For those interested in more information on the Fairness Doctrine, I would suggest this web site:
http://www.stopmediaregulation.org/
Media regulation is the limitation of Free Speech. This clearly violates the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" (my paraphrase).
This is one of those things that can get you on both sides. First, the customer gets you by asking, "Why didn't you tell me this was a bad idea?" Second, the customer gets you by saying, "Look, this is the way we do it, we've always done it, and we aren't changing." Sometimes you get both responses from the same customer.
I can't speak for contract programming, but in networking I used to consult in a company that preferred Linux/NetWare solutions on the server side with a Windows NT/2000 desktop--this was a little more than a year ago. We understood that each platform had pros and cons and the systems proposed varied widely depending upon the needs of the customer--we even recommended Windows only environments sometimes.
However, we lost one customer because we didn't bid a Windows 2000 server solution and argued against it because it was simply not in their best interest to use 2000 file services. They got a bid from another company that bid a 2000 solution and gave the bid and the rest of their business to them. In the end, we had to reevaluate how we refused a customer's desires and when we were really willing to turn them down--this is a 3 man shop, so loss of customers who had us on retainer was a serious consequence.
I'd say making sure the client knows your mind is probably good. But, knowing that they make all the decisions is priority. As with any form of persuasion, the best is the kind that gives them the facts and makes the persuadee think he made the decision himself.
Anyway, walk a fine line. Hopefully, if you're good enough, you can avoid and/or afford to turn down the really easy-to-tick-off customers that are never happy.
Personally, I'd like to opt out of MTV. There is rarely anything that doesn't disgust me on that channel. Music videos are gone, Daria is gone; the only thing we watch on there at all anymore is Road Rules when they go visit someplace cool, but we look at the scenery and ignore the dialog...
I'd more likely opt-in to something like Food Network...but I've already got it...
Amazingly, (please note my facetiousness) Saddam Hussein manage to get 100% of the vote, beating his previous record of over 99%. If the goal is to limit the number of choices, the one choice of Saddam (or be shot) must be ideal.
This is just more sour grapes over people not getting the leaders they want because the majority doesn't like it. I will admit the system isn't perfect, but get over it. We can work to improve the system, but to suggest that it is fundamentally flawed because there are too many choices is pure balogna. Just because not everyone can agree on who the best guy for the job is, doesn't mean the system is flawed. In fact, it means the system is working quite well.
Why are Americans so quick to hate America when our system of government is clearly superior to other forms? (Not perfect, better.) I just don't get it.
I don't see why the EU get's to benefit from screwing consumers. Why not let the consumers screw the company by not buying the product, or ordering it from somewhere else, or otherwise avoiding the price gouging? Is the EU going to give the money back to Germany and the Netherlands to the consumers who got ripped off? I don't see how the EU is doing the right thing.
Using my scientific skepticism: How exactly does a mummy stay preserved without being fractured and destroyed for 77 million years? That's a very, very, very long time. I'm really curious because that doesn't really make sense to me.
Right, tech replaces workers....not...
on
Engineer in a Box?
·
· Score: 1
This is the same old crud just retreaded into new fields. Everyone complained that when robots replaced factory workers and computers became common that we'd have massive unemployment. Employment has stayed more or less the same as workers who used to weld joints are replaced with technicians who build, watch, and repair the robots.
Now, engineering software is now replacing a lot of trial and error work. We can produce better products now because of these innovations, yet we have people whining that engineers are losing touch with the math and that sooner or later these tools will replace jobs. How exactly do these tools get written without people who understand the models and the math? Perhaps some irresponsible engineers will be able to stay that way, but it's been my experience that the irrisponsible ones can't operate the software tools any better than they can operate a pencil and paper.
I don't see any major worries here. A consideration to be sure, but let's be objective please.
Most of that code was donated to the FSF. For some reason, they never bothered to organize a kernel (until Hurd).
