Maybe I'm just a cynical person...well, there's no maybe about that...but I never thought the FBI or any arm of the government would stop to get a warrant for anything if they wanted it badly enough. I don't think 'little pieces of paper' will be a prevention when somebody on the inside needs something badly enough, and I think if people think otherwise they are being naive.
I once spoke to an IRS employee who worked with the bureau in the 80's and he said the IRS could get anything it wanted, and that part of their threat was that they would "ruin lives" if they needed to. I also recall a business associate who dealt with the IRS in the 70's and again in the 90's. He was incredibly wealthy, as in, 'private corporate jet' wealthy, and he told me, 'if the government wants to take you down, don't fight it. Settle. You absolutely cannot win. They can do whatever they want'.
"... the water could be broken down into its component parts (hydrogen and oxygen) to make rocket fuel, experts say.
"Water is the main component in how you might make propellants," said Jerry Sanders, leader of in-situ resource utilization at NASA's Lunar Surface Systems Office at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. 'If you're going to go repeatedly to an asteroid, then the ability to basically start setting up gas stations could be extremely beneficial"
Hey, I love the whole space-gas-station idea, I really do, but I would also really like if we took this concept of making fuel from water AND DID IT RIGHT HERE ON EARTH.
You are correct, but I would add that I've bought, taken over or worked on several businesses with 0.5% profit margin and grew them into 10-20% profit margin businesses. You can't do that with Treasuries, and as long as people are quick to sell instead of growing their profitable base, guys like me will cash in. The difference is that Apple has dynamic revenue, not a fixed interest return.
In other words, if I were in Apple's shoes and profit margins were meager, I'd see how to grow that profit. My motto is always, "if there is revenue, it can be grown."
True, to an extent. But there are always more crap jobs than interns to do them. Thus, a large portion of the people working are going to be working crap jobs. You just have to use those type of jobs as stepping stones.
I guess it's the myth of startups that has everyone just coming out of college or starting in their first job think they should be walking into a CIO position. The thing is, as smart as kids think they are (or may be), there are already really, really smart people in the marketplace with 10-20 years of hardcore technical experience. Just the way it is.
I wish you the best but you are going to almost 100% certainly going to take some crap jobs before you get a good job. Take what you can get, start learning and building your experience.
I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance that makes people say 'software should be free' but at the same time 'I should get paid to work on that free software for you'.
It was $45 million for a single-A team that could not even fill their previous stadium on a good night.
And the budget for the new stadium was $20 million. The developer ran millions over budget putting in lavish offices and, wel...who knows, money just evaporated, and the cost had hit $30 million for a stadium that did not even have seats, parking or an infield yet.
1. Take any job you can get to get started. As soon as you land a job, ANY job, the clock starts ticking on your experience. 2. Work like mad and try to learn for the rest of your life. 3. Use recruiters to get jobs, and then once you have experience under your belt, start being more selective with recruiters. 4. Social network like crazy. Maintain relationships. Be great to work with and people will remember. 5. Be willing to do crap work. 6. Be willing to listen. 7. Understand that no matter how good you think your code is, three years from now it will look like junk.
I was a manager for a retail chain while going to school at the same time. My first 'computer' job came while still in school, using Photoshop to edit scanned images. It was crap work and the money wasn't much different than my manager job. Over a decade later I make six figures and get job offers weekly.
On one hand, you are right, Sony needs Google's name and ability. But Sony is MUCH bigger than Google. Sony's revenue for 2009 was just under $80 billion, while Google's was about $20 billion.
Um, no. That's completely backwards. Unregulated markets result in boom and bust markets, as is taught in standard economics. If left to it's own devices, markets will suffer from both natural forces and human emotion, which is generally irrational. The free market is why the stock market shoots up and down on 'news' every day but the SEC puts in curbs to keep it from fluctuating too wildly.
I agree, wish I had upmod points, the only commercial reason to promote the 'do nothing' concept is to protect market share for existing companies. I don't understand why oil companies aren't making a 'land grab' for the green technologies.
That's an interesting take, when I read the section about how the group flooded the emails of politicians and DDoS'd their websites, my first thought was of politicians who don't even know they have a website and don't know how to use email. So basically, an anonymous, faceless group sending massive digital attacks against email boxes that never get checked and websites nobody reads.
It brings into full discussion the group's claim that attacks are more effective than petitions...are they actually more effective? It's an old argument about terrorism, where the organization under attack is forced to do nothing because reacting simply brings more attacks. While I agree that petitions rarely bring change (the Turing case in England being an instance where a petition actually worked), how 'effective' is an all-out digital attack at forcing governments to change policy?
