Heh, I wasn't aware of that. But did you know what I meant? If I was to do a search of the word's use in actual conversation would I discover it was used more the way I used it or more the way that dictionary says? The word doesn't *mean* anything.. it's meaning is agreed upon by the speakers of the language and so long as you know what I'm saying then the word does have that meaning - according to any sensible definition of "meaning".
I think it would be fun to have an augmented reality sniper rifle. You climb up on a tall building, sight up some people and then blast them.. the scope in the sniper rifle gives you a realistic account of the blood splatter and how they would fall to the ground, etc. You could wear headphones to simulate the sound of the rifle firing. Of course, when you take your eyes away from the scope the person is still alive and walking around.. I'm not suggesting we need VR goggles here.
Unfortunately, if someone spotted you up there on the roof pretending to shoot people, they'd send the police to kill you.
Umm.. I work for a company where everyone is salaried and "at will". My employer can require us to do anything they like because they can let us go without notice and without reason. In the real world (which is where I work) people get whatever conditions they are willing to put up with, and people who don't "play the game" get shown the door.
If they're quiet and polite, then yes, I have no problem with them being in the office. If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children then that is not appropriate to an office setting.. people are trying to work.
As for spending time in the office.. no.. I'm not a big fan. I don't expect people to stay late just because everyone else is. But, in modern software engineering, its a team effort. If someone goes home because they need to pick up their kids or whatever, then either someone else is going to have to do their work - and that means it won't get done to the same level of quality - or it means that everyone will be stalled until that person is available again to work. I believe it is a failure of management to require people to work late but, frankly, it does happen and if people are not available to work when it does, then it happens more and more.
As someone with no children, I think it is awesome.
One thing I hate is people who use their children as an excuse to leave work early or stay back late when everyone else is. It completely undermines team dynamics. I had a coworker who used to use his wife as a proxy-child to do the same thing, that was at least comical.
That said, one thing I hate more is people bringing their screaming spawn into the office. So an on-site daycare (significantly isolated from the work areas) sounds like a freakin' great idea and I'll happily chip in.
That was a great write up man. BTW, you will find that this is the norm. You, as a software engineer, have to learn to manage your manager. You need to correct their expectations by giving them constant feedback. You need to say to them that you're having trouble and won't be achieving the timeline they have proscribed.. and if they casually don't proscribe a timeline, you have to make one up yourself.
Disingenuous reaches new lows with an AC idiot acknowledging his own stupidity yet continuing to assume he holds the moral high ground. Get this, Nintendo doesn't own Super Mario. He's a part of *our* culture. We own him. All of us. And copyright is just an excuse for Nintendo to keep him from us.
Actually, as a citizen of a democracy, it is my right to decide what should be law and what should not.
Unfortunately my rights are being stomped on by people buying my political representatives.
But don't worry, sooner, not later, globalization will end these ridiculous restrictions on trade called "copyright" that the western nations are trying to push as beneficial to the rest of the world.
NES SMB is being sold? Really? In any case, it was published in 1985, Nintendo has had 23 years to sell it. They've been incredibly successful. That's long enough. It should be in the public domain. Hell, it should have been in the public domain years ago.
There is a debate over what is the right thing to do. Should one avoid proprietary solutions and write their own free solution? (or hire or beg others to provide one). In recent years I've developed the opinion that the best way is to use the proprietary software and get a first hand account of why the software is good and why it is bad and put your efforts, be they development efforts or advocacy efforts, into making better software for all. Avoiding proprietary software is not required to promote free alternatives.. in fact, it's counterproductive.
The exo-planet scientists are bumbling their way into obscurity. The public does not understand science. They don't understand small discoveries. They don't understand "backwards" discoveries like this one. Currently there is some interest in inferring that planets may exist around other stars, but it is quickly becoming a passing interest and the media attention is quickly turning from awe to skepticism (and not the good kind of skepticism required for science). It's like the 60s when inference of planetary atmospheres using starlight was proposed.. the interest was strong but no-one actually did the experiment for so long that when probes were proposed to go and directly measure the atmosphere of Venus the results of starlight interferometry were completely ignored.. and that was in the scientific community, which has a much longer attention span than the mainstream.
The two biggest reasons why Ubuntu came into being in the first place were:
1. Releases not happening fast enough 2. A dogmatic belief that abstaining from using proprietary software will cause the development of free replacements.
The solution to the first was to insist on a 6 month release schedule. The solution to the second was to put forward the policy that the best of all alternatives will be chosen, so if you want the free alternative to win, make it better than the proprietary alternative.
Half the people I know have been divorced or have parents who have.. the only ones who went to court are the people I know from the US. You do the math.
So fix the real problem. If Google started indexing and making available all of the public record, people would soon decide that they are not willing to go through the pain of airing their dirty laundry in public so they'll come to an amicable and private division of the marital property. The courts just shouldn't be tied up with rich people dividing their assets, for fuck sake.
Maybe people wouldn't have such ugly divorces if everyone had more access to the public record. That's the reason why the rest of the civilized world doesn't have ugly divorces in court, because they know they it is a *private* matter and the court is no place for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, I wasn't aware of that. But did you know what I meant? If I was to do a search of the word's use in actual conversation would I discover it was used more the way I used it or more the way that dictionary says? The word doesn't *mean* anything.. it's meaning is agreed upon by the speakers of the language and so long as you know what I'm saying then the word does have that meaning - according to any sensible definition of "meaning".
Or, it's harmless fun and you irrationally believe that the police exist to protect you from things that people might be doing.
