And any idea of what my legal rights are to videotape or record?
On your own property? To catch trespassers dumping garbage?
Jeebus, is our country so in the shit we need to ask that now? Why should corporations and the government have a right to surveil and that right be denied to us? Why is every sentence in this post a question?
If 41% of wealthy people in an industry that tends to run libertarian are voting against Romney, it is evidence that Romney or the Republican Party must really suck.
WTF dude, find the part where I piss on education. Better yet, cmd-F and look for "college".
But you'd be foolish to assume that people without CS degrees can't produce work of the same quality. The only people you can actually assume can't code worth a damn are electrical engineers and Mormons.
There are two egregiously flawed assumptions in what I quoted, and neither of them have anything to do with the prevalence of standard libraries.
One is that it is acceptable for enterprise software to be slow, presumably because it always is. That is the broken window theory in action. People with that mentality will never be anything but the mediocre programmers and will never seek to undersand anything beyond what it takes to not get fired.
The other is that the difference between sorting algorithms is simply a choice on speed, as if you're comparing a Camry to a Ferrari, where one is better than the other but they'll both get you were you want to go. That is the kind of ignorance that leads to cargo cult programming, doing something in some situation because you know you're supposed to without ever understanding why. It is well and good to tell them to use what is already available, but how they fuck will they ever know which one to use in what situation?
Tolerating this because we need cogs who crank it out for cheap is why shitty software is so common. It debases the profession.
That is completely irrelevant, though it explains how someone who is completely ignorant of why some sorting algorithms are classified as better than others could be gainfully employed.
Beware anyone who calls your profession a "priesthood", because he operates under the assumption that he is entitled to more than you, is either jealous or contemptuous of your market salary and wants to put you in your place. For whatever reason our culture regards doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, and CEOs as deserving the benefits of scarcity, but it is a huge problem when you can't you hire a computer nerd for less than six figures. If you aren't an extrovert, you don't deserve to be on top of the status hierarchy.
We already have vocational technology education, but it's widely regarded as a joke. Putting it in high school isn't going to change that. And if you have the knack for it, learning programming or learning computer maintenance is easy. After all, every time the subject of college degrees come up, there are always people very adamant that they didn't need one, and that "the best people I know didn't go to college". So if it is unnecessary, why are they arguing for "blue collar" programmers? These people argue "nature" in one breath and then "nurture" in the next. Dash is actually saying that the self-educated or non-degreed don't deserve to be considered "white collar" professionals.
Dash also makes the mistake of conflating programming with "IT", something the Slashdot peanut gallery is also apt to do. I'll leave that stupidity for a different flame war.
That's an astonishingly good idea you have there. We could fuse the hydrogen into ever more useful elements, whilst simultaneously using the waste heat to drive the industry that uses them. Though, of course, there is the sticky problem of getting that matter into orbit, which would require more energy than can be sustained in a controlled fashion.
So, gentlemen, I think we're agreed: For the good of human race, we're going to blow up the sun.
Except it "educated" them to the point of believing they know better about the subject than the very people who have studied it. Look at the dolt I replied to above. If he'd actually read the fucking article, or even the Wikipedia page on Dyson spheres, he'd see
"Even though there is enough mass in our solar system to construct a solid sphere, such a structure would not be mechanically feasible," Wright told me. "It would probably have to be more like a swarm of collectors."
and
Dyson replied, "A solid shell or ring surrounding a star is mechanically impossible. The form of 'biosphere' which I envisaged consists of a loose collection or swarm of objects traveling on independent orbits around the star."
This is a vastly more efficient and logical approach to SETI than listening for modulated radio. It's the difference between finding a city in the wilderness by its waste light versus finding it because someone is shining a laser beacon at random points along the horizon and you just happen to be there when it splashes in your eye. Traditional SETI assumes of the alien civilization an extremely wasteful energy expenditure for an altruistic purpose, while this approach assumes a very efficient use of resources without any desire to educate the savages.
And while there are always a few morons who shit in SETI threads, I suspect most of the naysayers in this thread actually love SETI because it caters to their science fiction fantasies. And yet they have just enough incredulity to dismiss Dyson spheres without actually understanding the reasoning behind this search because they saw an episode of Star Trek that had a solid sphere several million times more massive than its enclosed star.
I don't believe this. I think the most advanced aliens have probably realized that there isn't much point of growth after a certain threshold.
It's funny how these armchair physicists who got their education from bad science fiction are so adamant that we can't possibly know what magical technology we might invent that will get us around the laws of thermodynamics, so capturing starlight is crude and stupid and this project is obviously a waste of time.
But boy do they sure know the motivations of future humanity, the path of technological and societal growth, and the psychology of hypothetical aliens, and that knowledge also tells them that this project is a waste of time.
If the supposition is that they inevitably build Dyson spheres to capture all of the available energy coming off their star, why would they let a whole bunch of it escape as heat?
Where does energy go after you've used it? You think that shit disappears?