I will say the only effect thus far seems to be creating discussion of the issue (of which I was previously ignorant), but if Slashdot is any indication, people will discuss the idea over an 'Anonymous' spokesperson far more than the merits of their methods or their cause.
I agree completely...one of the issues I see here with GIMP has always been that the developers approached GIMP's UI as being 'this is how the user should interact with the UI'.
But...
Hard core image editing is about the IMAGE...not the UI. So putting everything in a single window mimics the basic premise behind creating a piece of artwork. If you were painting a picture, you start with the blank canvas and remain focused on the image on the canvas while reaching for various tools. The GIMP UI (which I've used extensively) is more like trying to create a painting with the easel in one room, the canvas in another room, and each individual paint color in yet another room. Sure, it sounds like an farcical analogy, but giving each element in creating a painting the same independence has this effect.
I've already seen all of those articles. I'm well aware of the governments' usage of the laws to line their own pockets. There's a big gap between a wrongfully accused pilot and a 'family going to Disneyland'. Also, still no connection to your offhand reference and the impending police state, OR how it links to grocery scanning technology.
Please post the link(s) to any stories proving the family/police theft story.
I'm not one to ignore the 'police state' imending drum, but linking a corrupt police practice with Orwell's 1984 is a huge stretch, made with a flimsy offhand reference. Police have been corrupt for a long time, and are more regulated now that ever. It used to be that a minority driving though South Carolina could be stopped, pulled out of their car (with their kids watching) and driven to jail until they came up with bail/extortion money. This wasn't in 2006, this happend as recently as the 1980's to my own family members and as far back as the 50's. Today, if this happens, you can sue the pants off any county cop who does that.
I'm more worried about the corporate veil, and the anonymous power of thos corporations, than I am about the ATM or grocery store checkout line.
"I grew up in a county with about 5 non-white families. Am I incapable of learning to live with other cultures?"
Incapable? Of course not. But a larger learning curve exists.
"I went to a school where I was picked on for being smart (or maybe being a smart-ass - I can't remember) - am I any less "indifferent and distant" than I would have been in a more healthy social situation - albeit with less children?"
I wasn't asking you to defend your views, but did you realize when you wrote this how loaded this statement is? You spent a lot of time explaining that the reason you home-school had nothing to do with protecting your child, then immediately state that you were picked on as a child.
"My parents were aware of all my friends growing up - did that mean that we didn't do whatever the hell we wanted when they weren't looking?"
Your parents are always looking, and as a loving parent, you already know that. But a lot of people grow up with parents who don't care and don't pay attention, and those kids grow up to be adults just like everyone else. I know I'm better off knowing how to deal with bullies and idiots on the job because I learned how to handle those people when I was a kid. Not that bullying is ever acceptable; but someday, somewhere a person will run into one, even as an adult. Better learn what to do as a kid, even if that means telling your parents.
I asked the questions earlier because your original post seemed well thought out and I wanted to get your honest take on these questions. As a parent ( and as a minority), and as a kid who also was extremely smart, I am more than aware of the pitfalls and shortcomings of the public school system. I just don't know if the deft social skills that I acquired while going through school could have been replaced by my parents.
I'd be interested in how you feel about the following:
How does your son deal with people outside of his normal social or intellectual circle? It's one thing to get along with kids of the same socioeconomic status, from the same neighborhood. What about real life, when your son goes to work and will be working with people from all walks of life, cultures and psychological makeup? I'm curious if your observations of your son with his peers has taken into account that you are aware of all of his peers and no doubt keep an eye on who he spends time with. Many children in public schools are forced to learn how to deal with a group of people not specifically culled by their parents. What about when he goes to college? Will he be more likely to accept a scholarship from Columbia if he realizes it's in a rough area of NY, or will he opt for a safer choice?
Also, as a parent and as a person who moved frequently as a child, I would be extremely concerned about the idea that parents can just 'switch' their child from year to year, from public school to home school. Children need stability, and it's extrememly difficult to fit in when you're always the 'new kid'. That might help you prepare you for grown up life, but it also might make you grow up indifferent and distant.
Slashdot Mirror
No...that would be the very poor and the very wealthy. Not "Republican wealthy" either. Actually wealthy.
Maybe I'm just a cynical person...well, there's no maybe about that...but I never thought the FBI or any arm of the government would stop to get a warrant for anything if they wanted it badly enough. I don't think 'little pieces of paper' will be a prevention when somebody on the inside needs something badly enough, and I think if people think otherwise they are being naive.
