It took me about 8 months practicing with C#/.NET (about 1-2 hrs/wk) before I landed my first.NET job which paid 70% of what my earlier Linux/Qt/C++ gov contractor job paid. Since the cost of living was about the difference (+ even cheaper housing) this worked out pretty evenly. Raleigh is a cheap place to live, but it isn't too hard to find top-paying jobs in the Research Triangle Park.
About 1.5 yrs later (2 job jumps) and I'm making what I used to in the 80k's. Your average.NET developer makes 85k - 95k (usually with 3 years experience), but there are a TON of C# job opportunities here in Raleigh, NC that pay 120k - 130k. The C++ jobs I've looked at are all for 50-60k and they have lots of applicants. Hard to get an interview for those.
Anyway, hope your "reality" is not pushing you around too much.
7 years C++/OOP/Qt/Linux/sockets experience under my belt. I couldn't find a single job in my top 10 US city, and the ones that showed me interest paid far, far less than the.NET position I have now.
In my city the applicants for a C/C++ position go way, way back. Very difficult to find an interview. People will pay an arm and a leg for a.NET developer here. The biggest reason I pursued.NET so heavily is I overheard one recruiter say to another that she could never seem to find a.NET developer.
We're at an impasse on that. I attribute the difference to Darwin declining to accept the complexity of biological life to make his theory more persuasive, but your claim is that you don't need to be 100% right about everything to move the field forward (although I think curriculum should note where modern-era people in labcoats diverge from Darwin, but is that establishing religion as well?).
I don't think the government has an obligation to push religion. Really. Paying people to be religious leads to phony religion (see Eusebius History of the Church, the writings of Kierkegaard, etc).
I don't want the government to promote religion (since the government can't do anything very well). I want it to stop saying this view I don't agree with is beyond question.
The European model my ancestors left was one where only the expert's opinion mattered. American thrived because it abandoned that and let people pursue their business without telling them what to believe.
Calling Darwin's view of heredity a "provisional theory" is very gentle indeed.
His view basically said that organisms can pass on characteristics acquired during their own lifetime (see Lamarckism).
Prima facie observations show this is just bad, bad, bad. You don't even need the scientific method to throw this out. In calendar time Darwin was in a different place, but qualitiatively speaking these guys were true contemporaries.
Anyway, Darwin had no knowledge of DNA during his lifetime because evolution (and the spontaneous migration of non-life to life) is tightly coupled to life being vastly, vastly more simple than it is.
This is why there are no more people calling themselves "darwinists". There are neo-darwinists who are basically saying, "Yeah, I don't agree with all the wierd, euguenticist, Lamarkian, racist nonsense that the original guy came up with". Many of Darwin's assumptions that he needed to get the exalted academics cover have been abandoned.
How is asking critical questions about view points being pushed onto children with my money establishing religion?
Representative democracy only works when government is minimally intrusive. When government takes initiatives in stealing (i.e. redistribution by another name) or murder (abortion by another name) then it is pursing the very things it was intended to prevent. So I say minimal government or a state of nature for me please.
As you noted there are no government-free zones because governments want to collect as much as they can.
Darwin's theory rested on oversimplifying the complexity of life, so he came up with a bizarro view of heredity reminescent of how the Nazi's invented the "frost" cosmology because they were embarrased by all the advances made by Jewish cosmologists (who incidentally were mostly Germans themselves).
"99% of scientists" is pretty monolithic for a claim that can't be reproduced (not to mention probed, imaged, corraborated with evidence that isn't disputed by the proponents thereof or missing altogether, etc).
Any claim that refuses to allow other people their God-given right to their opinion is too weak to deserve to live.
So how did the guy in his basement (who sounds from your description to be OK) endanger society?
Transmutation to weapons grade uranium is a big jump: as in 10's of billions of dollars and 5 - 10 years of industrial activity (e.g. the Manhattan project).
What you're effectively saying is that a little bit of taking away people's freedom to choose is not so bad as the Stalinism of the USSR.
That's sounds bland to me. It's like you're asserting it's OK to raise recommended dosages of hemlock from 0 to some small amount. Even if you're right, so what?
In a worst case, of course, you are advancing Stalinism.
Every time I see someone reach for the mantle of objectivity they are pushing something.
If you can't handle other people having opinions, your views are weak.
First class example is that evolutionary criticism (missing intermediate species or disputed claims of finding them, Darwin's doubled-down denial of genetics, etc) is completely forbidden in US schools. Students are smart enough to recognize Stalinism and likely to resist it.
Back then very little of those enterprises were regulated, prohibited, and beaurocratized by law.
People could just do things without being afraid of the government. These days we can't even discover new breeds of corn without the FDA (i.e. the luddites) proclaiming that nature is being messed with (meanwhile real human beings are starving to death, but that's OK because it will solve the imaginary problem of overpopulation).