I also find the whole premise to be rather poorly thought out
Well, then, write a paper on it. You'll have shown Freeman Dyson to be completely wrong, you'll be famous!
Indeed. Shakespeare said it first: "there are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy." Science is just how we're trained to look at reality, It doesn't explain love or spirituality. How does science explain psychics? Auras, the afterlife, the power of prayer?
For fuck's sake, people, read a god damn book. Star Trek is make-believe bullshit.
If you're completely ignorant about a subject, is it too much to ask that you remedy the situation before farting an opinion? There are four links in the post for your education!
I mean, sure, the Templeton Foundation are a bunch of religious loons, but do you actually think you know better than Freeman Dyson and the actual physicists, astronomers, and engineers who consider the idea plausible? If so, you'd better tell them why it can't work, before they waste all that money! Your paper on the subject will make you famous!
Just wanted to let you know, Mr. President, in case you missed it.
Dude, you better fly out there, right now, and go to the Oval Office and demand to speak to the President. And don't let the rent-a-cops with the sunglasses and hearing aids stop you, national security is at stake, AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS THIS INFORMATION WHICH ONLY YOU CAN PROVIDE!
The US government is putting the case forward that the film was not an attempt to express a controversial viewpoint as much as something meant entirely to inflame and incense a volatile situation.
No, it isn't, you fucking retard. How many times are you going to repeat that lie?
The US government is putting the case forward that the film was not an attempt to express a controversial viewpoint as much as something meant to inflame and incense a volatile situation
This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military with experience in identifying ships by silhouette working as graphic designers who pick the coolest looking stock photos of obsolete warships
If the highway were non-divided you could have sent another car into oncoming traffic. And if not, into the wall, likely flipping it. You're rationalizing a mistake that you made as if it were optimal.
If you don't have time to look, you don't change lanes, period. Unless it is a pedestrian in the road, you're more likely to kill someone swerving than by braking and possibly hitting the thing in front of you.
Auto-driving cars, even with their greater awareness of other cars, still won't swerve like you believe they would, simply because they're more likely to lose control, and because the source of the danger is just as likely to keep going to the next lane.
does what its programming tells it to do, avoid hitting other vehicles. So the self-driving wonder swerves right to avoid the other car and zooms off the cliff.... I am amazed at how delusional governments are into so quickly allowing this technology on the roads... That just is irresponsible
This is why direct democracy is a bad idea. Very often the government does in fact know better than morons with dumb opinions, and in this case, opinions about what constitutes safe driving that actually make him the very threat he accuses self-driving cars of being.
The thing is, they can use the same technology. So as soon as you show up, the "middle aged neckbeard" warning fires, and all the women start going somewhere else.
you mean we preserved top soil by stopping massive herds from turning the entire nation into a dust bowl... Saying there is nothing good doing it is a bit of a hyperbole.
Hypocrite much?
And besides, the actual Dust Bowl was caused by the replacement of prairie grasses (which cattle could eat) with intensive farming that stripped the topsoil.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they may be retarded or have some sort of brain injury.
On your own property? To catch trespassers dumping garbage?
Jeebus, is our country so in the shit we need to ask that now? Why should corporations and the government have a right to surveil and that right be denied to us? Why is every sentence in this post a question?
If 41% of wealthy people in an industry that tends to run libertarian are voting against Romney, it is evidence that Romney or the Republican Party must really suck.
WTF dude, find the part where I piss on education. Better yet, cmd-F and look for "college".
But you'd be foolish to assume that people without CS degrees can't produce work of the same quality. The only people you can actually assume can't code worth a damn are electrical engineers and Mormons.
There are two egregiously flawed assumptions in what I quoted, and neither of them have anything to do with the prevalence of standard libraries.
One is that it is acceptable for enterprise software to be slow, presumably because it always is. That is the broken window theory in action. People with that mentality will never be anything but the mediocre programmers and will never seek to undersand anything beyond what it takes to not get fired.
The other is that the difference between sorting algorithms is simply a choice on speed, as if you're comparing a Camry to a Ferrari, where one is better than the other but they'll both get you were you want to go. That is the kind of ignorance that leads to cargo cult programming, doing something in some situation because you know you're supposed to without ever understanding why. It is well and good to tell them to use what is already available, but how they fuck will they ever know which one to use in what situation?
Tolerating this because we need cogs who crank it out for cheap is why shitty software is so common. It debases the profession.
That is completely irrelevant, though it explains how someone who is completely ignorant of why some sorting algorithms are classified as better than others could be gainfully employed.
For fuck's sake, a business dataset is never going to be so small that "bubble sort is fine".
You see, people? Do you see? This is why we fucking need college.
Beware anyone who calls your profession a "priesthood", because he operates under the assumption that he is entitled to more than you, is either jealous or contemptuous of your market salary and wants to put you in your place. For whatever reason our culture regards doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, and CEOs as deserving the benefits of scarcity, but it is a huge problem when you can't you hire a computer nerd for less than six figures. If you aren't an extrovert, you don't deserve to be on top of the status hierarchy.
