I was lucky I got a 2.0.. I hated school, especially my CS classes. I could barely drag myself to them every day.
But I managed to graduate, got a programming job, and really enjoyed what I did. I've found that studying CS in school has little to do with what people do in the real world (with some exceptions, of course.)
I've found that school can be a huge drag if it's not what you're into. Maybe you're just sick of school. That's what my problem was.
So, dont give up on CS completely. But try to keep your options open (like for going back to school, if you really hate working CS in the real world, too.)
"That would mean that the world gets poorer, not richer. The sweat shps close: but nothing takes their place. The poor get even poorer. And so do the rich. Or even more so, the rich get even richer. "
I was very active in the anti-sweatshop movement when I was in school. This is a common misconcetion that we encountered. We didnt want the offending companies to *close* the factories. We wanted the companies to pay the workers a living wage, respect local labor laws, respect the workers right to form a union, etc.
You'd be surprised how often people end up missing or dead when they try to unionize when working in sweatshops. Or when the workers do form a union at great threat to their personal safefy, the factory closes putting everyone out of a job. Or how, even though $1 a day (or equivalent low wage) may go a lot further in the 3rd world than in the US, it still wont cover basic expenses. Or how little effect workers wages has on the final cost of a product.
So in theory globalization may be a good thing, improving life for people in poor countries, in practice the companies involved do not take it upon themselves to actually improve living conditions. And the people working in the factories dont make enough to invest much in their own economies to make a difference.
One of the major problems of traditional globalism is that it opens the borders to investments, allows goods to be shipped easily across borders, etc. In other words, it's easy to move production to areas with low labor costs, little or no environmental protections etc.
On the other hand, it does not allow labor to easily cross the borders. Globalization will allow American companies to build factories right across the border in Mexico. All the dollar-a-day jobs you can handle. However, if someone doesnt want to work one of those jobs, they're NOT free to cross the border to find a higher paying job.
-J5K
Re:Ruff Ruff, sayeth the Wizard?
on
Ultima Revived
·
· Score: 1
"Or was Mr. Brown implying that Toto did indeed write the script to the Wizard Of Oz, and should be blamed for all the plot wholes and shoddy songs therein?::scratches his head and sings Existential Blues to anyone near enough to be tortured by it"
Toto wrote the songs to Dune, not The Wizard of Oz.
-J5K
Re:Legend Of the Red Dragon
on
Ultima Revived
·
· Score: 1
If you do a search on the web you can find a lot of telnet BBSes where you can play LORD, Usurper, TradeWars 2002, Barren Realms Elite, Falcon's Eye.
I recently remembered how much I used to play those back in high school and sought them out again.
Depending on the BBS, some games are more active than others, and you might have to search around a bit before you find a game of TradeWars that has more than 2 players, for example.
"Vietnam wasn't a war. It was the democrats slaughtering the children, which is why to this day, i have never voted democrat."
I know how you feel. I refuse to vote Whig, due in large part to the whole Fugitive Slave Act debacle.Damn that Millard Fillmore.
Seriously though, none of the democrats you hold responsible are still in power in the party. Your continued refusal to vote for them is as illogical as my refusal to vote Whig.
"So we are left overpaying for our cars to keep an out of date organization alive"
Do you honestly believe that if unions were eliminated that cars would suddenly drop in price? I imagine any savings gained by full automation would not be passed along to the consumer, but would instead just be claimed as extra profit.
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers of how much of a car's cost is due to wages, materials, company profit, etc.
Besides, if the car is overpriced, don't buy one. Free market, no?
"Even dinosaur bones existed at the creation of the world. "
For a religion with salvation being based on faith in God, I'd be pissed off that God spends all this time and effort trying to fool us into thinking he doesn't exist by doing stuff like planting dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.
I'm not too jazzed about burning in hell for all eternity because I was created with a predisposition for doubting what I dont have proof of to begin with, then this dinosaur bone stuff to confuse us even more.
Maybe if God came down from heaven and said "Here I am, believe in Me now." and I *still* didnt believe, that I could understand He wouldnt be happy about. But all this crap about trying to make it look like he doesnt exist then we're punished for all eternity because we believe he doesnt, that's way out-of-line.
-J5K
p.s.- Here's a theological question that's been bothering me for a while, anyone with an answer feel free to chime in.
If Jesus died for our sins and no one believed, would it have been in vain? Would no one be saved after that? Would everyone still be saved? Would it require a second blood-sacrifice, or a third, etc, until people believed?
