Liberals aren't the ones keeping the anti-drug laws on the books.
Actually (and I speak as a Socialist, not merely as a Liberal), if you asked an average "Liberal" member of the current Congress to legalize, he or she would look at you as if you had suggested that he or she should knife a baby (OK, that's not fair - they'd rather knife the baby). It's not about beliefs. It's about getting re-elected. The only ones who can dodge getting hammered by an opponent in the next election by supporting legalization are the Congresspersons (a) who are already so iconoclastic as to be immune (read Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, etc.), (b) who are retiring, or (c) who are lucky to be running against those who also support legalization. Since the number of Congresspersons for whom these factors might be true is vanishingly small, I doubt there will not be drug legalization in my lifetime. Although, honestly, it would be nice to have more people from category (a) above, if only for the entertainment value they provide.
I think if more people understood diamonds scientifically and economically they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry.
I think that if more people understood diamonds aesthetically, they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry. Honestly, they're about the most boring stones around.
Umm, no. This is something that is still yet to come.
However, the OP was wrong about us asking why we let this happened. Instead, we will declare the brokerages too big to fail, bail them out, make up stories about irresponsible individual, non-computerized traders who "gamed the system" and "caused the crash", and then use the resulting deficits from the bail-out and supporting people through the crash as an excuse to cut benefits to actual people.
Oh... uh, wait... maybe we have been there before...
I agree with one statement you make: "engineers as a whole need to focus on simplicity and good standards and stay away from reinventing the wheel". However, if the wheel you currently have is square, it's not much of a "good standard". The web, as it stands now, is incredibly broken. It is a mishmash of accreted crap and one needs to know a multiplicity of technologies, each craptacular in their own unique, broken way, to make a simple, interactive web page work. All-in-all, it needs a lot of work. Since your premises are incorrect (i.e., the web is "simple" and has "good standards"), so are your conclusions.
In fact, if one could come up with a single language with coherent syntax and semantics which delineated particular aspects of web development (logic, interactions, presentation) without learning five different languages, it could be "simple". As such, as long as people are progressing towards that goal, they are doing a good thing. If they made it using a lisp-like syntax, they would be doing God's work.
I've tried the grandaddies of all of them - from Simula to Smalltalk to C++ to rolling my own object systems with procedural pointers... hell, I've even used CLOS. Objective C and Ruby aren't that much different (object-model-wise) from Smalltalk.
Prototype-base inheritance is a different animal from class-based. It is more flexible, can handle certain situations that cannot be handled elegantly in class-based inheritance (even with multiple inheritance and/or aspects). If you truly don't understand the advantages then either (a) you hate Javascript (not an uneasy thing to do) and it's colored your whole view of prototypical object systems or (b) you haven't used class-based OO enough to understand their limitations.
Tell it to him in 10 years when he's eating cat food while those of his peers that "pushed electronic representations of currency around" are vacationing for the rest of their lives in the Bahamas. The bottom line is that there needs to be some modicum of economic justice, otherwise the kinds of work like he did disappears. No one likes being a sucker forever.
Once you remember that the ribbon is a horizontally-oriented, tabbed menu for people too stupid to read words, it all makes sense. Right?
Re:Cybersecurity Companies
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I've worked for two of the major AV companies. In both cases, there were enough controls in place that, if it was financially happening, it would have become known. Even if you could have hidden the financials, if there was any sort of "collusion", someone would have leaked hard evidence by now, if only for the notoriety. Your paranoid imagination is just that.
The bottom line is that malware writers don't need the help. Think of it as information pollution. A manufacturer "saving" a few thousands per years in dump fees can cause a mess that costs millions to clean up. The malware writers' desires to get their botnets up and running to provide themselves collectively with a few million dollars per year are all of the incentive needed to produce the mess that requires billions in prevention and cleanup.
Maybe the strategy is about moving into the "enterprise software" market in order to be an acquisition target for one of those two "competitors". After all, Oracle bought Sun. You might be seeing HP trying to be enterprisy enough for SAP to buy it. It might be worth what an acquirer would pay for HP to spin off the profitable printer and server segments (or sell those parts to other entities). God knows it's the only way that the moldering corpse which HP's stock represents will ever increase in value at this point.
I am afraid that by the next generation, there will be zero notion of privacy or expectation of it.
Did you really think the singularity would come about with any vestige of privacy intact? If one is to have hyper-rationality brought about by increase of machine intelligence, certainly one must have omniscience to base it on. Stop whining - embrace the future. No one actually cares what you're doing in your pathetic, puny life anyway, other than to try to sell you something more efficiently. And soon, that will be gone as well, as our hyper-evolved, singularity-based intelligence moves beyond primitive concepts like trade and moves to purely rational machine models of what is best for all. You will be assimilated. Bwa-ha-ha!!!
