Instead of continuing to create more powerful and expensive tablets or phablets, Samsung needs to actually support 4K on DeX. When you have a bunch of your customers who buy your 4K monitors/TVs, but your docking station doesn't support 4K... um... that's a bit of a contradiction. Samsung really makes me say "WTF?" so often these days...
How is he actually selling this to anybody?? Somehow, this idiot actually thinks that power can be transferred from capital to labor (or vice versa) by imposing tariffs on imported goods??? Seriously. Journalists need to do their jobs and publicly call this guy on the carpet. Even economics drop-outs know that this does not work.
Or if his reasoning is to "make things more even"... does he even understand what the hell that means? Especially in a global economic environment. SMH on this guy's logic. Where the hell is he getting his guidance from??
Object oriented languages are NOT difficult to learn for people who know procedure languages. C is a procedural language. Some of the best object-oriented programmers in the world started in C.
I would actually say the opposite to what you said. People who did not bother to learn procedural programming first are TERRIBLE in object-oriented languages. Because these kinds of programmers overly abstract everything, create millions of functions and/or methods unnecessarily. Create useless interfaces. Utilize GoF patterns which explode their code base completely unnecessarily.
There are FAR more poor OO programmers out there than procedural programmers.
Apple probably should have done an independent survey before Tim Cook (or anybody else at Apple) made such a statement. Anybody with a remote amount of objectivity can see that the language is very similar to C# and/or Java. Which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but inferring that it Swift is "less geeky" than Java and/or C# is just disingenuous.
The most non-geeky (and IMHO among the greatest) programming languages were invented in the 60s/70s and were procedural. That is just plain truth. COBOL, RPG, FORTRAN, BASIC, and LOGO. Obviously, those languages are the greatest in all contexts, but those languages advanced scientific and business systems development more than any other in that space.
I am still of the opinion that students new to programming should be learning a procedural language first. Simply for the reason of learning the rudiments of program flow, logic concepts, simple data structures, et cetera. Learning things like templating, objects, structs, inheritance, etc... those things can be learned after the rudiments have been absorbed.
Learning a language like Swift, Python, Java, C# first... seems ridiculous to me. Teach the basics, then open up their world with more advanced languages.
Based on your quotations, I now realize... you literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You literally don't understand even what those quotes say from an accounting perspective. You don't understand things like "unfunded", "underfunded", "projections", "frontloading", and "amortization". I mean... you literally have no clue of what you are speaking about.
There is AMPLE information out there to help people like you understand exactly what the 75 year window is, how it is formulated, and why the PAEA created this 75 year window.
You literally need to do some reading. I'm not going to sit here and educate you as you sit here and think that you know better than every major news outlet and journalist on the planet. It isn't opinion. The math has been done. The results are out there. The results of the payment schedules are out there. The projections are out there. It all points to 75 YEARS.
Stop being a dumb fuck and do some godammned reading.
75 years is not an exaggeration. That is a standard GAO projection timeframe -- as was already pointed out. Are you moronic enough to think that it is legal for the federal government to actually put into laws... different means and standards for retirement projection timeframes for it's employees? Completely stupid.
Let's be clear, the laws outline the general retirement funding level requirement. The GAO standards determine what length of time that is. Got it? Probably not.
The part of your post that is accurate is that the PAEA was passed in 2006. At the time, it made sense for everyone and it was a good move. However, the attempts to make course correction have been completely blocked by Republicans and not even brought to the floor. Or do you think that was bi-partisan, too? Again, ridiculous. At least do a little big of digging outside of your daily right-wing wordpress websites before you respond.
The desire is not to make sure that there is no money. The desire is to level the playing field and stop forcing the USPS to pre-fund their retirement accounts so far ahead of time. And to fully-fund it, at that. It is a ridiculous notion. The rest of the government averages less than 50% fully-funding of their retirement accounts... yet they still are more than able to meet their obligations to retirees.
Why shouldn't the USPS be given the same latitude? The answer always comes down to money and political motivations. UPS and FedEx are massive political donors. To put the USPS on equal footing with UPS and FedEx would actually force UPS and FedEx to compete. They don't want that to happen.
The problem with the USPS is that they are required to fully-fund retirement benefits (including health benefits) for *** 75 YEARS ****. This happened in 2006.
Since then, there have been several proposals to reduce this restriction given the landscape of decreasing postal volumes. Every single one has either been shot-down by Republican congresses or not even brought to the floor. Why? Because UPS and FedEx are two massive political donors/special interests. They spent millions to lobby against such legislation.
THAT is the real problem with the USPS. If you want to fix it... then the retirement benefit funding plan needs to be changed to be commensurate with what UPS and FedEx have to do. That would fix the problem really quick.
Seriously. Does IBM actually make products anymore? "Deep Learning"?? Really? IBM, can you tell me where I can buy a Deep Learning? How about a Watson? How about a Cognitive Computing System? Can I buy a Big Data, please? From a technology standpoint, IBM has completely jumped the shark with all of this platform-y, non-productized, framework-y bullshit that requires millions in services hours to implement one-off solutions.
