Giants, people living 200 years, zombies, magic, women-bashing, all the Gospels being written by people who never met Jesus, virgin birth, God being all powerful but unable to do things like forgive humanity without killing himself, God effectively killing himself but disagreeing with suicide, 6000 year old earth if you take it as literal, absolutely content-free rubbish if you do not, God supporting genocide, God killing babies, God telling a guy to burn his son alive but then saying "jk! you got punkd!", Jesus saying basically the same things most homeless guys say, Jesus calling himself God and saying that he is the holy humbleist of them all in the same sentence, the fact that the whole idea of Jesus was ripped off from other cultures like the Egyptians, 4 gospels that often contradict one another, Jesus tacitly supporting slavery by telling slaves to be good and obey their masters, God sending people to hell for their poor choices which he predestined them to make, God letting Satan use Job as a punching bag because of some weird bet, God being the perfect creator but having never created anything perfect, crazy laws like not being able to eat shrimp on pain of death, saying all men need to cut off part of their penis, God being jealous of imaginary gods, if the flood killed everyone except Noah and his family then Noah had to have thousands of children to reach known historical population levels fast enough, Noah built a boat by himself that could carry two of every land-dwelling species at once, the fact that if half these things happened in a fantasy novel you would think they were plot holes.
Also, you are the one making the claim; you have the burden of proof! Please, this is pretty much Thinking 101. "For all of you that do not believe in unicorns, why don't you just prove it to me?"
The question is why you should believe at all. Do you actually believe that Christianity is the most plausible of all of the possibilities? Do you find it likely that the Old Testament is filled with tall tales, but that the New Testament is not? What is different about the New Testament that makes it more accurate? The New Testament also has some wacky stuff in it. Paul hates on women and gays. Is he wrong? If not, then ok, but if he is then this book has errors in it and seems no more authoritative than any other book (Harry Potter also had some touching moral teachings)? Jesus makes many objectively falsifiable (and falsified) claims as well. He said quite clearly that the world would end before the end of the current generation.
I do not know you, and I certainly do not know your answers to any of those questions (perhaps you have a reasonable answer for all of them), but I have a difficult time imagining someone who is actually using critical thought to 1) not ask any of these questions 2) accept the half-assed responses typically presented.
When you start thinking about it, even in a cursory sort of way, the entire concept of a God falls apart. Take omnipotence. I know it is a silly question but, Can God make a rock so large that he cannot lift it? (or the variant, can God make a hotpocket so hot that it could burn him?) No? Oh well then he not all powerful, since he cannot do every task. Yes? Oh well he is not all powerful, since he could not lift a rock of a certain size. A true critical thinker, at this point, would say "hm, it appears omnipotence is a nonsensical term, since it is self contradictory". The only other option is to take the stance that God is not omnipotent, but then he is not God by any classical definition.
Before I get flamed into oblivion and forced to drink hemlock, I would just like to say that I am not claiming any monopoly on truth, I just think the world would be better off if we all just thought this through. I am all for picking and choosing beliefs, but why don't we pick the things that make the most sense.
Especially the pope. He is the head of the largest cult in history. The "Truth" is not high on the list of important things for people who believe in magic, much less preach it.
I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening.
Well those two statements seem pretty contradictory. Clearly you have never had the pat down before, because no one who has had it done would be "perfectly fine" with the idea of some random dude feeling up their taint. No it is not "tramatic" or anything, but it certainly is violating. The fact that they would not even catch anyone who was motivated and had half a brain makes it even worse.
Right after 9/11 I took a flight. There was this "shady" looking guy sitting in one of the seats at the terminal. He was wearing a hoody, kind of hiding his face, and he looked a bit strung out. Being so soon after 9/11, everyone was a little on edge and looking at this guy. A couple TSA agents came around to pick out a random person to pat down and search further. Everyone was kind of relieved, because it was obvious they were going to search the shady guy...except they picked the little old lady with the tennis bag sitting next to him. The entire time, everyone at the terminal was looking around at each other whispering "wtf?!". It just takes a tiny amount of common sense. Sorry to profile, but old ladies do not keep bombs in tennis bags...period.
