the system isnt broken. it's amoral. i has no rightness or wrongess, no fixedness or brokenness. the system just is. it is a tool. the tool is never anything in and of itself but a means to some end. what the end is is dependent on the user.
and right now the majority of the users arent paying attention and/or dont care about how the tool is being misused to their detriment. they're too busy watching Biggest Loser and the Kardashians.
"Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity"
It's about the vaccinated, who are already actively protected, creating a passive protection effect for the non-vaccinated through numbers.
thats gross oversimplification and you damn well know it. lets take daikatana and half life. based on what you say, theyre the same game....
but in reality, and to quote a much used and very true phrase, the devil is in the details. lots of little things add up, either to a giant steaming mess or a classic bestselling game.
Crysis fell into the latter category though combination of storytelling, techinical and graphical wowness, and good gameplay. the tank level is one of those moments in gaming that i'll never forget. the level itself was massive, the largest i'd ever seen (technical points), and the freaking mountain seveal miles off fell apart, with physics, revealing aliens, and you eventually drive up to that SAME mountain that was miles off. the sheer scale of that map was amaing, both from a gaming standpoint, and a technical one. (and why they abandoned the massive outdoor environments for the sequel i dont understand)
Crysis demanded a lot of a computer. And the experience is vastly different between even a low end machine and mid range.
Just merely more graphical detail? Please. You dont have a clue. That's like saying my kids fingerpainting and the Mona Lisa are the same thing, one's just more detailed than the other. And just as ignorant.
being PC is ruining peoples' comprehension of simple things.
"shady looking" is less about physical looks and more about behaviour and mannerisms (failure to maintain eye contact, inability to keep still, hem/haws before answering a straight question, etc.), though being unkempt or bleary eyed are also indicators of someone "not at their best".
just wait a few years. eventually youll get old too. and as you get old you'll be glad for every chance you get to talk to other people about anything. because it wont be long before you're in the ground, and no one wants to go quietly, unnoticed and unmissed having not connected with anyone on the way there.
so you're saying that bits that benefit from parallel will benefit, and parts that dont wont... basically what people have been saying about multiple cpu's and cores for years.
well duh.
the whole point of the thing is that they claim to be able to compile code to take advantage of what parallelism it can, specifically when the program wasnt originally written to take advantage of parallel processing.
you mean the supposed RQ drone? that was unpainted? only had the top surface visible? and showed no signs of any damage or use? (pristine shiny skin with no blemishes that all aircraft develop even after only a single flight, even if its just from insect splatter)
that basically looked like a mockup constructed from shiny plastic?
The airlines were already in a miserable state due to the overregulation of the industry (they couldnt even drop unprofitable routes without approval, and frequently were denied that approval). the number of actors was already too small to truly function as a case of pure capitalism. even so, immediately after deregulation profit went up and the industry improved before the industry slid over to the other side of the scale, and became what we know today. and you're specific comment has more to do with the TSA and the magic word Terrorism than the airline industry as a whole. Verdict: Not pure capitalism
the Telcos and ISPs? Also wrong. First telcos: There used to be one. AT&T. with a almost federally mandated monopoly for many years. then that went away but they were already big kahuna so it was too late. then they were broke up. into what were essentially regional monpolies with a few competing long distance providers. Notice, not pure capitalism. Eventually a congress forced all of them to allow competing carriers over their wires, resulting in the explosion of 10-10-220 type long distance companies. An explosion of competition and lower prices resulting from a state closer to "pure capitalism". Then enforcement of that fell off, and the baby bells began buying each other out until finally SWbell bought the others and AT&T itself out, so now there's just one AT&T again. Next: ISPs....phone companies covered above. Cable companies? Locally mandated/allowed monopoies. Result: also not a result of pure capitalism
California brownouts? power companies are locally mandated/controlled monopolies. Fraid you miss the mark there too.
The gilded age? Largely revolved around things related to railroads (another natural monopoly). Steel had just a few big actors. The railroads, same. Still not pure capitalism.
Overall, your definition of pure capitalism needs work.
