With overhead costs, Programmer I costs about $112k. That's not what they make, but its what they cost. Including hardware, software, support, building, utilities. Total compensation is only a part, and what they take home is the $56K number.
I don't know about India's rates, but 10x is not a bad approximation.
As for H1-b, they will certainly be living cheaper than a typical American. No house nor property tax, and possibly no car. A smaller apartment would probably do. They would be happy with less money. That should be obvious, as should gp post not addressing h1-b but rather a cost benefit analysis of untrained or poorly trained staff. The disposable people mentioned in the summary, which you might have read.
Apparently hiring a small army of entry level workers actually works for some people. Just like it never will for others. And the disposable tech worker is now a reality instead of some crack smoking journalist's hallucination.
NASA appears to have funded using an existing model of human dynamics to address a different scenario. I'm surprised at this as you seem to be.
If the study was as obvious as your other comment suggests, the model used seems to do a good job even when repurposed, so I'm looking forward to more out of it.
As for putting this on the descendants' credit card, I'm quite certain there are other costs to be outraged about. The only real point I can't disagree with is doing work outside their assignment. But it is a point best made without nostalgia and hyperbole.
Placebos are more effective than prescribed antidepressants. If this is a placebo effect with real measurable biological results, that's a step towards understanding better treatment options.
It should, but only after google news picks up reporting on it. Then the modelers can say how much impact of reports of the prediction. Next year, no one may report on it other than mockery, and you can't predict reporting that doesn't happen, so they can't start off with reporting taken in to account.
If corporations are people, the collective is not needed. Apple is acting like a cunt. Or, since they may have different opinions based on who speaks and the audience, it is logical to say Apple is acting like cunts.
For the record, any business would take any advantage given, such as shoddy patents. So its more like Apple is acting like an American business. I'm just saying grammatically you have options for saying the American business model is by cunts, for cunts, if that is how you believe.
If you find one that is not sufficiently descriptive, it is not valid. You have to teach someone proficient how to implement your patent in exchange for protection.
I hate to encourage this sort of thing, but I do enjoy the difference between night crowd and day crowd.
As we have seen posted here, the first replies and moderation will influence later readers' opinions on who is an idiot. This takes very similar replies into quite a different discussion. Statistics would say that opinions would be predictable, but pure chance on who happens to moderate and post make all the difference.
Speaking of beta, it might be worth posting new stories at the bottom, so that more people encounter the dupes as dupes. It will not be perfect, but until they track last story read it seems like a good time to make a breaking change.
Also, since 25% of visitors to helpmatt.com donate, people trying to see if it works for them will donate. Does it work for you? Did you donate to helpmark.org? I did.
Except he was tempted to start collecting files 3 years earlier, and didn't feel he had access to what he wanted. So there you have 3 years where he could raise concerns, anonymously or not.
And obviously whatever time before that gave him reasons to consider copying. It doesn't make him sound like a snoop first. It sounds like he just started putting pieces together, verified, then began snooping.
Whatever first set him off would easily have been reportable. And after getting brushed off 5 times, I would not fault him for taking an initiative for having something solid. But that didn't work.
It's a lot easier to believe it was accidental, and then he tried reporting the right way. It is also easy to believe that there is no right way, because everyone wants to hide it, or stands by it. The simplest and most obvious explanation is the most likely, but we cannot conclude that, either.
Unfortunately no one is going to say yes he reported it to me, unless they are up for reelection in a tight race and have pro security constituents. And then the risk of liberal blowback is still too high to gamble. So it is unlikely to be confirmed even if he names names.
At this point, all you have is the initial predilection to trust or distrust, and your feeling guides your logic. When facts are scarce, emotion fills in the gaps. So I suggest you stay away from hard conclusions for now. And no, my text is not a conclusion. It certainly does not read like one.
Then you didn't get it. That's fine. You can be ignorant if you accept it. It follows from many ideas Cage had developed through the progression of his career. It is actually quite predictable given his previous presentations, and even more obvious if you are familiar with his music.
It is, quite literally, the complete opposite of being the first person in history to do something, since he had spoken at length on the subject, and had already written that in many small instances prior. And it is quite literally the opposite of weird or stupid, since his explanations and stated desires are very clear and consistent, from the first hint to this composition.
