It's unnecessary. Bigger is a simple comparative. Since a baseline was set with sydb, big or not, it would be fairly meaningless for Paolomania to call himself "a big pedantic twit," as there would be no way to reference the baseline, unless sydb then said "I am a bigger pedantic twit," which would leave us with either Paolomania as the biggest pedantic twit (undesirable in the context of giving support to sydb) or require Paolomania to reply along the lines of "I am an even bigger pedantic twit than you!" which unnecessarily and redundantly extends the witticism in question. Such an extension would increase the time between set up and punchline, and as a result. the joke would be far less amusing. Ergo, the joke was far better executed with brevity.
Unlike this post, which is thoroughly unamusing long or short.
Does it not occur to anyone that perhaps exploiting and publishing these exploits about a law firm may not be the best idea? Sounds like a good way to get a law suit of your own, to me:)
(What I really do, when you get right down to it, is applied math.)
Isn't engineering by definition applied math? Engineering isn't about building things. It's about designing things. For example, I know a couple of automotive engineers who got into that field because they loved to work on cars. They were quite disappointed to discover that most of what they did as engineers involved nothing with the physical cars themselves. They were merely applying known principles to design cars that others built.
The main problem with software engineering is not that it's not engineering... it's that the principles of design are still very much in flux due to the youth of the discipline. I have the good fortune of attending a university where computer science is a part of the engineering school, and while we don't get nearly the level of respect as the other engineering disciplines (which is fair, my university's primary mission is actually to supply the automotive industry with mechanical and electrical engineers) we are still considered engineers by anyone outside of the school of engineering. We have to complete the same mathematics core as the engineers. The only real difference is that the artifacts we create are not physical.
Defining engineering as merely physical objects implies that anyone who builds software does not do a thorough analysis of the design. This is the kind of attitude that makes people think that good programmers are a dime a dozen.
In some states, this is illegal. In Michigan, for example, such clauses run afoul of laws on indentured servitude. Not many people know this, however, so they're rarely challenged.
Unfortunately, neither of your examples refute the original statement. While I agree to a certain extent that the original poster's implications are not entirely valid, your examples do nothing to refute his point.
Ted Kaczynski (not sure if either of us spelled that right, and I'm not going to take the time to look it up now:) was indeed highly intelligent. However, I don't think he works very well as an example that intelligence does not guarantee wisdom. In fact, I would argue that his success for many years implies that he was indeed "crafty" (often used as a synonym for wise, or clever). His failure was not in wisdom or intelligence but in the fact that his choices were immoral (some would argue evil) to the large majority of the society. The decision to commit evil acts does not preclude the wisdom of the decision maker. Sometimes evil acts can make more sense than good ones, given the proper moral outlook.
In the case of Einstein, he knew full well the implications of application of his theories. It was a letter signed by him that encouraged Roosevelt to devote resources to building the first atomic bombs. Granted the only reason he wrote the letter was because he believed the Nazis were very close to building their own nuclear weapons, and IIRC, he said later in life that he regretted that decision. But, he never regretted publishing his theories, and anyone who claims the world would have been a better place if he hadn't is a fool. First of all, they would have been eventually discovered by someone else. What if that someone else was someone who agreed with the Fascists, and therefore took the discovery directly to his government, who didn't release it publically, and instead used the research to create atomic weapons. Only this time, no one else in the world had even the theoretical groundwork to be able to develop their own weapons to counter. Also, Einstein's theories created a revolution in physics, allowing us to discover not only nuclear weapons but integrated circuits and other modern technologies. I think more benefits have come out of Einstein's work than bad, and that the wisest decision possible was to publish it and allow it to be referenced freely.
Does this mean that intelligent people are inherently wise? Not at all. There are countless examples of intelligent people doing stupid things--Maxim created his machine gun believing that the massive volume of fire would so frighten people that war would be impossible. Elia Kazan provided names, the names of many of his friends, no less, to McCarthy and the Un-American Activities Committee, names that were promptly blacklisted. These are far better examples of naivete and foolishness among the intelligentsia.
If the lab wasn't equipped with goggles, paper masks, and rubber gloves, it shouldn't be doing _any_ kind of research.
(The only biohazard requirements for working with HIV are goggles, masks, and gloves... no fancy biosuits or anything like that. My mother worked in a hospital lab testing blood for hepatitis and HIV for years, and the only protection required were masks, gloves, and goggles.)
R. Heinlien, in his book StarShip Troopers, created a society where to be able to vote you must first join the military, thus establishing your willingness to serve the public. So the means test there was public service.I'm not saying that that is what it should be, it is just an example.
