Do I think all crimes that threaten national security, or are perceived to threaten national security, or are deemed by OHS to be a threat, are perpetrated by people smart enough to avoid trying to leave the country? No. Do I think that all crimes that match the above criteria are probably caused by those who have lots of money to throw at sneaking through customs? No. If we're going to assume someone is stupid enough to leave fingerprints we can make any kind of unqualified assumptions we want. I tend to avoid assumptions, personally. Then again, I've seen a lot of weird stuff in my time, and read a lot of dumb criminal stories.
Possible scenario: A street thug in London mugs and kills a guy, finds out the person was a High Value Individual, and then flees the country. He gets to America, we take his prints, Interpol calls up, "Have you seen these prints?", "Yes, this guy arrived recently." Bob's your uncle.
Possible scenario 2: Someone builds a bomb in a shed somewhere, gets paranoid and flees the US before he's suspected. Years pass, he thinks it's safe, he comes back to the US (don't assume he's smart enough not to). We take his prints, whiskey tango foxtrot, these prints match the ones from this old bomb scare. Book him, Danno.
People do dumb shit, that's one of the few safe assumptions I know of.
Despite being sick of getting killed every time, Xiao Feng decided to stick up to his father and tell him how he felt. He was quoted as saying, "I can play or I can not play, it doesn't bother me. I'm not looking for any job—I want to take some time to find one that suits me."
and then a sentence later...
One thing's for sure; Feng's way of deterring his son from playing games might be one of the best ideas to come out of China recently, particularly as reactions to "gaming and internet addiction" have been very extreme.
Yeah, his way of deterring his son really worked. His son fed him a line about looking for the right job and he bought it, hook, line and sinker. I want my 45 seconds back.
people are genetically modified organisms. But somehow human cloning is morally wrong and getting cooked in a backscatter x-ray at the airport for the sake of security theater isn't. What is it about GMO foods that scares us? Is there a difference between good GMO and bad GMO? Is it fair to lump GMO under one good/bad paradigm?
Good people sometimes do bad things but it doesn't necessarily make them bad people. Good people sometimes do bad things that do necessarily turn them into bad people. And sometimes bad people do good things and it can either turn their life around or not. In the same vein, GMO foods might actually harm us but it might actually be worth the trade off. Or it might not.
I don't feel any more enlightened by this revelation that the starter of the anti-GMO movement is remorseful about his stance, when he thought he was right then and he thinks he's right now. He sounds like he didn't know what he was talking about then, but he's drunk the GMO kool-aid now. How stupid is he going to feel if in 25 -50 years we discover that GMO food can harm us? Dumber than he'd feel if he kept on with his anti-GMO movement after he changed his mind about it? Somehow I think if we all just slowed down life enough that we could all just grow our own food this whole argument would be moot. I work as an engineer crunching time for deadlines and I can tell you most of them are arbitrary and pointless, much like this whole debacle. In summary, no one knows shit, so why are we acting like we do.
Men's rate of college going has slowed in recent years whereas women's has not, but if you roll the story back far enough, to the 60s and 70s, women were going to college in much fewer numbers.
And somehow we've forgotten the feminist movement, and the corporate disruption of the family by expecting both parents to work to make basic ends meet (this is not to say that a woman's place is in the home, but that parenting is just as much a full time job whose successes are more important than fiscal ones). Of course more women are going to college than before the feminist movement. They kinda have to.
Did we also forget that more minorities are going to college than before the civil rights movement, which also happened around the same time as the feminist movement? What an egregious perspective deficit. Don't worry about "rolling the story back far enough," that's stupid. You can measure the rate of college attendance by men and women separately and investigate each on their own merits. Is it unfair to say that there's a motivation for females to succeed in the relatively new milieu of the male workplace, and a demotivation for males to waste time and money on college in an economy that doesn't have any room for them, with jobs being shipped overseas and the rich waging war on the middle class? Women want it and need it more than ever, and men are disillusioned more than ever. Pretty fucking obvious from where I'm sitting.
If other programmers can not understand it, then it's bad.
You're assuming that all programmers are at the same skill level. More than sloppy coding practices, the general act of assuming (anything) is the most annoying thing to me about other programmers. We are not in a profession that provides us the luxury of assumptions. Go be a movie or art critic if that's your bag.
Addressing your comments specifically, as others have pointed out, quite often the assumption that a programmer's code is bad comes from a programmer who is not aware of their colleague's higher skill level. A novice may assume that if code is not easily understood it's automatically bad, when in reality the "offending" programmer might simply be using advanced application development techniques/design patterns. For example, the novice may not be aware that his/her own code is horribly tightly coupled - they might even believe tightly coupled is good! Until they get over their ego and open their mind.
