Youtube has been paying the content owners of high-traffic videos for almost 5 years now. Some of the most popular users/sites are making > $1M a year on them now
He's the guy who'll mention to me how he heard from the team across the building/continent/globe that project X was a real success because "that guy" from my team who was so passionate about the said project, helped the other team out of a ditch and made sure everyone had exactly the info they needed.
If your boss had to hear about the abilities of "that guy" on your team from someone other than you, you are not doing a good job as a manager. That was my point about career advancement right there...
Cairo is a great library, I've used it and found it very easy, but it's not remotely approaching a standards-quality design.
Yeah, to make it C++ standards-quality they'll need to make it much less intuitive, add tons of templates to make it unreadable, and change the method names to something that makes much less sense...
And more to the point, when's the last time you ate a fucking wheat berry? Most people never will do, all the wheat they will ever see in their life has been ground up and put into a sack.
Which is a good thing, because if you ate a bunch of wheat berries or dried corn kernels they will look almost the same coming out as they did going in:)
Seriously? "Resembling the produce they are derived from" is probably the dumbest comment I have seen on this thread, sorry.
All it takes to make something not resemble the produce it was "derived from" is to grind it up (which is in fact, also - GASP! - processing!) But in fact, for most grains, grinding/milling actually INCREASES the bioavailability of the nutrients they contain. Many grains like wheat or (non-sweet) corn are barely digestible to humans without "processing" them first.
Honestly, I don't really want to knock religion in this thread (just creationism) - but if you are going to compare sins committed in the name of science vs. religion, religion is currently winning by a landslide.
Actually - I think maybe I do want to knock religion a bit. Organized "religion" has probably done a lot more harm than good over the years. What I don't want to knock is spirituality and faith, since when taken on a personal level those do often seem to make people better, whatever their motivation.
Actually, the study I quoted was pretty specific - among Christians, Evangelicals have the highest percent of creationists (like 65%?) and Catholics have the lowest. Makes sense, since Biblical literalism is a core tenet of Evangelicalism, while despite its questionable views on some topics, Catholicism has a pretty good track record of embracing science, and is pretty explicit about taking much of the Bible metaphorically.
Anyway, I really don't think people generally view all Christians as Bible thumping conservatives - just those who are conservative and thump Bibles (which *IS* in fact a good 40% of the US population, at least).
Except that's not as much literal interpretation as convenience - affects others? Believe it! Enforce it!. Affects you? Not so much (ie. the Republican manifesto). If it were simply a matter of literal interpretation of some parts and not others, those would seem to be the easy ones! The believing the entire world has existed for 6000 years and that gays should not be able to do whatever they hell they want in their own lives are the ones I don't understand believing...
Read it as a metaphor and you get Man being stewards of the world with the according rewards and responsibilities.
Or that woman comes after man, corrupted him and therefore need to be obedient and kept under control (the conventional wisdom of most Judeo-Christian-Muslim people up until the last century or so, and still a surprising number of them today...)
Yeah, the real problem is that there is no *scientific* moderator (in your comment,that would be the "time to review") to fact check the statements made. Ken Ham *pretends* to use science and logic to counter arguments, when most of his "science" is in fact not true or not applicable, just stated with conviction - mostly in the form of ignoratio elenchi, aka (possibly) true statements that don't address the question.
My favorite: "What about carbon dating evidence?" "Carbon dating is only accurate up to 100,000 years, and so is not a valid technique." "But wait, doesn't that still prove the Earth, animals, and even humans are older than 6000 years?" "Next question!"
I love Bill Nye, but sending him to debate this is like seeing the world is about to be destroyed by a giant asteroid, and calling Aquaman.
Actually, a better analogy would be calling Aquaman after the asteroid already hit. Not even Superman would be able to convince Ken Ham that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
without obsessing about the other stories that were made up in the book when hard questions didn't seem to have answers.
Like, how did life begin? How did the Big Bang happen, and how did existence and the Universe come into being? If we have answered the other 99% of the "hard questions" that had made up Biblical answers, why is it unreasonable the few that remain won't have the same scientific answers?
I'm an atheist, but it's completely possible to believe in God and evolution.
Of course it is, just as it's completely possible to believe in Santa Claus. Most Christian adults did at some point in their lives, but I'd wager few do now.
My problem (and probably most reasonable atheists who really don't care who believes what as long as they don't try to push it on anyone else) is when people try to use scientific arguments (like Ken Ham) to justify their beliefs. Believe what you want, but admit what it is and call it blind faith, not sound science.
The telling part for me is how many different explanations (none of them based on facts or any reasonable science) people have come up with to explain the coexistence of evolution and God.
