[...]the only way to install software will be through Microsoft's app store (onle Metro apps for you suckers).
Lay off the kool aid please. I am no big M$ fan, but this seems like the least likely turn of events that one could predict. Windows might be a lot of things, but a walled garden is not one of them (more like your own personal landfill).
3.8% sounds pretty low considering the mandatory refactoring that goes into building a port. I would bet a refactor on Windows would have seen an even bigger boost. This kind of performance measure tends to have little to do with the OS.
Literal biblical creation means the Universe came into existence 6,000 years ago. Idk about you, but I think believing that thousands of years of recorded human history are just a big conspiracy seems pretty high on the wacky scale to me.
Good response. The Catholics do have a nuanced and somewhat confusing view. John Paul II was though to have believed in evolution, and the Catholic Church holds the position that evolution is compatible with their beliefs... OTOH, as you stated, the Church makes a bunch of weird caveats that directly contradict what science has to say about evolution such as that we have all evolved from one human couple. IME Catholics tend to be one of the more science-positive denominations, but they also tend to lean heavily on arguments from ignorance and the God of the gaps arguments. I think that they have quite astutely noted that there will always be a gap in knowledge, and if they want to stick around, then that is where they need to be.
Literal? The Bible does not strike me as particularly helpful even from a moral perspective. Where it gets things right, everyone already knew it (golden rule was stated by Confucius first, for example). Where it gets it wrong, it ranges from silly to absolutely abhorrent: don't mix fabrics, kill your kids if they disrespect you too much, stone the gays, genocide is A-OK if God says so and you are the "chosen people" (the whole term "chosen people" is disgusting and ironically sounds like a term Hitler might use), don't eat lobsters or eagles or penguins, kill animals and burn up their blood to get forgiveness, rich people cannot get into heaven (young ruler, eye of the camel. Argue against either, but read them before you do. The amount of rationalization and bullshittery around both stories from Christians is hilarious), don't worship other gods (weird thing to say when you don't believe in any other gods, and yet its the numero uno commandment), don't have a hardened heart (even when God hardens your heart (pharaoh), or God will kill your son and everyone else's son in the whole damn country (WTF? God sounds a whole lot like Cthulhu in the whole Egypt story)), women who teach in church are shameful.
Reasonable people already know that the Bible is a piss poor science book. The trick is realizing how awful of a book on morality it is as well. Sure, even a broken clock is accurate twice a day, and the Bible has a couple moral teachings in it that seem good and reasonable (although they usually are so obvious that anybody could have told you, ie: be nice to people, don't steal, don't lie, forgive people, etc.), but it also gets moral teachings wrong so spectacularly and so often that it is an entirely unreliable guide. I tend to think that the people who take the historical facts in the Bible seriously might actually have a bit of an edge over the ones that think God's morality morality is anything short of maniacal.
Holding a strong belief with no evidence MIGHT not fall under the category of "delusional", but it is certainly an unreasonable position to hold and shows a deliberate disconnect from reality. There exists the same amount of evidence for a Judeo Christian God as there does for pixies. If someone claimed that pixies exist, you would probably say they were delusional. If they said they saw pixies, and that this was the reason for their belief, then you would definitely say they were delusional. If they said the believe in pixies, but do not have any good reason to, you would perhaps not say they were delusional, but certainly intellectually dishonest.
Wait, are you saying that the universe does not conform to my beliefs about morality?!?! But that would mean bad things happen to good people, not everything works out for the best, and evil sometimes goes unpunished! To accept your claim, I would certainly require some evidence that these phenomena are even possible!
Bad analogy. Theists never say 'some god exists'. They point to a specific one and go on to describe him/her in great detail. This is the difference between 'I believe that life exists in the universe outside of Earth' (and the implication is usually that this is a statement of probability, not absolute certainty) and 'I believe that there is a planet orbiting the third star on Orion's belt and there is intelligent life on it'. It is quite delusional to believe a bunch of claims with zero evidence. Making a guess about the existence of something (falsifiable that we can go out and test at some point) based on past experience and probability is perfectly reasonable.
If you are doing heavy branching, working with huge teams, and working with large code bases Git does very well. It is much faster than many of the old systems, and very easy to use. All that you get whether or not you are using it in a decentralized way. I personally use git for some things and mercurial for others, which is pretty nice as well. I like them both because they have awesome CLI interfaces and awesome automerging support. TFS, VSS, SVN all gave me nothing but headaches with their merging in the past.
Read a.Net Unleashed book and you are already more qualified than 70% of the crap C#ers out there. Companies will be fighting over you if you can solve a few Fizzbuzz problems in C# at the interview, which should be trivial for you with that sort of experience. No, it will not be sexy, but that is what allows you to get your foot in the door..Net is pretty nice too. The downsides to C# and.Net have all to do with the mostly lackluster community and almost nothing to do with the tech. I got out of.Net for that reason (working in node.js now), but C# still is actually my favorite language I have ever worked with. Linq alone is one of the best language features out there. Seriously though, most.Net developers just write CRUD apps hooking up forms with SQL and Crystal Reports, so the barrier to entry is extremely low.
Apprenticeships? No. Internships? Oh yes. Internships are an easy way to learn about solving real world problems. Of course, you cannot expect to get spoon fed. Programming just does not work like that.
Even though it gets everyone's panties in a wad, I still like the term "Software Engineer". IRL I actually go one step up with "Software Architect". Why would I want to call myself something that makes my clients uncomfortable? I want the term that is going to give them the most confidence and willingness to pay me more. I know that I am a hacker in the real sense, but calling myself that in business is simply unprofessional.