I'm glad you added that last bit in. I certainly don't think our society should resemable the one form Starship Troopers in the least!
Why not? Crime was nearly non-existent, the economy was apparently strong, and humanity was spread across several interplanetary colonies.
I've heard that some people think that Starship Troopers is a fascist vision of the future, though I've never had a chance to speak with anyone who had read the book who held that view. Personally, I don't see it myself. First of all, the test for voting was not military service, but rather a vaguely defined "Federal Service" which I interpret as merely spending some time performing those tasks of government which no one particularly enjoys. As it turns out, Juan Rico, having not studied at all in high school due to the fact that he would never have to work a day in his life, since he would inherit wealth, is only suited for the Mobile Infantry. So we see a rather skewed perspective of the society, as we see it through the eyes of a military man during a war.
If you're basing this on the movie (which was an absolutely horrendous butchering of the actual story), then I can understand your feeling, since the director of that movie was in fact one of those who interpreted Starship Troopers as an homage to fascism, and so altered a good deal of the story to make it fit his interpretation better. My opinion is that this interpretation is a result of an extremely shallow reading of the book. However, if your opinion is actually based on the book, I'd love to hear the justifications, since, as I said, I have yet to speak to anyone other than myself who has actually read the book.
Obviously you're not a model rocketeer:) There are several reasons for using solid rocket motors in this kit:
This kit (I'm assuming; can't get to the site:) is aimed at non-high power certified members of the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) and TRA (Tripoli Rocketry Association). Non-solid non-premanufactured engines are not allowed for these classes of member at events sanctioned by either, and using them on your own is a good way to get your insurance cancelled. At Level 1 certification in either organization, you can use hybrids, but you still can't use experimental engines. IIRC, NAR does not allow experimental engines at any cert level, and TRA only allows it at Level 3.
Regulatory reasons. As others have mentioned, the Homeland Security Act is very tough on the hobby. Even without that, FAA regs make flying a liquid-fueled experimental engine very difficult, IIRC.
That said, I do have to agree about the other 2... especially if that single stage isn't a 5-engine cluster:)
Actually, at University of Michigan - Dearborn (don't know the curriculum at Ann Arbor or Flint, so I can't generalize it:) the B.S. in Software Engineering actually does require such a course. As part of my degree, I have to take an Organizational Behavior course. I really wish I had taken it sooner, rather than taking a year off to work... if I'd finished the degree first, I'd probably still have my job, and I wouldn't have had to learn everything in this course the hard way.
That said, I do find taking classes in the business school somewhat distasteful.
Re:Is this book really neccessary??
on
Software Exorcism
·
· Score: 1
Also I can't leave the job, because I have to pay the company back for the training they've given me if I do (it's in the contract I had to sign).
If that's true, then don't worry... you can still leave. Most such clauses tend to run afoul of laws against indentured servitude. I know for a fact that such clauses are illegal in Michigan, and Michigan really is not a very pro-worker state... there's a good reason the unions are so strong here.
There's no reason to have to maintain 3 sets of passwords in Unix... just use Kerberos for network authentication, and you'll be fine. Of course, it's not set up out of the box, and if you want to integrate it with a directory service like LDAP, you'll have to do it on your own, but it's still just as workable as a 2k domain (should be, considering that's what 2k uses itself:)
Yes they can... ever hear of government subsidies? Or protective tariffs? Or corporate tax breaks? Sure, the corps aren't collecting the money themselves, and most would argue that it's the government taking the money, but if the corps lobby the government to pass the laws creating the subsidies, tariffs, tax breaks and other forms of corporate welfare, then it's effectively the same.
D'oh! That's what I get for posting on something I barely know... I just know I disabled some kind of RPC and rebooted, and ended up with a paperweight. Anyhoo, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Besides which, in windows you _can't_ turn off RPC... if you do, the system simply doesn't work. How do you think the abstraction layers in windows work? Many of the system calls are implemented solely as RPC calls, so without RPC, you have a nonfunctional system.
Actually, several of the shows you listed were on Sci-Fi at one time or another:
SeaQuest (and the far inferior spin-off SeaQuest 2065 or whatever it was)
Space Above and Beyond (One of my personal favorites)
Battlestar Galactica (They showed the entire series from start to finish several times)
The problem isn't necessarily the availability of the shows, but the fact that even the most dedicated fan can only watch the same show so many times before they just stop watching altogether.
Take the disk out of the drive... it contains a virus. I think that's how I survived long enough to crash into a swamp. Of course I then proceeded to drown because I didn't get out of the underground aquifer in time.