IBM used to make real contributions from their research division into actual software products. Postfix, anyone? RISC technology with AIX and the RS-6k was revolutionary. Their virtualization innovations became the foundation of the AS/400. But no. They jettisoned all of that.
They only do two things now: 1) Research for marketing releases to keep their stock price stable, and 2) Add cash-cow products to their portfolio through acquisition, call them "cognitive"/"big data"/"deep xxxxx", and offshore dev and tech support to a country which charges the lowest wages in the world.
They really have just went down the tubes. It is no wonder that they have declining revenues for so many quarters that I lost count.
I agree that posting something on a forum is not news. There have be millions of anti-Trump and anti-CNN posts on forums. Lots of image-based memes, also.
That is not news at all.
What *is* news is when the President of the United States links to a post in one of his tweets... and when the news outlet goes to find the source of the post... they find out that it is from an internet troll who happens to post all sorts of other disgusting content. You can argue about whether or not that is news and we certainly can agree to disagree. I think it's news. You don't think it is.
I guarantee that if Hillary Clinton tweeted a wrestling video of her taking down Fox News... and the author of that video also advocated anti-Semitic and racism in other posts... Fox News would have reported it instantly. And they would have had every right to do that.
You may not like it, but this is how the press works. It isn't much different than what you see in movies. They find the story (scoop) and then they ask people involved in the story... "Look, I have this story. I know who you are. I know what happened. We're going with this story. Tell me your side."
CNN didn't even need to do this. They could have just published the guy's name and outed him. If that would have happened, you probably would have been complaining about how CNN didn't even give the guy a chance to save his own name. It's bullshit. They did the responsible thing. They treated him like any person at the heart of any story.
The guy freaked out, apologized to CNN publicly, and said that he would not do it again if CNN did not publish his name. CNN agreed, but said they reserved the right to reveal his name if it happens again. In other words... "If we get another story like this and you are involved...we have the right to release your name." Which they certainly do.
If the law restricts the right of the press to dig into stories and report the identities of people, places, and things involved in those stories... you have a fascist press.
It's pretty straightforward. Trump tweets the third-party content. CNN sees the content and starts to investigate the source of that content -- just as any news outlet would. They find out that the source of the content was from a Reddit user. They see a ton of other disgusting content that the Reddit user also created. BOOM --
this is a real story... the president is tweeting content from a disgusting internet troll. CNN digs deeper and finds out the identity of the source of that content. The person's identity is very relevant to the story. The reporter contacts the person, tells them that they know who he is and what he did. The troll rightly freaks out, sends a letter of apology, and makes an impassioned plea that he won't do anything like this again if CNN won't publish his name. CNN agrees to conditionally respect that request.
I don't see the issue here, folks. News outlets do this every single day of the week and twice on Sundays. A big part of journalism is digging, finding the story, finding the hidden underbelly... and then deciding what to do with that information. Every news outlet has serious dirt on a lot of people that they don't release. Many times, those people ask the news outlets not reveal their identities. Sometimes the news outlet says yes. Sometimes the news outlet says no.
CNN is not going to release this guy's name -- although they certainly could have as it is pertinent to the story. But the bigger story here is that (yet again), the President does some completely moronic and non-presidential on Twitter.
If the idiotic photograph of the Trump beheading had blurred out Kathy Griffin's face... the news outlets would have (rightly) dug deep to expose who was in the photograph and who took the photograph. I'm sure they would have called her up saying, "We know who you are, we know what you did." I'm sure Kathy Griffin would also made an impassioned plea to that news outlet.
There are consequences in everything you do. If you act like a complete idiot... and it becomes newsworthy... then you'd better watch out. Because a world of hurt is coming down on you.
The "Greatest Generation". A bunch of over-indulgent assholes whose failings brought about the "greatest" depression.
The "Silent Generation". Raised post-depression. Extremely hard workers. Why? Because their aging parents left them no legacy except for care for them, pay for the welfare state, and fight in at least two wars. Nice.
The "Baby Boomer" generation. Another over-indulgent, entitiled, asshole generation. Why? Because their parents (the silent generation) swore that they'd never make their kids go through what they themselves had to go through. So they gave them everything.
The "X" generation. Another hard-working generation. Why? Because their parents (the baby boomers) are too busy indulging their self-entitles asses to actually care about raising their kids. Gen X-ers have had to bear low wages. Outsourced industries. And an income gap that is worse that it has ever been since ancient Egypt.
The "Millenial Generation". Another over-indulgent, self-entitled, bunch of lazy assholes. Why? Because their parents (the X generation) swore that they'd never make their kids go through what they themselves had to go through. Millennials have been doted over, helicoptered, and are living with their parents as adults at levels not seen since the Great Depression.
There's clearly a pattern. The "Greatest Generation" fucked the country. The "Silent Generation" brought it back. The "Baby Boomers" fucked the country. The "X" generation will bring it back. The "Millenial Generation" will fuck up the country. And their children will bring it back. And so on... and so forth...