I think it would be fun to have an augmented reality sniper rifle. You climb up on a tall building, sight up some people and then blast them.. the scope in the sniper rifle gives you a realistic account of the blood splatter and how they would fall to the ground, etc. You could wear headphones to simulate the sound of the rifle firing. Of course, when you take your eyes away from the scope the person is still alive and walking around.. I'm not suggesting we need VR goggles here.
Unfortunately, if someone spotted you up there on the roof pretending to shoot people, they'd send the police to kill you.
Umm.. I work for a company where everyone is salaried and "at will". My employer can require us to do anything they like because they can let us go without notice and without reason. In the real world (which is where I work) people get whatever conditions they are willing to put up with, and people who don't "play the game" get shown the door.
If they're quiet and polite, then yes, I have no problem with them being in the office. If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children then that is not appropriate to an office setting.. people are trying to work.
As for spending time in the office.. no.. I'm not a big fan. I don't expect people to stay late just because everyone else is. But, in modern software engineering, its a team effort. If someone goes home because they need to pick up their kids or whatever, then either someone else is going to have to do their work - and that means it won't get done to the same level of quality - or it means that everyone will be stalled until that person is available again to work. I believe it is a failure of management to require people to work late but, frankly, it does happen and if people are not available to work when it does, then it happens more and more.
As someone with no children, I think it is awesome.
One thing I hate is people who use their children as an excuse to leave work early or stay back late when everyone else is. It completely undermines team dynamics. I had a coworker who used to use his wife as a proxy-child to do the same thing, that was at least comical.
That said, one thing I hate more is people bringing their screaming spawn into the office. So an on-site daycare (significantly isolated from the work areas) sounds like a freakin' great idea and I'll happily chip in.
That was a great write up man. BTW, you will find that this is the norm. You, as a software engineer, have to learn to manage your manager. You need to correct their expectations by giving them constant feedback. You need to say to them that you're having trouble and won't be achieving the timeline they have proscribed.. and if they casually don't proscribe a timeline, you have to make one up yourself.
Good luck in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Sbaitso
Try to keep up with the rest of the class.
Let's talk more about the sexy stuff we were discussing earlier.
Disingenuous reaches new lows with an AC idiot acknowledging his own stupidity yet continuing to assume he holds the moral high ground. Get this, Nintendo doesn't own Super Mario. He's a part of *our* culture. We own him. All of us. And copyright is just an excuse for Nintendo to keep him from us.
You assume wrong smart arse.
Actually, as a citizen of a democracy, it is my right to decide what should be law and what should not.
Unfortunately my rights are being stomped on by people buying my political representatives.
But don't worry, sooner, not later, globalization will end these ridiculous restrictions on trade called "copyright" that the western nations are trying to push as beneficial to the rest of the world.
NES SMB is being sold? Really? In any case, it was published in 1985, Nintendo has had 23 years to sell it. They've been incredibly successful. That's long enough. It should be in the public domain. Hell, it should have been in the public domain years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Player_Super_Joy_III
That's what he was selling. NES games.
Excuse me, but no. Not everyone does agree with you and it's disingenuous to proclaim that they should.
Every game for the NES should now be out of copyright. 100+ copyright terms for these works is just, simply, unjust.
Yeah, how dare he sell games that no-one else is interested in selling.
There's no debate over that.
There is a debate over what is the right thing to do. Should one avoid proprietary solutions and write their own free solution? (or hire or beg others to provide one). In recent years I've developed the opinion that the best way is to use the proprietary software and get a first hand account of why the software is good and why it is bad and put your efforts, be they development efforts or advocacy efforts, into making better software for all. Avoiding proprietary software is not required to promote free alternatives.. in fact, it's counterproductive.
The exo-planet scientists are bumbling their way into obscurity. The public does not understand science. They don't understand small discoveries. They don't understand "backwards" discoveries like this one. Currently there is some interest in inferring that planets may exist around other stars, but it is quickly becoming a passing interest and the media attention is quickly turning from awe to skepticism (and not the good kind of skepticism required for science). It's like the 60s when inference of planetary atmospheres using starlight was proposed.. the interest was strong but no-one actually did the experiment for so long that when probes were proposed to go and directly measure the atmosphere of Venus the results of starlight interferometry were completely ignored.. and that was in the scientific community, which has a much longer attention span than the mainstream.
The two biggest reasons why Ubuntu came into being in the first place were:
1. Releases not happening fast enough
2. A dogmatic belief that abstaining from using proprietary software will cause the development of free replacements.
The solution to the first was to insist on a 6 month release schedule. The solution to the second was to put forward the policy that the best of all alternatives will be chosen, so if you want the free alternative to win, make it better than the proprietary alternative.
So what makes you think OpenDNS were not the first DNS servers attacked?
That's what I'd do.
Reiser already killer her.
Fuck it, just program the robot to kill anyone carrying a weapon. Then make millions of them and airdrop them into war-torn areas.
Now, that's what I call a peace keeper.
Hopefully we can program the robots to not shoot anyone who uses a broom to sweep the weapons off the streets.
Half the people I know have been divorced or have parents who have.. the only ones who went to court are the people I know from the US. You do the math.
So fix the real problem. If Google started indexing and making available all of the public record, people would soon decide that they are not willing to go through the pain of airing their dirty laundry in public so they'll come to an amicable and private division of the marital property. The courts just shouldn't be tied up with rich people dividing their assets, for fuck sake.
Maybe people wouldn't have such ugly divorces if everyone had more access to the public record. That's the reason why the rest of the civilized world doesn't have ugly divorces in court, because they know they it is a *private* matter and the court is no place for it.