Actually, NetBank does exactly that. If you're using a browser they don't specifically support, you get a page that says "You're using a browser we haven't tested. Everything on the site should work, but we can't guarantee it'll look pretty." (or something along those lines), along with a link to a list of supported browsers.
Not only that, but there's a good chance that it would have made a trip to the central bank, depending on the size of the bank that owned the ATM and how much cash they keep in reserve. At the FI that I work at, we send _all_ our incoming cash to the Fed, because it's much easier to work with machine sorted and bundled cash than it is to recirculate what comes into us (we use automated cash dispensers on the teller lines as well as the atms).
Slashdot Mirror
Funny... I thought Marbury v. Madison was decided over 200 years ago. Damn... we really _have_ had liberal judges for a long time.
It's unnecessary. Bigger is a simple comparative. Since a baseline was set with sydb, big or not, it would be fairly meaningless for Paolomania to call himself "a big pedantic twit," as there would be no way to reference the baseline, unless sydb then said "I am a bigger pedantic twit," which would leave us with either Paolomania as the biggest pedantic twit (undesirable in the context of giving support to sydb) or require Paolomania to reply along the lines of "I am an even bigger pedantic twit than you!" which unnecessarily and redundantly extends the witticism in question. Such an extension would increase the time between set up and punchline, and as a result. the joke would be far less amusing. Ergo, the joke was far better executed with brevity.
Unlike this post, which is thoroughly unamusing long or short.
A sadist who enjoys messing with MCSEs...
"No, really, it's Windows XP, I swear "
Does it not occur to anyone that perhaps exploiting and publishing these exploits about a law firm may not be the best idea? Sounds like a good way to get a law suit of your own, to me:)
The main problem with software engineering is not that it's not engineering... it's that the principles of design are still very much in flux due to the youth of the discipline. I have the good fortune of attending a university where computer science is a part of the engineering school, and while we don't get nearly the level of respect as the other engineering disciplines (which is fair, my university's primary mission is actually to supply the automotive industry with mechanical and electrical engineers) we are still considered engineers by anyone outside of the school of engineering. We have to complete the same mathematics core as the engineers. The only real difference is that the artifacts we create are not physical.
Defining engineering as merely physical objects implies that anyone who builds software does not do a thorough analysis of the design. This is the kind of attitude that makes people think that good programmers are a dime a dozen.
In some states, this is illegal. In Michigan, for example, such clauses run afoul of laws on indentured servitude. Not many people know this, however, so they're rarely challenged.
Unfortunately, neither of your examples refute the original statement. While I agree to a certain extent that the original poster's implications are not entirely valid, your examples do nothing to refute his point.
Ted Kaczynski (not sure if either of us spelled that right, and I'm not going to take the time to look it up now:) was indeed highly intelligent. However, I don't think he works very well as an example that intelligence does not guarantee wisdom. In fact, I would argue that his success for many years implies that he was indeed "crafty" (often used as a synonym for wise, or clever). His failure was not in wisdom or intelligence but in the fact that his choices were immoral (some would argue evil) to the large majority of the society. The decision to commit evil acts does not preclude the wisdom of the decision maker. Sometimes evil acts can make more sense than good ones, given the proper moral outlook.
In the case of Einstein, he knew full well the implications of application of his theories. It was a letter signed by him that encouraged Roosevelt to devote resources to building the first atomic bombs. Granted the only reason he wrote the letter was because he believed the Nazis were very close to building their own nuclear weapons, and IIRC, he said later in life that he regretted that decision. But, he never regretted publishing his theories, and anyone who claims the world would have been a better place if he hadn't is a fool. First of all, they would have been eventually discovered by someone else. What if that someone else was someone who agreed with the Fascists, and therefore took the discovery directly to his government, who didn't release it publically, and instead used the research to create atomic weapons. Only this time, no one else in the world had even the theoretical groundwork to be able to develop their own weapons to counter. Also, Einstein's theories created a revolution in physics, allowing us to discover not only nuclear weapons but integrated circuits and other modern technologies. I think more benefits have come out of Einstein's work than bad, and that the wisest decision possible was to publish it and allow it to be referenced freely.
Does this mean that intelligent people are inherently wise? Not at all. There are countless examples of intelligent people doing stupid things--Maxim created his machine gun believing that the massive volume of fire would so frighten people that war would be impossible. Elia Kazan provided names, the names of many of his friends, no less, to McCarthy and the Un-American Activities Committee, names that were promptly blacklisted. These are far better examples of naivete and foolishness among the intelligentsia.
If the lab wasn't equipped with goggles, paper masks, and rubber gloves, it shouldn't be doing _any_ kind of research.