Your son is your time machine? I can already tell your son is very young and not that developed, yet. All newer parents talk like you. Where they believe their children are basically conduits to their own past. Where you can correct your own past mistakes by having your son not make them. You. Could. Not. Be. More. Wrong. Seriously. Do yourself a favor and stop walking down this path while you still can. Your child will be the most healthy if you treat them like they are *their own person* (which they are)... instead of an extension of yourself.
Love him. Be an influence. Be there for him when he needs you. Be unconditionally supportive (which doesn't mean agreeing with every decision he makes). That's all you need to do.
But please don't make him a prisoner to your own failures, successes, dreams, and fears. Let him develop all of those on his own. He will love you for it -- forever -- and never hold resentment.
I really like how you can open the start menu and just start typing the name of the program you want to run. Not an original idea, but certainly wasn't a standard option in Windows for a long time. However...
The damned start menu is WAY too fragile. I might be exaggerating, but it has to be one of the most complained about parts of Windows 10. Without warning, your start menu can all of a sudden stop working. Or, it will work, but the type-to-search functionality won't work. So you get all sorts of cryptic workarounds like doing a full repair, or "sfc/scannow", or stopping the Cortana service... the list is endless it seems. I have been very happy with Windows 10 otherwise, but a constantly broken start menu is absolutely terrible.
Microsoft, if you're listening, you guys have to fix this.
Irreversible? How? The world will find equilibrium no matter what we do to it. It will take a long time to find it, but it will find it. Humans have been on the planet for a speck of time compared to how long that the earth and life in general have been around... and have evolved. Another newsflash for you, AC. We aren't going to "destroy" the planet. We will destroy each other long before we are capable of destroying the entire planet.
I definitely am positive that global warming is happening and I am also certain that a portion of this is man-made. However, nobody is certain of what the exact effects of that will be on life and humanity. It will certainly suck. There will be migrations. There will be bad weather. There will be extinctions. But we don't know what all of that means in any real context. All I know is that GW deniers cannot be convinced that GW is even an issue. So I personally have no issue with letting them drive the car into a brick wall as fast as they want.
We aren't dealing in science, anymore. We are dealing in policy, rhetoric, and ideology. When morons want to thin the herd in Darwinian fashion... I personally have no problem with it.
You're missing the point entirely. Regardless of how many people knew that the earth was roundish or flattish... it is irrelevant. You are obviously one of those people who actually believe these deniers can be convinced of reality.
Remember, people "knew" cigarettes caused cancer. Yet still denial abounded. People died. It took decades just for deniers to finally admit the truth... and even the wrongdoing. This is different, how? You may think my arguments flimsy. But you aren't saying anything by saying that.
But I'm not arguing anything at this point except for let nature take its course. The scientists have done all they can. Short of going to war and forcing nations to change... there is nothing else that cam be done.
I said it in another post, but enough data has been provided. If non-scientists/engineers/skeptics/ideologues don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Nobody believes the data because they don't trust the source of the data, the people drawing the conclusions and they need to *visually* see the conclusions drawn in action. Merely showing models is not enough.
Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took countries sponsoring suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
So I had a thought. Perhaps the quickest way to addressing climate change is to do the same thing. Sponsor a "suicide mission to the end of the ocean". Scientists should push hard to lift all regulations on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. The world needs to be *shown* catastrophe. Don't slow down the progress. Speed it up so that we can deal with it, already.
So stop funding all of this climate change research. Support the deregulation of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Put the funds into disaster relief and global catastrophe planning. I think that actually may bear more fruit.
I'm open minded, I'm willing to accept another 'truth' if people can provide the source data, I don't push my own view on to others.
"People" have provided the source data. If you don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data provided to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. Nobody believed the data because they didn't trust the source of the data. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
This is no different. The skeptics and ideologues will believe in the causes, effects, and presence of global warming/climate shift when they see it happen with their own eyes. When they truly have to deal with it. Not one minute before.
The problem with scientists is that they are too idealistic and believe that merely producing a hypothesis, supporting data, and conclusions are enough. Even if thousands of scientists do independent studies confirming the same hypothesis, producing the same data, and coming to the same conclusions... it is not enough. Scientists have not learned their lesson. The world cannot be saved until the world is ready to be saved. A country cannot have freedom until its people are ready to have it.
To me, scientists really just need to stick with near-term science. Research for advances in technology or the treatment of disease. Research for advances in farming. This kind of research produces simple, immediate results that are visible to skeptical non-scientists. But long-term global science is pretty useless. It doesn't matter how much data is produced. Skeptics believe what they see with their own eyes... and models are not enough.
The world is filled with skeptics, nihilists, and ideologues. There is no point to these discussions anymore. The presentation of scientific data to most people is now considered to be the same kind of data that Malcolm Gladwell or Michael Lewis publishes. Basically, just opinions and fun facts. Scientists, climatologists, and the (minority of) people who believe in global warming need to just give up, already. You are not being listened to, anymore.