You'd think when their arguments are proven wrong so many times and they have to come up with new ones, eventually they'd actually consider the other side's point. But that's the problem with religion vs. science that is the very reason that the "debate" at the heart of TFA will be a joke - you can't debate faith since no proof is necessary. Logical arguments make no sense at that point.
In the end it is all about communication. A person who makes communication easier is an asset to any project. If they are called a manager, whatever.
Yeah - usually these people are called "project managers" - and they generally manage the project rather than the people. Though hopefully they are at least technically conversant, if not technically trained. It's hard to explain how useful a project manager can really be to a project until you actually work with someone truly competent in the role (because that seems to be a minority of the project managers out there - at least in my experience - so there are probably many more developers who have had only bad experiences).
If your *personnel* manager is non-technical, on the other hand, then good luck on your reviews and career advancement, as it's just going to be a crap shoot as they make shit up...
The scientific method demands that the process you're proving be repeatable.
Wow. Just wow. This is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on slashdot.
#1) your statement is so horrible incorrect I'm not even sure how to respond. I'd say that pretty much discredits all of astrophysics, but since you probably still believe the run revolves around the Earth (or that the Earth is flat?) that probably won't help you. #2) all of the *scientific* bases of evolution (DNA, mutation, adaptation, etc) have been repeated in many, MANY cases, both in the lab and by nature. An inductive proof is still a proof.
There's plenty of evidence to support that, it's not incompatible with the Genesis accounting of creation, and I take no issue with it.
Thank you for proving my point. You seem to be fairly well educated yet completely, absurdly, in denial. Not much our educational system, could have done for your case. Even the Catholic church doesn't believe Genesis (or much of the old testament) is a literal explanation, but a morality story.
There is no lacking in credibility of the theory of evolution any more than there is of human-induced climate change. You can continue to quote anecdotes and the 1% of the "scientists" who disagree, but that doesn't discredit the other 99%, it just makes you look ridiculously naive.
Slashdot Mirror
Youtube has been paying the content owners of high-traffic videos for almost 5 years now. Some of the most popular users/sites are making > $1M a year on them now
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity/the-25-highest-earning-youtube-stars/
You must have had that Chinese Walmart donkey with extra fox meat...
If you tried to chew dry wheat berries or corn kernels, bits of your teeth would probably join them coming out :)
Soaking and cooking them before eating would help, of course, but that would be - OH NO - more processing!
He's the guy who'll mention to me how he heard from the team across the building/continent/globe that project X was a real success because "that guy" from my team who was so passionate about the said project, helped the other team out of a ditch and made sure everyone had exactly the info they needed.
If your boss had to hear about the abilities of "that guy" on your team from someone other than you, you are not doing a good job as a manager. That was my point about career advancement right there...
Cairo is a great library, I've used it and found it very easy, but it's not remotely approaching a standards-quality design.
Yeah, to make it C++ standards-quality they'll need to make it much less intuitive, add tons of templates to make it unreadable, and change the method names to something that makes much less sense...
And more to the point, when's the last time you ate a fucking wheat berry? Most people never will do, all the wheat they will ever see in their life has been ground up and put into a sack.
Which is a good thing, because if you ate a bunch of wheat berries or dried corn kernels they will look almost the same coming out as they did going in :)
Seriously? "Resembling the produce they are derived from" is probably the dumbest comment I have seen on this thread, sorry.
All it takes to make something not resemble the produce it was "derived from" is to grind it up (which is in fact, also - GASP! - processing!) But in fact, for most grains, grinding/milling actually INCREASES the bioavailability of the nutrients they contain. Many grains like wheat or (non-sweet) corn are barely digestible to humans without "processing" them first.
...is if they'd remove that free jagged metal O in every box!
Honestly, I don't really want to knock religion in this thread (just creationism) - but if you are going to compare sins committed in the name of science vs. religion, religion is currently winning by a landslide.
Actually - I think maybe I do want to knock religion a bit. Organized "religion" has probably done a lot more harm than good over the years. What I don't want to knock is spirituality and faith, since when taken on a personal level those do often seem to make people better, whatever their motivation.
Actually, the study I quoted was pretty specific - among Christians, Evangelicals have the highest percent of creationists (like 65%?) and Catholics have the lowest. Makes sense, since Biblical literalism is a core tenet of Evangelicalism, while despite its questionable views on some topics, Catholicism has a pretty good track record of embracing science, and is pretty explicit about taking much of the Bible metaphorically.
Anyway, I really don't think people generally view all Christians as Bible thumping conservatives - just those who are conservative and thump Bibles (which *IS* in fact a good 40% of the US population, at least).
Except that's not as much literal interpretation as convenience - affects others? Believe it! Enforce it!. Affects you? Not so much (ie. the Republican manifesto). If it were simply a matter of literal interpretation of some parts and not others, those would seem to be the easy ones! The believing the entire world has existed for 6000 years and that gays should not be able to do whatever they hell they want in their own lives are the ones I don't understand believing...