You may hate it, but you hate it because you don't understand it, or maybe you don't understand why you hate it. Not one of your words has stood up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
I'm not including the Warhol references since they are asides, and I have no real basis to evaluate them, other than I just don't personally like Warhol's style. I'm not defending my dislike of Warhol - it could be completely out of ignorance. But I accept that, and I have no desire to understand him. I avoid saying stupid things about Warhol because I know that I am willfully ignorant.
And the article is about people who don't like that. Everything that you mentioned, that you like, that you consider musical, there are people who apparently do not like that.
Your whole diatribe is unoriginal, derivative, and pretty much off topic, because we are not talking about musical taste here. This is about people who, for whatever reason, don't like music of *any* kind.
There was a story I CBA finding again, but so many people responded with comments like, why doesn't that dude listen to music? He is depriving himself of one of life's simple pleasures and all that. Well, maybe he just doesn't get the same enjoyment out of music that 97 to 99% of the population does? And here it is, at least the initial research to suggest these people may exist, and he wasn't depriving himself of anything nature hadn't already.
Many people agree with, though very few people care about, your attitude that only the "classics" are real music. It demonstrates the lack of a true appreciation, where you can at least see the qualities that make today's, if you will pardon me for not having an alternative word available, "music" popular. And it makes your appreciation suspect, as if there is something other than just the music that you appreciate.
With the comment about staying power, it shows you don't really understand how today's music is put together. A few very talented people are behind most of what happens on the radio these days. You have a few writing teams writing the songs that the throwaway groups "perform", and they are *very* good at putting things together in a way that is pleasing, at least to the lowest common denominator.
Check out Bonnie McKee. Her career is pretty much the definition of staying power. You might not consider it music, because the same people are not both writing and performing it. And there are countless small production groups that can be counted on to make catchy, singable pop that people love to hear, pay to buy, sing at karaoke, and in general incorporate into their stupid lives through posting lyrics on BookFace or Twitr.
Pop music in 1730 was Baroque (which comes under the genre "classical"). In 1770 it was Classical (also "classical"). 1800 gave way to Romantic (also "classical"). In 1975, Rock (classified as "hard rock" or just "rock") was the popular music. Oh wait, I lied, the chart toppers were lounge songs or funk. The song by America wasn't rock, nor the Eagles.
1969 - CCR with Proud Mary? Zeppelin hit #21 on Billboard with Fool In The Rain. That's your hard-rockin' Zep, right?
Just spend some time looking at where people, generally captured as the Billboard charts, thought your music ranked for the year. And, what were the top ten for that year. I think you will realize that most people do not share your opinion. Many do, enough to get Zeppelin in the top 20 frequently. But we are talking about people here, not you and me.
For me, Zeppelin has the #1, 2, or 3 best rock song in the history of the universe depending on how much I've had to drink. Generally that means I am wrong 90% of the time, even if it's just which song is the best.
But that doesn't have anything to do with what is good music, or whether something qualifies as music at all. If your only concern is how hard someone worked, can't you give some credit to singers who perform other peoples' songs but do it well? If you are against autotune, can you discredit people who, in the 70s, still patched in corrections until they were pretty much perfect? Can you not grant that at least some of the performers today have real, genuine vocal tracks? Including Justin Beiber, who started out recording himself on Youtube without the fancy production of a typical pop record, and had enough followers to attract real record companies?
Search for "The Great Led Zeppelin Swindle" and learn everything you ever needed to know about stealing other peoples' music. Not taking the time to develop your own artistry, but blatantly ripping off riffs and who
What's after the comma? Oh please, there's a comma. There has to be something after the comma. What's after the comma? For fucks sake, what's after the comma?
XP, especially before sp3, did not have filesystem locked down well. It tried to be as compatible as possible with programs that save stuff all over the place. I can't imagine writing an upgrade tool from XP to anything, and have it work.
It is not impossible, but it is way harder than OS X. And from what I remember, any Mac os.
There is no way I would commit to migrating anything from a system hosting 15 year old apps, which is exactly the case for anyone who bought a first year XP machine. So no, it really should not make anyone wonder.
Configuration is not coming across. Applications may not even run. They belatedly made a file copy, which is the best you could hope for given all of the changes just for security.
Parent: "Do not, under ANY circumstance, tell anyone about this. It is confidential. We have to pay the money back if you say anything."
Child: "Understood"
Parent: "You told people"
Child: "No, I just posted on FaceBook that Gulliver was paying for our vacation. I didn't say how much or why or any of that stuff you said was confidential. I didn't actually *tell* anyone. The only people on my FaceBook are my friends, family, every guy I thought was cute once, and the pages for Love Pink and weed dispensaries and every company that gave me free stuff for a Like."
