Computer science isn't about those practical things a developer does.
Well it certainly does include denotational semantics of programming languages. And there's no better way to really master that, than to learn and use a representative language of each of the major types;-)
Good to know. The ultimate solution in this case was to abandon their software and switch to something web-based so we could use any device with an internet connection...
Good for you; definitely seems like the right move in this case;-)
My assumption is they're doing it to put pressure on Microsoft. But maybe that's too cynical, and they're really just doing it in order to decrease resistance to upgrades and get more of the "ecosystem" onto the latest release.
...because (they claim - I don't know if this is true) their contract with Apple to allow distribution of their software through the app store prevents them from distributing installables any other way so they couldn't provide me with an installer for the earlier version.
Well, FYI, that is a bald-faced lie. They could send you the installer package any moment they decided to do so. (I am speaking as a business owner who distributes software through the Mac App Store.)
You need to remember that if Apple were to go back and offer the upgrade to 10.6.8 for free, the SEC would require them to re-starte their earnings for several years. Yes, I know what I'm talking about, and no, I'm not kidding. Since Apple has started to offer OS X upgrades for free, they are not allowed to count the full purchase price of Macs as income right away, but have to defer recognition of it until later years when the upgrades they're implicitly promising get delivered. Sigh.
The game is indeed rigged, but in this one instance I don't think it was intentional.
I agree that particular outcome was probably not a goal, at least not a primary one. But it was predictable and they certainly do not care about the effect on workers.
These hours have been intentionally redacted by large multinational corporations so as to create a permanent underclass of part time workers that is forced to take on two or three jobs in order to create a normal work week capable of sustaining basic rent and food. their total time spent at different jobs can easily total more than 50 hours per week.
While that used to be the case, it's not any more. Now most of those low-paying low-hour jobs are in retail, and schedules change weekly based on projected customer traffic, so workers are told with only a few days' notice which hours they will be expected to work in the coming week, and if they don't show up for those hours, they are fired. In other words, the large multinationals have now succeeded in rigging the game such that these people CANNOT hold multiple jobs any more. Working your ass off at 3 jobs in order to improve your financial position is now literally impossible for many people.
Though given how laborious and difficult an actual english degree is and how high the failure rate is, saying that CS has more 'rigor in thinking' and 'challenging' is laughable. Those upper level english courses require a lot of rigors thinking and are quite challenging, even if they do not get the same respect as the more profitable CS degree.
Oh, bullshit. Do not confuse laborious with learning to think rigorously. Do not confuse sophistry with rigor.
I've seen comments like this a couple of times now and I have an easy way to demonstrate that bullying was (and is) illegal. I believe Aus and US law are not too far apart on this - either the bully hits the bullied, or does not. If he does, he can be found guilty of battery. If not, he can be found guilty of assault, (if the bullied person feels his safety is at risk that's technically enough).
But that's a bit circular because it depends on your (perfectly reasonable) definition of "bullying" as involving a threat to safety. There are many forms of childhood cruelty which do not involve any threat of violence, yet are still referred to by many as bullying.
It's not completely clear from that article whether physical contact is instead of, or in addition to, a threat of violence. But either way a great deal of bullying would easily qualify.
That was my thought, but lacking real details of the recorded encounter, I didn't quite go there. FYI, physical contact is separate from the threat of violence. In general physical contact elevates it to battery, thus the cliched "assault and battery" that's on every perp's rap sheet in every crime drama;-)
Yes, the kid got charged because he violated Pennsylvania's wiretapping and recording laws.
As far as I know, all two-party states have an exemption for recording illegal activity. Now, technically, you could argue over whether the bullying reached the level of illegal activity. But that's a question for lawyers and judges, and that stupid fucking prick of a cop should have preserved the evidence, not forced its destruction.
If you have ever met the local SAR types I am willing to bet that they were instrumental in shutting him down. The last thing in the world they would want is their "Seniority" to be challenged by some upstart with easy to use technology. If you want to see the living defintion of a blowhard then go meet your local SAR.
Interesting. That's not at all the case where I live, so my perspective is completely opposite yours. Probably good for both of us to be reminded that the attitude of local SAR is going to be extremely variable across regions...
No, actually the Iraq war was very economical in monetary terms. The entire cost of the war FOR ALL THE YEARS is less than the "stimulus" that Democrats stole under Obama in the 1st year of Obama administration.
Bullshit. The actual invasion and ousting of Saddam were economical. The ongoing >10-year slog to clean up after the botched initial occupation has been enormously expensive. And remember, "the stimulus in the 1st year of the Obama administration" was actually the stimulus that Bush got Congress to pass. Fucktard.
No, it hasn't. Even the smallest of Obama's deficits is larger than the largest Bush deficit.
That statement is partisan bullshit, pure and simple. The 2009 budget was Bush's budget, passed by Congress before Obama was elected. Obama assumed office in early 2009 and began work on implementing his policies, so the 2010 budget was the first one over which he had any control at all. (This is the way it works for all incoming presidents--they don't get to influence the budget before they are elected. Duh.)
