. If fewer smokers is the goal, then don't draw attention to it. More regulation is certainly not the answer in this regard. Harm reduction is. It's the only thing that's working with any reasonable percentages. Snoose, e-cigarettes, high potency inhalers, nicotine drops, and others. All of them are being proven to significantly reduce the risks in of nicotine use. Why not mandate for those?
Sure, why not increase the amount of lung cancer? That is what you're talking about. It's not the nicotine that kills you. It's everything else in the cigarette. It's been proven that all decreasing the amount of nicotine in tobacco does is make people smoke more. Numerous studies have proven this. Sure, the FDA has proposed this very idea, but the FDA hasn't been on the side of human health for a very long time.
People that buy it are doing it to punish themselves, our out of some insane religious devotion, or whatever else the diseased mind of a decaffeinated coffee drinker can think up. I think this research is going entirely in the wrong direction. The goal should be, how to create a super hybrid coffee plant that contains more caffeine, with fewer toxic byproducts that a normal cup of coffee would have. Clean, smooth, packed with energy. That's what real coffee drinkers want.
My big question is... is it an encrypted device? There's nothing in the article or the affidavit that says it was. And if it's not, then why can't they just take the hard drive out and put it into something that can read micro hard drives? With all the billions of dollars we as tax payers are paying to keep the FBI running, you would think they would have at least some OEM equipment at their disposal. It doesn't exactly inspire faith in the Bureau when this kind of thing illustrates that the "experts" in Computer Crimes don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
There are some good projects on this list. Even things that will probably be profitable in a couple of years. I think our friend Mary Jander is just not getting understanding the situation Google's in. You have to remember that Google's core business, search advertising is slowly dying. Every quarter they make less money on it; and even though they are still among the largest advertisers on the internet, the search business has peaked, and they need to find new business models to get into.
Do you remember the hubub when Google bought Android? You know, that totally unprofitable mobile phone os? There were numerous commentators like Mary that just didn't get it. Some even questioned the sanity of Google's ability to make business decisions. And now, it's starting to look more like Google will be remembered for Android, it's role in the mobile revolution and the post PC era, than it will be for people going to google looking for Facebook.
Everyone always points to G+ as a sure fire loser for Google. But I don't think it is. Even in the relatively short time it's been in public beta, it's changed quite a bit. They've added some pretty compelling features to it like hangouts, and it's app friendly. Just because it's not a hit today, doesn't mean it won't be a hit tomorrow. Thankfully, Google is big enough and smart enough to be able to do what no other company on Wall Street does... think about the future.
My suggestion would be that ms Jadner do the same.
Which just goes to show that the court system in America is not accessible to everyone. It's tailored to the rich, those that have already been convicted of something, and people who are already lawyers. It's a damn travesty.
I'm really trying to work with this. Other than Metro, Windows 8 isn't bad. It's actually a marked improvement over Windows 7. The biggest change is the number of windows I can manage and keep open with 4 gigs of RAM. Memory seems to be cycling by itself with no third party software, registry hacks, or manual optimization. Silverlight is better on my 2gb Gforce card. Netflix is clean, and looking great. On Windows 7, the picture was muddier. So in terms of the things I care about (lots of open windows and netflix) Windows 8 is a boom.
What I'm not impressed with is the way Metro is locked down. I downloaded Visual Studio 11 beta so I could start writing Metro apps, and was immediately reminded that Microsoft will be approving any and all Metro apps, but they're letting me run my own stuff out of the kindness of their ever loving little hearts. That annoyed me, and it made me question my motivation for wanting to write Metro apps in the first place.
I mean, I can write an Android app today, compile it into an APK, and it'll run on any Android device within the scheme I compile for. Google doesn't and shouldn't care about the apps I write, and I like it that way. I don't really see the point of building something in the first place when someone who has nothing to do with anything can control my ability to publish it. If there's any chance of rejection at all, why should I bother to begin with?
I'm not learning new platforms because I like new platforms (well, I am, kina), I'm doing it because I want to have viable programs that I can do things with.
Screwing with my ability to publish my work is not a way to launch a new product.
I honestly don't think the code monkeys have a whole lot of power here. We're just the guys that sit around, and let people who aren't as intelligent as we are make all the stupid decisions. It's consent by omission, but it pays the bills.
At least they give out cool job titles. I would work for Google if they let me have "Diabolical Overlord, Master of Men's Minds." Pretty much in a heartbeat.
No, but there's no actual proof that onlive has done anything wrong. The terms are not public.
When did we start accepting rampant speculation as journalism?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen the people American universities have been churning out in recent years? It's awful. It's almost like they come into the workforce with negative experience, and have to make it up. It started with the for profit schools like Devry that passed pretty much everyone into a "degree." But of late, this trend has spread to the public universities as well. Maybe in your time, a degree was a viable record of some useful accomplishment. I would argue that as of the last decade (at least in North America) you get a piece of paper that's not worth much. Take it from someone who trains fresh grads on a regular basis. I would rather deal with someone who doesn't have a degree with just two year of experience, than a degreed kid I need to teach to unlearn the awful practices he picked up in school.
Or not. Working for yourself is great, rewarding, and challenging. It's just not the most stable thing you can do.
I don't even use the degree when considering someone for a role at my company anymore. There's no difference between schooled/unschooled candidates that have been doing this for awhile, and a huge difference in the ones out of school. If you're fresh out of school with an Information Technology degree, it's going to scare me a little. Some of these fresh grads know less after four years of school than the guy who spent six weeks in his basement obsessing about a new programming language. A lot of them don't have the skill or the experience, and they all feel like they should be able to command top salaries while they "learn the ropes." There's a difference between learning the ropes, and building a skill set which they should have been able to develop in school.