I definitely understand the impact that global warming is having. I see the data. I know it is there. But get real. We are a world who still allows genocides to occur unchecked unless there is profit to be made. We are a world who still straps dynamite to our bodies and runs into buildings. We are a world who grows and creates enough food for the whole planet to eat... but allow millions of people to die each year of starvation and illnesses related to malnourishment.
Given those things... somehow this world is supposed to give two fucks about a gradual global increase in temperature that will result in a severe climate shift and cause extinctions, deaths, and population relocation? Since when did the world at large give a shit about anything outside their own backyard? Since NEVER.
Here's reality. Climate shift and global warming will not be dealt with until it starts costing rich people a lot of money. When that happens, you'll see action. Until then, you aren't going to see shit.
As the saying goes, "Money makes the world go round".
I used to work at IBM (as a senior-level manager) and I can say truthfully that the only way IBM is going to make it is if it completely lets go almost all of its business units and rebuilds from the ground up. Every single LOB they have is archaic. I remember when I was first hired at IBM. They showed every new employee a propaganda video which was like a 10 minute montage of IBM's innovation since it started. That video ended with the final innovation -- landing on the moon. That's right. The last real innovation IBM truly contributed to was LANDING ON THE MOON. Fifty years ago.
In the last 20 years, all IBM has done is try to innovate through acquisitions. Buy a company. Put together a five year business plan to milk the acquiree's customers. "Blue wash" their products. Push new IBM bloatware to those customers. Get rid of 95% of the acquiree's employees through attrition... and replace them with IBM employees from other liquidated business units. Wash, rinse, repeat.
They have a requirement for all business units to ensure that a certain percentage of the workforce was offshore. Also, since their HR review process uses comparison against your peers... people get fired or put on performance plans every quarter. I remember going into ridiculous meetings where my boss would tell me that I didn't have enough of my peopl eranked as low performers... I needed to come up with some names. Didn't matter if my entire team met their personal goals. I had to rate a certain percentage a "3" or my boss would do it for me. Wonderful. IBM used to have a policy of matching 401k contributions with each paycheck. Well, they changed that to a one-time match in December. The kicker there was that if you got laid off/fired before December... then you lost all of your match. Nice, eh? It just so happened that the big layoffs came before the 401k match date. Lots of wonderful cost savings for IBM.
Meanwhile... during periods where several consecutive quarters of revenue misses happened... and tens of thousands of people were fired... Ginni Rometty and her peers received millions of dollars in bonuses. Nice, eh?
I could go on and on. But IBM is simply a crap company. My advice to anybody would be to stay away from there. If your company gets acquired by IBM... stick around for three years. Collect your paycheck, come in late every day, go as slow as possible in your daily work, don't fret while IBM ruins your product by demanding you include 20 year-old technology into your shiny product. Then leave after you are fully vested. Leave immediately and don't look back.
If you are a new college graduate and you get hired by IBM, stick around for no more than two years. You will get a much better job elsewhere. But do not stay.
IBM is a dying company. It has been shitting the bed pan for the last five years and it is only going to get worse. Steer clear.
I wish I had mod points. Your post is the absolutely most concise and insightful in this entire thread. It is also completely correct. This Swedish scientist is the equivalent of one of those scientists who says that climate change isn't happening.
I also agree with one of the posters who said that this scientist having a model is a good thing -- even if it is wrong. A model lets the rest of the community put it to the test, change it, and improve it. There have been many predictive models which estimate the number of earth-like planets out there. I haven't seen a model which says that earth-like planets absolutely should not exist at all... and that earth itself is an infinitesimal anomaly.
If anything, the model should provide a nice contrast to test opposing models. Definitely a good thing.
... I swear. Lean, SCRUM, XP, Agile, Waterfall, Kanban, Scrumban, TDD, BDD, Pair Programming, Code Review, User Stories... etc... etc... etc.
How about just be a responsible craftsman, understand the customer's requirements and needs, and implement your solution responsibly and with integrity? Whatever that means. If you need to pull someone in, then do it. If you don't, then don't. Christ, how complicated is this? It's one thing to be a junior developer and having to learn things. Fine. But an experienced software developer should not require constant canoodling to get their job done responsibly, with integrity, and with good quality. Is it really that hard?
I'm from a pretty old-school programming upbringing -- back when you were a "Programmer" or "Analyst" or "Programmer/Analyst". I'll tell you in those days... if a programmer demanded this kind of ridiculous hand-holding, canoodling, and process-implementation to get their job done... they would be fired. Plain and simple. This industry has become awash with process and tool zealots... while knowing the customer's needs be damned.
The movie was better than the book. This guy is like the second-coming of Michael Crichton -- on steroids. The level of detailed minutia he creates is entertaining at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The only reason "The Martian" is remotely decent as a book is because the story he thought up was actually good. The microscope level of detail was absolutely unnecessary.
I think the guy actually has a decent ability to create and tell a story. But he doesn't need to prove the feasibility of his stories to the audience. It's fine to suspend belief sometimes. Especially in science fiction, right?