Read it as a metaphor and you get Man being stewards of the world with the according rewards and responsibilities.
Or that woman comes after man, corrupted him and therefore need to be obedient and kept under control (the conventional wisdom of most Judeo-Christian-Muslim people up until the last century or so, and still a surprising number of them today...)
Yeah, the real problem is that there is no *scientific* moderator (in your comment ,that would be the "time to review") to fact check the statements made. Ken Ham *pretends* to use science and logic to counter arguments, when most of his "science" is in fact not true or not applicable, just stated with conviction - mostly in the form of ignoratio elenchi, aka (possibly) true statements that don't address the question.
My favorite: "What about carbon dating evidence?" "Carbon dating is only accurate up to 100,000 years, and so is not a valid technique." "But wait, doesn't that still prove the Earth, animals, and even humans are older than 6000 years?" "Next question!"
I love Bill Nye, but sending him to debate this is like seeing the world is about to be destroyed by a giant asteroid, and calling Aquaman.
Actually, a better analogy would be calling Aquaman after the asteroid already hit. Not even Superman would be able to convince Ken Ham that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
without obsessing about the other stories that were made up in the book when hard questions didn't seem to have answers.
Like, how did life begin? How did the Big Bang happen, and how did existence and the Universe come into being? If we have answered the other 99% of the "hard questions" that had made up Biblical answers, why is it unreasonable the few that remain won't have the same scientific answers?
God loves the truth. Anything that is not based on truth does not serve God.
Therefore, the Bible doesn't serve God! Never thought about it that way - thanks!
Just don't use too *much* critical thinking, or you might throw the whole thing out!
Then you must have missed the post last week where over 30% of Americans believe in creationism, ie. that Genesis was (fairly) literal.
I'm an atheist, but it's completely possible to believe in God and evolution.
Of course it is, just as it's completely possible to believe in Santa Claus. Most Christian adults did at some point in their lives, but I'd wager few do now.
My problem (and probably most reasonable atheists who really don't care who believes what as long as they don't try to push it on anyone else) is when people try to use scientific arguments (like Ken Ham) to justify their beliefs. Believe what you want, but admit what it is and call it blind faith, not sound science.
The telling part for me is how many different explanations (none of them based on facts or any reasonable science) people have come up with to explain the coexistence of evolution and God.
You'd think when their arguments are proven wrong so many times and they have to come up with new ones, eventually they'd actually consider the other side's point. But that's the problem with religion vs. science that is the very reason that the "debate" at the heart of TFA will be a joke - you can't debate faith since no proof is necessary. Logical arguments make no sense at that point.
In the end it is all about communication. A person who makes communication easier is an asset to any project. If they are called a manager, whatever.
Yeah - usually these people are called "project managers" - and they generally manage the project rather than the people. Though hopefully they are at least technically conversant, if not technically trained. It's hard to explain how useful a project manager can really be to a project until you actually work with someone truly competent in the role (because that seems to be a minority of the project managers out there - at least in my experience - so there are probably many more developers who have had only bad experiences).
If your *personnel* manager is non-technical, on the other hand, then good luck on your reviews and career advancement, as it's just going to be a crap shoot as they make shit up...
in a spinning centrifuge that created conditions of up to nine times Earth's gravity, akin to that seen on Jupiter.
3 times, not 9 times. So, no, it's not correct. And since it completely muddied the actual point to the experiments, it wasn't good either.
Hah. Not a bad point. Guess they need to run some more texting surveys. Or better yet, just make the whole thing a Facebook poll ;)
The scientific method demands that the process you're proving be repeatable.
Wow. Just wow. This is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on slashdot.
#1) your statement is so horrible incorrect I'm not even sure how to respond. I'd say that pretty much discredits all of astrophysics, but since you probably still believe the run revolves around the Earth (or that the Earth is flat?) that probably won't help you.
#2) all of the *scientific* bases of evolution (DNA, mutation, adaptation, etc) have been repeated in many, MANY cases, both in the lab and by nature. An inductive proof is still a proof.
There's plenty of evidence to support that, it's not incompatible with the Genesis accounting of creation, and I take no issue with it.
Thank you for proving my point. You seem to be fairly well educated yet completely, absurdly, in denial. Not much our educational system, could have done for your case. Even the Catholic church doesn't believe Genesis (or much of the old testament) is a literal explanation, but a morality story.
There is no lacking in credibility of the theory of evolution any more than there is of human-induced climate change. You can continue to quote anecdotes and the 1% of the "scientists" who disagree, but that doesn't discredit the other 99%, it just makes you look ridiculously naive.