I fail to see how a theoretical anything could power something of mine. Don't you need an actual physical something to charge anything? Or is it the other way around, where you need a physical anything to charge something? Oh, I get so confused. But I'm pretty sure that theoretical won't cut it and you'll need physicality there somewhere.
But here's the thing - you don't really need the DeLorean! All you need is a beater that can get up to 88mph! And I used to do that all the time in my old Pinto... well, until that time I didn't quite make it up to 88 in time. But don't worry, the burns are healing nicely and the point still stands!
Yet still I get asked about them in regards to my faith.
Well, yeah... you associate with a broad notion, you get associated with others who associate with that broad notion.
Just like Muslims who get asked about terrorists.
Just like Atheists who get asked about "bad atheists" like Hitler and Stalin.
Just like Republicans who get asked about idiots like Sarah Palin and selfish cunts like Newt Gingrich.
Just like Democrats who get asked about being socialists and communists.
Just like doctors who get asked why health care in this country sucks.
Just like computer scientists who get asked if a PC or Mac is better.
No, you and your group are not being singled out - it's just that we as humans are lazy and generalize a bit... it cuts down on the work. On the other hand, you might want to ask why you think that, because your affiliation is religious, you should be immune to this.
Uh, no. Most atheists think (together with most other people) that humans should behave better (meaning, I suppose, that people should take into better consideration the needs and feelings of their human compatriots on this mudball). This has little to do with some notion of "redemption" by a mythical savior.
... your first problem seems to be that you are laboring under the delusion that life is (or is supposed to be) fair. Never was, and is not likely to become so before you or I die.
On the other hand, one should not let the existence of this state of unfairness become the excuse for not attempting to destroy it, for doing nothing to mitigate its effects, or, worse, for promoting it as a good.
Maybe the corollary is also possible, that the 'bookworm genes' are about 10% more present in people with white skin.
Well, maybe, except that you have no proof that there's anything like a "bookworm gene" or any study of its prevalence, while there's a pretty well proven history of discrimination in this country. Given Occam's Razor, I know which way I'd bet. And, given your post and Occam's Razor, I'd also bet that you're a right-wing/Liberatrian idiot who claims that racism is only a minor problem and believes that, even if it does exist, minorities should suck it up and take it, all the while screaming that conservatives are discriminated against by media and liberals.
I can't believe that this was modded "Insightful". I guess that it was given this moderation because "Stupid" is not available. Evolution does not happen over the course of the 10,000 or so years that some humans have left behind the hunter-gatherer phase. Societies do change and encourage particular behaviors but saying that the population of a nation has "evolved" to become better engineers over this timespan is one of the stupidest things (ON AVERAGE) I've seen. You can encourage and reward behavior, but this is NOT evolution. And, if you place a random person from another environment into this environment and give him the same encouragement and rewards as other members of the society, chances are he will have the same outcome.
One way that one can be biased is to question studies showing that discrimination might be a significant factor while not questioning those that show that discrimination could not be blamed for a negative outcome. Are you sure you're not displaying this kind of bias?
Soap operas were not called that because of clumsy product placement. Yes, they were sponsored by soap companies and the content of the shows chased the housewife demographic who purchased the same. However most of them took their dramatic content far too seriously to sully themselves with the kind of idiotic product placement you describe. There were actually producers who had taste back then - just like there are those who have taste today - who would have fought to keep this kind of thing from happening.
And, in fact, if you actually look at these shows, I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find an example of what you described. An announcer/narrator transitioning from the drama to the ad with "Now a word from our sponsors..."? Yes. A cast member in the heat of a pot-boiling dramatic scene saying something like "I wish I could wash these troubles away with the lemony-fresh scent of Palmolive Soap!" while holding up a bottle? Not so much.
You denigrate what, at the time, was as serious and professional an artistic undertaking as what goes on in dramatic TV now.
They haven't innovated in over 10 years; all there new products have been me-too follow-ups to competitors.
I should respond to someone who doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their"? But, anyway here goes...
Google doesn't need to innovate that much anymore. With Google, the platform is simply the come-on. They expand the number of interrelated web services and market these to more people, they've expanded their [Ed.: Note proper usage of "their"] viewership and increased the amount they can charge for AdWords. All else is noise. Welcome to Google - it's the new TV. The fact that you're looking at "innovation" as a metric of anything that Google is doing now means you don't understand what they're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Liberals aren't the ones keeping the anti-drug laws on the books.