Pure capitalism relies on having -many- actors acting in competition driven by self interest. The fewer actors, the less pure it is, and the more it tends and accelerates towards becoming a oligoploy, duopoly and finally monopoly. A well placed regulation or two can preserve the pure capialism state (see the bit about 10-10-220 long distance competition). A poorly placed regulation can cripple an industry (airlines forced to keep routes that lose money; good for the people served sure..but bad for the industry as they lose money).
Essentialyl you're thinking of it in terms of a single axis line, with pure capitalism on one side and pure regulation on the other, the two extremes being essentially exclusive. That's wrong. It should be viewed as a 2-axis plot, minimum wont cover 3rd and 4th dimension axis), with capitalism being one axis (pure to monopoly) and regulation being another (good to bad).
TL;DR: pure capitalism gave us none of those things. Your post is wrong except for the last line.
People talk about the intangibles learned in college...what it proves about you...
None of that really matters. What really matters is you: do you work hard, will you make a company money.
Unfortuantely first you have to get hired. And not for all of your career. No what we're talking about here is your FIRST REAL JOB. And that means for most of us getting our resume through an HR department against 1000s of other undistinguished/unremarkable resumes. And one of the key filters they use for these jobs is "Degree: Yes or Trash".
it's a simple economics problem. the more people that have X degree in a field, the less value that degree has as a distinction in and of itself, and companies begin looking at other qualifiers to select canidates to interview. College degrees used to be far more rare and hard to get, and nearly garunteed a job in and of itself.
Now you can go to the local mccollege and get "something". So with everyone having degrees, people start questioning the purpose of egtting a degree to get a job. Articles like this show up more and more. Companies start looking for higher and more difficult degrees and certs...multiple degrees, MS's and PHd, etc.
This is largely what has already happened in the US: getting the degree isnt a garuntee of a job, but the degree is so common now that anyone without it goes straight from the envelope to the trash. So the result is you still need that degree oftentimes, to at least get your foot in the door initially and past the faceless HR weenie. This is true for a lot of jobs, regardless of the anecdotal stories about people not having degrees and getting in the door and being successful. They skip over how important that first real job in a field is. Once you're in the door initially, if you do well, you're set.
But first you have to get in the door. And that usually means a degree to get past the HR gatekeepers. So stay in school kids.
You failed to address either point in the OP, using a personal anecdote (applies to only you) to argue against an entire post that applies to nearly everyone else.
The more important of the two points he made was "some HR department that will toss any non-degree applicants right into the trash".
i'm guessing you likely didnt have to get past that barrier in your first job in your field. sometimes folks get lucky like that. either beacuse you applied in person, knew the person, your field isnt as big on degrees as others, or some other reason. and once you're in the door and can begin making connections and reputation, you're set.
but first you have to get in that door. and for the rest of us that means we have to hope some HR flunkie doesnt just bin our resume at first glance when they receive it, and having a degree on there is a BIG part of that.
plus the customary restore disc which is often just a image of a known good basic shipping config...ie the same image they just flash onto the drive at the factory.
No I'm not surprised. Not because they're evil per se. But because one of the reasons for reduced cost on computers is the pre-loaded software. Being a Linux machine is it really that hard to imagine that it probably has much less pre-loaded commercial software from companies paying for the privelidge?
You're right, there are tons of extinct critters. That's what happens naturally in competition. There will always be many loser and only a handful of winners. It's just like saying 97% of all businesses that EVER EXISTED (and that is the key phrase you used) went bankrupt and/or shutdown.
The good news is that humans are one of the winners.
Few if any other species are as widespread, as adaptable, or survivable as humans. Add in on top that we have sentient intelligence as well, a completely unique adaptation present in no other species. And the evidence that we have apparently survived other potential extinction events previously (the evidence of genetic bottlenecks tied to ancient eruptions, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
the system isnt broken. it's amoral. i has no rightness or wrongess, no fixedness or brokenness. the system just is. it is a tool. the tool is never anything in and of itself but a means to some end. what the end is is dependent on the user.
and right now the majority of the users arent paying attention and/or dont care about how the tool is being misused to their detriment. they're too busy watching Biggest Loser and the Kardashians.
Incorrect. it only matters to the un-vaccinated.
"Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity"
It's about the vaccinated, who are already actively protected, creating a passive protection effect for the non-vaccinated through numbers.
ok more than a little.
thats gross oversimplification and you damn well know it. lets take daikatana and half life. based on what you say, theyre the same game....
but in reality, and to quote a much used and very true phrase, the devil is in the details. lots of little things add up, either to a giant steaming mess or a classic bestselling game.
Crysis fell into the latter category though combination of storytelling, techinical and graphical wowness, and good gameplay. the tank level is one of those moments in gaming that i'll never forget. the level itself was massive, the largest i'd ever seen (technical points), and the freaking mountain seveal miles off fell apart, with physics, revealing aliens, and you eventually drive up to that SAME mountain that was miles off. the sheer scale of that map was amaing, both from a gaming standpoint, and a technical one. (and why they abandoned the massive outdoor environments for the sequel i dont understand)
Crysis demanded a lot of a computer. And the experience is vastly different between even a low end machine and mid range.
Just merely more graphical detail? Please. You dont have a clue.
That's like saying my kids fingerpainting and the Mona Lisa are the same thing, one's just more detailed than the other. And just as ignorant.
being PC is ruining peoples' comprehension of simple things.
"shady looking" is less about physical looks and more about behaviour and mannerisms (failure to maintain eye contact, inability to keep still, hem/haws before answering a straight question, etc.), though being unkempt or bleary eyed are also indicators of someone "not at their best".
what's to understand about a con man who criminally takes advantage of others through fraud?
just wait a few years. eventually youll get old too. and as you get old you'll be glad for every chance you get to talk to other people about anything. because it wont be long before you're in the ground, and no one wants to go quietly, unnoticed and unmissed having not connected with anyone on the way there.
so you're saying that bits that benefit from parallel will benefit, and parts that dont wont...
basically what people have been saying about multiple cpu's and cores for years.
well duh.
the whole point of the thing is that they claim to be able to compile code to take advantage of what parallelism it can, specifically when the program wasnt originally written to take advantage of parallel processing.
you mean the supposed RQ drone?
that was unpainted?
only had the top surface visible?
and showed no signs of any damage or use? (pristine shiny skin with no blemishes that all aircraft develop even after only a single flight, even if its just from insect splatter)
that basically looked like a mockup constructed from shiny plastic?
you mean that one?
The airlines were already in a miserable state due to the overregulation of the industry (they couldnt even drop unprofitable routes without approval, and frequently were denied that approval). the number of actors was already too small to truly function as a case of pure capitalism. even so, immediately after deregulation profit went up and the industry improved before the industry slid over to the other side of the scale, and became what we know today. and you're specific comment has more to do with the TSA and the magic word Terrorism than the airline industry as a whole. Verdict: Not pure capitalism
the Telcos and ISPs? Also wrong.
First telcos: There used to be one. AT&T. with a almost federally mandated monopoly for many years. then that went away but they were already big kahuna so it was too late. then they were broke up. into what were essentially regional monpolies with a few competing long distance providers. Notice, not pure capitalism. Eventually a congress forced all of them to allow competing carriers over their wires, resulting in the explosion of 10-10-220 type long distance companies. An explosion of competition and lower prices resulting from a state closer to "pure capitalism". Then enforcement of that fell off, and the baby bells began buying each other out until finally SWbell bought the others and AT&T itself out, so now there's just one AT&T again.
Next: ISPs....phone companies covered above. Cable companies? Locally mandated/allowed monopoies.
Result: also not a result of pure capitalism
California brownouts? power companies are locally mandated/controlled monopolies. Fraid you miss the mark there too.
The gilded age? Largely revolved around things related to railroads (another natural monopoly). Steel had just a few big actors. The railroads, same. Still not pure capitalism.
Overall, your definition of pure capitalism needs work.
Pure capitalism relies on having -many- actors acting in competition driven by self interest. The fewer actors, the less pure it is, and the more it tends and accelerates towards becoming a oligoploy, duopoly and finally monopoly. A well placed regulation or two can preserve the pure capialism state (see the bit about 10-10-220 long distance competition). A poorly placed regulation can cripple an industry (airlines forced to keep routes that lose money; good for the people served sure..but bad for the industry as they lose money).