I once spoke to an IRS employee who worked with the bureau in the 80's and he said the IRS could get anything it wanted, and that part of their threat was that they would "ruin lives" if they needed to. I also recall a business associate who dealt with the IRS in the 70's and again in the 90's. He was incredibly wealthy, as in, 'private corporate jet' wealthy, and he told me, 'if the government wants to take you down, don't fight it. Settle. You absolutely cannot win. They can do whatever they want'.
I can almost hear the thundering footsteps of developers rushing to HTML 5. I have to admit, I'm one of them.
From TFA:
"... the water could be broken down into its component parts (hydrogen and oxygen) to make rocket fuel, experts say.
"Water is the main component in how you might make propellants," said Jerry Sanders, leader of in-situ resource utilization at NASA's Lunar Surface Systems Office at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. 'If you're going to go repeatedly to an asteroid, then the ability to basically start setting up gas stations could be extremely beneficial"
Hey, I love the whole space-gas-station idea, I really do, but I would also really like if we took this concept of making fuel from water AND DID IT RIGHT HERE ON EARTH.
You are correct, but I would add that I've bought, taken over or worked on several businesses with 0.5% profit margin and grew them into 10-20% profit margin businesses. You can't do that with Treasuries, and as long as people are quick to sell instead of growing their profitable base, guys like me will cash in. The difference is that Apple has dynamic revenue, not a fixed interest return.
In other words, if I were in Apple's shoes and profit margins were meager, I'd see how to grow that profit. My motto is always, "if there is revenue, it can be grown."
True, to an extent. But there are always more crap jobs than interns to do them. Thus, a large portion of the people working are going to be working crap jobs. You just have to use those type of jobs as stepping stones.
I guess it's the myth of startups that has everyone just coming out of college or starting in their first job think they should be walking into a CIO position. The thing is, as smart as kids think they are (or may be), there are already really, really smart people in the marketplace with 10-20 years of hardcore technical experience. Just the way it is.
I wish you the best but you are going to almost 100% certainly going to take some crap jobs before you get a good job. Take what you can get, start learning and building your experience.
I'll never understand the cognitive dissonance that makes people say 'software should be free' but at the same time 'I should get paid to work on that free software for you'.
It was $45 million for a single-A team that could not even fill their previous stadium on a good night.
And the budget for the new stadium was $20 million. The developer ran millions over budget putting in lavish offices and, wel...who knows, money just evaporated, and the cost had hit $30 million for a stadium that did not even have seats, parking or an infield yet.
It's not $30 million, it's $45 million, and the original budget was $20 million.
What was originally a good idea became a bankrupt proposal that the taxpayers had to foot the bill for.
1. Take any job you can get to get started. As soon as you land a job, ANY job, the clock starts ticking on your experience.
2. Work like mad and try to learn for the rest of your life.
3. Use recruiters to get jobs, and then once you have experience under your belt, start being more selective with recruiters.
4. Social network like crazy. Maintain relationships. Be great to work with and people will remember.
5. Be willing to do crap work.
6. Be willing to listen.
7. Understand that no matter how good you think your code is, three years from now it will look like junk.
I was a manager for a retail chain while going to school at the same time. My first 'computer' job came while still in school, using Photoshop to edit scanned images. It was crap work and the money wasn't much different than my manager job. Over a decade later I make six figures and get job offers weekly.
Yup. That pretty much sums it up.
On one hand, you are right, Sony needs Google's name and ability. But Sony is MUCH bigger than Google. Sony's revenue for 2009 was just under $80 billion, while Google's was about $20 billion.
Um, no. That's completely backwards. Unregulated markets result in boom and bust markets, as is taught in standard economics. If left to it's own devices, markets will suffer from both natural forces and human emotion, which is generally irrational. The free market is why the stock market shoots up and down on 'news' every day but the SEC puts in curbs to keep it from fluctuating too wildly.
I agree, wish I had upmod points, the only commercial reason to promote the 'do nothing' concept is to protect market share for existing companies. I don't understand why oil companies aren't making a 'land grab' for the green technologies.
That's an interesting take, when I read the section about how the group flooded the emails of politicians and DDoS'd their websites, my first thought was of politicians who don't even know they have a website and don't know how to use email. So basically, an anonymous, faceless group sending massive digital attacks against email boxes that never get checked and websites nobody reads.
