I got through about 2.5 years of college before I was too poor to continue. I lucked out, got a job doing exactly the type of programming I wanted to do (custom automation control systems) but making next to nothing doing it (about $15k/year). Eventually being poor got old and I took a job with a "real" company making $60k. Six months in they bumped me to $68k and took me on as a full time employee.
Eventually I went back and finished my degree (BS in Comp Sci). I lost my job at almost the same time I finished the degree (I wasn't willing to move then the company did). That's why I know that the degree gave me a 10-15% bump in pay.
I learned almost nothing in college about programming. To this day I am of the belief that it is a certificate attesting that when told to do something silly you have the fortitude to actually get it done. Oh, and maybe you have the ability to learn new things...maybe. In the end I'm glad I got it, but only because of what it means to other people. Directly to me it means almost nothing.
This is why I asked about his opinion on the Money vs. Speech question. If he honestly believes money isn't speech then it's now a constitutional issue, since the Supreme Court has essentially decided Money == Speech. If he believes money is speech then legislating a restriction on money won't (now) pass constitutional muster. In either case legislation appears to be a losing proposition (long term at least).
I'd love to hear your opinion on the debate over Money as a form of Speech. Should expenditure of money be protected as a form of expression or restricted as a form of coercion (just like some forms of speech are)? How are speech and money similar and how are they fundamentally distinct?
Then once you sit down, its about reading the code, analyzing it, re factoring it, debugging it. For all those things, typing is almost irrelevant. If your typing efficiency actually makes a dent in your productivity in the grand scheme of things, your job is probably outsourcable.
This, right here, is the point. I can type in text in just about any editor ever created. But navigating through a pile of code I don't know, to find how it's structured, its call chains, what data belongs to which subsections? That's where a good IDE provides true value to me.
I use SlickEdit because it has the most functional code navigation I've found. Ctrl-/ and a sub-windows shows me every reference to a symbol, in a tagged list showing each reference, by file, and information about where it was referenced (in what scope) and how (defined, declared, called, assigned, read, other). Click on one of them and I'm taken to that reference. Ctrl-. and I'm taken to the definition of the symbol my cursor's on; Ctrl-, and I'm back where I came from (to an arbitrary depth). I use this to navigate through unfamiliar code following through call chains and data structures. 20 years ago I used grep, a text editor and a whiteboard (foo.c:782, foo.h:94, foo.c:122, bar.h:15, qux.s:343), but never again.
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence.
I'm not sure what this statistical tautology has to do with anything.
The average of 101, 101, 101, and 97 is 100, but 3/4 of the sample is above the average. Also, since it's an extremely large sample size and there's a relatively large number of people who are exactly average intelligence, the number of people below (and above) the average will be less than 50%.
Parent: If you're going out do you want your red coat or your blue one? Child: It's June here in Texas... Parent: So, the Red one? Child: Um...No? Parent: OK, blue it is. Child: Nevermind, I'll just stay inside. Parent: Well, then you should do your chores.
Given this demo from two years ago using a single hacked Kinect I have to believe that the technology is only going to improve. As long as the camera isn't occluded the 3D point data can be used to map sections of the 2D image onto a mesh created from the 3D point cloud. Then the camera can be virtually re-positioned and the scene rendered. Most of this is pretty easy using commodity hardware rendering engines.
Dear god, wait. You didn't give any indication when to stop running. Do you just keep running until the game is called on account of exhaustion? Holy Hell. No wonder there's no fat guys.
Indeed. Jihadists would have put the second device in the rubble of the first, made the delay closer to 5 minutes than 20 seconds, and would have made it much larger. This is clearly by someone too concerned with his own safety to do it "right". Thank heavens.
I would buy Pink or Invisible Unicorns though, as long as their hooves are crunchy!
Actually I believe both invisible and pink is a logical necessity: If it's at the event horizon light wouldn't be able to escape. Also, I can't imagine a way a unicorn would kill an astronaut that wouldn't involve blood-shed. I'd have to imagine that the unicorn would be covered in a fine mist of blood. So, indeed: Killed by an invisible pink unicorn.
Not surprisingly. Don't make the mistake of seeing the conservatives as being against the people, and the liberals being for the people. It's all over the board.
Exactly. It's totally foolish to think the liberals are for the people. No one is for the people. Once you realize that at least you'll start to understand politics in the US.
6-3? What did the 3 think? This is mind boggling. And kind of frightening.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who asked this question. I think the concurring opinion by Kagan and Alito does a marvelous job of summing up the idiocy that is the dissent and refuting it in a mere 3.5 pages.
I would think anti-beer-goggles would be preferred. The more drunk you are the uglier it makes everyone look. That way your brain does its thing and everyone returns to normal.