Just a correction, though I agree with you in the core. The Hurd kernel has been in the works for a decade now. They're just now getting the project off the ground because they decided to use a modular kernel instead of monolithic. One might find the argument between Andrew Tannenbaum and Linus Torvalds (from 10 years ago) interesting as to why this is an important distinction.
I find it amazingly hard to believe that people put such huge restrictions on God, that he can't present himself to billions upon billions of people in billions upon billions of ways.
As a Christian, I most certainly agree with this statement. Romans 1:20 comes to mind first, "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." That is, look around and creation itself ought to be enough to force belief. That is to say He presents Himself to billions in billions of ways and that each of those people see Him in their own unique way. That's not to say that such belief cannot and should not follow a pattern follow a pattern.
Refering back to the elephant parable, blind men describing the elephant will tell different stories about the same beast, but they are all describing the same beast. Therefore, they will probably tell a story majoring on different features they each discover. However, the problem comes down to this, if there is an elephant to describe it does have some definable, absolute shape even if the blind men can't find the whole truth. If this is the case, then there must be a correct and complete description of the elephant that doesn't include inaccuracies. Such a description would only be possible if the blind men were made to see, at least briefly, and/or if the elephant told them a complete description and corrected their misinterpretations.
Allegorically, this is a fundamental truth that Christianity is founded upon. God has shown himself in creation, God has given us a description of himself in the Bible, and God has opened our eyes with the presence of the Holy Spirit. He has further demonstrated his plan and his positions by becoming a man, a part of his own creation. This man is Jesus Christ. Thus, while the elephant parable would apply in a universe created by an unseeable god, we believe the real universe is created and maintained by a seeable God.
Your argument is just weak - what about all the people who were born before Christ?
Christians believe the Jews were chosen of God prior to Christ's arrival. Not only this, they looked forward to his coming. You don't have to look hard in books like Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah before you find a reference to the coming Messiah. Practicing Jews are still looking forward to the Messiah today. I believe they have missed him and need to look to Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. The next question, is invariable what was before the Jews? Isaac was the father of Israel and Abraham was the father of Isaac. These men were chosen before the Jews. Prior to them there was Noah, Enoch, Abel, and Adam among many others. These were just different steps in God's ultimate plan as it developed through human history.
What about all of the Native Americans, who were geographically distinct?
Furthermore, what about the Indians, Turks, Asians, Ethiopians, Saxons, Celts, and many other cultures, some of which still have never heard the story today? That's an interesting question often debated, but it is answered, albeit somewhat nebulously, in the verse I quoted above. That's all the answer I can give. They had nature to show them God. The Native Americans chose to worship nature instead of the Creator of it.
As to infants and unborn children, Christians are generally of the perspective that all children must reach an "age of decision" before God will hold them accountable. This is a subject that is not clearly broached in the Bible, which tends to suggest God didn't think it an important point to discuss. But, it makes sense that a person cannot be held accountable to something they cannot understand and I know few children under the age of 10 who really do--though, some do (not likely infants in any case!).
As to your final point about "seemingly contradictory things," a statement contradicted cannot be true. If something is "seemingly" so, then perhaps it is. However, you haven't addresses any "seeming contradictions" and tried to resolve them. However, you make an absolute contradiction by saying, "God presents himself in many different ways to many different people, and the truth is that they're all true." This simply cannot be the case. The only way for Christianity to be true is to take away some of the things that Christ said. But to do so would be to eliminate Christ himself as an authoritative figure and to eliminate "Christ"ianity itself. For example, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." That's a statement that cannot really be taken away as forceful as it is. Therefore, it is simply impossible for all religions to be true. It doesn't make any sense.
You have obviously put much thought into this subject, but you ask so many unanswered questions and present so many negative arguments against the previous writer. Instead, why not present a positive view demonstrating a real belief system that can be analyzed and corrected? I have attempted to answer the questions you have presented as well as I can and am open to analysis and critique, but I am certainly a layman and not an expert. I welcome this kind of discourse and I would be happy to entertain questions and comments in an open discussion. However, I do not pick fights or answer them, so if anyone wants to discuss this, let's keep it to "rational discussion" rather than "cheerleading" as Larry would say.
