Although TBH I like all these demonstrations of just how far we've regressed. "Remember doing this in the mid-'80s on an 8MHz 8086? Remember finding it a bit slow, then being so happy when you upgraded to that 286? Relive the original experience once again with feeling on a 2.6GHz desktop... in a browser window! And when the latest Fuckbuster Javascript engine is released, it'll be like a 286 again."
A company who revolutionised the way we communicate and interact with technology?
"Revolutionised"? Microsoft did that once in the early '80s, with IBM; and a second time in the mid-'90s, when it supplied a desktop OS with a TCP/IP stack. Apple's 1984 and iDevice UIs were similarly brilliant.
Google's just a bunch of incremental improvements to existing tech to increase the quality of product to an ad brokerage platform.
A company who's greatest innovation in the past 5 years is asking congress for handouts,
1) Of course research funding is an issue - being part of "resources". Evidence that salary's a concern, please?
2) Highlight my sensationalism pls, and do something about your sweeping "what it means to be an Israeli and grow up Israeli" generalisation, plz. Although a friend who has just finished her compulsory service in the IDF would beg to differ, and she's a first rate geek who rarely has to pick up a gun.
3) Re your Canadian professor wife, why would she expect to begin with a permanent visa? That's rarely how employment-based immigration works.
It has very little to do with salary. Nobel-level researchers could earn a hundred times as much by going into banking, if that's what they wanted.
It's about living environment, resources provided to academics, political outlook, and any number of things which normal people not simplifying humans to cogs in a machine use when deciding where to settle. America's response to technically brilliant (though rarely to socially brilliant) people has always been, "Sure, come here and we'll let you do your shit. What do you need? No problem."
1. Make post; 2. Get told that its purpose must have been X; 3. Point out that the outcome clearly wasn't X; 4. Get told that pointing this out confirms X further.
Aye, we're not the best on waiting times, and the "internal market" tempered centrally is a lot less efficient than pre-Thatcher, but - like Bevan said - there will be an NHS as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.
Something created out of compassion and solidarity is very hard (and I mean this sincerely) for a more capitalistic society to contemplate, let alone implement.
Yeah, the communist (not Marxist socialist, but actually "to each according to his need") English NHS is awful.
Oh wait, no, it's the best healthcare system I've ever experienced.
Also the problem here is contracting out to the lowest bidder. The problem was introduction of the private sector into government work - the same problem there always is.
I would probably have got modded up if the guilty party had been Microsoft, but every group falls into the trap of looking at the person rather than the action - even those groups which like to think they're better than average.
Also, all groups fall into the trap of liking to think that they're better than average.
Nope. It doesn't work that way. Adding stuff or editing stuff doesn't require that anyone was keeping track of anything. The thing was in constant flux and far too large for any one person to read it and keep up.
No, it just means you (or your underlings, then reporting to you) studying the whole thing once, then you (or your underlings, then reporting to you) studying each edit. If a group of humans could write it then a group of humans could read it.
"We need to pass this bill to find out what's in it."
How about posting that quote in context:-).
And as I noted, the House itself never saw or voted on the completed bill.
Are you complaining about the reconciliation process?
You are boring me, now. Your argument appears to come down to, "I think maybe not every Congresscritter read every last word of this bill," based on an out-of-context quote. Which might be true of absolutely any bill. Similarly, most MPs in the British House of Commons seem to be fucking clueless about the detail of many of the bills they pass - they have people to advise on their behalf, or even to tell them how to vote. The PPACA received a lot MORE scrutiny than average, but it's not enough because baw baw baw it didn't go your way.
Slashdot Mirror
News at 11.
Although TBH I like all these demonstrations of just how far we've regressed. "Remember doing this in the mid-'80s on an 8MHz 8086? Remember finding it a bit slow, then being so happy when you upgraded to that 286? Relive the original experience once again with feeling on a 2.6GHz desktop... in a browser window! And when the latest Fuckbuster Javascript engine is released, it'll be like a 286 again."
A company who revolutionised the way we communicate and interact with technology?
"Revolutionised"? Microsoft did that once in the early '80s, with IBM; and a second time in the mid-'90s, when it supplied a desktop OS with a TCP/IP stack. Apple's 1984 and iDevice UIs were similarly brilliant.
Google's just a bunch of incremental improvements to existing tech to increase the quality of product to an ad brokerage platform.
A company who's greatest innovation in the past 5 years is asking congress for handouts,
Which company is this?
That's a crap argument, and you know it.
Remove the worst 10% of drivers and see what happens.
Anyone can present data to suit their vision of a brave new world. Few people are willing to think about what the data is actually telling them.
I am not sure how you define "machine learning company", but Google isn't one.