Also, I wish people would stop using the terms "self taught" as though you could magically just know something. There's no such thing.
Right, but probable cause isn't spying. If there's grounds for a warrant, there's ground to take out the phone hard drive. They do it with desktop computers and laptops all the time. How are phones different?
Look man, you can think whatever you want, but the facts on it don't lie. They're very clear. Every time this has ever been studied, the results have been the same. Cutting the nicotine in people's cigarettes will only increase the chances of getting cancer, the same way that people who smoked light cigarettes were three times more likely to get lung cancer when the tobacco companies tried it. Turned out that lowering the amount of nicotine in cigarettes actually increased the amount of tar and nicotine that the user got because they puffed harder on it. What you guys are proposing is absurd on it's face.
Nicotine is the least dangerous thing in an analog cigarette. Why do we keep pushing for abstinence on these things? It doesn't work, it's never worked, and it never will work. If fewer smokers is the goal, then don't draw attention to it. More regulation is certainly not the answer in this regard. Harm reduction is. It's the only thing that's working with any reasonable percentages. Snoose, e-cigarettes, high potency inhalers, nicotine drops, and others. All of them are being proven to significantly reduce the risks in of nicotine use. Why not mandate for those?
Sure, why not increase the amount of lung cancer? That is what you're talking about. It's not the nicotine that kills you. It's everything else in the cigarette. It's been proven that all decreasing the amount of nicotine in tobacco does is make people smoke more. Numerous studies have proven this. Sure, the FDA has proposed this very idea, but the FDA hasn't been on the side of human health for a very long time.
People that buy it are doing it to punish themselves, our out of some insane religious devotion, or whatever else the diseased mind of a decaffeinated coffee drinker can think up. I think this research is going entirely in the wrong direction. The goal should be, how to create a super hybrid coffee plant that contains more caffeine, with fewer toxic byproducts that a normal cup of coffee would have. Clean, smooth, packed with energy. That's what real coffee drinkers want.
My big question is... is it an encrypted device? There's nothing in the article or the affidavit that says it was. And if it's not, then why can't they just take the hard drive out and put it into something that can read micro hard drives? With all the billions of dollars we as tax payers are paying to keep the FBI running, you would think they would have at least some OEM equipment at their disposal. It doesn't exactly inspire faith in the Bureau when this kind of thing illustrates that the "experts" in Computer Crimes don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
There are some good projects on this list. Even things that will probably be profitable in a couple of years. I think our friend Mary Jander is just not getting understanding the situation Google's in. You have to remember that Google's core business, search advertising is slowly dying. Every quarter they make less money on it; and even though they are still among the largest advertisers on the internet, the search business has peaked, and they need to find new business models to get into.
Do you remember the hubub when Google bought Android? You know, that totally unprofitable mobile phone os? There were numerous commentators like Mary that just didn't get it. Some even questioned the sanity of Google's ability to make business decisions. And now, it's starting to look more like Google will be remembered for Android, it's role in the mobile revolution and the post PC era, than it will be for people going to google looking for Facebook.
Everyone always points to G+ as a sure fire loser for Google. But I don't think it is. Even in the relatively short time it's been in public beta, it's changed quite a bit. They've added some pretty compelling features to it like hangouts, and it's app friendly. Just because it's not a hit today, doesn't mean it won't be a hit tomorrow. Thankfully, Google is big enough and smart enough to be able to do what no other company on Wall Street does... think about the future.
My suggestion would be that ms Jadner do the same.
Phillip K. Dick might not have come up with this idea, but it certainly would be worthy of him.
And let's not forget civil litigation, where you can't even get a public defender.
Which just goes to show that the court system in America is not accessible to everyone. It's tailored to the rich, those that have already been convicted of something, and people who are already lawyers. It's a damn travesty.
I'm really trying to work with this. Other than Metro, Windows 8 isn't bad. It's actually a marked improvement over Windows 7. The biggest change is the number of windows I can manage and keep open with 4 gigs of RAM. Memory seems to be cycling by itself with no third party software, registry hacks, or manual optimization. Silverlight is better on my 2gb Gforce card. Netflix is clean, and looking great. On Windows 7, the picture was muddier. So in terms of the things I care about (lots of open windows and netflix) Windows 8 is a boom.
What I'm not impressed with is the way Metro is locked down. I downloaded Visual Studio 11 beta so I could start writing Metro apps, and was immediately reminded that Microsoft will be approving any and all Metro apps, but they're letting me run my own stuff out of the kindness of their ever loving little hearts. That annoyed me, and it made me question my motivation for wanting to write Metro apps in the first place.
I mean, I can write an Android app today, compile it into an APK, and it'll run on any Android device within the scheme I compile for. Google doesn't and shouldn't care about the apps I write, and I like it that way. I don't really see the point of building something in the first place when someone who has nothing to do with anything can control my ability to publish it. If there's any chance of rejection at all, why should I bother to begin with?
I'm not learning new platforms because I like new platforms (well, I am, kina), I'm doing it because I want to have viable programs that I can do things with.
Screwing with my ability to publish my work is not a way to launch a new product.
I'm sorry. It's totally unacceptable.
I honestly don't think the code monkeys have a whole lot of power here. We're just the guys that sit around, and let people who aren't as intelligent as we are make all the stupid decisions. It's consent by omission, but it pays the bills.
At least they give out cool job titles. I would work for Google if they let me have "Diabolical Overlord, Master of Men's Minds." Pretty much in a heartbeat.
No, but there's no actual proof that onlive has done anything wrong. The terms are not public. When did we start accepting rampant speculation as journalism?