So, for those of us who can remember exactly how many times we've met someone but never manage to remember names, what's the maximum number of times this trick works before they catch on? Eight? Nine?
When I was in high school I did a science fair project studying the levels of CO2 generated by exhalation from different people. The most interesting finding was that there was a high (positive) correlation between average exercise levels and CO2 exhalation levels. Given this highly scientific finding I propose extending this new tax on bicycle riders to all healthy people: They are ruining the environment with their toxic exhalations.
So if that's the case, which I don't believe it is, then remind me again why the U.S. is prosecuting Manning and not those responsible for the war crimes?
Because Manning did what was right and those others did what they were told.
Yeah, you know we should have saved all the money on the whole Gemini program and Apollos 1-10 and just gone straight to the moon. This iterative approach to new discovery is for the birds.
You know, more people should ask themselves this question. Everyone's answer is a little different, but they all boil down to an analysis of opportunity cost. You only have so many hours in the day/month/year/life. There are lots of things to do, but you can't do them all at once, so while you are doing one thing, you are losing out on the opportunity to be doing something else. For me, I value my hobby time at about 3 times what I make at work. Build a computer or buy a computer? Well, I'll probably spend 6 hours finding and ordering parts for a computer above what I would just ordering one. Then there's the time to assemble, and the added risk of building your own. Given my level of disposable income, the amount of free time I have, and the enjoyment (or complete lack thereof) that I'd have in building my own system, I'd probably have to save $2k to make it worth my time.
When I was in college, and I had very little disposable income, saving even $100 was worth it, so I built my own systems.
As a side note, this is why I should (and do) pay a higher tax rate. The value of my last $1k of income is much lower now than when I was in college, but the value of stable and effective governance only grows as I get more wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the action is question is more proximal than the medial influence you infer.
Uh... You do know that Vulcans aren't real. Right?
Pshhh! That's what *they* want you to believe.
I got through about 2.5 years of college before I was too poor to continue. I lucked out, got a job doing exactly the type of programming I wanted to do (custom automation control systems) but making next to nothing doing it (about $15k/year). Eventually being poor got old and I took a job with a "real" company making $60k. Six months in they bumped me to $68k and took me on as a full time employee.
Eventually I went back and finished my degree (BS in Comp Sci). I lost my job at almost the same time I finished the degree (I wasn't willing to move then the company did). That's why I know that the degree gave me a 10-15% bump in pay.
I learned almost nothing in college about programming. To this day I am of the belief that it is a certificate attesting that when told to do something silly you have the fortitude to actually get it done. Oh, and maybe you have the ability to learn new things...maybe. In the end I'm glad I got it, but only because of what it means to other people. Directly to me it means almost nothing.
So, you want Google to provide a service where you can pay them not to do something to hurts you? That must be a totally new concept. No, wait...
This is why I asked about his opinion on the Money vs. Speech question. If he honestly believes money isn't speech then it's now a constitutional issue, since the Supreme Court has essentially decided Money == Speech. If he believes money is speech then legislating a restriction on money won't (now) pass constitutional muster. In either case legislation appears to be a losing proposition (long term at least).
I'd love to hear your opinion on the debate over Money as a form of Speech. Should expenditure of money be protected as a form of expression or restricted as a form of coercion (just like some forms of speech are)? How are speech and money similar and how are they fundamentally distinct?
So the ability for one app to provide extensions that other apps can use to render specialized content?
Flash support in 3..2..1...
Then once you sit down, its about reading the code, analyzing it, re factoring it, debugging it. For all those things, typing is almost irrelevant. If your typing efficiency actually makes a dent in your productivity in the grand scheme of things, your job is probably outsourcable.
This, right here, is the point. I can type in text in just about any editor ever created. But navigating through a pile of code I don't know, to find how it's structured, its call chains, what data belongs to which subsections? That's where a good IDE provides true value to me.
I use SlickEdit because it has the most functional code navigation I've found. Ctrl-/ and a sub-windows shows me every reference to a symbol, in a tagged list showing each reference, by file, and information about where it was referenced (in what scope) and how (defined, declared, called, assigned, read, other). Click on one of them and I'm taken to that reference. Ctrl-. and I'm taken to the definition of the symbol my cursor's on; Ctrl-, and I'm back where I came from (to an arbitrary depth). I use this to navigate through unfamiliar code following through call chains and data structures. 20 years ago I used grep, a text editor and a whiteboard (foo.c:782, foo.h:94, foo.c:122, bar.h:15, qux.s:343), but never again.
Culture and civilization are all great, but doesn't really change the fact that deep down we're social ANIMALS
I'm an antisocial plant, you insensitive clod!