I just hope the story he tells in this new book is as good as it was in his last one. Otherwise, the book is going to be horrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of continuing to create more powerful and expensive tablets or phablets, Samsung needs to actually support 4K on DeX. When you have a bunch of your customers who buy your 4K monitors/TVs, but your docking station doesn't support 4K... um... that's a bit of a contradiction. Samsung really makes me say "WTF?" so often these days...
How is he actually selling this to anybody?? Somehow, this idiot actually thinks that power can be transferred from capital to labor (or vice versa) by imposing tariffs on imported goods??? Seriously. Journalists need to do their jobs and publicly call this guy on the carpet. Even economics drop-outs know that this does not work.
Or if his reasoning is to "make things more even"... does he even understand what the hell that means? Especially in a global economic environment. SMH on this guy's logic. Where the hell is he getting his guidance from??
Object oriented languages are NOT difficult to learn for people who know procedure languages. C is a procedural language. Some of the best object-oriented programmers in the world started in C.
I would actually say the opposite to what you said. People who did not bother to learn procedural programming first are TERRIBLE in object-oriented languages. Because these kinds of programmers overly abstract everything, create millions of functions and/or methods unnecessarily. Create useless interfaces. Utilize GoF patterns which explode their code base completely unnecessarily.
There are FAR more poor OO programmers out there than procedural programmers.
Apple probably should have done an independent survey before Tim Cook (or anybody else at Apple) made such a statement. Anybody with a remote amount of objectivity can see that the language is very similar to C# and/or Java. Which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but inferring that it Swift is "less geeky" than Java and/or C# is just disingenuous.
The most non-geeky (and IMHO among the greatest) programming languages were invented in the 60s/70s and were procedural. That is just plain truth. COBOL, RPG, FORTRAN, BASIC, and LOGO. Obviously, those languages are the greatest in all contexts, but those languages advanced scientific and business systems development more than any other in that space.
I am still of the opinion that students new to programming should be learning a procedural language first. Simply for the reason of learning the rudiments of program flow, logic concepts, simple data structures, et cetera. Learning things like templating, objects, structs, inheritance, etc... those things can be learned after the rudiments have been absorbed.
Learning a language like Swift, Python, Java, C# first... seems ridiculous to me. Teach the basics, then open up their world with more advanced languages.
Based on your quotations, I now realize... you literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You literally don't understand even what those quotes say from an accounting perspective. You don't understand things like "unfunded", "underfunded", "projections", "frontloading", and "amortization". I mean... you literally have no clue of what you are speaking about.
There is AMPLE information out there to help people like you understand exactly what the 75 year window is, how it is formulated, and why the PAEA created this 75 year window.
You literally need to do some reading. I'm not going to sit here and educate you as you sit here and think that you know better than every major news outlet and journalist on the planet. It isn't opinion. The math has been done. The results are out there. The results of the payment schedules are out there. The projections are out there. It all points to 75 YEARS.
Stop being a dumb fuck and do some godammned reading.
75 years is not an exaggeration. That is a standard GAO projection timeframe -- as was already pointed out. Are you moronic enough to think that it is legal for the federal government to actually put into laws... different means and standards for retirement projection timeframes for it's employees? Completely stupid.
Let's be clear, the laws outline the general retirement funding level requirement. The GAO standards determine what length of time that is. Got it? Probably not.
The part of your post that is accurate is that the PAEA was passed in 2006. At the time, it made sense for everyone and it was a good move. However, the attempts to make course correction have been completely blocked by Republicans and not even brought to the floor. Or do you think that was bi-partisan, too? Again, ridiculous. At least do a little big of digging outside of your daily right-wing wordpress websites before you respond.
The desire is not to make sure that there is no money. The desire is to level the playing field and stop forcing the USPS to pre-fund their retirement accounts so far ahead of time. And to fully-fund it, at that. It is a ridiculous notion. The rest of the government averages less than 50% fully-funding of their retirement accounts... yet they still are more than able to meet their obligations to retirees.
Why shouldn't the USPS be given the same latitude? The answer always comes down to money and political motivations. UPS and FedEx are massive political donors. To put the USPS on equal footing with UPS and FedEx would actually force UPS and FedEx to compete. They don't want that to happen.
The problem with the USPS is that they are required to fully-fund retirement benefits (including health benefits) for *** 75 YEARS ****. This happened in 2006.
Since then, there have been several proposals to reduce this restriction given the landscape of decreasing postal volumes. Every single one has either been shot-down by Republican congresses or not even brought to the floor. Why? Because UPS and FedEx are two massive political donors/special interests. They spent millions to lobby against such legislation.
THAT is the real problem with the USPS. If you want to fix it... then the retirement benefit funding plan needs to be changed to be commensurate with what UPS and FedEx have to do. That would fix the problem really quick.
Seriously. Does IBM actually make products anymore? "Deep Learning"?? Really? IBM, can you tell me where I can buy a Deep Learning? How about a Watson? How about a Cognitive Computing System? Can I buy a Big Data, please? From a technology standpoint, IBM has completely jumped the shark with all of this platform-y, non-productized, framework-y bullshit that requires millions in services hours to implement one-off solutions.
