We did "vote for the a candidate who will push for net neutrality". Pre-election, Obama was for neutrality. The following quote says it has not changed, at least as of August 5, 2014.
One of the issues around net neutrality is whether you are creating different rates or charges for different content providers. That's the big controversy here. So you have big, wealthy media companies who might be willing to pay more and also charge more for spectrum, more bandwidth on the Internet so they can stream movies faster. I personally, the position of my administration, as well as a lot of the companies here, is that you donâ(TM)t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.
So, we did what you said. 3.7 million out of 211 million is not a significant gauge of public opinion, but it shouldn't matter, because we voted for the right guy.
Are you going to change your statement to emphasize the word "push", as if they have to actively work on the issue? And then further clarify a chain of command where people have to listen to the President's opinion? Your logic checks out, but facts are lacking.
This had been appreciated by our support and developer community
Then make it available to the support and developer community.
which was time consuming to produce and I decided was unnecessary given we could just expose the "truth" with simple links to the Bugzilla search related to that milestone.
The sales and marketing team didn't like this.
If I buy your software, I don't expect to weed through that time consuming mess and figure out what changed. Multiply the amount of time it takes you to produce by the number of individual customers (not seats, just count one per purchasing entity). Divide by two because they are reading, not writing. That's how much time you could save each one of those by making the list again.
S&M may miss the sanitized lists, and are just playing hardball trying to get them back. Ask them about a compromise where your developers, who need this information, can have it, and the non-developers can have a sanitized list with the important bits.
More importantly, in this case you have to think of what's good for the business, and not your personal philosophies. Mostly because ignorance is more common than understanding, and converting people is hard. In a commercial enterprise, you can't give up control of the message - and that's exactly what you are doing by exposing everything.
You are thinking about customers, but S&M has to think about everyone else. And, retaining current customers. Hopefully thinking about it like this gives you the perspective you need to realize that what is best for your use case does not necessarily say what's best for the company.
you could counter the effect with your own marketing
Whose own marketing? The poster's marketing team?
The sales and marketing team didn't like this. Their argument is that competitors use this against us to paint us as producers of buggy software
Marketing is not on board with this idea. You already quoted that to start out your reply. Sales and marketing see it as an obstacle. You will need some sort of indication that it would be effective in order to even start convincing marketing that they could publicise the thing they are against and have it work out well.
A disastrous marketing campaign hurts the bottom line, so these people aren't going to take the word of optimistic blowhards that it will just work out.
If you make electricity with renewables, you need a lot of surface area. That's a big burden. But if you can overcome that, you have new transmission lines to build, and new maintenance to buy equipment and train people. If you luck out completely, you may not have new lines.
Then, you have to balance renewables against keeping reserve capacity ready to go. And no cheating here, because all renewables have dips in output. So you buy coal or gas slightly cheaper, but it is more expensive per kWh for traditional fuel.
Still competing with individuals generating their own solar on site, your surcharged solar is not attractive. Sure, people like renters will still pay. Owners will switch if they can. And it keeps getting cheaper to switch.
Now your infrastructure and investment is larger. And more threatened, but necessary for reserve supply.
We can jump straight to magical New revenue stream, but papers like this barely cover the question of how much new revenue might be needed. You can't believe that the industry has no one working on that answer, but after zero consideration a dotslash poster has the answer.
As always, a good idea has details which may render the obvious nearly impossible. Just like the replies about Germany doing solar, these details make a huge difference, but many just parrot the parts that sound good.
Sane electricity prices would include a base rate for infrastructure and reserve capacity, and a cost per usage. Most people just pay the usage fee. I
It makes sense to me, if I have a PV roof, I still pay a base rate to the electric company to maintain the lines so I can have electricity when my roof is not generating.
You, on the other hand, should see someone about all that irrationality.
CLR in this context means a very large standardized library, which is not subject to fragmentation nor availability. It runs or it doesn't, and it behaves as documented (by google or stack overflow, not necessarily MSDN).