I'm pretty certain that Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Saddam's loyalists deciding to continue to fight on in a guerilla war, or for the internecine warfare to occur based on long simmering grievances, or for al Qaida to wage a campaign of terrorism to try to establish control.
Rumsfeld overruled Powell (and the rest of the chiefs of staff) regarding the plan for the post-invasion occupation. He allowed for far few troops to control the country and far less effort toward rebuilding than they wanted. He made the decision to not only oust Saddam, but oust all Baathists from government, leaving almost no one in office. He made the decision to dismantle the police force without a clear plan to replace it. He is the goddamn arrogant fool who thought that he could just sweep aside the entire governing infrastructure in Iraq, sit back, and wait for a democratic republic to magically spring forth from the ashes.
WTF? Are you fucking blind? Read what I said more carefully this time: "...the amount wasted on the war due to incompetence in carrying out the occupation...".
I wasn't even arguing against having gone to war with Iraq. Just pointing out the fact that Rumsfeld's incompetence caused the cost of the whole Iraq mess to be at least twice what it should have been. (Not to mention US casualties probably being 10x what they should have been.)
At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit.
1) Every president does so his first year. In OP's claim that the debt doubled during Obama's first 6 years, he was implicitly including Bush's last budget. (Submitted to Congress by Bush 5 months before Obama was elected, 7 months before Obama took office.)
2) It's not possible, barring massive social and economic disruption, to strip the better part of $1 trillion from the deficit in a single year. Massive deficit reduction such as what Obama has accomplished takes time. (BTW, I agree that more needs to be done, and that too much of the reduction comes from the wobbly recovery with too little from spending cuts.)
sorry you are correct, I did mean debt, which again someone said was unamerican in the past. But yeah, im a fucktard because i mistyped something. You could have ended it after your second sentence and gotten the same point across without sounding like a smug asshole
I wasn't just the typo. It was the blame-shifting onto Obama of Bush's fiscal disaster. So I stick by my second sentence, because it applies to your post as a whole.
...but when I see the deficit has damn near doubled in 6 years...
The deficit has been reduced by more than half in 6 years. The national debt has increased greatly, because of the huge deficit which Obama inherited from Bush. But seriously, why I am wasting my breath on a fucktard who doesn't know the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
That MUST be why the Obama administration has yet to release the number of people who've actually PAID for the Obamacare plans they got.
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that the last wave have until April 30th to pay...
Computer science isn't about those practical things a developer does.
Well it certainly does include denotational semantics of programming languages. And there's no better way to really master that, than to learn and use a representative language of each of the major types ;-)
Good to know. The ultimate solution in this case was to abandon their software and switch to something web-based so we could use any device with an internet connection...
Good for you; definitely seems like the right move in this case ;-)
whoa, so why are they doing it?
My assumption is they're doing it to put pressure on Microsoft. But maybe that's too cynical, and they're really just doing it in order to decrease resistance to upgrades and get more of the "ecosystem" onto the latest release.
Practically none to actually none, really. The legal difference will hopefully be the same.
The legal difference is the difference between doing it for your own private use vs doing it for others as a for-profit service.
...because (they claim - I don't know if this is true) their contract with Apple to allow distribution of their software through the app store prevents them from distributing installables any other way so they couldn't provide me with an installer for the earlier version.
Well, FYI, that is a bald-faced lie. They could send you the installer package any moment they decided to do so. (I am speaking as a business owner who distributes software through the Mac App Store.)
You need to remember that if Apple were to go back and offer the upgrade to 10.6.8 for free, the SEC would require them to re-starte their earnings for several years. Yes, I know what I'm talking about, and no, I'm not kidding. Since Apple has started to offer OS X upgrades for free, they are not allowed to count the full purchase price of Macs as income right away, but have to defer recognition of it until later years when the upgrades they're implicitly promising get delivered. Sigh.
The game is indeed rigged, but in this one instance I don't think it was intentional.
I agree that particular outcome was probably not a goal, at least not a primary one. But it was predictable and they certainly do not care about the effect on workers.
These hours have been intentionally redacted by large multinational corporations so as to create a permanent underclass of part time workers that is forced to take on two or three jobs in order to create a normal work week capable of sustaining basic rent and food. their total time spent at different jobs can easily total more than 50 hours per week.
While that used to be the case, it's not any more. Now most of those low-paying low-hour jobs are in retail, and schedules change weekly based on projected customer traffic, so workers are told with only a few days' notice which hours they will be expected to work in the coming week, and if they don't show up for those hours, they are fired. In other words, the large multinationals have now succeeded in rigging the game such that these people CANNOT hold multiple jobs any more. Working your ass off at 3 jobs in order to improve your financial position is now literally impossible for many people.
The TV show Marvel is pretty bad as well.
...oh god, so boring, so cliche, so stilted, so awful I can hardly believe he's involved...
Though given how laborious and difficult an actual english degree is and how high the failure rate is, saying that CS has more 'rigor in thinking' and 'challenging' is laughable. Those upper level english courses require a lot of rigors thinking and are quite challenging, even if they do not get the same respect as the more profitable CS degree.
Oh, bullshit. Do not confuse laborious with learning to think rigorously. Do not confuse sophistry with rigor.