Last month I lost my wallet in the cab on my way to la guardia. I found that you CAN fly without an ID, but the TSA will make it very uncomfortable for you. The pat down is pretty much what you would expect I guess. They pat all over your body, run their hand up your crack, grope your package, run their hand around your waistband (which I thought was the creepiest part), then send you on your way. It was done professionally, and I would do it again to get through, but it definitely was a bit invasive and creepy. I would have been a lot more disturbed by it if the TSA agent did not look like he was having the worst time in his life as he did it. Slightly different body language and it would get weird quick. The only thing that really makes me angry about it is that I totally still could have smuggled something through, even with the heightened security around me at the time. It might be justifiable if it was actually going to be effective, instead it was just inconvenient and uncomfortable.
That password is far more secure than most passwords created in more lenient environments. The 2nd most common facebook password is predicted to be "password". It only goes up from there.
Requiring a lower case, an upper case, a symbol, disallowing dictionary attack prone words, and a minimum password length of 12 would probably go a long way. Most companies do not do this because they care a lot less about the customer's security than they care about their checkbook (Mine included. Most customers complain if you give them more security.).
Fanboy? No, I actually run Mac and Linux at home and I program cross platform at work. The fact that Conflicker happened to be for Windows has nothing to do with this. Running old software with weak passwords is a recipe for disaster on any existing OS.
I have seen this happen. Old accounting system bombed out one day. Guy who wrote it in the 80s came back as a contractor for 2x the amount. He had been let go for being incompetent and terrible to work with a few years before, but he pretty much wrote his job security in the code so there was not much choice (until I rewrote the system).
I totally agree. I cannot stand the endless b**ching from programmers about how our careers are dead end.
"It's horrible! You can ONLY make around 80k on day one, and then you hit a cap around ONLY 120k! I knew I should have just been the CEO of a Fortune 50 company! It's not like I could start my own business and charge however much people value my services!"
Give me a break. This is one of the cushiest careers that you can do without being the son of a senator, and it pays up to 4x the average american's salary (which probably requires 4x the work), AND most of us would do it anyway because it is fun as hell. Sorry, no sympathy here.
The first step is the hardest for sure. Track down who is hiring in your area. Send them all a beefed up, HR-ified cv and you will get some call backs for sure. It is a bit shameful, but it is all about the alphabet soup. ie: C#, asp.net, asp.net mvc 3, wf, wcf, soap, rest, wpf, html5,.... , kshjfpwe.net. HR eats it up. Once you are in and working with one of the big platforms (aka: java or C# pretty much), your inbox will be so flooded with recruiter emails you will not even be able to read them all.
I have been the baby in every office I have been in. I'm in my mid twenties and have never worked with a programmer within 10 years of me. Sure, in risky startups where programmers do not require luxuries like "health insurance" or "time off", it will probably be mostly unattached twenty somethings. This does not seem to hold true in other industries. I have spent several years in the financial industry, and the trend was definitely towards an older demographic. They want you to be competent, professional, and hit the ground running on day one. Most young programmers will not be able to do that and will first need some mentorship in another field.
I thought Windows Media Player WAS written in.Net (WPF specifically)? I could be wrong, but a couple years ago I remember it being the exception, along with VS 2010.
The only way to make that happen is to make the language so restricted it becomes useless.
Using convention over configuration can make this problem disappear. You allow stupid, insecure stuff (you still have the goto keyword in languages like C#), but you do not make it the default option. In ASP.Net by default for example, all textboxes will throw an exception if they detect any html tags on postback. If you really need to get tags through the input (an html editor in a forum, for example) you can make a 1 line change to the web.config file to allow this. It basically says to you "We reallllly think you should do X in Y fashion, but if you insist, then knock yourself out!"
And if they can't get into management, the world can always use network engineers
Watch out world, here we come! Really though, most programmers make terrible network engineers. I know I break every piece of hardware I touch. I could never deal with the kind of stress network engineers deal with. I will stick to my software architect job, thank you very much.
Are they calling you at the office (IMHO, a big "NO NO")
This is the worst!!! I have had one recruiter leave multiple voicemails on my boss' phone, thinking it was mine. Argh!! This drives me absolutely nuts. Just this week I had a guy call 3 different people in my office asking for me. I just tell them now "Please feel free to spam me all day on my cell phone, but do not, under any circumstances, call my f**ing boss!!!".
OK, giving each of these an enormous budget does not make sense, but I think each of these are legitimate lines of study in some proportion. You really do not think Sociology is a big deal??...As in the study of the thing we all complain about all the time and would really like fixed, if only we could better understand how it really works??
Religious Studies is completely different from seminary; Religious Studies being the one where you actually are informed about religions, seminary being where you are misinformed about one.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Common fucking sense 2) Self preservation. Seriously Barney the dinosaur teachs love thy neighbor. No G-d required.