Parent: "I'm selling you into slavery so you can learn how the world works."
It's not the adult's fault for not covering every possible scenario to make sure the child understands. It's the parents' fault for being wrong about what their child understands. Huge difference, because in one case you put the responsibility of preserving a legal agreement in the hands of the child who did not and cannot sign an agreement, and in the other it's in the hands of the adult who did sign it.
Then let's give them un-networked boxes to play with, or at least isolated physically from anything but other hackboxes. And also consider all of the other things you could do away from a computer, and still qualify as a hacker.
Now that I've invalidated your objection, do you have anything else?
You apparently don't know anything about musical pedagogy. That's fine, you just need to realize that you are ignorant.
Learning to play an instrument the hacker way is exactly like being a hacker in other ways. Learning to play an instrument the non-hacker way is exactly unlike being a hacker in other ways.
The people who are really good at playing, regardless of how they were taught, have at least a little of the hacker experimentalist attitude, and try things different ways to see if it makes things easier. That doesn't mean their whole approach is based on the hacker ethic, and does not equate to hacker.
The frustration and struggle doesn't have to be the point - an elder can certainly guide you past that, steer you away from a clear dead end, and show you several options to solve a problem rather than having you invent a solution. You can put in hard work without the frustration and struggle, and still turn that experience into know-how.
And no, frustration and struggle is not the basis of all learning. Your experiences have told you this is how the world works, but your experience is not the only one people have ever had. Someone being told how to find an answer and it just makes sense the first time - they just learned, and there was no struggle nor frustration. Sitting in a room with a master and being shown simple things, you can learn an awful lot in a short time, without the frustration or struggle.
I have never seen a "hack" that was a work of art, but I have seen a great many performances that were a work of art. The pinnacle of musical ability comes after doing the same thing over and over, even if it's just a live show where you run straight through everything. A hacker will rarely do the same thing twice. Extend and extrapolate, sure, but would a hacker play the same Hayden concerto until it was perfect, then perform it repeatedly? That does not sound like the hacker ethic to me, at all. The subset of musicians who play jazz might qualify as hackers, but there are many who stick to pre-Bop Swing style solos and never do any true hacking, even if it is improvisation.
As a result of that last paragraph, I'm inclined to think that even among people who learn the hacker way, musicians would generally not meet the definition of the hacker ethic. There are exceptions, especially among guitar players, but I would wager they are enough in the minority that it would invalidate your argument.
I do agree with your first sentence and half of the next one. I most heartily disagree with everything else, pretty much more vehemently the longer you typed.
Corporate profits reflect individual spending, or collective spending by the government.
Are Chevron, Mobile, Exxon, GM, and Ford evil because consumers spend money on them? Walmart is, clearly. Is Apple? Maybe there is room in the "corporation" epithet for good guys and bad guys?
Whether the Administration is doing anything is irrelevant. This is a case where the MPAA, who obviously employs visual effects artists (indirectly), can make legal arguments in one case that undercut arguments that will either be made in another case, or will try to make conflicting arguments. That is the entire point here. There is no consistent argument the MPAA, or its members, can make, without sounding completely idiotic. Or, more seriously, without setting some sort of legal precedent for the other case.
The legal strategy is the topic, not corporate profits.
And that means what to whom? You and the shill-slash-idiot and the 3 others who moderated you up is the "whom", I guess.
The results of a successful prosecution have fuck-all to do with what is asked for in most cases that I have read. I have not read all of them, but I have read what appears to be the larger awards. And they don't take the dollar amount requested into consideration. The amount awarded is calculated as the result of the evidence presented at the trial, and is deliberated upon by the jury and judge (the judge can adjust the amount if needed). And the appeals court can adjust up or down based on the findings of law.
If you see some correlation between the requested amount and awarded amount in intellectual property suits, for fuck's sake let us know what you have found. Because I'm not seeing it. And you sound like a disillusioned cynical idiot who thinks that the way they understand the world to work is how it actually works. And it's not.
Lawsuit math is hard, and generally can't be predicted by anyone who hasn't been in the courtroom for anything but the entire suit. And even then, the jury has to argue for a bit to come to a conclusion, so it's not entirely predictable other than within a very wide range.
Data, please. Support your comment, unless you are just another cynic hiding behind ignorance.