Slashdot Mirror
[...]the only way to install software will be through Microsoft's app store (onle Metro apps for you suckers).
Lay off the kool aid please. I am no big M$ fan, but this seems like the least likely turn of events that one could predict. Windows might be a lot of things, but a walled garden is not one of them (more like your own personal landfill).
3.8% sounds pretty low considering the mandatory refactoring that goes into building a port. I would bet a refactor on Windows would have seen an even bigger boost. This kind of performance measure tends to have little to do with the OS.
Literal biblical creation means the Universe came into existence 6,000 years ago. Idk about you, but I think believing that thousands of years of recorded human history are just a big conspiracy seems pretty high on the wacky scale to me.
Good response. The Catholics do have a nuanced and somewhat confusing view. John Paul II was though to have believed in evolution, and the Catholic Church holds the position that evolution is compatible with their beliefs... OTOH, as you stated, the Church makes a bunch of weird caveats that directly contradict what science has to say about evolution such as that we have all evolved from one human couple. IME Catholics tend to be one of the more science-positive denominations, but they also tend to lean heavily on arguments from ignorance and the God of the gaps arguments. I think that they have quite astutely noted that there will always be a gap in knowledge, and if they want to stick around, then that is where they need to be.
Reasonable people already know that the Bible is a piss poor science book. The trick is realizing how awful of a book on morality it is as well. Sure, even a broken clock is accurate twice a day, and the Bible has a couple moral teachings in it that seem good and reasonable (although they usually are so obvious that anybody could have told you, ie: be nice to people, don't steal, don't lie, forgive people, etc.), but it also gets moral teachings wrong so spectacularly and so often that it is an entirely unreliable guide. I tend to think that the people who take the historical facts in the Bible seriously might actually have a bit of an edge over the ones that think God's morality morality is anything short of maniacal.
In the Old Testament it says Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, which, if you remember a little Chemistry 101, is fucking impossible.
... impossible until you get to Chem 102, where they go over magic.
Holding a strong belief with no evidence MIGHT not fall under the category of "delusional", but it is certainly an unreasonable position to hold and shows a deliberate disconnect from reality. There exists the same amount of evidence for a Judeo Christian God as there does for pixies. If someone claimed that pixies exist, you would probably say they were delusional. If they said they saw pixies, and that this was the reason for their belief, then you would definitely say they were delusional. If they said the believe in pixies, but do not have any good reason to, you would perhaps not say they were delusional, but certainly intellectually dishonest.
Wait, are you saying that the universe does not conform to my beliefs about morality?!?! But that would mean bad things happen to good people, not everything works out for the best, and evil sometimes goes unpunished! To accept your claim, I would certainly require some evidence that these phenomena are even possible!
Bad analogy. Theists never say 'some god exists'. They point to a specific one and go on to describe him/her in great detail. This is the difference between 'I believe that life exists in the universe outside of Earth' (and the implication is usually that this is a statement of probability, not absolute certainty) and 'I believe that there is a planet orbiting the third star on Orion's belt and there is intelligent life on it'. It is quite delusional to believe a bunch of claims with zero evidence. Making a guess about the existence of something (falsifiable that we can go out and test at some point) based on past experience and probability is perfectly reasonable.
Is it just me, or does everyone on the entire internet claim to have an IQ ~150? Where is the other 99.9663019177% of the population?
Ignorance is evolutionary bliss.
2, IDE? Drivers? 85% of people have no idea what either of those things are. If it runs the Facebook, then it is sufficient for most.
If you are doing heavy branching, working with huge teams, and working with large code bases Git does very well. It is much faster than many of the old systems, and very easy to use. All that you get whether or not you are using it in a decentralized way. I personally use git for some things and mercurial for others, which is pretty nice as well. I like them both because they have awesome CLI interfaces and awesome automerging support. TFS, VSS, SVN all gave me nothing but headaches with their merging in the past.
Yo Mr. White, that's wack!
Web stuff works too. Mono ASP.Net works great. Monodevelop is not a bad IDE to work with either.
Read a .Net Unleashed book and you are already more qualified than 70% of the crap C#ers out there. Companies will be fighting over you if you can solve a few Fizzbuzz problems in C# at the interview, which should be trivial for you with that sort of experience. No, it will not be sexy, but that is what allows you to get your foot in the door. .Net is pretty nice too. The downsides to C# and .Net have all to do with the mostly lackluster community and almost nothing to do with the tech. I got out of .Net for that reason (working in node.js now), but C# still is actually my favorite language I have ever worked with. Linq alone is one of the best language features out there. Seriously though, most .Net developers just write CRUD apps hooking up forms with SQL and Crystal Reports, so the barrier to entry is extremely low.
Apprenticeships? No. Internships? Oh yes. Internships are an easy way to learn about solving real world problems. Of course, you cannot expect to get spoon fed. Programming just does not work like that.
Not only will this stop kids from ever touching code again, it will also condition them to hate games generally.
Now we ALL have neck beards. Mwahahaha!
sincerely,
ghost of steve
One brain at a time. It was a pretty serious infestation. Just give it time.
Microsoft uses Nokia.
I will just get the replicator 1 up and running, then torrent all the prior releases and replicate future replicator versions for free.
Aunt Tilly can use what she wants. I personally love the Start>Search feature in Win7 and the spotlight in OSX.
Even though it gets everyone's panties in a wad, I still like the term "Software Engineer". IRL I actually go one step up with "Software Architect". Why would I want to call myself something that makes my clients uncomfortable? I want the term that is going to give them the most confidence and willingness to pay me more. I know that I am a hacker in the real sense, but calling myself that in business is simply unprofessional.