I don't know about you, but a 20 year old car is usually pretty busted up. Even a well taken care of one is probably well beyond the point of requiring a complete overhaul in order to get anywhere near the original condition of the vehicle.
These shuttles and the crawler are about that old if I'm not mistaken and I know these must have been through several overhauls. But, has anyone though of looking into building new equipment? The shuttles are put through horendous stresses at least twice a year. They have to first sit on the ground in one atmosphere of pressure, then be hurtled into space at 10 Gs and then survive against zero pressure (or close to), and then drop back down and land.
I think we ought to look at some newer technology to get us up there before we start relying on the space elevator--if that idea pans out.
I was hoping Dell would be creative enough to do something like this. When I read the first story, I turned to my wife and predicted they would do this. It's probably the first prediction I've ever made that was right.;)
Okay, I hate to tell you this, but "War is Hell!" The purpose of war is to dominate the other party with military superiority. This is done by breaking the enemy's things and killing the enemy's people. I don't think there's anything "humane" about war in the first place. And if we're going to fight one, I want to be for sure that my team has the most effective weapons and the best training so that when we get into a fight, we can win it quickly and decisively and move on.
If you can't handle it, go live in a box, because wars are going to happen and "all's fair in war" regardless of what a piece of paper says is "humane killing and destruction."
Let anyone who will buy the garbage they told the Washington Post waste their money on.pro addresses. Sheesh! A gated community on the Internet? Give me a break...
He can do whatever he likes with his machines and I can do whatever I likes with mine. So, if he leaves his wide open, he shouldn't be surprised if he finds that I've added a REJECT next to his host on mine--if he doesn't get added to an RBL first.
I've really about had it with the "Death-to-Microsoft" crowd on Slashdot. I will be the last to say that Microsoft is a nice and friendly company, but I would like to hear something more coherent than what I keep reading everytime the word "Microsoft" is so much as whispered on Slashdot.
I really have no argument to make specifically about this article, except that I would just really like to see some logical argumentation here. Rather, I've been reading stuff like "well look who Microsoft is donating money to" or "Microsoft should be forced to open their file formats, so there!"
A coherent discussion of the issues is far preferable to conspiracy theories and pure emotional babble without any argumentative substance.
I wanted to write some server code--specifically a talker and a MUD--and I looked around on the 'net (back in the days of Netscape Gold) and heard that Linux was cheap and provided a good base for such adventures. My boss (a Unix admin) loaned me a distribution and I just installed it and started trying to mess with it on a spare box. I broke it a few times, but I learned just by doing.
I'm a CIS student in the CSAB accredited program at Kansas State University. The year I started they switched to Java as the learning language.
Personally, as an Object-Oriented language I think it's pretty good and as a learning language it's easy to teach and learn. However, there are some key problems with using Java that are more pragmatic than theoretical.
Java does garbage collection automatically--a nice feature, but stupefies programmers.
Java does not contain any real form of general programming as C++ or SML does.
Java is very clean and relatively easy to use so programmers are insulated from many problems experienced in other languages
All of these insulate students from many of the realities of programming. In any case, everyone ought to be made to take a C++ or C course early on so they can be made to understand some of the deeper programming issues. I know far too many programmers in my classes that don't understand the basics of memory management or how to handle abstract complexities involved in pointer manipulation or even the basic idea of a non-virtual method (all non-static Java methods are equavalent to being C++ virtual).
We have courses like Programming Languages and Operating Systems that seek to dispel these problems, but I still see programmers graduate without understanding how to really do anything outside of Java because of the insulation it gives them.