IBM used to make real contributions from their research division into actual software products. Postfix, anyone? RISC technology with AIX and the RS-6k was revolutionary. Their virtualization innovations became the foundation of the AS/400. But no. They jettisoned all of that.
They only do two things now: 1) Research for marketing releases to keep their stock price stable, and 2) Add cash-cow products to their portfolio through acquisition, call them "cognitive"/"big data"/"deep xxxxx", and offshore dev and tech support to a country which charges the lowest wages in the world.
They really have just went down the tubes. It is no wonder that they have declining revenues for so many quarters that I lost count.
I agree that posting something on a forum is not news. There have be millions of anti-Trump and anti-CNN posts on forums. Lots of image-based memes, also.
That is not news at all.
What *is* news is when the President of the United States links to a post in one of his tweets... and when the news outlet goes to find the source of the post... they find out that it is from an internet troll who happens to post all sorts of other disgusting content. You can argue about whether or not that is news and we certainly can agree to disagree. I think it's news. You don't think it is.
I guarantee that if Hillary Clinton tweeted a wrestling video of her taking down Fox News... and the author of that video also advocated anti-Semitic and racism in other posts... Fox News would have reported it instantly. And they would have had every right to do that.
Why? BECAUSE IT IS NEWS.
You may not like it, but this is how the press works. It isn't much different than what you see in movies. They find the story (scoop) and then they ask people involved in the story... "Look, I have this story. I know who you are. I know what happened. We're going with this story. Tell me your side."
CNN didn't even need to do this. They could have just published the guy's name and outed him. If that would have happened, you probably would have been complaining about how CNN didn't even give the guy a chance to save his own name. It's bullshit. They did the responsible thing. They treated him like any person at the heart of any story.
The guy freaked out, apologized to CNN publicly, and said that he would not do it again if CNN did not publish his name. CNN agreed, but said they reserved the right to reveal his name if it happens again. In other words... "If we get another story like this and you are involved...we have the right to release your name." Which they certainly do.
If the law restricts the right of the press to dig into stories and report the identities of people, places, and things involved in those stories... you have a fascist press.
It's pretty straightforward. Trump tweets the third-party content. CNN sees the content and starts to investigate the source of that content -- just as any news outlet would. They find out that the source of the content was from a Reddit user. They see a ton of other disgusting content that the Reddit user also created. BOOM --
this is a real story... the president is tweeting content from a disgusting internet troll. CNN digs deeper and finds out the identity of the source of that content. The person's identity is very relevant to the story. The reporter contacts the person, tells them that they know who he is and what he did. The troll rightly freaks out, sends a letter of apology, and makes an impassioned plea that he won't do anything like this again if CNN won't publish his name. CNN agrees to conditionally respect that request.
I don't see the issue here, folks. News outlets do this every single day of the week and twice on Sundays. A big part of journalism is digging, finding the story, finding the hidden underbelly... and then deciding what to do with that information. Every news outlet has serious dirt on a lot of people that they don't release. Many times, those people ask the news outlets not reveal their identities. Sometimes the news outlet says yes. Sometimes the news outlet says no.
CNN is not going to release this guy's name -- although they certainly could have as it is pertinent to the story. But the bigger story here is that (yet again), the President does some completely moronic and non-presidential on Twitter.
If the idiotic photograph of the Trump beheading had blurred out Kathy Griffin's face... the news outlets would have (rightly) dug deep to expose who was in the photograph and who took the photograph. I'm sure they would have called her up saying, "We know who you are, we know what you did." I'm sure Kathy Griffin would also made an impassioned plea to that news outlet.
There are consequences in everything you do. If you act like a complete idiot... and it becomes newsworthy... then you'd better watch out. Because a world of hurt is coming down on you.
The "Greatest Generation". A bunch of over-indulgent assholes whose failings brought about the "greatest" depression.
The "Silent Generation". Raised post-depression. Extremely hard workers. Why? Because their aging parents left them no legacy except for care for them, pay for the welfare state, and fight in at least two wars. Nice.
The "Baby Boomer" generation. Another over-indulgent, entitiled, asshole generation. Why? Because their parents (the silent generation) swore that they'd never make their kids go through what they themselves had to go through. So they gave them everything.
The "X" generation. Another hard-working generation. Why? Because their parents (the baby boomers) are too busy indulging their self-entitles asses to actually care about raising their kids. Gen X-ers have had to bear low wages. Outsourced industries. And an income gap that is worse that it has ever been since ancient Egypt.
The "Millenial Generation". Another over-indulgent, self-entitled, bunch of lazy assholes. Why? Because their parents (the X generation) swore that they'd never make their kids go through what they themselves had to go through. Millennials have been doted over, helicoptered, and are living with their parents as adults at levels not seen since the Great Depression.
There's clearly a pattern. The "Greatest Generation" fucked the country. The "Silent Generation" brought it back. The "Baby Boomers" fucked the country. The "X" generation will bring it back. The "Millenial Generation" will fuck up the country. And their children will bring it back. And so on... and so forth...