"The other fact people need to realize is that this bill gives law enforcement better ability to go after *terrorists*...not just anybody they feel like... and just like before they must show probable cause in a court of law before they can go after you. So, unless you are a terrorst, you have little to fear."
I know I'm not a terrorist, but I also know that the definition of terrorist can be applied loosely to anyone considered something of an undesirable. Maybe it's the slippery slope argument, but I'd be concerned if it starts venturing into thought-police territory.
How many more times do you think there will be a coordinated group of hijackings of airplanes which are then flown into buildings?
I'm thinking that it was a one-time shot and the terrorists will come up with a new idea for the next attack. They're pretty creative when it comes to mass destruction.
I mean, if a terrorist does hijack a hydrogen powered plane and flies it into the White House, being hydrogen powered probably wont help too much.
They should just go ahead and pass the law they *really* are trying to get at, instead of pussyfooting around it:
Anyone can be arrested for any reason, and detained for however long the 'authorities' deem appropriate.
Problem solved- it's the only law we'd need.
-J5K
Re:doing the same to other movies?
on
Review: Zoolander
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They're editing out the WTC I assume so we wont be reminded of the disaster? As if we're going to forget anyway.
If they leave the towers in, people will be reminded of the attacks. If they edit the towers out, people will say "look, they edited the towers out!:.... and then be reminded of the attacks.
I say leave them in. That's what it looked like when it was being filmed.
He didnt say what company he worked for... If he works for used-styrofoam-peanuts.com, then I'd say bail, and bail fast. The guy who wrote the question should have a decent idea of how much financial trouble the company is in, and whether or not it might be worth taking a risk with the stock. But I stand by what I said- if the company is going to survive this, then stock might be a decent idea.
in the 80s GM negotiated a price cut for their workers... of course they eventually used the money they saved to build factories in mexico, which sucks for the workers, but the GM stock recovered nicely. At least then I guess he would have stock to sell to buy groceries, before selling the car, matress, and blood.
"Oh and whatever you do, don't let them pay you in stock, unless you are out of toliet paper, cause it probably won't be good for much else."
It depends... if you think the company is going out of business, then yes, the stock will be worthless. But, many traditionally successful companies are feeling the pinch of the current economic times, and are laying people off. In a few years, the economy will be better, the company will be back on its feet, and the stock will be as valuable as ever.
"What's intrusive about scanning your face and matching it against a DB for wanted and suspected terrorists ? Do you find it intrusive if somebody looks at you ? "
Facial recognition, no I dont find that intrusive. However, I'd be more reluctant to give them a fingerprint, or a retinal scan, or a sample of DNA, or whatever. It's a slippery slope argument perhaps.
"Is it intrusive to show your license ?"
Depends on the context. When a group of cops is surrounding me threatening to arrest me if I dont show them my identification as they're accusing me of a crime I didnt commit.. I found that a bit intrusive, yes.
"...nice to forget about those of us who want to backup our CDs. I guess it doesn't bother this guy when his collection gets scratched over the years and slowly become unplayable."
Write him a nice letter in a few years, and enclose your a list of your scratched CDs.
"Thank you for making it impossible for me to make backup copies of my CDs. As a result, I am sure you wont mind replacing the ones that have become scratched over the years."
"It's always possible for me to break into your house, even with an alarm, does that mean you won't put a door in your house, not lock it ? "
I'll still lock my door, even though I know that anyone who wants to could still break in. It's more for my feeling of security than anything else. What good having a reinforced steel front door if the rest of my house is full of glass windows? It's a psychological factor, nothing more.
Intrusive measures at airports and whatnot.. they're doing their job if they make people feel more secure, without being so intrusive that they create more anxiety than they help prevent.
If we lock down the airports, we'll still be subject to terrorist attacks coming from other places. Does that mean we shouldnt have any security measures at the airports? I'm not saying that either. But being ridiculously intrusive isnt going to help much.
I think the security people at the airports *should* be better trained, better paid, and all that. But all this business about national ID cards, retinal scans, facial recognition, etc, I think are just knee-jerk reactions, and wont really help prevent future attacks.
There is no way to stop a determined terrorist on a suicide mission.
They will somehow find a way to accomplish their goals, and if one of them fails, there will be thousands waiting behind him to try again. Wipe out one terrorist group and another will rise to take their place. Stop a terrorist from boarding an airplane and they'll drive a bomb in on the ground floor.