I say teach them rough edges and hacks and work-arounds before given them a nice clean language like Java or Python to mess around with. Don't we teach derivitives and anti-derivitives by first teaching them the hard way and then giving them the easy formulas? I say use the same method in computer science and make them learn the difficult theories from the ground up with an imperfect implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an engineer. My wife's a teacher? What does it all mean for us!?
For those interested in more information on the Fairness Doctrine, I would suggest this web site:
http://www.stopmediaregulation.org/
Media regulation is the limitation of Free Speech. This clearly violates the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" (my paraphrase).
This is one of those things that can get you on both sides. First, the customer gets you by asking, "Why didn't you tell me this was a bad idea?" Second, the customer gets you by saying, "Look, this is the way we do it, we've always done it, and we aren't changing." Sometimes you get both responses from the same customer.
I can't speak for contract programming, but in networking I used to consult in a company that preferred Linux/NetWare solutions on the server side with a Windows NT/2000 desktop--this was a little more than a year ago. We understood that each platform had pros and cons and the systems proposed varied widely depending upon the needs of the customer--we even recommended Windows only environments sometimes.
However, we lost one customer because we didn't bid a Windows 2000 server solution and argued against it because it was simply not in their best interest to use 2000 file services. They got a bid from another company that bid a 2000 solution and gave the bid and the rest of their business to them. In the end, we had to reevaluate how we refused a customer's desires and when we were really willing to turn them down--this is a 3 man shop, so loss of customers who had us on retainer was a serious consequence.
I'd say making sure the client knows your mind is probably good. But, knowing that they make all the decisions is priority. As with any form of persuasion, the best is the kind that gives them the facts and makes the persuadee think he made the decision himself.
Anyway, walk a fine line. Hopefully, if you're good enough, you can avoid and/or afford to turn down the really easy-to-tick-off customers that are never happy.
Cheers,
Sterling
Personally, I'd like to opt out of MTV. There is rarely anything that doesn't disgust me on that channel. Music videos are gone, Daria is gone; the only thing we watch on there at all anymore is Road Rules when they go visit someplace cool, but we look at the scenery and ignore the dialog...
I'd more likely opt-in to something like Food Network...but I've already got it...
Amazingly, (please note my facetiousness) Saddam Hussein manage to get 100% of the vote, beating his previous record of over 99%. If the goal is to limit the number of choices, the one choice of Saddam (or be shot) must be ideal.
This is just more sour grapes over people not getting the leaders they want because the majority doesn't like it. I will admit the system isn't perfect, but get over it. We can work to improve the system, but to suggest that it is fundamentally flawed because there are too many choices is pure balogna. Just because not everyone can agree on who the best guy for the job is, doesn't mean the system is flawed. In fact, it means the system is working quite well.
Why are Americans so quick to hate America when our system of government is clearly superior to other forms? (Not perfect, better.) I just don't get it.
I don't see why the EU get's to benefit from screwing consumers. Why not let the consumers screw the company by not buying the product, or ordering it from somewhere else, or otherwise avoiding the price gouging? Is the EU going to give the money back to Germany and the Netherlands to the consumers who got ripped off? I don't see how the EU is doing the right thing.
Using my scientific skepticism: How exactly does a mummy stay preserved without being fractured and destroyed for 77 million years? That's a very, very, very long time. I'm really curious because that doesn't really make sense to me.
This is the same old crud just retreaded into new fields. Everyone complained that when robots replaced factory workers and computers became common that we'd have massive unemployment. Employment has stayed more or less the same as workers who used to weld joints are replaced with technicians who build, watch, and repair the robots.
Now, engineering software is now replacing a lot of trial and error work. We can produce better products now because of these innovations, yet we have people whining that engineers are losing touch with the math and that sooner or later these tools will replace jobs. How exactly do these tools get written without people who understand the models and the math? Perhaps some irresponsible engineers will be able to stay that way, but it's been my experience that the irrisponsible ones can't operate the software tools any better than they can operate a pencil and paper.