Giants, people living 200 years, zombies, magic, women-bashing, all the Gospels being written by people who never met Jesus, virgin birth, God being all powerful but unable to do things like forgive humanity without killing himself, God effectively killing himself but disagreeing with suicide, 6000 year old earth if you take it as literal, absolutely content-free rubbish if you do not, God supporting genocide, God killing babies, God telling a guy to burn his son alive but then saying "jk! you got punkd!", Jesus saying basically the same things most homeless guys say, Jesus calling himself God and saying that he is the holy humbleist of them all in the same sentence, the fact that the whole idea of Jesus was ripped off from other cultures like the Egyptians, 4 gospels that often contradict one another, Jesus tacitly supporting slavery by telling slaves to be good and obey their masters, God sending people to hell for their poor choices which he predestined them to make, God letting Satan use Job as a punching bag because of some weird bet, God being the perfect creator but having never created anything perfect, crazy laws like not being able to eat shrimp on pain of death, saying all men need to cut off part of their penis, God being jealous of imaginary gods, if the flood killed everyone except Noah and his family then Noah had to have thousands of children to reach known historical population levels fast enough, Noah built a boat by himself that could carry two of every land-dwelling species at once, the fact that if half these things happened in a fantasy novel you would think they were plot holes. Also, you are the one making the claim; you have the burden of proof! Please, this is pretty much Thinking 101. "For all of you that do not believe in unicorns, why don't you just prove it to me?"
I do not know you, and I certainly do not know your answers to any of those questions (perhaps you have a reasonable answer for all of them), but I have a difficult time imagining someone who is actually using critical thought to 1) not ask any of these questions 2) accept the half-assed responses typically presented.
When you start thinking about it, even in a cursory sort of way, the entire concept of a God falls apart. Take omnipotence. I know it is a silly question but, Can God make a rock so large that he cannot lift it? (or the variant, can God make a hotpocket so hot that it could burn him?) No? Oh well then he not all powerful, since he cannot do every task. Yes? Oh well he is not all powerful, since he could not lift a rock of a certain size. A true critical thinker, at this point, would say "hm, it appears omnipotence is a nonsensical term, since it is self contradictory". The only other option is to take the stance that God is not omnipotent, but then he is not God by any classical definition.
Before I get flamed into oblivion and forced to drink hemlock, I would just like to say that I am not claiming any monopoly on truth, I just think the world would be better off if we all just thought this through. I am all for picking and choosing beliefs, but why don't we pick the things that make the most sense.
Especially the pope. He is the head of the largest cult in history. The "Truth" is not high on the list of important things for people who believe in magic, much less preach it.
Has the Vatican not been wasting vast amounts of gullible people's money on stupid shit for over a millennium?
I'm all for protecting our civil liberties, but I'm perfectly fine with TSA pat downs and screening.
Well those two statements seem pretty contradictory. Clearly you have never had the pat down before, because no one who has had it done would be "perfectly fine" with the idea of some random dude feeling up their taint. No it is not "tramatic" or anything, but it certainly is violating. The fact that they would not even catch anyone who was motivated and had half a brain makes it even worse.
Right after 9/11 I took a flight. There was this "shady" looking guy sitting in one of the seats at the terminal. He was wearing a hoody, kind of hiding his face, and he looked a bit strung out. Being so soon after 9/11, everyone was a little on edge and looking at this guy. A couple TSA agents came around to pick out a random person to pat down and search further. Everyone was kind of relieved, because it was obvious they were going to search the shady guy...except they picked the little old lady with the tennis bag sitting next to him. The entire time, everyone at the terminal was looking around at each other whispering "wtf?!". It just takes a tiny amount of common sense. Sorry to profile, but old ladies do not keep bombs in tennis bags...period.
Last month I lost my wallet in the cab on my way to la guardia. I found that you CAN fly without an ID, but the TSA will make it very uncomfortable for you. The pat down is pretty much what you would expect I guess. They pat all over your body, run their hand up your crack, grope your package, run their hand around your waistband (which I thought was the creepiest part), then send you on your way. It was done professionally, and I would do it again to get through, but it definitely was a bit invasive and creepy. I would have been a lot more disturbed by it if the TSA agent did not look like he was having the worst time in his life as he did it. Slightly different body language and it would get weird quick. The only thing that really makes me angry about it is that I totally still could have smuggled something through, even with the heightened security around me at the time. It might be justifiable if it was actually going to be effective, instead it was just inconvenient and uncomfortable.