It brings into full discussion the group's claim that attacks are more effective than petitions...are they actually more effective? It's an old argument about terrorism, where the organization under attack is forced to do nothing because reacting simply brings more attacks. While I agree that petitions rarely bring change (the Turing case in England being an instance where a petition actually worked), how 'effective' is an all-out digital attack at forcing governments to change policy?
I will say the only effect thus far seems to be creating discussion of the issue (of which I was previously ignorant), but if Slashdot is any indication, people will discuss the idea over an 'Anonymous' spokesperson far more than the merits of their methods or their cause.
I agree completely...one of the issues I see here with GIMP has always been that the developers approached GIMP's UI as being 'this is how the user should interact with the UI'.
But...
Hard core image editing is about the IMAGE...not the UI. So putting everything in a single window mimics the basic premise behind creating a piece of artwork. If you were painting a picture, you start with the blank canvas and remain focused on the image on the canvas while reaching for various tools. The GIMP UI (which I've used extensively) is more like trying to create a painting with the easel in one room, the canvas in another room, and each individual paint color in yet another room. Sure, it sounds like an farcical analogy, but giving each element in creating a painting the same independence has this effect.
The commercial is definitely showing in North Carolina.
I've already seen all of those articles. I'm well aware of the governments' usage of the laws to line their own pockets. There's a big gap between a wrongfully accused pilot and a 'family going to Disneyland'. Also, still no connection to your offhand reference and the impending police state, OR how it links to grocery scanning technology.
Please post the link(s) to any stories proving the family/police theft story.
I'm not one to ignore the 'police state' imending drum, but linking a corrupt police practice with Orwell's 1984 is a huge stretch, made with a flimsy offhand reference. Police have been corrupt for a long time, and are more regulated now that ever. It used to be that a minority driving though South Carolina could be stopped, pulled out of their car (with their kids watching) and driven to jail until they came up with bail/extortion money. This wasn't in 2006, this happend as recently as the 1980's to my own family members and as far back as the 50's. Today, if this happens, you can sue the pants off any county cop who does that.
I'm more worried about the corporate veil, and the anonymous power of thos corporations, than I am about the ATM or grocery store checkout line.
Go-2-it
In other news, Benjamin Franklin publishes the Poor Richard's Almanac...
"I grew up in a county with about 5 non-white families. Am I incapable of learning to live with other cultures?"
Incapable? Of course not. But a larger learning curve exists.
"I went to a school where I was picked on for being smart (or maybe being a smart-ass - I can't remember) - am I any less "indifferent and distant" than I would have been in a more healthy social situation - albeit with less children?"
I wasn't asking you to defend your views, but did you realize when you wrote this how loaded this statement is? You spent a lot of time explaining that the reason you home-school had nothing to do with protecting your child, then immediately state that you were picked on as a child.
"My parents were aware of all my friends growing up - did that mean that we didn't do whatever the hell we wanted when they weren't looking?"
Your parents are always looking, and as a loving parent, you already know that. But a lot of people grow up with parents who don't care and don't pay attention, and those kids grow up to be adults just like everyone else. I know I'm better off knowing how to deal with bullies and idiots on the job because I learned how to handle those people when I was a kid. Not that bullying is ever acceptable; but someday, somewhere a person will run into one, even as an adult. Better learn what to do as a kid, even if that means telling your parents.
I asked the questions earlier because your original post seemed well thought out and I wanted to get your honest take on these questions. As a parent ( and as a minority), and as a kid who also was extremely smart, I am more than aware of the pitfalls and shortcomings of the public school system. I just don't know if the deft social skills that I acquired while going through school could have been replaced by my parents.
I'd be interested in how you feel about the following:
How does your son deal with people outside of his normal social or intellectual circle? It's one thing to get along with kids of the same socioeconomic status, from the same neighborhood. What about real life, when your son goes to work and will be working with people from all walks of life, cultures and psychological makeup? I'm curious if your observations of your son with his peers has taken into account that you are aware of all of his peers and no doubt keep an eye on who he spends time with. Many children in public schools are forced to learn how to deal with a group of people not specifically culled by their parents. What about when he goes to college? Will he be more likely to accept a scholarship from Columbia if he realizes it's in a rough area of NY, or will he opt for a safer choice?
Also, as a parent and as a person who moved frequently as a child, I would be extremely concerned about the idea that parents can just 'switch' their child from year to year, from public school to home school. Children need stability, and it's extrememly difficult to fit in when you're always the 'new kid'. That might help you prepare you for grown up life, but it also might make you grow up indifferent and distant.
Isn't obvious it is? Editing Slashdot now Yoda is.