Clarke had 256 pages and apparently conveyed the general ideas. Paying for 300 pages seems like a stupid thing to do if you want a general idea.
If they cannot communicate how it is feasible in an elevator speech, I don't expect to learn much in the manifesto.
3 pages has sufficed to explain the Higgs (excluding cartoons); I expect to understand the space elevator, in big boy words, in 2 or less. Anything else is hiding something, or so poorly written it cannot be trusted.
Superfluous vocabulary is ostensibly a plausible alternative, however a great many potential readers may find themselves sidetracked by such unnecessary verbosity. As such, I have expectations of a concise manner of thought conveyance as would be warranted by the writers. Vis a vis- said writer probabilistically desires their audience foremost not fall immediately into slumber.
Good advice, but really hard. When people read, they accept support for misconceptions most easily. So a dissenting opinion gets labeled 'shill' and no further proof is required. This happens automatically, and requires conscious effort to stop.
People also tend to have a hard time understanding that others may legitimately disagree, believing that only a paid actor would take that position. Instead of labeling them retarded, now we have a confirmed new class of people to ascribe the behavior to, dismissing it as illegitimate. Again, automatic responses before higher level brain functions can process and weigh the value.
If you are about to reply with "I'm an exception, your words don't apply," you are still part of the problem, because you are considering only you in the situation, and not the impact of others who will affect the course of discussion and moderation. Not just here but for decades. And, you are probably offended and feel the need to reply out of pride or vanity, not cerebral processing.
It is time we admit our memory is shoddy. Our arguments are not well formed. Our certainty is due more to things we experience than to a conscious weighing of the merits of all sides. And, replies usually come from emotional responses, not facts. Sure there are exceptions, no need to prove what I just granted.
And then, start reading comments as things to be considered and possibly researched before responding. Because if we spend time considering if you have a point, you really need to have a point.
A shill will stand out in a reasonable discussion. In an argument of the uninformed, a shill can sound like the voice of reason.
Slashdot Mirror
With overhead costs, Programmer I costs about $112k. That's not what they make, but its what they cost. Including hardware, software, support, building, utilities. Total compensation is only a part, and what they take home is the $56K number.
I don't know about India's rates, but 10x is not a bad approximation.
As for H1-b, they will certainly be living cheaper than a typical American. No house nor property tax, and possibly no car. A smaller apartment would probably do. They would be happy with less money. That should be obvious, as should gp post not addressing h1-b but rather a cost benefit analysis of untrained or poorly trained staff. The disposable people mentioned in the summary, which you might have read.
Apparently hiring a small army of entry level workers actually works for some people. Just like it never will for others. And the disposable tech worker is now a reality instead of some crack smoking journalist's hallucination.
No worries, mate. I just reverted the change.
NASA appears to have funded using an existing model of human dynamics to address a different scenario. I'm surprised at this as you seem to be.
If the study was as obvious as your other comment suggests, the model used seems to do a good job even when repurposed, so I'm looking forward to more out of it.
As for putting this on the descendants' credit card, I'm quite certain there are other costs to be outraged about. The only real point I can't disagree with is doing work outside their assignment. But it is a point best made without nostalgia and hyperbole.
Placebos are more effective than prescribed antidepressants. If this is a placebo effect with real measurable biological results, that's a step towards understanding better treatment options.
Shame it was poorly communicated.
It should, but only after google news picks up reporting on it. Then the modelers can say how much impact of reports of the prediction.
Next year, no one may report on it other than mockery, and you can't predict reporting that doesn't happen, so they can't start off with reporting taken in to account.
Taking a job working for the next jobs or gates means they are not the next jobs or gates, so neither.
And you may want to read up about whether there is an inventor of malaria vaccine to lionize.
Too much conventional wisdom, not enough fact. 3/10
If corporations are people, the collective is not needed. Apple is acting like a cunt. Or, since they may have different opinions based on who speaks and the audience, it is logical to say Apple is acting like cunts.
For the record, any business would take any advantage given, such as shoddy patents. So its more like Apple is acting like an American business. I'm just saying grammatically you have options for saying the American business model is by cunts, for cunts, if that is how you believe.
If you find one that is not sufficiently descriptive, it is not valid. You have to teach someone proficient how to implement your patent in exchange for protection.
I hate to encourage this sort of thing, but I do enjoy the difference between night crowd and day crowd.