Your son is your time machine? I can already tell your son is very young and not that developed, yet. All newer parents talk like you. Where they believe their children are basically conduits to their own past. Where you can correct your own past mistakes by having your son not make them. You. Could. Not. Be. More. Wrong. Seriously. Do yourself a favor and stop walking down this path while you still can. Your child will be the most healthy if you treat them like they are *their own person* (which they are)... instead of an extension of yourself.
Love him. Be an influence. Be there for him when he needs you. Be unconditionally supportive (which doesn't mean agreeing with every decision he makes). That's all you need to do.
But please don't make him a prisoner to your own failures, successes, dreams, and fears. Let him develop all of those on his own. He will love you for it -- forever -- and never hold resentment.
I really like how you can open the start menu and just start typing the name of the program you want to run. Not an original idea, but certainly wasn't a standard option in Windows for a long time. However...
The damned start menu is WAY too fragile. I might be exaggerating, but it has to be one of the most complained about parts of Windows 10. Without warning, your start menu can all of a sudden stop working. Or, it will work, but the type-to-search functionality won't work. So you get all sorts of cryptic workarounds like doing a full repair, or "sfc /scannow", or stopping the Cortana service... the list is endless it seems. I have been very happy with Windows 10 otherwise, but a constantly broken start menu is absolutely terrible.
Microsoft, if you're listening, you guys have to fix this.
Irreversible? How? The world will find equilibrium no matter what we do to it. It will take a long time to find it, but it will find it. Humans have been on the planet for a speck of time compared to how long that the earth and life in general have been around... and have evolved. Another newsflash for you, AC. We aren't going to "destroy" the planet. We will destroy each other long before we are capable of destroying the entire planet.
I definitely am positive that global warming is happening and I am also certain that a portion of this is man-made. However, nobody is certain of what the exact effects of that will be on life and humanity. It will certainly suck. There will be migrations. There will be bad weather. There will be extinctions. But we don't know what all of that means in any real context. All I know is that GW deniers cannot be convinced that GW is even an issue. So I personally have no issue with letting them drive the car into a brick wall as fast as they want.
We aren't dealing in science, anymore. We are dealing in policy, rhetoric, and ideology. When morons want to thin the herd in Darwinian fashion... I personally have no problem with it.
You're missing the point entirely. Regardless of how many people knew that the earth was roundish or flattish... it is irrelevant. You are obviously one of those people who actually believe these deniers can be convinced of reality.
Remember, people "knew" cigarettes caused cancer. Yet still denial abounded. People died. It took decades just for deniers to finally admit the truth... and even the wrongdoing. This is different, how? You may think my arguments flimsy. But you aren't saying anything by saying that.
But I'm not arguing anything at this point except for let nature take its course. The scientists have done all they can. Short of going to war and forcing nations to change... there is nothing else that cam be done.
Data and sources do not matter. Only belief. Get with the program.
I said it in another post, but enough data has been provided. If non-scientists/engineers/skeptics/ideologues don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Nobody believes the data because they don't trust the source of the data, the people drawing the conclusions and they need to *visually* see the conclusions drawn in action. Merely showing models is not enough.
Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took countries sponsoring suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
So I had a thought. Perhaps the quickest way to addressing climate change is to do the same thing. Sponsor a "suicide mission to the end of the ocean". Scientists should push hard to lift all regulations on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. The world needs to be *shown* catastrophe. Don't slow down the progress. Speed it up so that we can deal with it, already.
So stop funding all of this climate change research. Support the deregulation of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Put the funds into disaster relief and global catastrophe planning. I think that actually may bear more fruit.
"People" have provided the source data. If you don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data provided to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. Nobody believed the data because they didn't trust the source of the data. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
This is no different. The skeptics and ideologues will believe in the causes, effects, and presence of global warming/climate shift when they see it happen with their own eyes. When they truly have to deal with it. Not one minute before.
The problem with scientists is that they are too idealistic and believe that merely producing a hypothesis, supporting data, and conclusions are enough. Even if thousands of scientists do independent studies confirming the same hypothesis, producing the same data, and coming to the same conclusions... it is not enough. Scientists have not learned their lesson. The world cannot be saved until the world is ready to be saved. A country cannot have freedom until its people are ready to have it.
To me, scientists really just need to stick with near-term science. Research for advances in technology or the treatment of disease. Research for advances in farming. This kind of research produces simple, immediate results that are visible to skeptical non-scientists. But long-term global science is pretty useless. It doesn't matter how much data is produced. Skeptics believe what they see with their own eyes... and models are not enough.
The world is filled with skeptics, nihilists, and ideologues. There is no point to these discussions anymore. The presentation of scientific data to most people is now considered to be the same kind of data that Malcolm Gladwell or Michael Lewis publishes. Basically, just opinions and fun facts. Scientists, climatologists, and the (minority of) people who believe in global warming need to just give up, already. You are not being listened to, anymore.