Google is an ad broker which also invests in organisations that are likely to make a good ad deployment platform in the future.
1) Of course research funding is an issue - being part of "resources". Evidence that salary's a concern, please?
2) Highlight my sensationalism pls, and do something about your sweeping "what it means to be an Israeli and grow up Israeli" generalisation, plz. Although a friend who has just finished her compulsory service in the IDF would beg to differ, and she's a first rate geek who rarely has to pick up a gun.
3) Re your Canadian professor wife, why would she expect to begin with a permanent visa? That's rarely how employment-based immigration works.
Morale of the story: low.
It has very little to do with salary. Nobel-level researchers could earn a hundred times as much by going into banking, if that's what they wanted.
It's about living environment, resources provided to academics, political outlook, and any number of things which normal people not simplifying humans to cogs in a machine use when deciding where to settle. America's response to technically brilliant (though rarely to socially brilliant) people has always been, "Sure, come here and we'll let you do your shit. What do you need? No problem."
This, a thousand times.
OP just sounded like, "Fuck you, I'm using my skills for extortion!"
Anyway, a criminal would sell the flaw to every market. So it makes absolute sense not to start an arms race with the mafia.
True - that was a time of relatively strong propaganda. The decade before, it was only communists who did that. And so on.
In 2003, there wasn't even near the IDS/IPS technology of today.
Eh, it's not changed that much. As before, it depends on admins paying at least vague attention, and things being not worth breaking in to.
Firewalls were in place, but some places still have not moved to internal segments with firewalls on the internal networks.
Unlike today, when... wait what are you even smoking?
Because of course someone is going to be employed professionally to code Java based on whether they've studied Java or Delphi in high school.
God fucking dammit, procedural languages are all the same.
This one's far more likely.
The whole "Never ascribe to malice" thing was written by a very malicious person.
1. Make post;
2. Get told that its purpose must have been X;
3. Point out that the outcome clearly wasn't X;
4. Get told that pointing this out confirms X further.
I lol'd.
Your definition of "free" is likely to be very much at odds with mine.
Aye, we're not the best on waiting times, and the "internal market" tempered centrally is a lot less efficient than pre-Thatcher, but - like Bevan said - there will be an NHS as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.
Something created out of compassion and solidarity is very hard (and I mean this sincerely) for a more capitalistic society to contemplate, let alone implement.
Yeah, the communist (not Marxist socialist, but actually "to each according to his need") English NHS is awful.
Oh wait, no, it's the best healthcare system I've ever experienced.
Also the problem here is contracting out to the lowest bidder. The problem was introduction of the private sector into government work - the same problem there always is.
Ofc you're a troll, but a nice launchpad.
Yeah, that sure got me a cheap karma shot.
I would probably have got modded up if the guilty party had been Microsoft, but every group falls into the trap of looking at the person rather than the action - even those groups which like to think they're better than average.
Also, all groups fall into the trap of liking to think that they're better than average.
Guys! guys! things aren't going quite my way... let me start again from scratch. This should help.
If that's an implicit, "I promise on behalf of the US to never interfere in another country ever again," I'll do as you say.
If you have any issues with the facts I present, address them.
"...nearly half the nation hates..."
tl;dr A minority is trying to block implementation of a law. Thanks for repeating what I said.
Nope. It doesn't work that way. Adding stuff or editing stuff doesn't require that anyone was keeping track of anything. The thing was in constant flux and far too large for any one person to read it and keep up.
No, it just means you (or your underlings, then reporting to you) studying the whole thing once, then you (or your underlings, then reporting to you) studying each edit. If a group of humans could write it then a group of humans could read it.
"We need to pass this bill to find out what's in it."
How about posting that quote in context :-).
And as I noted, the House itself never saw or voted on the completed bill.
Are you complaining about the reconciliation process?
You are boring me, now. Your argument appears to come down to, "I think maybe not every Congresscritter read every last word of this bill," based on an out-of-context quote. Which might be true of absolutely any bill. Similarly, most MPs in the British House of Commons seem to be fucking clueless about the detail of many of the bills they pass - they have people to advise on their behalf, or even to tell them how to vote. The PPACA received a lot MORE scrutiny than average, but it's not enough because baw baw baw it didn't go your way.
"...so dull witted... argue without insults?"
Quite.
Your whole post is a straw man, so I shall ignore it.
Yeah, it's barely relevant, just like atheism was barely relevant across much of the world before C20.
And you don't have to be wealthy to live in a safer place.
Were you high when you wrote that? I mean were you floating on some ethereal plane where money doesn't increase the choices available to you?
There is no "left" in America. There's right and (on the matter of the PPACA) centre-right.