All of this going to war, extra security measures, etc... it will make us feel more secure, and feel like we're accomplishing something, but when it doesnt stop terrorism (it wont) then what will we do?
how many of us are going to be crying ourselves to sleep at night if the commercialization of the internet ends and it's back to the way it used to be in the good old days?
I hate to see Exodus go out of business as much as anyone else, but to make an omlette...
"I think putting copy protection on CDs (something that companies have been doing with game CD-ROMs for years, yet no one seems to complain about that) is a far cry from "forc(ing) everyone at gunpoint to buy hundreds of their CDs". Copyright is backed by the Constitution, and music companies have as much right to defend their copyright as software companies."
I admit to getting a little heavy on the hyperbole... however, the point remains the same. Under our system of law, they have the right to defend their copyright, but they dont have the right to violate my rights so they may defend their copyright. I have a right to make backup copies of my own property, and they're taking that away from me.
In any case, this doesnt change the fact that I think copyright is a bunch of crap anyway, and they dont have the right to defend anything once it's released publicly. But that's another story.
"It is the record companies' right to protect their investment in finding, recording and promoting artists. "
There rights end where mine begin. They could make an assload of profit, and therefore protect their investment quite well, if they forced everyone at gunpoint to buy hundreds of their CDs, but they dont have the right to do so.
I have a right to do whatever I want with the music I buy, provided I dont do anything that would violate anyone else's rights (including the artist.) My rights end where theirs begin. Their rights end where mine begin.
I think that's something that the lawmakers have been forgetting. In an effort to protect the rights of one group, they forget everyone else has rights, too.
"However, all of your examples have other uses. What are the legitimate uses of encrypted email for those without something to hide?"
What's wrong with having something to hide?
I'm not a terrorist, but that doesnt mean that my entire life should be an open book for the police, NSA, FBI, CIA, or whoever.
Maybe my girlfriend is writing me dirty emails that I dont want her father, a cop, to read. Maybe my brother works for the NSA and I'm going to throw him a surprise party and dont want him finding out before hand.
Slashdot Mirror
bitching about a 3.0 in CS?
I was lucky I got a 2.0.. I hated school, especially my CS classes. I could barely drag myself to them every day.
But I managed to graduate, got a programming job, and really enjoyed what I did. I've found that studying CS in school has little to do with what people do in the real world (with some exceptions, of course.)
I've found that school can be a huge drag if it's not what you're into. Maybe you're just sick of school. That's what my problem was.
So, dont give up on CS completely. But try to keep your options open (like for going back to school, if you really hate working CS in the real world, too.)
-J5K
"That would mean that the world gets poorer, not richer. The sweat shps close: but nothing takes their place. The poor get even poorer. And so do the rich. Or even more so, the rich get even richer. "
I was very active in the anti-sweatshop movement when I was in school. This is a common misconcetion that we encountered. We didnt want the offending companies to *close* the factories. We wanted the companies to pay the workers a living wage, respect local labor laws, respect the workers right to form a union, etc.
You'd be surprised how often people end up missing or dead when they try to unionize when working in sweatshops. Or when the workers do form a union at great threat to their personal safefy, the factory closes putting everyone out of a job. Or how, even though $1 a day (or equivalent low wage) may go a lot further in the 3rd world than in the US, it still wont cover basic expenses. Or how little effect workers wages has on the final cost of a product.
So in theory globalization may be a good thing, improving life for people in poor countries, in practice the companies involved do not take it upon themselves to actually improve living conditions. And the people working in the factories dont make enough to invest much in their own economies to make a difference.
-J5K
One of the major problems of traditional globalism is that it opens the borders to investments, allows goods to be shipped easily across borders, etc. In other words, it's easy to move production to areas with low labor costs, little or no environmental protections etc.
On the other hand, it does not allow labor to easily cross the borders. Globalization will allow American companies to build factories right across the border in Mexico. All the dollar-a-day jobs you can handle. However, if someone doesnt want to work one of those jobs, they're NOT free to cross the border to find a higher paying job.
-J5K
"Or was Mr. Brown implying that Toto did indeed write the script to the Wizard Of Oz, and should be blamed for all the plot wholes and shoddy songs therein? ::scratches his head and sings Existential Blues to anyone near enough to be tortured by it"
Toto wrote the songs to Dune, not The Wizard of Oz.
-J5K
If you do a search on the web you can find a lot of telnet BBSes where you can play LORD, Usurper, TradeWars 2002, Barren Realms Elite, Falcon's Eye.