I don't get it...are you trying for a revenge kill via saccharine overdose? If so: impressive work. I think I'm diabetic now.
Also...It sometimes help to remember that half of us have below average intelligence.
I'm not sure what this statistical tautology has to do with anything.
The average of 101, 101, 101, and 97 is 100, but 3/4 of the sample is above the average. Also, since it's an extremely large sample size and there's a relatively large number of people who are exactly average intelligence, the number of people below (and above) the average will be less than 50%.
Now it just needs in-drive refueling.
Or, in a pinch, a full service gas station.
Parent: If you're going out do you want your red coat or your blue one?
Child: It's June here in Texas...
Parent: So, the Red one?
Child: Um...No?
Parent: OK, blue it is.
Child: Nevermind, I'll just stay inside.
Parent: Well, then you should do your chores.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QrnwoO1-8A&list=TLtms-Tz7YPQk
Given this demo from two years ago using a single hacked Kinect I have to believe that the technology is only going to improve. As long as the camera isn't occluded the 3D point data can be used to map sections of the 2D image onto a mesh created from the 3D point cloud. Then the camera can be virtually re-positioned and the scene rendered. Most of this is pretty easy using commodity hardware rendering engines.
Oh, so it's cricket. Hit ball; Run.
Dear god, wait. You didn't give any indication when to stop running. Do you just keep running until the game is called on account of exhaustion? Holy Hell. No wonder there's no fat guys.
This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...
Indeed. Jihadists would have put the second device in the rubble of the first, made the delay closer to 5 minutes than 20 seconds, and would have made it much larger. This is clearly by someone too concerned with his own safety to do it "right". Thank heavens.
Does it have to be an invisible pink unicorn?
If it's invisible it can't be pink.
I would buy Pink or Invisible Unicorns though, as long as their hooves are crunchy!
Actually I believe both invisible and pink is a logical necessity: If it's at the event horizon light wouldn't be able to escape. Also, I can't imagine a way a unicorn would kill an astronaut that wouldn't involve blood-shed. I'd have to imagine that the unicorn would be covered in a fine mist of blood. So, indeed: Killed by an invisible pink unicorn.
Not surprisingly. Don't make the mistake of seeing the conservatives as being against the people, and the liberals being for the people. It's all over the board.
Exactly. It's totally foolish to think the liberals are for the people. No one is for the people. Once you realize that at least you'll start to understand politics in the US.
6-3? What did the 3 think? This is mind boggling. And kind of frightening.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who asked this question. I think the concurring opinion by Kagan and Alito does a marvelous job of summing up the idiocy that is the dissent and refuting it in a mere 3.5 pages.
Need beer goggles
I would think anti-beer-goggles would be preferred. The more drunk you are the uglier it makes everyone look. That way your brain does its thing and everyone returns to normal.
So, for those of us who can remember exactly how many times we've met someone but never manage to remember names, what's the maximum number of times this trick works before they catch on? Eight? Nine?
When I was in high school I did a science fair project studying the levels of CO2 generated by exhalation from different people. The most interesting finding was that there was a high (positive) correlation between average exercise levels and CO2 exhalation levels. Given this highly scientific finding I propose extending this new tax on bicycle riders to all healthy people: They are ruining the environment with their toxic exhalations.
That dozen doughnuts? That's my tax shelter.
.. because they read good speeches.
Read speeches well.
I don't know. I think you are both right: They read good speeches well. Because most of them have the sense to hire someone to tell them what to say.
So if that's the case, which I don't believe it is, then remind me again why the U.S. is prosecuting Manning and not those responsible for the war crimes?
Because Manning did what was right and those others did what they were told.
Yeah, you know we should have saved all the money on the whole Gemini program and Apollos 1-10 and just gone straight to the moon. This iterative approach to new discovery is for the birds.
How does one value one's time, anyways?
You know, more people should ask themselves this question. Everyone's answer is a little different, but they all boil down to an analysis of opportunity cost. You only have so many hours in the day/month/year/life. There are lots of things to do, but you can't do them all at once, so while you are doing one thing, you are losing out on the opportunity to be doing something else. For me, I value my hobby time at about 3 times what I make at work. Build a computer or buy a computer? Well, I'll probably spend 6 hours finding and ordering parts for a computer above what I would just ordering one. Then there's the time to assemble, and the added risk of building your own. Given my level of disposable income, the amount of free time I have, and the enjoyment (or complete lack thereof) that I'd have in building my own system, I'd probably have to save $2k to make it worth my time.
When I was in college, and I had very little disposable income, saving even $100 was worth it, so I built my own systems.
As a side note, this is why I should (and do) pay a higher tax rate. The value of my last $1k of income is much lower now than when I was in college, but the value of stable and effective governance only grows as I get more wealth.