(The only biohazard requirements for working with HIV are goggles, masks, and gloves... no fancy biosuits or anything like that. My mother worked in a hospital lab testing blood for hepatitis and HIV for years, and the only protection required were masks, gloves, and goggles.)
Why not? Crime was nearly non-existent, the economy was apparently strong, and humanity was spread across several interplanetary colonies.
I've heard that some people think that Starship Troopers is a fascist vision of the future, though I've never had a chance to speak with anyone who had read the book who held that view. Personally, I don't see it myself. First of all, the test for voting was not military service, but rather a vaguely defined "Federal Service" which I interpret as merely spending some time performing those tasks of government which no one particularly enjoys. As it turns out, Juan Rico, having not studied at all in high school due to the fact that he would never have to work a day in his life, since he would inherit wealth, is only suited for the Mobile Infantry. So we see a rather skewed perspective of the society, as we see it through the eyes of a military man during a war.
If you're basing this on the movie (which was an absolutely horrendous butchering of the actual story), then I can understand your feeling, since the director of that movie was in fact one of those who interpreted Starship Troopers as an homage to fascism, and so altered a good deal of the story to make it fit his interpretation better. My opinion is that this interpretation is a result of an extremely shallow reading of the book. However, if your opinion is actually based on the book, I'd love to hear the justifications, since, as I said, I have yet to speak to anyone other than myself who has actually read the book.
I don't know... I'd put civil war out of the picture myself... Americans are too lazy to liberate themselves anymore.
Is that baby yours or did you grab that pic from somewhere else?
Obviously you're not a model rocketeer:) There are several reasons for using solid rocket motors in this kit:
That said, I do have to agree about the other 2... especially if that single stage isn't a 5-engine cluster:)
Actually, at University of Michigan - Dearborn (don't know the curriculum at Ann Arbor or Flint, so I can't generalize it:) the B.S. in Software Engineering actually does require such a course. As part of my degree, I have to take an Organizational Behavior course. I really wish I had taken it sooner, rather than taking a year off to work... if I'd finished the degree first, I'd probably still have my job, and I wouldn't have had to learn everything in this course the hard way.
That said, I do find taking classes in the business school somewhat distasteful.
If that's true, then don't worry... you can still leave. Most such clauses tend to run afoul of laws against indentured servitude. I know for a fact that such clauses are illegal in Michigan, and Michigan really is not a very pro-worker state... there's a good reason the unions are so strong here.
for telemarketers to target cell phones, as then the recipient of the advertising would be forced to pay for it without being asked permission.
There's no reason to have to maintain 3 sets of passwords in Unix... just use Kerberos for network authentication, and you'll be fine. Of course, it's not set up out of the box, and if you want to integrate it with a directory service like LDAP, you'll have to do it on your own, but it's still just as workable as a 2k domain (should be, considering that's what 2k uses itself:)
You may be right--getting assassinated sure makes it difficult to build your own legacy, doesn't it?
Yes they can... ever hear of government subsidies? Or protective tariffs? Or corporate tax breaks? Sure, the corps aren't collecting the money themselves, and most would argue that it's the government taking the money, but if the corps lobby the government to pass the laws creating the subsidies, tariffs, tax breaks and other forms of corporate welfare, then it's effectively the same.
D'oh! That's what I get for posting on something I barely know... I just know I disabled some kind of RPC and rebooted, and ended up with a paperweight. Anyhoo, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Besides which, in windows you _can't_ turn off RPC... if you do, the system simply doesn't work. How do you think the abstraction layers in windows work? Many of the system calls are implemented solely as RPC calls, so without RPC, you have a nonfunctional system.
Actually, several of the shows you listed were on Sci-Fi at one time or another:
The problem isn't necessarily the availability of the shows, but the fact that even the most dedicated fan can only watch the same show so many times before they just stop watching altogether.
Take the disk out of the drive... it contains a virus. I think that's how I survived long enough to crash into a swamp. Of course I then proceeded to drown because I didn't get out of the underground aquifer in time.
Actually, NetBank does exactly that. If you're using a browser they don't specifically support, you get a page that says "You're using a browser we haven't tested. Everything on the site should work, but we can't guarantee it'll look pretty." (or something along those lines), along with a link to a list of supported browsers.
Not only that, but there's a good chance that it would have made a trip to the central bank, depending on the size of the bank that owned the ATM and how much cash they keep in reserve. At the FI that I work at, we send _all_ our incoming cash to the Fed, because it's much easier to work with machine sorted and bundled cash than it is to recirculate what comes into us (we use automated cash dispensers on the teller lines as well as the atms).
But you are responsible for something that happened so far back no one knows how long ago it was? (original sin)