Even very intelligently designed code can be awful if no one else can understand it. If you're working in a team then you absolutely must make sure your code is not a burden to your coworkers.
You're apologizing for less skilled programmers' lack of skill. You're suggesting their lack of skill be accommodated. If intelligently designed code is a "burden" to a novice then they are both blessed to be working with a coworker who can teach them by example how to write better code and obligated to overcome their lack. Ignorance is no excuse. We're engineers, we don't tolerate dumbing down.
Try donating them. If you were really concerned with some kid somewhere getting enjoyment out of them you wouldn't be thinking of your own personal gain first.
Spinning off the breadboard idea, a friend of mine built a light-sensitive theramin on a cheap Radio Shack proto board. Normally theramins are played with movement of your hands around an antenna, but the light sensitive one plays different notes as you cover the photo resistors. Here's a great source of info: http://www.instructables.com/id/Light-Theremin/. He'll probable have more fun building it, but the fun of having one may not be apparent until he sees it in action.
While that definition may be technically correct, it's pedantic and impractical for conversation since the proper term, "assault weapon," includes both automatic and semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Those who insist on this select-fire term exclude themselves from practical conversations. This isn't the command line, we can use our brains to infer context.
So it's similar to the POTUS then. He can't make laws by himself but he can say leave potheads in WA and CO alone, there are more important things to do... like bust potheads in every other state.
You should let http://pleaserobme.com/ know they are obsolete then. Also, not all of us have our lights on so our silhouettes can be seen when we're home. Also, this enables burglars to target people without having to be in their proximity -- they're not in superposition peeking through everyone's windows at once, you know. Also, your shoe is untied. Gotcha!
The thing to worry about here is not being watched while you watch TV, it's having those who may want to rob your house know when you're not home by looking through your screen. They already know you have stuff worth stealing, after all you have a "Smart" TV. Feel pretty smart now, don't you?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, come on, it's funny because it's true.
Do I think all crimes that threaten national security, or are perceived to threaten national security, or are deemed by OHS to be a threat, are perpetrated by people smart enough to avoid trying to leave the country? No. Do I think that all crimes that match the above criteria are probably caused by those who have lots of money to throw at sneaking through customs? No. If we're going to assume someone is stupid enough to leave fingerprints we can make any kind of unqualified assumptions we want. I tend to avoid assumptions, personally. Then again, I've seen a lot of weird stuff in my time, and read a lot of dumb criminal stories.
Possible scenario: A street thug in London mugs and kills a guy, finds out the person was a High Value Individual, and then flees the country. He gets to America, we take his prints, Interpol calls up, "Have you seen these prints?", "Yes, this guy arrived recently." Bob's your uncle.
Possible scenario 2: Someone builds a bomb in a shed somewhere, gets paranoid and flees the US before he's suspected. Years pass, he thinks it's safe, he comes back to the US (don't assume he's smart enough not to). We take his prints, whiskey tango foxtrot, these prints match the ones from this old bomb scare. Book him, Danno.
People do dumb shit, that's one of the few safe assumptions I know of.
My guess would be to cross-reference fingerprints found at a crime scene with fingerprints on file with unsolved cases.
Despite being sick of getting killed every time, Xiao Feng decided to stick up to his father and tell him how he felt. He was quoted as saying, "I can play or I can not play, it doesn't bother me. I'm not looking for any job—I want to take some time to find one that suits me."
and then a sentence later...
One thing's for sure; Feng's way of deterring his son from playing games might be one of the best ideas to come out of China recently, particularly as reactions to "gaming and internet addiction" have been very extreme.
Yeah, his way of deterring his son really worked. His son fed him a line about looking for the right job and he bought it, hook, line and sinker. I want my 45 seconds back.
people are genetically modified organisms. But somehow human cloning is morally wrong and getting cooked in a backscatter x-ray at the airport for the sake of security theater isn't. What is it about GMO foods that scares us? Is there a difference between good GMO and bad GMO? Is it fair to lump GMO under one good/bad paradigm?
Good people sometimes do bad things but it doesn't necessarily make them bad people. Good people sometimes do bad things that do necessarily turn them into bad people. And sometimes bad people do good things and it can either turn their life around or not. In the same vein, GMO foods might actually harm us but it might actually be worth the trade off. Or it might not.
I don't feel any more enlightened by this revelation that the starter of the anti-GMO movement is remorseful about his stance, when he thought he was right then and he thinks he's right now. He sounds like he didn't know what he was talking about then, but he's drunk the GMO kool-aid now. How stupid is he going to feel if in 25 -50 years we discover that GMO food can harm us? Dumber than he'd feel if he kept on with his anti-GMO movement after he changed his mind about it? Somehow I think if we all just slowed down life enough that we could all just grow our own food this whole argument would be moot. I work as an engineer crunching time for deadlines and I can tell you most of them are arbitrary and pointless, much like this whole debacle. In summary, no one knows shit, so why are we acting like we do.