We already have vocational technology education, but it's widely regarded as a joke. Putting it in high school isn't going to change that. And if you have the knack for it, learning programming or learning computer maintenance is easy. After all, every time the subject of college degrees come up, there are always people very adamant that they didn't need one, and that "the best people I know didn't go to college". So if it is unnecessary, why are they arguing for "blue collar" programmers? These people argue "nature" in one breath and then "nurture" in the next. Dash is actually saying that the self-educated or non-degreed don't deserve to be considered "white collar" professionals.
Dash also makes the mistake of conflating programming with "IT", something the Slashdot peanut gallery is also apt to do. I'll leave that stupidity for a different flame war.
That's an astonishingly good idea you have there. We could fuse the hydrogen into ever more useful elements, whilst simultaneously using the waste heat to drive the industry that uses them. Though, of course, there is the sticky problem of getting that matter into orbit, which would require more energy than can be sustained in a controlled fashion.
So, gentlemen, I think we're agreed: For the good of human race, we're going to blow up the sun.
Except it "educated" them to the point of believing they know better about the subject than the very people who have studied it. Look at the dolt I replied to above. If he'd actually read the fucking article, or even the Wikipedia page on Dyson spheres, he'd see
and
This is a vastly more efficient and logical approach to SETI than listening for modulated radio. It's the difference between finding a city in the wilderness by its waste light versus finding it because someone is shining a laser beacon at random points along the horizon and you just happen to be there when it splashes in your eye. Traditional SETI assumes of the alien civilization an extremely wasteful energy expenditure for an altruistic purpose, while this approach assumes a very efficient use of resources without any desire to educate the savages.
And while there are always a few morons who shit in SETI threads, I suspect most of the naysayers in this thread actually love SETI because it caters to their science fiction fantasies. And yet they have just enough incredulity to dismiss Dyson spheres without actually understanding the reasoning behind this search because they saw an episode of Star Trek that had a solid sphere several million times more massive than its enclosed star.
It's funny how these armchair physicists who got their education from bad science fiction are so adamant that we can't possibly know what magical technology we might invent that will get us around the laws of thermodynamics, so capturing starlight is crude and stupid and this project is obviously a waste of time.
But boy do they sure know the motivations of future humanity, the path of technological and societal growth, and the psychology of hypothetical aliens, and that knowledge also tells them that this project is a waste of time.
Where does energy go after you've used it? You think that shit disappears?
Well, then, write a paper on it. You'll have shown Freeman Dyson to be completely wrong, you'll be famous!
Indeed. Shakespeare said it first: "there are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy." Science is just how we're trained to look at reality, It doesn't explain love or spirituality. How does science explain psychics? Auras, the afterlife, the power of prayer?
For fuck's sake, people, read a god damn book. Star Trek is make-believe bullshit.
If you're completely ignorant about a subject, is it too much to ask that you remedy the situation before farting an opinion? There are four links in the post for your education!
I mean, sure, the Templeton Foundation are a bunch of religious loons, but do you actually think you know better than Freeman Dyson and the actual physicists, astronomers, and engineers who consider the idea plausible? If so, you'd better tell them why it can't work, before they waste all that money! Your paper on the subject will make you famous!
Cool. So you have a training regime to increase mental and physical dexterity? What about gene therapy? Or do you just go the bionic implant route?
Oh. Sounds like Scientology. Nevermind.
Dude, you better fly out there, right now, and go to the Oval Office and demand to speak to the President. And don't let the rent-a-cops with the sunglasses and hearing aids stop you, national security is at stake, AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS THIS INFORMATION WHICH ONLY YOU CAN PROVIDE!
No, it isn't, you fucking retard. How many times are you going to repeat that lie?
No it isn't, you fucking retard.
FTFY
So you consider luck an algorithmic input?
If the highway were non-divided you could have sent another car into oncoming traffic. And if not, into the wall, likely flipping it. You're rationalizing a mistake that you made as if it were optimal.
If you don't have time to look, you don't change lanes, period. Unless it is a pedestrian in the road, you're more likely to kill someone swerving than by braking and possibly hitting the thing in front of you.
Auto-driving cars, even with their greater awareness of other cars, still won't swerve like you believe they would, simply because they're more likely to lose control, and because the source of the danger is just as likely to keep going to the next lane.
This is why direct democracy is a bad idea. Very often the government does in fact know better than morons with dumb opinions, and in this case, opinions about what constitutes safe driving that actually make him the very threat he accuses self-driving cars of being.
The thing is, they can use the same technology. So as soon as you show up, the "middle aged neckbeard" warning fires, and all the women start going somewhere else.
far right: (adj) political ideology that predisposes adherents to passive-aggressive whining about how no one likes them
Hypocrite much?
And besides, the actual Dust Bowl was caused by the replacement of prairie grasses (which cattle could eat) with intensive farming that stripped the topsoil.
There is nothing more beautiful than a fanboy in denial.