You can care about performance and study the IL, or ignore it and use Linq for elegant and readable one liners.
I won't address the remainder, as that is where you professed ignorance. Aside from lightweight, where you made a good point in support despite not understanding.
As a content creator, I would prefer spending time creating content.
And, if I sell the rights, like Notch sold minecraft, he would be the only rights enforcer under your plan, and he is only interested in making cool little games. No sale would be possible.
First - "Bay Area" means you could be working for any number of really good, or really bad, companies. At least a quarter of them, if named, would immediately bring ridicule. If you then specified website or something else, you would be divided into the stupid or potentially stupid category.
That said, meaning this a different thought based only slightly on that paragraph, many of those are companies where you can't just fire someone. Especially if they present themselves well.
Imagine the court case where you say this otherwise reasonable human being is completely useless where I work. Now, prove it.
How are we supposed to compete with borderline indentured servitude?
Simple - be self employed.
I'll wait for the inevitable answers about how hard it is to start a company, and tax implications, and inability to count on income since it depends on the economy.
But, if you watch something like Shark Tank, you see an endless stream of actual small businesses that are somehow creating a market for a product that don't have any reason to exist - other than there is a market for it. Someone had a product, found a market, and started making money.
That's the American way.
That's how these companies started in the first place. In 1962 Walmart was a single store in Rogers, Arkansas. Exxon-Mobil was a gamble on a new (oil) industry that led to a Supreme Court decision to split Standard Oil into 34 companies. I could go down the Fortune 100 list, but you could do the same.
How do you turn a chain of five-and-dime stores into a world-dominating $400+ billion p.a. super company? Luck, experience, grit, and probably more stuff. How do you decide to turn a produce company into an oil producer? Insanity, I suppose.
Shark Tank shows that business is alive and well. We don't have to work for them - we can compete with them. Not with the H1-B, but with the company itself.
If you can't compete with the company, and you can't compete with the indentured servant, then you must defend this question: In what way other than to the investor class are you valuable?
If you develop software, but not ideas, and I don't develop ideas so I'm in the software part, then how are you valuable as something other than a replaceable part? I specifically reference Heinlein's "Time for the stars", where the irreplaceable are specifically replaceable. A cog in a wheel.
I earn above the median wage because I'm awesome, but I am not among the rich. I'm trying to compete with developers, not with indentured servants. And not with the people who created my job. The latter have my thanks, much as I will complain day to day.
I know all of these references, and it still makes no sense. The summary is the responsibility of theodp - the choice of not posting it was up to Timothy.
That's a very good point. We know what happens to the chemicals in the brain, and we know that after some time people feel a bit better, and we know that is rarely permanent.
There was a great article in Newsweek or Time (I can't find it now...) that pointed out this delay. The chemicals happen immediately, but it is weeks before any effects are seen.
One idea was that the brain is damaged, and has to be repaired. It didn't make sense, but there are studies that report decreased brain tissue, or ridges, or various measures of physical properties.
I don't remember seeing any follow-up that showed reversal of brain tissue decline, which might prove this idea.
Anyway, I suspect that your sensitivity to stimuli would have made you aware of the chemical differences faster than most people. And it could be possible that the ASD makes you more susceptible to depression - *without* the physical atrophy that may or may not underpin most non-ASD depression. You did not have to endure the brain rebuilding that most people might.
All of this post basically points out that we don't know how the brain works, and if you have multiple differences from the norm maybe we super don't know how it works. If chemicals made you feel better, good. I don't think anyone can really explain why.
This probably isn't the best place to ask about potential issues with a new OS version.
I would have started with an iOS user forum, preferably something official, rather than asking a bunch of tech people who may not have iOS experience at all.
And, the whole thing reads like "I want my Android back, am I the only one who thinks this sucks?"
It was certainly written trollishly, and probably did not belong here without a cursory review of Apple-specific user forums. I vote unintentional troll.