Back in the day transmutation was a big discovery that is now fully illegal under all circumstances. Can you imagine what would happen if the government found out about someone doing something like what Marie Curie was doing in their basement? It's hard to think about any advancements in flight when home-brewed drone hobbyists are attacked by the FAA.
Innovation happens when people can reap the rewards of their work and society allows them to prosper and take risks without confiscating their property under claims that everyone is taking a risk and so no one should.
As is usually the case, it is international law that is salvage, but unfortunately there is nothing desirable enough to take (for instance to a nation with actual sovereignty into its laws).
Your method of evaluation is shifting like the sands. In one case you defer to law (pedophilia, which the Guardian is arguing in favor of legalizing btw), but homosexuality has no legal grounds in my places (including NC where I live) so you appeal to whether or not you care.
Do people have a moral obligation to care for their neighbor. Sure. That doesn't mean the government gets to enforce that, and who should be doling out what to who, the IRS gets to step on certain people for their political views, etc.
If the government passes a law that saws gays get to have a room extended to them the same as any other label you can imagine (water melon pickers, employees of Walmart, etc) who gets the credit for sheltering those people? You and the government? But you and the government haven't done anything except boss someone else around.
As for the innate trait, I am digusted by your fatalism. Any belief, view, or practice that depends on denying your ability to make your own choices is simply obscene. Is your DNA going to tell you when you can take a vacation or what shows to watch on TV? Own your choices, or you are qualitiatively indistinguishable from an invertabrate.
Slashdot Mirror
It took me about 8 months practicing with C#/.NET (about 1-2 hrs/wk) before I landed my first .NET job which paid 70% of what my earlier Linux/Qt/C++ gov contractor job paid. Since the cost of living was about the difference (+ even cheaper housing) this worked out pretty evenly. Raleigh is a cheap place to live, but it isn't too hard to find top-paying jobs in the Research Triangle Park.
.NET developer makes 85k - 95k (usually with 3 years experience), but there are a TON of C# job opportunities here in Raleigh, NC that pay 120k - 130k. The C++ jobs I've looked at are all for 50-60k and they have lots of applicants. Hard to get an interview for those.
About 1.5 yrs later (2 job jumps) and I'm making what I used to in the 80k's. Your average
Anyway, hope your "reality" is not pushing you around too much.
Thanks for the background on that. I'll have to read up on some of that.
.NET (which is terrible, btw: worst of both worlds) has optional support for garbage collection, so ISO/GNU C++ might move that way as well.
C++ in
7 years C++/OOP/Qt/Linux/sockets experience under my belt. I couldn't find a single job in my top 10 US city, and the ones that showed me interest paid far, far less than the .NET position I have now.
.NET developer here. The biggest reason I pursued .NET so heavily is I overheard one recruiter say to another that she could never seem to find a .NET developer.
In my city the applicants for a C/C++ position go way, way back. Very difficult to find an interview. People will pay an arm and a leg for a
Why did Stroustrup claim it was inevitable that C++ would soon support garbage collection?
Would you call him misguided, out of touch with the performance issues you mentioned, or making an (unfortunate) that he wasn't excited about?
I'm not asking rhetorically btw. You seem to be a couple steps ahead of me.
The recruiter emails I get all the time are for new C# ASP.NET positions popping up in my area.
.NET positions seem to be for something other than MVC.
... don't just take my word for it.
Fewer and fewer
But as Lavare used to say
We're at an impasse on that. I attribute the difference to Darwin declining to accept the complexity of biological life to make his theory more persuasive, but your claim is that you don't need to be 100% right about everything to move the field forward (although I think curriculum should note where modern-era people in labcoats diverge from Darwin, but is that establishing religion as well?).
I don't think the government has an obligation to push religion. Really. Paying people to be religious leads to phony religion (see Eusebius History of the Church, the writings of Kierkegaard, etc).
I don't want the government to promote religion (since the government can't do anything very well). I want it to stop saying this view I don't agree with is beyond question.
The European model my ancestors left was one where only the expert's opinion mattered. American thrived because it abandoned that and let people pursue their business without telling them what to believe.
Get the government out of policing ideas!
Calling Darwin's view of heredity a "provisional theory" is very gentle indeed.
His view basically said that organisms can pass on characteristics acquired during their own lifetime (see Lamarckism).
Prima facie observations show this is just bad, bad, bad. You don't even need the scientific method to throw this out. In calendar time Darwin was in a different place, but qualitiatively speaking these guys were true contemporaries.
Anyway, Darwin had no knowledge of DNA during his lifetime because evolution (and the spontaneous migration of non-life to life) is tightly coupled to life being vastly, vastly more simple than it is.
This is why there are no more people calling themselves "darwinists". There are neo-darwinists who are basically saying, "Yeah, I don't agree with all the wierd, euguenticist, Lamarkian, racist nonsense that the original guy came up with". Many of Darwin's assumptions that he needed to get the exalted academics cover have been abandoned.