I don't see any major worries here. A consideration to be sure, but let's be objective please.
Most of that code was donated to the FSF. For some reason, they never bothered to organize a kernel (until Hurd).
Just a correction, though I agree with you in the core. The Hurd kernel has been in the works for a decade now. They're just now getting the project off the ground because they decided to use a modular kernel instead of monolithic. One might find the argument between Andrew Tannenbaum and Linus Torvalds (from 10 years ago) interesting as to why this is an important distinction.
As a Christian, I most certainly agree with this statement. Romans 1:20 comes to mind first, "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." That is, look around and creation itself ought to be enough to force belief. That is to say He presents Himself to billions in billions of ways and that each of those people see Him in their own unique way. That's not to say that such belief cannot and should not follow a pattern follow a pattern.
Refering back to the elephant parable, blind men describing the elephant will tell different stories about the same beast, but they are all describing the same beast. Therefore, they will probably tell a story majoring on different features they each discover. However, the problem comes down to this, if there is an elephant to describe it does have some definable, absolute shape even if the blind men can't find the whole truth. If this is the case, then there must be a correct and complete description of the elephant that doesn't include inaccuracies. Such a description would only be possible if the blind men were made to see, at least briefly, and/or if the elephant told them a complete description and corrected their misinterpretations.
Allegorically, this is a fundamental truth that Christianity is founded upon. God has shown himself in creation, God has given us a description of himself in the Bible, and God has opened our eyes with the presence of the Holy Spirit. He has further demonstrated his plan and his positions by becoming a man, a part of his own creation. This man is Jesus Christ. Thus, while the elephant parable would apply in a universe created by an unseeable god, we believe the real universe is created and maintained by a seeable God.
Christians believe the Jews were chosen of God prior to Christ's arrival. Not only this, they looked forward to his coming. You don't have to look hard in books like Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah before you find a reference to the coming Messiah. Practicing Jews are still looking forward to the Messiah today. I believe they have missed him and need to look to Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. The next question, is invariable what was before the Jews? Isaac was the father of Israel and Abraham was the father of Isaac. These men were chosen before the Jews. Prior to them there was Noah, Enoch, Abel, and Adam among many others. These were just different steps in God's ultimate plan as it developed through human history.
Furthermore, what about the Indians, Turks, Asians, Ethiopians, Saxons, Celts, and many other cultures, some of which still have never heard the story today? That's an interesting question often debated, but it is answered, albeit somewhat nebulously, in the verse I quoted above. That's all the answer I can give. They had nature to show them God. The Native Americans chose to worship nature instead of the Creator of it.
As to infants and unborn children, Christians are generally of the perspective that all children must reach an "age of decision" before God will hold them accountable. This is a subject that is not clearly broached in the Bible, which tends to suggest God didn't think it an important point to discuss. But, it makes sense that a person cannot be held accountable to something they cannot understand and I know few children under the age of 10 who really do--though, some do (not likely infants in any case!).
As to your final point about "seemingly contradictory things," a statement contradicted cannot be true. If something is "seemingly" so, then perhaps it is. However, you haven't addresses any "seeming contradictions" and tried to resolve them. However, you make an absolute contradiction by saying, "God presents himself in many different ways to many different people, and the truth is that they're all true." This simply cannot be the case. The only way for Christianity to be true is to take away some of the things that Christ said. But to do so would be to eliminate Christ himself as an authoritative figure and to eliminate "Christ"ianity itself. For example, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." That's a statement that cannot really be taken away as forceful as it is. Therefore, it is simply impossible for all religions to be true. It doesn't make any sense.
You have obviously put much thought into this subject, but you ask so many unanswered questions and present so many negative arguments against the previous writer. Instead, why not present a positive view demonstrating a real belief system that can be analyzed and corrected? I have attempted to answer the questions you have presented as well as I can and am open to analysis and critique, but I am certainly a layman and not an expert. I welcome this kind of discourse and I would be happy to entertain questions and comments in an open discussion. However, I do not pick fights or answer them, so if anyone wants to discuss this, let's keep it to "rational discussion" rather than "cheerleading" as Larry would say.