As we have seen posted here, the first replies and moderation will influence later readers' opinions on who is an idiot. This takes very similar replies into quite a different discussion. Statistics would say that opinions would be predictable, but pure chance on who happens to moderate and post make all the difference.
Speaking of beta, it might be worth posting new stories at the bottom, so that more people encounter the dupes as dupes. It will not be perfect, but until they track last story read it seems like a good time to make a breaking change.
Also, since 25% of visitors to helpmatt.com donate, people trying to see if it works for them will donate. Does it work for you? Did you donate to helpmark.org? I did.
Very astute.
Except he was tempted to start collecting files 3 years earlier, and didn't feel he had access to what he wanted. So there you have 3 years where he could raise concerns, anonymously or not.
And obviously whatever time before that gave him reasons to consider copying. It doesn't make him sound like a snoop first. It sounds like he just started putting pieces together, verified, then began snooping.
Whatever first set him off would easily have been reportable. And after getting brushed off 5 times, I would not fault him for taking an initiative for having something solid. But that didn't work.
It's a lot easier to believe it was accidental, and then he tried reporting the right way. It is also easy to believe that there is no right way, because everyone wants to hide it, or stands by it. The simplest and most obvious explanation is the most likely, but we cannot conclude that, either.
Unfortunately no one is going to say yes he reported it to me, unless they are up for reelection in a tight race and have pro security constituents. And then the risk of liberal blowback is still too high to gamble. So it is unlikely to be confirmed even if he names names.
At this point, all you have is the initial predilection to trust or distrust, and your feeling guides your logic. When facts are scarce, emotion fills in the gaps. So I suggest you stay away from hard conclusions for now. And no, my text is not a conclusion. It certainly does not read like one.
Then you didn't get it. That's fine. You can be ignorant if you accept it. It follows from many ideas Cage had developed through the progression of his career. It is actually quite predictable given his previous presentations, and even more obvious if you are familiar with his music.
It is, quite literally, the complete opposite of being the first person in history to do something, since he had spoken at length on the subject, and had already written that in many small instances prior. And it is quite literally the opposite of weird or stupid, since his explanations and stated desires are very clear and consistent, from the first hint to this composition.
You may hate it, but you hate it because you don't understand it, or maybe you don't understand why you hate it. Not one of your words has stood up to any scrutiny whatsoever.
I'm not including the Warhol references since they are asides, and I have no real basis to evaluate them, other than I just don't personally like Warhol's style. I'm not defending my dislike of Warhol - it could be completely out of ignorance. But I accept that, and I have no desire to understand him. I avoid saying stupid things about Warhol because I know that I am willfully ignorant.
And the article is about people who don't like that. Everything that you mentioned, that you like, that you consider musical, there are people who apparently do not like that.
Your whole diatribe is unoriginal, derivative, and pretty much off topic, because we are not talking about musical taste here. This is about people who, for whatever reason, don't like music of *any* kind.
There was a story I CBA finding again, but so many people responded with comments like, why doesn't that dude listen to music? He is depriving himself of one of life's simple pleasures and all that. Well, maybe he just doesn't get the same enjoyment out of music that 97 to 99% of the population does? And here it is, at least the initial research to suggest these people may exist, and he wasn't depriving himself of anything nature hadn't already.
Many people agree with, though very few people care about, your attitude that only the "classics" are real music. It demonstrates the lack of a true appreciation, where you can at least see the qualities that make today's, if you will pardon me for not having an alternative word available, "music" popular. And it makes your appreciation suspect, as if there is something other than just the music that you appreciate.
With the comment about staying power, it shows you don't really understand how today's music is put together. A few very talented people are behind most of what happens on the radio these days. You have a few writing teams writing the songs that the throwaway groups "perform", and they are *very* good at putting things together in a way that is pleasing, at least to the lowest common denominator.
Check out Bonnie McKee. Her career is pretty much the definition of staying power. You might not consider it music, because the same people are not both writing and performing it. And there are countless small production groups that can be counted on to make catchy, singable pop that people love to hear, pay to buy, sing at karaoke, and in general incorporate into their stupid lives through posting lyrics on BookFace or Twitr.
Pop music in 1730 was Baroque (which comes under the genre "classical"). In 1770 it was Classical (also "classical"). 1800 gave way to Romantic (also "classical"). In 1975, Rock (classified as "hard rock" or just "rock") was the popular music. Oh wait, I lied, the chart toppers were lounge songs or funk. The song by America wasn't rock, nor the Eagles.