That password is far more secure than most passwords created in more lenient environments. The 2nd most common facebook password is predicted to be "password". It only goes up from there.
Requiring a lower case, an upper case, a symbol, disallowing dictionary attack prone words, and a minimum password length of 12 would probably go a long way. Most companies do not do this because they care a lot less about the customer's security than they care about their checkbook (Mine included. Most customers complain if you give them more security.).
Did I say it was easy? Yes[.]
Sorry, I could not resist.
Fanboy? No, I actually run Mac and Linux at home and I program cross platform at work. The fact that Conflicker happened to be for Windows has nothing to do with this. Running old software with weak passwords is a recipe for disaster on any existing OS.
Troll much? Windows has nothing to do with it when you set all of your passwords to "123456".
I have seen this happen. Old accounting system bombed out one day. Guy who wrote it in the 80s came back as a contractor for 2x the amount. He had been let go for being incompetent and terrible to work with a few years before, but he pretty much wrote his job security in the code so there was not much choice (until I rewrote the system).
"It's horrible! You can ONLY make around 80k on day one, and then you hit a cap around ONLY 120k! I knew I should have just been the CEO of a Fortune 50 company! It's not like I could start my own business and charge however much people value my services!"
Give me a break. This is one of the cushiest careers that you can do without being the son of a senator, and it pays up to 4x the average american's salary (which probably requires 4x the work), AND most of us would do it anyway because it is fun as hell. Sorry, no sympathy here.
The first step is the hardest for sure. Track down who is hiring in your area. Send them all a beefed up, HR-ified cv and you will get some call backs for sure. It is a bit shameful, but it is all about the alphabet soup. ie: C#, asp.net, asp.net mvc 3, wf, wcf, soap, rest, wpf, html5, .... , kshjfpwe.net. HR eats it up. Once you are in and working with one of the big platforms (aka: java or C# pretty much), your inbox will be so flooded with recruiter emails you will not even be able to read them all.
I have been the baby in every office I have been in. I'm in my mid twenties and have never worked with a programmer within 10 years of me. Sure, in risky startups where programmers do not require luxuries like "health insurance" or "time off", it will probably be mostly unattached twenty somethings. This does not seem to hold true in other industries. I have spent several years in the financial industry, and the trend was definitely towards an older demographic. They want you to be competent, professional, and hit the ground running on day one. Most young programmers will not be able to do that and will first need some mentorship in another field.
I thought Windows Media Player WAS written in .Net (WPF specifically)? I could be wrong, but a couple years ago I remember it being the exception, along with VS 2010.
The only way to make that happen is to make the language so restricted it becomes useless.
Using convention over configuration can make this problem disappear. You allow stupid, insecure stuff (you still have the goto keyword in languages like C#), but you do not make it the default option. In ASP.Net by default for example, all textboxes will throw an exception if they detect any html tags on postback. If you really need to get tags through the input (an html editor in a forum, for example) you can make a 1 line change to the web.config file to allow this. It basically says to you "We reallllly think you should do X in Y fashion, but if you insist, then knock yourself out!"
Mono implements the majority of .Net these days. It also runs great on Linux and OSX.
And if they can't get into management, the world can always use network engineers
Watch out world, here we come! Really though, most programmers make terrible network engineers. I know I break every piece of hardware I touch. I could never deal with the kind of stress network engineers deal with. I will stick to my software architect job, thank you very much.
Are they calling you at the office (IMHO, a big "NO NO")
This is the worst!!! I have had one recruiter leave multiple voicemails on my boss' phone, thinking it was mine. Argh!! This drives me absolutely nuts. Just this week I had a guy call 3 different people in my office asking for me. I just tell them now "Please feel free to spam me all day on my cell phone, but do not, under any circumstances, call my f**ing boss!!!".
end rant
Because if the 99th percentile developers are getting capped, then it caps the entire market below them.
OK, giving each of these an enormous budget does not make sense, but I think each of these are legitimate lines of study in some proportion. You really do not think Sociology is a big deal?? ...As in the study of the thing we all complain about all the time and would really like fixed, if only we could better understand how it really works??
Religion (this is why we have seminaries!)
Religious Studies is completely different from seminary; Religious Studies being the one where you actually are informed about religions, seminary being where you are misinformed about one.