I recently remembered how much I used to play those back in high school and sought them out again.
Depending on the BBS, some games are more active than others, and you might have to search around a bit before you find a game of TradeWars that has more than 2 players, for example.
-J5K
"Vietnam wasn't a war. It was the democrats slaughtering the children, which is why to this day, i have never voted democrat."
I know how you feel. I refuse to vote Whig, due in large part to the whole Fugitive Slave Act debacle.Damn that Millard Fillmore.
Seriously though, none of the democrats you hold responsible are still in power in the party. Your continued refusal to vote for them is as illogical as my refusal to vote Whig.
"So we are left overpaying for our cars to keep an out of date organization alive"
Do you honestly believe that if unions were eliminated that cars would suddenly drop in price? I imagine any savings gained by full automation would not be passed along to the consumer, but would instead just be claimed as extra profit.
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers of how much of a car's cost is due to wages, materials, company profit, etc.
Besides, if the car is overpriced, don't buy one. Free market, no?
-J5K
"Even dinosaur bones existed at the creation of the world. "
For a religion with salvation being based on faith in God, I'd be pissed off that God spends all this time and effort trying to fool us into thinking he doesn't exist by doing stuff like planting dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.
I'm not too jazzed about burning in hell for all eternity because I was created with a predisposition for doubting what I dont have proof of to begin with, then this dinosaur bone stuff to confuse us even more.
Maybe if God came down from heaven and said "Here I am, believe in Me now." and I *still* didnt believe, that I could understand He wouldnt be happy about. But all this crap about trying to make it look like he doesnt exist then we're punished for all eternity because we believe he doesnt, that's way out-of-line.
-J5K
p.s.- Here's a theological question that's been bothering me for a while, anyone with an answer feel free to chime in.
If Jesus died for our sins and no one believed, would it have been in vain? Would no one be saved after that? Would everyone still be saved? Would it require a second blood-sacrifice, or a third, etc, until people believed?
"The other fact people need to realize is that this bill gives law enforcement better ability to go after *terrorists*...not just anybody they feel like... and just like before they must show probable cause in a court of law before they can go after you. So, unless you are a terrorst, you have little to fear."
I know I'm not a terrorist, but I also know that the definition of terrorist can be applied loosely to anyone considered something of an undesirable. Maybe it's the slippery slope argument, but I'd be concerned if it starts venturing into thought-police territory.
-J5K
I'm going to sue anyone named "John" born after 1977!
-J5K
How many more times do you think there will be a coordinated group of hijackings of airplanes which are then flown into buildings?
I'm thinking that it was a one-time shot and the terrorists will come up with a new idea for the next attack. They're pretty creative when it comes to mass destruction.
I mean, if a terrorist does hijack a hydrogen powered plane and flies it into the White House, being hydrogen powered probably wont help too much.
-J5K
They should just go ahead and pass the law they *really* are trying to get at, instead of pussyfooting around it:
Anyone can be arrested for any reason, and detained for however long the 'authorities' deem appropriate.
Problem solved- it's the only law we'd need.
-J5K
They're editing out the WTC I assume so we wont be reminded of the disaster? As if we're going to forget anyway.
.... and then be reminded of the attacks.
If they leave the towers in, people will be reminded of the attacks. If they edit the towers out, people will say "look, they edited the towers out!:
I say leave them in. That's what it looked like when it was being filmed.
He didnt say what company he worked for... If he works for used-styrofoam-peanuts.com, then I'd say bail, and bail fast. The guy who wrote the question should have a decent idea of how much financial trouble the company is in, and whether or not it might be worth taking a risk with the stock. But I stand by what I said- if the company is going to survive this, then stock might be a decent idea.
in the 80s GM negotiated a price cut for their workers... of course they eventually used the money they saved to build factories in mexico, which sucks for the workers, but the GM stock recovered nicely. At least then I guess he would have stock to sell to buy groceries, before selling the car, matress, and blood.
-J5K
"the license agreement for Windows Media Player now allows Microsoft to disable any software on your computer "
Make sure you're not running Windows Media Player on the same computer that handles granny's life support.
Though if that computer is running windows, she's in trouble anyway.
-J5K
"Oh and whatever you do, don't let them pay you in stock, unless you are out of toliet paper, cause it probably won't be good for much else."
It depends... if you think the company is going out of business, then yes, the stock will be worthless. But, many traditionally successful companies are feeling the pinch of the current economic times, and are laying people off. In a few years, the economy will be better, the company will be back on its feet, and the stock will be as valuable as ever.