I definitely understand the impact that global warming is having. I see the data. I know it is there. But get real. We are a world who still allows genocides to occur unchecked unless there is profit to be made. We are a world who still straps dynamite to our bodies and runs into buildings. We are a world who grows and creates enough food for the whole planet to eat... but allow millions of people to die each year of starvation and illnesses related to malnourishment.
Given those things... somehow this world is supposed to give two fucks about a gradual global increase in temperature that will result in a severe climate shift and cause extinctions, deaths, and population relocation? Since when did the world at large give a shit about anything outside their own backyard? Since NEVER.
Here's reality. Climate shift and global warming will not be dealt with until it starts costing rich people a lot of money. When that happens, you'll see action. Until then, you aren't going to see shit.
As the saying goes, "Money makes the world go round".
I used to work at IBM (as a senior-level manager) and I can say truthfully that the only way IBM is going to make it is if it completely lets go almost all of its business units and rebuilds from the ground up. Every single LOB they have is archaic. I remember when I was first hired at IBM. They showed every new employee a propaganda video which was like a 10 minute montage of IBM's innovation since it started. That video ended with the final innovation -- landing on the moon. That's right. The last real innovation IBM truly contributed to was LANDING ON THE MOON. Fifty years ago.
In the last 20 years, all IBM has done is try to innovate through acquisitions. Buy a company. Put together a five year business plan to milk the acquiree's customers. "Blue wash" their products. Push new IBM bloatware to those customers. Get rid of 95% of the acquiree's employees through attrition... and replace them with IBM employees from other liquidated business units. Wash, rinse, repeat.
They have a requirement for all business units to ensure that a certain percentage of the workforce was offshore. Also, since their HR review process uses comparison against your peers... people get fired or put on performance plans every quarter. I remember going into ridiculous meetings where my boss would tell me that I didn't have enough of my peopl eranked as low performers... I needed to come up with some names. Didn't matter if my entire team met their personal goals. I had to rate a certain percentage a "3" or my boss would do it for me. Wonderful. IBM used to have a policy of matching 401k contributions with each paycheck. Well, they changed that to a one-time match in December. The kicker there was that if you got laid off/fired before December... then you lost all of your match. Nice, eh? It just so happened that the big layoffs came before the 401k match date. Lots of wonderful cost savings for IBM.
Meanwhile... during periods where several consecutive quarters of revenue misses happened... and tens of thousands of people were fired... Ginni Rometty and her peers received millions of dollars in bonuses. Nice, eh?
I could go on and on. But IBM is simply a crap company. My advice to anybody would be to stay away from there. If your company gets acquired by IBM... stick around for three years. Collect your paycheck, come in late every day, go as slow as possible in your daily work, don't fret while IBM ruins your product by demanding you include 20 year-old technology into your shiny product. Then leave after you are fully vested. Leave immediately and don't look back.
If you are a new college graduate and you get hired by IBM, stick around for no more than two years. You will get a much better job elsewhere. But do not stay.
IBM is a dying company. It has been shitting the bed pan for the last five years and it is only going to get worse. Steer clear.
I wish I had mod points. Your post is the absolutely most concise and insightful in this entire thread. It is also completely correct. This Swedish scientist is the equivalent of one of those scientists who says that climate change isn't happening.
I also agree with one of the posters who said that this scientist having a model is a good thing -- even if it is wrong. A model lets the rest of the community put it to the test, change it, and improve it. There have been many predictive models which estimate the number of earth-like planets out there. I haven't seen a model which says that earth-like planets absolutely should not exist at all... and that earth itself is an infinitesimal anomaly.
If anything, the model should provide a nice contrast to test opposing models. Definitely a good thing.
... I swear. Lean, SCRUM, XP, Agile, Waterfall, Kanban, Scrumban, TDD, BDD, Pair Programming, Code Review, User Stories... etc... etc... etc.
How about just be a responsible craftsman, understand the customer's requirements and needs, and implement your solution responsibly and with integrity? Whatever that means. If you need to pull someone in, then do it. If you don't, then don't. Christ, how complicated is this? It's one thing to be a junior developer and having to learn things. Fine. But an experienced software developer should not require constant canoodling to get their job done responsibly, with integrity, and with good quality. Is it really that hard?
I'm from a pretty old-school programming upbringing -- back when you were a "Programmer" or "Analyst" or "Programmer/Analyst". I'll tell you in those days... if a programmer demanded this kind of ridiculous hand-holding, canoodling, and process-implementation to get their job done... they would be fired. Plain and simple. This industry has become awash with process and tool zealots... while knowing the customer's needs be damned.
The movie was better than the book. This guy is like the second-coming of Michael Crichton -- on steroids. The level of detailed minutia he creates is entertaining at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The only reason "The Martian" is remotely decent as a book is because the story he thought up was actually good. The microscope level of detail was absolutely unnecessary.
I think the guy actually has a decent ability to create and tell a story. But he doesn't need to prove the feasibility of his stories to the audience. It's fine to suspend belief sometimes. Especially in science fiction, right?
I just hope the story he tells in this new book is as good as it was in his last one. Otherwise, the book is going to be horrible.