That's how it is supposed to work. It's a crutch to allow something like cognitive behavioral therapy to take hold.
Ideally, you would be seeing a psychologist to assist with identifying coping strategies, or problems with the way you filter input. Instead of triggering negative responses, everything you experience in a day should be more or less balanced. Not perfectly 50/50, but certainly not always negative.
Getting in a negative rut ("depression") makes it easier for a neutral stimulus to trigger a negative emotion, or something that should be positive to be misinterpreted.
An anti-depressant can't change the way you react to what you hear, read, or see. But it can give you enough of a lift that you have room to work on yourself.
As long as I'm typing - someone will probably mention cocaine. Similar caveat with cocaine - it doesn't help you change your mind. It actually gives you a positive feeling, which current anti-depressants don't really do. The need to change your mind goes away, temporarily, and users look to another hit to solve the problem. It's a great demonstration of how feeling good might feel, but serves no other useful purpose.
I blame republicans for having the idea, but refusing to do anything to help the black man. It's almost like they just watched it burn so they could make great campaign ads about the tragedy.
You seem intent on blaming democrats instead of politicians.
Including only real taxes, I calculate that as part of the question to itemize or not. And the final state tax form includes all of that wrapped up in a nice bow.
Now, do you think that people got together one day and decided that, over 200 years, they should intentionally add more laws and more taxes until it confused Charlie mopps? And if so, when did that happen, and who were the likely people?
Or is it more likely that a body charged with writing laws will spend little time unwriting them?
The "breaking three laws a day" myth is based on very obscure examples that most people will never encounter, and cannot be generalized over the population.
I agree with your last paragraph, but it seems you started at the conclusion and believed anything that supports it. And that's backwards.
Instead of ranting like a 3 year old and ignoring the answers to your unnecessary questions, why not try setting up the example app to see if it has changed, and if it makes sense as a complicated set up example?
I forgot that doctors are people, and that the bottom half are generally worthless, and the average ones are average. Also, diagnosing a rare problem is hard because it is unlikely to be a rare problem.
I also forgot that doctors are the people who didn't tire of medical school shenanigans and change studies.
And I bear a grudge because I didn't find that top notch House like genius who, despite being wrong every show, succeeds in the end.
Finally, I have no idea why and how insurance, both medical and liability, affects what care is given.
Seriously, it is a hard position to be in, but you are angry at the wrong things.
I bought Q3, thinking it would be beautiful. I expressed excitement, and was told what you said.
I immediately decided to never vote with my dollars until I was sure it was deserved.
I have OTA television, and only see well reviewed movies now.
I sure as shit hope that there are lots more people like me. Multiplayer solves the gripes of shitty AI. But it does not solve the problem of a shitty story. And I won't play a shitty story.
I am more likely to see a play-through and decide 10% in that I will either stop watching and buy it, or watch and not buy.
Lesson learned: I am more likely to play Skyrim, Fallout, Portal 1 or 2, or Bioshock, than to pay money for anything - movie or game or cable.
Mastering the mechanics of the game is a function of a well planned game. A failure is playing the entire game, mastering how things work, then having a boss battle that makes no sense.
Mastering the mechanics of people is really complicated. They find ways to dominate, and that's hard.
Portal, I was going to buy regardless of anything else. I bought the box, and got Portal 2, because the gameplay was well planned. Teach and learn.
The whole point of multiplayer seems to be play against shitty players, then get blasted to bits until you learn how to spawn and run, or duck and cover. If you can't practice against people who are *WAY* more bad, you will spend years when you can spend hours instead.
Multiplayer can be a wonderful experience, when people collaborate. And here comes Leroy Jenkins, and fucks everything up. No one likes to play with Leroy Jenkins.
Slashdot Mirror
We did "vote for the a candidate who will push for net neutrality". Pre-election, Obama was for neutrality. The following quote says it has not changed, at least as of August 5, 2014.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
So, we did what you said. 3.7 million out of 211 million is not a significant gauge of public opinion, but it shouldn't matter, because we voted for the right guy.