Men's rate of college going has slowed in recent years whereas women's has not, but if you roll the story back far enough, to the 60s and 70s, women were going to college in much fewer numbers.
And somehow we've forgotten the feminist movement, and the corporate disruption of the family by expecting both parents to work to make basic ends meet (this is not to say that a woman's place is in the home, but that parenting is just as much a full time job whose successes are more important than fiscal ones). Of course more women are going to college than before the feminist movement. They kinda have to.
Did we also forget that more minorities are going to college than before the civil rights movement, which also happened around the same time as the feminist movement? What an egregious perspective deficit. Don't worry about "rolling the story back far enough," that's stupid. You can measure the rate of college attendance by men and women separately and investigate each on their own merits. Is it unfair to say that there's a motivation for females to succeed in the relatively new milieu of the male workplace, and a demotivation for males to waste time and money on college in an economy that doesn't have any room for them, with jobs being shipped overseas and the rich waging war on the middle class? Women want it and need it more than ever, and men are disillusioned more than ever. Pretty fucking obvious from where I'm sitting.
What better way to convince IE6-8 users to stop being so stupid?
If other programmers can not understand it, then it's bad.
You're assuming that all programmers are at the same skill level. More than sloppy coding practices, the general act of assuming (anything) is the most annoying thing to me about other programmers. We are not in a profession that provides us the luxury of assumptions. Go be a movie or art critic if that's your bag.
Addressing your comments specifically, as others have pointed out, quite often the assumption that a programmer's code is bad comes from a programmer who is not aware of their colleague's higher skill level. A novice may assume that if code is not easily understood it's automatically bad, when in reality the "offending" programmer might simply be using advanced application development techniques/design patterns. For example, the novice may not be aware that his/her own code is horribly tightly coupled - they might even believe tightly coupled is good! Until they get over their ego and open their mind.
Even very intelligently designed code can be awful if no one else can understand it. If you're working in a team then you absolutely must make sure your code is not a burden to your coworkers.
You're apologizing for less skilled programmers' lack of skill. You're suggesting their lack of skill be accommodated. If intelligently designed code is a "burden" to a novice then they are both blessed to be working with a coworker who can teach them by example how to write better code and obligated to overcome their lack. Ignorance is no excuse. We're engineers, we don't tolerate dumbing down.
Way better than underpants.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest his 25 year old son lives in his basement.
Ha ha ha that's sarcasm right? Yeah, yeah it is.
No, I think he means the human-recognition sentry turrets in S. Korea.
Try donating them. If you were really concerned with some kid somewhere getting enjoyment out of them you wouldn't be thinking of your own personal gain first.
Spinning off the breadboard idea, a friend of mine built a light-sensitive theramin on a cheap Radio Shack proto board. Normally theramins are played with movement of your hands around an antenna, but the light sensitive one plays different notes as you cover the photo resistors. Here's a great source of info: http://www.instructables.com/id/Light-Theremin/. He'll probable have more fun building it, but the fun of having one may not be apparent until he sees it in action.
While that definition may be technically correct, it's pedantic and impractical for conversation since the proper term, "assault weapon," includes both automatic and semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Those who insist on this select-fire term exclude themselves from practical conversations. This isn't the command line, we can use our brains to infer context.
Way to raise the bar.
fail. you just fail. so much fail. fail hard 3. faaaayyyyyyyelllllllllllll. fail. tuck your fail between your legs because you fail.
So it's similar to the POTUS then. He can't make laws by himself but he can say leave potheads in WA and CO alone, there are more important things to do... like bust potheads in every other state.
Invisible hand, where are you when we need you to pimp slap the greedy? Just as invisible as the emperor's clothes?
You should let http://pleaserobme.com/ know they are obsolete then. Also, not all of us have our lights on so our silhouettes can be seen when we're home. Also, this enables burglars to target people without having to be in their proximity -- they're not in superposition peeking through everyone's windows at once, you know. Also, your shoe is untied. Gotcha!
The thing to worry about here is not being watched while you watch TV, it's having those who may want to rob your house know when you're not home by looking through your screen. They already know you have stuff worth stealing, after all you have a "Smart" TV. Feel pretty smart now, don't you?
Thanks for being so mature about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqQ62B8xdJc
Wait, who's bitter and angry?
So, what you're saying is, nobody at Nintendo will care...
No. But your comment shows that you associate kids with perversion, so that's troubling.