1969 - CCR with Proud Mary? Zeppelin hit #21 on Billboard with Fool In The Rain. That's your hard-rockin' Zep, right?
Just spend some time looking at where people, generally captured as the Billboard charts, thought your music ranked for the year. And, what were the top ten for that year. I think you will realize that most people do not share your opinion. Many do, enough to get Zeppelin in the top 20 frequently. But we are talking about people here, not you and me.
For me, Zeppelin has the #1, 2, or 3 best rock song in the history of the universe depending on how much I've had to drink. Generally that means I am wrong 90% of the time, even if it's just which song is the best.
But that doesn't have anything to do with what is good music, or whether something qualifies as music at all. If your only concern is how hard someone worked, can't you give some credit to singers who perform other peoples' songs but do it well? If you are against autotune, can you discredit people who, in the 70s, still patched in corrections until they were pretty much perfect? Can you not grant that at least some of the performers today have real, genuine vocal tracks? Including Justin Beiber, who started out recording himself on Youtube without the fancy production of a typical pop record, and had enough followers to attract real record companies?
Search for "The Great Led Zeppelin Swindle" and learn everything you ever needed to know about stealing other peoples' music. Not taking the time to develop your own artistry, but blatantly ripping off riffs and who
What's after the comma? Oh please, there's a comma. There has to be something after the comma. What's after the comma? For fucks sake, what's after the comma?
XP, especially before sp3, did not have filesystem locked down well. It tried to be as compatible as possible with programs that save stuff all over the place. I can't imagine writing an upgrade tool from XP to anything, and have it work.
It is not impossible, but it is way harder than OS X. And from what I remember, any Mac os.
There is no way I would commit to migrating anything from a system hosting 15 year old apps, which is exactly the case for anyone who bought a first year XP machine. So no, it really should not make anyone wonder.
Configuration is not coming across. Applications may not even run. They belatedly made a file copy, which is the best you could hope for given all of the changes just for security.
Parent: "Do not, under ANY circumstance, tell anyone about this. It is confidential. We have to pay the money back if you say anything."
Child: "Understood"
Parent: "You told people"
Child: "No, I just posted on FaceBook that Gulliver was paying for our vacation. I didn't say how much or why or any of that stuff you said was confidential. I didn't actually *tell* anyone. The only people on my FaceBook are my friends, family, every guy I thought was cute once, and the pages for Love Pink and weed dispensaries and every company that gave me free stuff for a Like."
Parent: "I'm selling you into slavery so you can learn how the world works."
It's not the adult's fault for not covering every possible scenario to make sure the child understands. It's the parents' fault for being wrong about what their child understands. Huge difference, because in one case you put the responsibility of preserving a legal agreement in the hands of the child who did not and cannot sign an agreement, and in the other it's in the hands of the adult who did sign it.
So there is no privacy concern here? Cause I was worried there for a bit.
Hacking is an industry?
Then let's give them un-networked boxes to play with, or at least isolated physically from anything but other hackboxes. And also consider all of the other things you could do away from a computer, and still qualify as a hacker.
Now that I've invalidated your objection, do you have anything else?
You apparently don't know anything about musical pedagogy. That's fine, you just need to realize that you are ignorant.
Learning to play an instrument the hacker way is exactly like being a hacker in other ways. Learning to play an instrument the non-hacker way is exactly unlike being a hacker in other ways.
The people who are really good at playing, regardless of how they were taught, have at least a little of the hacker experimentalist attitude, and try things different ways to see if it makes things easier. That doesn't mean their whole approach is based on the hacker ethic, and does not equate to hacker.
The frustration and struggle doesn't have to be the point - an elder can certainly guide you past that, steer you away from a clear dead end, and show you several options to solve a problem rather than having you invent a solution. You can put in hard work without the frustration and struggle, and still turn that experience into know-how.
And no, frustration and struggle is not the basis of all learning. Your experiences have told you this is how the world works, but your experience is not the only one people have ever had. Someone being told how to find an answer and it just makes sense the first time - they just learned, and there was no struggle nor frustration. Sitting in a room with a master and being shown simple things, you can learn an awful lot in a short time, without the frustration or struggle.
I have never seen a "hack" that was a work of art, but I have seen a great many performances that were a work of art. The pinnacle of musical ability comes after doing the same thing over and over, even if it's just a live show where you run straight through everything. A hacker will rarely do the same thing twice. Extend and extrapolate, sure, but would a hacker play the same Hayden concerto until it was perfect, then perform it repeatedly? That does not sound like the hacker ethic to me, at all. The subset of musicians who play jazz might qualify as hackers, but there are many who stick to pre-Bop Swing style solos and never do any true hacking, even if it is improvisation.