Are you going to change your statement to emphasize the word "push", as if they have to actively work on the issue? And then further clarify a chain of command where people have to listen to the President's opinion? Your logic checks out, but facts are lacking.
Then make it available to the support and developer community.
If I buy your software, I don't expect to weed through that time consuming mess and figure out what changed. Multiply the amount of time it takes you to produce by the number of individual customers (not seats, just count one per purchasing entity). Divide by two because they are reading, not writing. That's how much time you could save each one of those by making the list again.
S&M may miss the sanitized lists, and are just playing hardball trying to get them back. Ask them about a compromise where your developers, who need this information, can have it, and the non-developers can have a sanitized list with the important bits.
More importantly, in this case you have to think of what's good for the business, and not your personal philosophies. Mostly because ignorance is more common than understanding, and converting people is hard. In a commercial enterprise, you can't give up control of the message - and that's exactly what you are doing by exposing everything.
You are thinking about customers, but S&M has to think about everyone else. And, retaining current customers. Hopefully thinking about it like this gives you the perspective you need to realize that what is best for your use case does not necessarily say what's best for the company.
Whose own marketing? The poster's marketing team?
Marketing is not on board with this idea. You already quoted that to start out your reply. Sales and marketing see it as an obstacle. You will need some sort of indication that it would be effective in order to even start convincing marketing that they could publicise the thing they are against and have it work out well.
A disastrous marketing campaign hurts the bottom line, so these people aren't going to take the word of optimistic blowhards that it will just work out.
If you make electricity with renewables, you need a lot of surface area. That's a big burden. But if you can overcome that, you have new transmission lines to build, and new maintenance to buy equipment and train people. If you luck out completely, you may not have new lines.
Then, you have to balance renewables against keeping reserve capacity ready to go. And no cheating here, because all renewables have dips in output. So you buy coal or gas slightly cheaper, but it is more expensive per kWh for traditional fuel.
Still competing with individuals generating their own solar on site, your surcharged solar is not attractive. Sure, people like renters will still pay. Owners will switch if they can. And it keeps getting cheaper to switch.
Now your infrastructure and investment is larger. And more threatened, but necessary for reserve supply.
We can jump straight to magical New revenue stream, but papers like this barely cover the question of how much new revenue might be needed. You can't believe that the industry has no one working on that answer, but after zero consideration a dotslash poster has the answer.
As always, a good idea has details which may render the obvious nearly impossible. Just like the replies about Germany doing solar, these details make a huge difference, but many just parrot the parts that sound good.
Sane electricity prices would include a base rate for infrastructure and reserve capacity, and a cost per usage. Most people just pay the usage fee. I
It makes sense to me, if I have a PV roof, I still pay a base rate to the electric company to maintain the lines so I can have electricity when my roof is not generating.
You, on the other hand, should see someone about all that irrationality.
CLR in this context means a very large standardized library, which is not subject to fragmentation nor availability. It runs or it doesn't, and it behaves as documented (by google or stack overflow, not necessarily MSDN).
You can care about performance and study the IL, or ignore it and use Linq for elegant and readable one liners.
I won't address the remainder, as that is where you professed ignorance. Aside from lightweight, where you made a good point in support despite not understanding.
Wrong. You probably got masking flavors.
http://www.nature.com/news/200...
As a content creator, I would prefer spending time creating content.
And, if I sell the rights, like Notch sold minecraft, he would be the only rights enforcer under your plan, and he is only interested in making cool little games. No sale would be possible.
Care to reconsider?
First - "Bay Area" means you could be working for any number of really good, or really bad, companies. At least a quarter of them, if named, would immediately bring ridicule. If you then specified website or something else, you would be divided into the stupid or potentially stupid category.
That said, meaning this a different thought based only slightly on that paragraph, many of those are companies where you can't just fire someone. Especially if they present themselves well.
Imagine the court case where you say this otherwise reasonable human being is completely useless where I work. Now, prove it.