Saveur
I've seen comments like this a couple of times now and I have an easy way to demonstrate that bullying was (and is) illegal. I believe Aus and US law are not too far apart on this - either the bully hits the bullied, or does not. If he does, he can be found guilty of battery. If not, he can be found guilty of assault, (if the bullied person feels his safety is at risk that's technically enough).
But that's a bit circular because it depends on your (perfectly reasonable) definition of "bullying" as involving a threat to safety. There are many forms of childhood cruelty which do not involve any threat of violence, yet are still referred to by many as bullying.
It's not completely clear from that article whether physical contact is instead of, or in addition to, a threat of violence. But either way a great deal of bullying would easily qualify.
That was my thought, but lacking real details of the recorded encounter, I didn't quite go there. FYI, physical contact is separate from the threat of violence. In general physical contact elevates it to battery, thus the cliched "assault and battery" that's on every perp's rap sheet in every crime drama ;-)
Yes, the kid got charged because he violated Pennsylvania's wiretapping and recording laws.
As far as I know, all two-party states have an exemption for recording illegal activity. Now, technically, you could argue over whether the bullying reached the level of illegal activity. But that's a question for lawyers and judges, and that stupid fucking prick of a cop should have preserved the evidence, not forced its destruction.
Like he really has any control over what they do anymore...
If you have ever met the local SAR types I am willing to bet that they were instrumental in shutting him down. The last thing in the world they would want is their "Seniority" to be challenged by some upstart with easy to use technology. If you want to see the living defintion of a blowhard then go meet your local SAR.
Interesting. That's not at all the case where I live, so my perspective is completely opposite yours. Probably good for both of us to be reminded that the attitude of local SAR is going to be extremely variable across regions...
No, actually the Iraq war was very economical in monetary terms. The entire cost of the war FOR ALL THE YEARS is less than the "stimulus" that Democrats stole under Obama in the 1st year of Obama administration.
Bullshit. The actual invasion and ousting of Saddam were economical. The ongoing >10-year slog to clean up after the botched initial occupation has been enormously expensive. And remember, "the stimulus in the 1st year of the Obama administration" was actually the stimulus that Bush got Congress to pass. Fucktard.
No, it hasn't. Even the smallest of Obama's deficits is larger than the largest Bush deficit.
That statement is partisan bullshit, pure and simple. The 2009 budget was Bush's budget, passed by Congress before Obama was elected. Obama assumed office in early 2009 and began work on implementing his policies, so the 2010 budget was the first one over which he had any control at all. (This is the way it works for all incoming presidents--they don't get to influence the budget before they are elected. Duh.)
I blame shifted nothing...
Sure you did. You blatantly blamed Obama for the part of the debt increase which was directly caused by Bush's last budget.
I'm pretty certain that Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Saddam's loyalists deciding to continue to fight on in a guerilla war, or for the internecine warfare to occur based on long simmering grievances, or for al Qaida to wage a campaign of terrorism to try to establish control.
Rumsfeld overruled Powell (and the rest of the chiefs of staff) regarding the plan for the post-invasion occupation. He allowed for far few troops to control the country and far less effort toward rebuilding than they wanted. He made the decision to not only oust Saddam, but oust all Baathists from government, leaving almost no one in office. He made the decision to dismantle the police force without a clear plan to replace it. He is the goddamn arrogant fool who thought that he could just sweep aside the entire governing infrastructure in Iraq, sit back, and wait for a democratic republic to magically spring forth from the ashes.
And you will assign zero blame to Saddam.
WTF? Are you fucking blind? Read what I said more carefully this time: "...the amount wasted on the war due to incompetence in carrying out the occupation...".
I wasn't even arguing against having gone to war with Iraq. Just pointing out the fact that Rumsfeld's incompetence caused the cost of the whole Iraq mess to be at least twice what it should have been. (Not to mention US casualties probably being 10x what they should have been.)
At the same time, you should understand that you can't "inherit" a deficit.
1) Every president does so his first year. In OP's claim that the debt doubled during Obama's first 6 years, he was implicitly including Bush's last budget. (Submitted to Congress by Bush 5 months before Obama was elected, 7 months before Obama took office.)
2) It's not possible, barring massive social and economic disruption, to strip the better part of $1 trillion from the deficit in a single year. Massive deficit reduction such as what Obama has accomplished takes time. (BTW, I agree that more needs to be done, and that too much of the reduction comes from the wobbly recovery with too little from spending cuts.)
sorry you are correct, I did mean debt, which again someone said was unamerican in the past. But yeah, im a fucktard because i mistyped something. You could have ended it after your second sentence and gotten the same point across without sounding like a smug asshole
I wasn't just the typo. It was the blame-shifting onto Obama of Bush's fiscal disaster. So I stick by my second sentence, because it applies to your post as a whole.
...but when I see the deficit has damn near doubled in 6 years...
The deficit has been reduced by more than half in 6 years. The national debt has increased greatly, because of the huge deficit which Obama inherited from Bush. But seriously, why I am wasting my breath on a fucktard who doesn't know the difference.