How is asking critical questions about view points being pushed onto children with my money establishing religion?
Representative democracy only works when government is minimally intrusive. When government takes initiatives in stealing (i.e. redistribution by another name) or murder (abortion by another name) then it is pursing the very things it was intended to prevent. So I say minimal government or a state of nature for me please.
As you noted there are no government-free zones because governments want to collect as much as they can.
"there is no theoretical way to distinguish between Truth and an extremely accurate and reliable misunderstanding."
... is that true?
So let me ask
I'm not saying your view depends on assertions and swearing ...
... but you're kind of presenting your view that way, right?
At least I gave some examples.
My money is being used to expose children to views I don't agree with.
And the federal courts disallow criticism of these views.
How is this better than living in a state of nature?
Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Darwin's theory rested on oversimplifying the complexity of life, so he came up with a bizarro view of heredity reminescent of how the Nazi's invented the "frost" cosmology because they were embarrased by all the advances made by Jewish cosmologists (who incidentally were mostly Germans themselves).
"99% of scientists" is pretty monolithic for a claim that can't be reproduced (not to mention probed, imaged, corraborated with evidence that isn't disputed by the proponents thereof or missing altogether, etc).
Any claim that refuses to allow other people their God-given right to their opinion is too weak to deserve to live.
Why does it matter how we look? On your deathbed, are you going to regret that we all didn't look a different way?
Why would I want to be lumped in with everyone else?
On the one hand it seems poor to accuse others of being sheeple, but then to justify something in the name of all becoming sheep?
So how did the guy in his basement (who sounds from your description to be OK) endanger society?
Transmutation to weapons grade uranium is a big jump: as in 10's of billions of dollars and 5 - 10 years of industrial activity (e.g. the Manhattan project).
I'm not saying your views stand on assertions and ad hominems ...
... but you're sure acting like they do.
What you're effectively saying is that a little bit of taking away people's freedom to choose is not so bad as the Stalinism of the USSR.
That's sounds bland to me. It's like you're asserting it's OK to raise recommended dosages of hemlock from 0 to some small amount. Even if you're right, so what?
In a worst case, of course, you are advancing Stalinism.
Every time I see someone reach for the mantle of objectivity they are pushing something.
If you can't handle other people having opinions, your views are weak.
First class example is that evolutionary criticism (missing intermediate species or disputed claims of finding them, Darwin's doubled-down denial of genetics, etc) is completely forbidden in US schools. Students are smart enough to recognize Stalinism and likely to resist it.
We don't need more commissars in lab coats.
Back then very little of those enterprises were regulated, prohibited, and beaurocratized by law.
People could just do things without being afraid of the government. These days we can't even discover new breeds of corn without the FDA (i.e. the luddites) proclaiming that nature is being messed with (meanwhile real human beings are starving to death, but that's OK because it will solve the imaginary problem of overpopulation).
Back in the day transmutation was a big discovery that is now fully illegal under all circumstances. Can you imagine what would happen if the government found out about someone doing something like what Marie Curie was doing in their basement? It's hard to think about any advancements in flight when home-brewed drone hobbyists are attacked by the FAA.
Innovation happens when people can reap the rewards of their work and society allows them to prosper and take risks without confiscating their property under claims that everyone is taking a risk and so no one should.
I used to be a Linux/C++/Qt dev, and then I tried to find a job in the same skillset. It was a major failure.
.NET jobs.
The OSS stacks are usable and have their qualities, but the jobs are thin. After some re-education I've landed a couple
The Linux people are often asking about the adoption problem outside of mobile/server stuff, and I think that's healthy for OSS.
The job listings for this stack are slim.
Data-juijitso is basically ETL work right?
Yeah, that's the way I see those guys get treated.
As is usually the case, it is international law that is salvage, but unfortunately there is nothing desirable enough to take (for instance to a nation with actual sovereignty into its laws).
Your method of evaluation is shifting like the sands. In one case you defer to law (pedophilia, which the Guardian is arguing in favor of legalizing btw), but homosexuality has no legal grounds in my places (including NC where I live) so you appeal to whether or not you care.
Do people have a moral obligation to care for their neighbor. Sure. That doesn't mean the government gets to enforce that, and who should be doling out what to who, the IRS gets to step on certain people for their political views, etc.
If the government passes a law that saws gays get to have a room extended to them the same as any other label you can imagine (water melon pickers, employees of Walmart, etc) who gets the credit for sheltering those people? You and the government? But you and the government haven't done anything except boss someone else around.
As for the innate trait, I am digusted by your fatalism. Any belief, view, or practice that depends on denying your ability to make your own choices is simply obscene. Is your DNA going to tell you when you can take a vacation or what shows to watch on TV? Own your choices, or you are qualitiatively indistinguishable from an invertabrate.