Simple - be self employed.
I'll wait for the inevitable answers about how hard it is to start a company, and tax implications, and inability to count on income since it depends on the economy.
But, if you watch something like Shark Tank, you see an endless stream of actual small businesses that are somehow creating a market for a product that don't have any reason to exist - other than there is a market for it. Someone had a product, found a market, and started making money.
That's the American way.
That's how these companies started in the first place. In 1962 Walmart was a single store in Rogers, Arkansas. Exxon-Mobil was a gamble on a new (oil) industry that led to a Supreme Court decision to split Standard Oil into 34 companies. I could go down the Fortune 100 list, but you could do the same.
How do you turn a chain of five-and-dime stores into a world-dominating $400+ billion p.a. super company? Luck, experience, grit, and probably more stuff. How do you decide to turn a produce company into an oil producer? Insanity, I suppose.
Shark Tank shows that business is alive and well. We don't have to work for them - we can compete with them. Not with the H1-B, but with the company itself.
If you can't compete with the company, and you can't compete with the indentured servant, then you must defend this question: In what way other than to the investor class are you valuable?
If you develop software, but not ideas, and I don't develop ideas so I'm in the software part, then how are you valuable as something other than a replaceable part? I specifically reference Heinlein's "Time for the stars", where the irreplaceable are specifically replaceable. A cog in a wheel.
I earn above the median wage because I'm awesome, but I am not among the rich. I'm trying to compete with developers, not with indentured servants. And not with the people who created my job. The latter have my thanks, much as I will complain day to day.
I know all of these references, and it still makes no sense. The summary is the responsibility of theodp - the choice of not posting it was up to Timothy.
Blame each accordingly.
Have you read the link in this comment? It suggests that your experience is atypical.
It is also outdated. However, there have been a lot of reports similar to this one, and only a few individuals like you stating the opposite.
Is it remotely possible that you have an above-average experience?
http://politics.slashdot.org/c...
That's a very good point. We know what happens to the chemicals in the brain, and we know that after some time people feel a bit better, and we know that is rarely permanent.
There was a great article in Newsweek or Time (I can't find it now...) that pointed out this delay. The chemicals happen immediately, but it is weeks before any effects are seen.
One idea was that the brain is damaged, and has to be repaired. It didn't make sense, but there are studies that report decreased brain tissue, or ridges, or various measures of physical properties.
I don't remember seeing any follow-up that showed reversal of brain tissue decline, which might prove this idea.
Anyway, I suspect that your sensitivity to stimuli would have made you aware of the chemical differences faster than most people. And it could be possible that the ASD makes you more susceptible to depression - *without* the physical atrophy that may or may not underpin most non-ASD depression. You did not have to endure the brain rebuilding that most people might.
All of this post basically points out that we don't know how the brain works, and if you have multiple differences from the norm maybe we super don't know how it works. If chemicals made you feel better, good. I don't think anyone can really explain why.
This probably isn't the best place to ask about potential issues with a new OS version.
I would have started with an iOS user forum, preferably something official, rather than asking a bunch of tech people who may not have iOS experience at all.
And, the whole thing reads like "I want my Android back, am I the only one who thinks this sucks?"
It was certainly written trollishly, and probably did not belong here without a cursory review of Apple-specific user forums. I vote unintentional troll.
That's how it is supposed to work. It's a crutch to allow something like cognitive behavioral therapy to take hold.
Ideally, you would be seeing a psychologist to assist with identifying coping strategies, or problems with the way you filter input. Instead of triggering negative responses, everything you experience in a day should be more or less balanced. Not perfectly 50/50, but certainly not always negative.
Getting in a negative rut ("depression") makes it easier for a neutral stimulus to trigger a negative emotion, or something that should be positive to be misinterpreted.
An anti-depressant can't change the way you react to what you hear, read, or see. But it can give you enough of a lift that you have room to work on yourself.