Cheers!
'nuf said.
I don't know about you, but a 20 year old car is usually pretty busted up. Even a well taken care of one is probably well beyond the point of requiring a complete overhaul in order to get anywhere near the original condition of the vehicle.
These shuttles and the crawler are about that old if I'm not mistaken and I know these must have been through several overhauls. But, has anyone though of looking into building new equipment? The shuttles are put through horendous stresses at least twice a year. They have to first sit on the ground in one atmosphere of pressure, then be hurtled into space at 10 Gs and then survive against zero pressure (or close to), and then drop back down and land.
I think we ought to look at some newer technology to get us up there before we start relying on the space elevator--if that idea pans out.
I was hoping Dell would be creative enough to do something like this. When I read the first story, I turned to my wife and predicted they would do this. It's probably the first prediction I've ever made that was right. ;)
Okay, I hate to tell you this, but "War is Hell!" The purpose of war is to dominate the other party with military superiority. This is done by breaking the enemy's things and killing the enemy's people. I don't think there's anything "humane" about war in the first place. And if we're going to fight one, I want to be for sure that my team has the most effective weapons and the best training so that when we get into a fight, we can win it quickly and decisively and move on.
If you can't handle it, go live in a box, because wars are going to happen and "all's fair in war" regardless of what a piece of paper says is "humane killing and destruction."
Let anyone who will buy the garbage they told the Washington Post waste their money on .pro addresses. Sheesh! A gated community on the Internet? Give me a break...
He can do whatever he likes with his machines and I can do whatever I likes with mine. So, if he leaves his wide open, he shouldn't be surprised if he finds that I've added a REJECT next to his host on mine--if he doesn't get added to an RBL first.
I've really about had it with the "Death-to-Microsoft" crowd on Slashdot. I will be the last to say that Microsoft is a nice and friendly company, but I would like to hear something more coherent than what I keep reading everytime the word "Microsoft" is so much as whispered on Slashdot.
I really have no argument to make specifically about this article, except that I would just really like to see some logical argumentation here. Rather, I've been reading stuff like "well look who Microsoft is donating money to" or "Microsoft should be forced to open their file formats, so there!"
A coherent discussion of the issues is far preferable to conspiracy theories and pure emotional babble without any argumentative substance.
I wanted to write some server code--specifically a talker and a MUD--and I looked around on the 'net (back in the days of Netscape Gold) and heard that Linux was cheap and provided a good base for such adventures. My boss (a Unix admin) loaned me a distribution and I just installed it and started trying to mess with it on a spare box. I broke it a few times, but I learned just by doing.
I'm a CIS student in the CSAB accredited program at Kansas State University. The year I started they switched to Java as the learning language.
Personally, as an Object-Oriented language I think it's pretty good and as a learning language it's easy to teach and learn. However, there are some key problems with using Java that are more pragmatic than theoretical.
All of these insulate students from many of the realities of programming. In any case, everyone ought to be made to take a C++ or C course early on so they can be made to understand some of the deeper programming issues. I know far too many programmers in my classes that don't understand the basics of memory management or how to handle abstract complexities involved in pointer manipulation or even the basic idea of a non-virtual method (all non-static Java methods are equavalent to being C++ virtual).
We have courses like Programming Languages and Operating Systems that seek to dispel these problems, but I still see programmers graduate without understanding how to really do anything outside of Java because of the insulation it gives them.
I say teach them rough edges and hacks and work-arounds before given them a nice clean language like Java or Python to mess around with. Don't we teach derivitives and anti-derivitives by first teaching them the hard way and then giving them the easy formulas? I say use the same method in computer science and make them learn the difficult theories from the ground up with an imperfect implementation.