-J5K
"The airline have every right to know who's boarding their $100 million toys."
Yes, but it's more of a matter of the government forcing them to find out who is boarding their $100 million toy.
"What's intrusive about scanning your face and matching it against a DB for wanted and suspected terrorists ? Do you find it intrusive if somebody looks at you ? "
Facial recognition, no I dont find that intrusive. However, I'd be more reluctant to give them a fingerprint, or a retinal scan, or a sample of DNA, or whatever. It's a slippery slope argument perhaps.
"Is it intrusive to show your license ?"
Depends on the context. When a group of cops is surrounding me threatening to arrest me if I dont show them my identification as they're accusing me of a crime I didnt commit.. I found that a bit intrusive, yes.
-J5K
"...nice to forget about those of us who want to backup our CDs. I guess it doesn't bother this guy when his collection gets scratched over the years and slowly become unplayable."
Write him a nice letter in a few years, and enclose your a list of your scratched CDs.
"Thank you for making it impossible for me to make backup copies of my CDs. As a result, I am sure you wont mind replacing the ones that have become scratched over the years."
Or just sue him.
-J5K
"It's always possible for me to break into your house, even with an alarm, does that mean you won't put a door in your house, not lock it ? "
I'll still lock my door, even though I know that anyone who wants to could still break in. It's more for my feeling of security than anything else. What good having a reinforced steel front door if the rest of my house is full of glass windows? It's a psychological factor, nothing more.
Intrusive measures at airports and whatnot.. they're doing their job if they make people feel more secure, without being so intrusive that they create more anxiety than they help prevent.
If we lock down the airports, we'll still be subject to terrorist attacks coming from other places. Does that mean we shouldnt have any security measures at the airports? I'm not saying that either. But being ridiculously intrusive isnt going to help much.
I think the security people at the airports *should* be better trained, better paid, and all that. But all this business about national ID cards, retinal scans, facial recognition, etc, I think are just knee-jerk reactions, and wont really help prevent future attacks.
-J5K
There's one thing that no one wants to hear:
There is no way to stop a determined terrorist on a suicide mission.
They will somehow find a way to accomplish their goals, and if one of them fails, there will be thousands waiting behind him to try again. Wipe out one terrorist group and another will rise to take their place. Stop a terrorist from boarding an airplane and they'll drive a bomb in on the ground floor.
All of this going to war, extra security measures, etc... it will make us feel more secure, and feel like we're accomplishing something, but when it doesnt stop terrorism (it wont) then what will we do?
-J5K
how many of us are going to be crying ourselves to sleep at night if the commercialization of the internet ends and it's back to the way it used to be in the good old days?
I hate to see Exodus go out of business as much as anyone else, but to make an omlette...
-J5K
"I think putting copy protection on CDs (something that companies have been doing with game CD-ROMs for years, yet no one seems to complain about that) is a far cry from "forc(ing) everyone at gunpoint to buy hundreds of their CDs". Copyright is backed by the Constitution, and music companies have as much right to defend their copyright as software companies."
I admit to getting a little heavy on the hyperbole... however, the point remains the same. Under our system of law, they have the right to defend their copyright, but they dont have the right to violate my rights so they may defend their copyright. I have a right to make backup copies of my own property, and they're taking that away from me.
In any case, this doesnt change the fact that I think copyright is a bunch of crap anyway, and they dont have the right to defend anything once it's released publicly. But that's another story.
-J5K
"It is the record companies' right to protect their investment in finding, recording and promoting artists. "
There rights end where mine begin. They could make an assload of profit, and therefore protect their investment quite well, if they forced everyone at gunpoint to buy hundreds of their CDs, but they dont have the right to do so.
I have a right to do whatever I want with the music I buy, provided I dont do anything that would violate anyone else's rights (including the artist.) My rights end where theirs begin. Their rights end where mine begin.
I think that's something that the lawmakers have been forgetting. In an effort to protect the rights of one group, they forget everyone else has rights, too.
-J5K
"However, all of your examples have other uses. What are the legitimate uses of encrypted email for those without something to hide?"
What's wrong with having something to hide?
I'm not a terrorist, but that doesnt mean that my entire life should be an open book for the police, NSA, FBI, CIA, or whoever.
Maybe my girlfriend is writing me dirty emails that I dont want her father, a cop, to read. Maybe my brother works for the NSA and I'm going to throw him a surprise party and dont want him finding out before hand.
-J5K