As a result of that last paragraph, I'm inclined to think that even among people who learn the hacker way, musicians would generally not meet the definition of the hacker ethic. There are exceptions, especially among guitar players, but I would wager they are enough in the minority that it would invalidate your argument.
I do agree with your first sentence and half of the next one. I most heartily disagree with everything else, pretty much more vehemently the longer you typed.
Corporate profits reflect individual spending, or collective spending by the government.
Are Chevron, Mobile, Exxon, GM, and Ford evil because consumers spend money on them? Walmart is, clearly. Is Apple? Maybe there is room in the "corporation" epithet for good guys and bad guys?
Whether the Administration is doing anything is irrelevant. This is a case where the MPAA, who obviously employs visual effects artists (indirectly), can make legal arguments in one case that undercut arguments that will either be made in another case, or will try to make conflicting arguments. That is the entire point here. There is no consistent argument the MPAA, or its members, can make, without sounding completely idiotic. Or, more seriously, without setting some sort of legal precedent for the other case.
The legal strategy is the topic, not corporate profits.
And that means what to whom? You and the shill-slash-idiot and the 3 others who moderated you up is the "whom", I guess.
The results of a successful prosecution have fuck-all to do with what is asked for in most cases that I have read. I have not read all of them, but I have read what appears to be the larger awards. And they don't take the dollar amount requested into consideration. The amount awarded is calculated as the result of the evidence presented at the trial, and is deliberated upon by the jury and judge (the judge can adjust the amount if needed). And the appeals court can adjust up or down based on the findings of law.
If you see some correlation between the requested amount and awarded amount in intellectual property suits, for fuck's sake let us know what you have found. Because I'm not seeing it. And you sound like a disillusioned cynical idiot who thinks that the way they understand the world to work is how it actually works. And it's not.
Lawsuit math is hard, and generally can't be predicted by anyone who hasn't been in the courtroom for anything but the entire suit. And even then, the jury has to argue for a bit to come to a conclusion, so it's not entirely predictable other than within a very wide range.
Data, please. Support your comment, unless you are just another cynic hiding behind ignorance.
Clarke had 256 pages and apparently conveyed the general ideas. Paying for 300 pages seems like a stupid thing to do if you want a general idea.
If they cannot communicate how it is feasible in an elevator speech, I don't expect to learn much in the manifesto.
3 pages has sufficed to explain the Higgs (excluding cartoons); I expect to understand the space elevator, in big boy words, in 2 or less. Anything else is hiding something, or so poorly written it cannot be trusted.
Superfluous vocabulary is ostensibly a plausible alternative, however a great many potential readers may find themselves sidetracked by such unnecessary verbosity. As such, I have expectations of a concise manner of thought conveyance as would be warranted by the writers. Vis a vis- said writer probabilistically desires their audience foremost not fall immediately into slumber.
Good advice, but really hard. When people read, they accept support for misconceptions most easily. So a dissenting opinion gets labeled 'shill' and no further proof is required. This happens automatically, and requires conscious effort to stop.
People also tend to have a hard time understanding that others may legitimately disagree, believing that only a paid actor would take that position. Instead of labeling them retarded, now we have a confirmed new class of people to ascribe the behavior to, dismissing it as illegitimate. Again, automatic responses before higher level brain functions can process and weigh the value.
If you are about to reply with "I'm an exception, your words don't apply," you are still part of the problem, because you are considering only you in the situation, and not the impact of others who will affect the course of discussion and moderation. Not just here but for decades. And, you are probably offended and feel the need to reply out of pride or vanity, not cerebral processing.
It is time we admit our memory is shoddy. Our arguments are not well formed. Our certainty is due more to things we experience than to a conscious weighing of the merits of all sides. And, replies usually come from emotional responses, not facts. Sure there are exceptions, no need to prove what I just granted.
And then, start reading comments as things to be considered and possibly researched before responding. Because if we spend time considering if you have a point, you really need to have a point.
A shill will stand out in a reasonable discussion. In an argument of the uninformed, a shill can sound like the voice of reason.
Imma hit you so hard, you gonna get a crust.
And, I'm gonna kick your ass into ORBIT around you, SON!
Now what?