Actually (and I speak as a Socialist, not merely as a Liberal), if you asked an average "Liberal" member of the current Congress to legalize, he or she would look at you as if you had suggested that he or she should knife a baby (OK, that's not fair - they'd rather knife the baby). It's not about beliefs. It's about getting re-elected. The only ones who can dodge getting hammered by an opponent in the next election by supporting legalization are the Congresspersons (a) who are already so iconoclastic as to be immune (read Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, etc.), (b) who are retiring, or (c) who are lucky to be running against those who also support legalization. Since the number of Congresspersons for whom these factors might be true is vanishingly small, I doubt there will not be drug legalization in my lifetime. Although, honestly, it would be nice to have more people from category (a) above, if only for the entertainment value they provide.
I think if more people understood diamonds scientifically and economically they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry.
I think that if more people understood diamonds aesthetically, they would be less likely to waste money on them for jewelry. Honestly, they're about the most boring stones around.
I think we've already been there.
Umm, no. This is something that is still yet to come.
However, the OP was wrong about us asking why we let this happened. Instead, we will declare the brokerages too big to fail, bail them out, make up stories about irresponsible individual, non-computerized traders who "gamed the system" and "caused the crash", and then use the resulting deficits from the bail-out and supporting people through the crash as an excuse to cut benefits to actual people.
Oh... uh, wait... maybe we have been there before...
I agree with one statement you make: "engineers as a whole need to focus on simplicity and good standards and stay away from reinventing the wheel". However, if the wheel you currently have is square, it's not much of a "good standard". The web, as it stands now, is incredibly broken. It is a mishmash of accreted crap and one needs to know a multiplicity of technologies, each craptacular in their own unique, broken way, to make a simple, interactive web page work. All-in-all, it needs a lot of work. Since your premises are incorrect (i.e., the web is "simple" and has "good standards"), so are your conclusions.
In fact, if one could come up with a single language with coherent syntax and semantics which delineated particular aspects of web development (logic, interactions, presentation) without learning five different languages, it could be "simple". As such, as long as people are progressing towards that goal, they are doing a good thing. If they made it using a lisp-like syntax, they would be doing God's work.
I've tried the grandaddies of all of them - from Simula to Smalltalk to C++ to rolling my own object systems with procedural pointers... hell, I've even used CLOS. Objective C and Ruby aren't that much different (object-model-wise) from Smalltalk.
Prototype-base inheritance is a different animal from class-based. It is more flexible, can handle certain situations that cannot be handled elegantly in class-based inheritance (even with multiple inheritance and/or aspects). If you truly don't understand the advantages then either (a) you hate Javascript (not an uneasy thing to do) and it's colored your whole view of prototypical object systems or (b) you haven't used class-based OO enough to understand their limitations.
Tell it to him in 10 years when he's eating cat food while those of his peers that "pushed electronic representations of currency around" are vacationing for the rest of their lives in the Bahamas. The bottom line is that there needs to be some modicum of economic justice, otherwise the kinds of work like he did disappears. No one likes being a sucker forever.
Check out this article by a couple of guys who are pretty statistically reliable. The "hype" for this hurricane was nothing out of the ordinary.
Once you remember that the ribbon is a horizontally-oriented, tabbed menu for people too stupid to read words, it all makes sense. Right?
I've worked for two of the major AV companies. In both cases, there were enough controls in place that, if it was financially happening, it would have become known. Even if you could have hidden the financials, if there was any sort of "collusion", someone would have leaked hard evidence by now, if only for the notoriety. Your paranoid imagination is just that.
The bottom line is that malware writers don't need the help. Think of it as information pollution. A manufacturer "saving" a few thousands per years in dump fees can cause a mess that costs millions to clean up. The malware writers' desires to get their botnets up and running to provide themselves collectively with a few million dollars per year are all of the incentive needed to produce the mess that requires billions in prevention and cleanup.
Agilent will buy back the right to use the name HP from HP's smoldering shell.
From your mouth to God's ears... Maybe "The HP Way" can mean something again.
Maybe the strategy is about moving into the "enterprise software" market in order to be an acquisition target for one of those two "competitors". After all, Oracle bought Sun. You might be seeing HP trying to be enterprisy enough for SAP to buy it. It might be worth what an acquirer would pay for HP to spin off the profitable printer and server segments (or sell those parts to other entities). God knows it's the only way that the moldering corpse which HP's stock represents will ever increase in value at this point.
I am afraid that by the next generation, there will be zero notion of privacy or expectation of it.
Did you really think the singularity would come about with any vestige of privacy intact? If one is to have hyper-rationality brought about by increase of machine intelligence, certainly one must have omniscience to base it on. Stop whining - embrace the future. No one actually cares what you're doing in your pathetic, puny life anyway, other than to try to sell you something more efficiently. And soon, that will be gone as well, as our hyper-evolved, singularity-based intelligence moves beyond primitive concepts like trade and moves to purely rational machine models of what is best for all. You will be assimilated. Bwa-ha-ha!!!