Essentialyl you're thinking of it in terms of a single axis line, with pure capitalism on one side and pure regulation on the other, the two extremes being essentially exclusive. That's wrong. It should be viewed as a 2-axis plot, minimum wont cover 3rd and 4th dimension axis), with capitalism being one axis (pure to monopoly) and regulation being another (good to bad).
TL;DR: pure capitalism gave us none of those things. Your post is wrong except for the last line.
love it
only true if the bulb actually lasts as long as its supposed to.
i've had incandescents last years.
i've had cfl's last months, even weeks.
guess which one is easier on the bank when you have to replace it early and is beyond the store's replacement time limit, even with a receipt?
People talk about the intangibles learned in college...what it proves about you...
None of that really matters. What really matters is you: do you work hard, will you make a company money.
Unfortuantely first you have to get hired. And not for all of your career. No what we're talking about here is your FIRST REAL JOB. And that means for most of us getting our resume through an HR department against 1000s of other undistinguished/unremarkable resumes. And one of the key filters they use for these jobs is "Degree: Yes or Trash".
it's a simple economics problem. the more people that have X degree in a field, the less value that degree has as a distinction in and of itself, and companies begin looking at other qualifiers to select canidates to interview. College degrees used to be far more rare and hard to get, and nearly garunteed a job in and of itself.
Now you can go to the local mccollege and get "something". So with everyone having degrees, people start questioning the purpose of egtting a degree to get a job. Articles like this show up more and more. Companies start looking for higher and more difficult degrees and certs...multiple degrees, MS's and PHd, etc.
This is largely what has already happened in the US: getting the degree isnt a garuntee of a job, but the degree is so common now that anyone without it goes straight from the envelope to the trash. So the result is you still need that degree oftentimes, to at least get your foot in the door initially and past the faceless HR weenie. This is true for a lot of jobs, regardless of the anecdotal stories about people not having degrees and getting in the door and being successful. They skip over how important that first real job in a field is. Once you're in the door initially, if you do well, you're set.
But first you have to get in the door.
And that usually means a degree to get past the HR gatekeepers.
So stay in school kids.
You failed to address either point in the OP, using a personal anecdote (applies to only you) to argue against an entire post that applies to nearly everyone else.
The more important of the two points he made was "some HR department that will toss any non-degree applicants right into the trash".
i'm guessing you likely didnt have to get past that barrier in your first job in your field. sometimes folks get lucky like that. either beacuse you applied in person, knew the person, your field isnt as big on degrees as others, or some other reason. and once you're in the door and can begin making connections and reputation, you're set.
but first you have to get in that door. and for the rest of us that means we have to hope some HR flunkie doesnt just bin our resume at first glance when they receive it, and having a degree on there is a BIG part of that.
honestly the graphic ability is minor. it was the multiline scrollable display that was the useful part.
???
The word is expounds. Not expands.
funny enough, that's a real site.
http://lolgoats.net/
one or two co-located cables is the weakness. multiple connections in multiple places (ie redundancy) is key to that self-healing effect.
plus the customary restore disc which is often just a image of a known good basic shipping config...ie the same image they just flash onto the drive at the factory.
No I'm not surprised. Not because they're evil per se. But because one of the reasons for reduced cost on computers is the pre-loaded software. Being a Linux machine is it really that hard to imagine that it probably has much less pre-loaded commercial software from companies paying for the privelidge?
All of them? Absolutely.
luckily the rising sea level is neither large in relative terms nor rapid, making the demonstration courtesy of Sandy somewhat moot.
You're right, there are tons of extinct critters. That's what happens naturally in competition. There will always be many loser and only a handful of winners. It's just like saying 97% of all businesses that EVER EXISTED (and that is the key phrase you used) went bankrupt and/or shutdown.
The good news is that humans are one of the winners.
Few if any other species are as widespread, as adaptable, or survivable as humans.
Add in on top that we have sentient intelligence as well, a completely unique adaptation present in no other species.
And the evidence that we have apparently survived other potential extinction events previously (the evidence of genetic bottlenecks tied to ancient eruptions, etc)
zomg the seas are higher by the width of a pencil lead!
WOE IS US! WE'RE DOOMED!