As long as I'm typing - someone will probably mention cocaine. Similar caveat with cocaine - it doesn't help you change your mind. It actually gives you a positive feeling, which current anti-depressants don't really do. The need to change your mind goes away, temporarily, and users look to another hit to solve the problem. It's a great demonstration of how feeling good might feel, but serves no other useful purpose.
Sounds like Dagoth Moor Zoological Gardens is out of beta. .
I blame republicans for having the idea, but refusing to do anything to help the black man. It's almost like they just watched it burn so they could make great campaign ads about the tragedy.
You seem intent on blaming democrats instead of politicians.
Worse than a faulty assumption. Cmms and HHS were responsible for the site, not the president's campaign team.
And I doubt the knowledge domain transfers that much to a site with so many interactions with other sites. Nor to do many business rules.
It is ignorance combined with lack of thought to consider the two remotely connected.
If only they had asked you, a random dotslash reader, they would have avoided this waste of time article.
You should set up a news aggregator that decides which news is wrong based just on your bullshit detector.
In fact, you should be working at a three letter agency. They need that. Or run for king as you would do great.
Including only real taxes, I calculate that as part of the question to itemize or not. And the final state tax form includes all of that wrapped up in a nice bow.
Now, do you think that people got together one day and decided that, over 200 years, they should intentionally add more laws and more taxes until it confused Charlie mopps? And if so, when did that happen, and who were the likely people?
Or is it more likely that a body charged with writing laws will spend little time unwriting them?
The "breaking three laws a day" myth is based on very obscure examples that most people will never encounter, and cannot be generalized over the population.
I agree with your last paragraph, but it seems you started at the conclusion and believed anything that supports it. And that's backwards.
Instead of ranting like a 3 year old and ignoring the answers to your unnecessary questions, why not try setting up the example app to see if it has changed, and if it makes sense as a complicated set up example?
Paraphrased:
I forgot that doctors are people, and that the bottom half are generally worthless, and the average ones are average. Also, diagnosing a rare problem is hard because it is unlikely to be a rare problem.
I also forgot that doctors are the people who didn't tire of medical school shenanigans and change studies.
And I bear a grudge because I didn't find that top notch House like genius who, despite being wrong every show, succeeds in the end.
Finally, I have no idea why and how insurance, both medical and liability, affects what care is given.
Seriously, it is a hard position to be in, but you are angry at the wrong things.
I bought Q3, thinking it would be beautiful. I expressed excitement, and was told what you said.
I immediately decided to never vote with my dollars until I was sure it was deserved.
I have OTA television, and only see well reviewed movies now.
I sure as shit hope that there are lots more people like me. Multiplayer solves the gripes of shitty AI. But it does not solve the problem of a shitty story. And I won't play a shitty story.
I am more likely to see a play-through and decide 10% in that I will either stop watching and buy it, or watch and not buy.
Lesson learned: I am more likely to play Skyrim, Fallout, Portal 1 or 2, or Bioshock, than to pay money for anything - movie or game or cable.
Mastering the mechanics of the game is a function of a well planned game. A failure is playing the entire game, mastering how things work, then having a boss battle that makes no sense.
Mastering the mechanics of people is really complicated. They find ways to dominate, and that's hard.
Portal, I was going to buy regardless of anything else. I bought the box, and got Portal 2, because the gameplay was well planned. Teach and learn.
The whole point of multiplayer seems to be play against shitty players, then get blasted to bits until you learn how to spawn and run, or duck and cover. If you can't practice against people who are *WAY* more bad, you will spend years when you can spend hours instead.
Multiplayer can be a wonderful experience, when people collaborate. And here comes Leroy Jenkins, and fucks everything up. No one likes to play with Leroy Jenkins.
Ergo, fuck your multiplayer.
My hair stands on end when I have to read the subject and piece together what you are talking about.
No one gives a shit about why your hair stands on end.
And "almost universally" means "fuck if I know".
If you can read, come back when you have something to say. I feel like you may have a point, but it's the antithesis of a well articulated statement.