Love and kisses...
Eric
... years from now I can watch about it in movie form...
You already can!
You don't bite the hand that lends to you...
I fail to see how a theoretical anything could power something of mine. Don't you need an actual physical something to charge anything? Or is it the other way around, where you need a physical anything to charge something? Oh, I get so confused. But I'm pretty sure that theoretical won't cut it and you'll need physicality there somewhere.
Assuming you drive a DeLorean anyway.
But here's the thing - you don't really need the DeLorean! All you need is a beater that can get up to 88mph! And I used to do that all the time in my old Pinto... well, until that time I didn't quite make it up to 88 in time. But don't worry, the burns are healing nicely and the point still stands!
Yet still I get asked about them in regards to my faith.
Well, yeah... you associate with a broad notion, you get associated with others who associate with that broad notion.
Just like Muslims who get asked about terrorists.
Just like Atheists who get asked about "bad atheists" like Hitler and Stalin.
Just like Republicans who get asked about idiots like Sarah Palin and selfish cunts like Newt Gingrich.
Just like Democrats who get asked about being socialists and communists.
Just like doctors who get asked why health care in this country sucks.
Just like computer scientists who get asked if a PC or Mac is better.
No, you and your group are not being singled out - it's just that we as humans are lazy and generalize a bit... it cuts down on the work. On the other hand, you might want to ask why you think that, because your affiliation is religious, you should be immune to this.
Heck, most Atheists think humans need redemption.
Uh, no. Most atheists think (together with most other people) that humans should behave better (meaning, I suppose, that people should take into better consideration the needs and feelings of their human compatriots on this mudball). This has little to do with some notion of "redemption" by a mythical savior.
And this is why you NEED Rick Perry as President!
... your first problem seems to be that you are laboring under the delusion that life is (or is supposed to be) fair. Never was, and is not likely to become so before you or I die.
On the other hand, one should not let the existence of this state of unfairness become the excuse for not attempting to destroy it, for doing nothing to mitigate its effects, or, worse, for promoting it as a good.
Maybe the corollary is also possible, that the 'bookworm genes' are about 10% more present in people with white skin.
Well, maybe, except that you have no proof that there's anything like a "bookworm gene" or any study of its prevalence, while there's a pretty well proven history of discrimination in this country. Given Occam's Razor, I know which way I'd bet. And, given your post and Occam's Razor, I'd also bet that you're a right-wing/Liberatrian idiot who claims that racism is only a minor problem and believes that, even if it does exist, minorities should suck it up and take it, all the while screaming that conservatives are discriminated against by media and liberals.
I can't believe that this was modded "Insightful". I guess that it was given this moderation because "Stupid" is not available. Evolution does not happen over the course of the 10,000 or so years that some humans have left behind the hunter-gatherer phase. Societies do change and encourage particular behaviors but saying that the population of a nation has "evolved" to become better engineers over this timespan is one of the stupidest things (ON AVERAGE) I've seen. You can encourage and reward behavior, but this is NOT evolution. And, if you place a random person from another environment into this environment and give him the same encouragement and rewards as other members of the society, chances are he will have the same outcome.
One way that one can be biased is to question studies showing that discrimination might be a significant factor while not questioning those that show that discrimination could not be blamed for a negative outcome. Are you sure you're not displaying this kind of bias?
Soap operas were not called that because of clumsy product placement. Yes, they were sponsored by soap companies and the content of the shows chased the housewife demographic who purchased the same. However most of them took their dramatic content far too seriously to sully themselves with the kind of idiotic product placement you describe. There were actually producers who had taste back then - just like there are those who have taste today - who would have fought to keep this kind of thing from happening.
And, in fact, if you actually look at these shows, I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find an example of what you described. An announcer/narrator transitioning from the drama to the ad with "Now a word from our sponsors..."? Yes. A cast member in the heat of a pot-boiling dramatic scene saying something like "I wish I could wash these troubles away with the lemony-fresh scent of Palmolive Soap!" while holding up a bottle? Not so much.
You denigrate what, at the time, was as serious and professional an artistic undertaking as what goes on in dramatic TV now.
They haven't innovated in over 10 years; all there new products have been me-too follow-ups to competitors.
I should respond to someone who doesn't know the difference between "there" and "their"? But, anyway here goes...
Google doesn't need to innovate that much anymore. With Google, the platform is simply the come-on. They expand the number of interrelated web services and market these to more people, they've expanded their [Ed.: Note proper usage of "their"] viewership and increased the amount they can charge for AdWords. All else is noise. Welcome to Google - it's the new TV. The fact that you're looking at "innovation" as a metric of anything that Google is doing now means you don't understand what they're doing.