So American democracy rests on college students learning liberal arts? Despite the fact that most American voters haven't, never have, and never will never go to college?
And I'm not sure how a voter is made more educated by spending four years listening to extreme-left liberal professors. In any case it would be much easier and cheaper to make them read the Guardian for four years.
Universities are becoming trade schools because more people are going there to better themselves, rather than in the old days where they were merely playgrounds for the rich to waste a few years, being groomed to move into politics or corporate management. This is a good thing.
Remember that the point of attending a university is to get a *well rounded* education.
I disagree. You spend all that time and money going to university so you don't have to flip burgers for a living. That goes for most people at least. Of course there are rich kids who just want to escape from the real world for a few years, they usually end up studying liberal arts.
As someone with some (limited) experience interviewing job candidates, IMO the ability to be thoughtful and articulate will serve better than narrow technical skill.
That depends on the job. Leader of a political party? Maybe. Programmer at Google? Not so much. Being able to make speeches about 17th century poets isn't going to make your algorithms run any faster.
You have the rest of your life to gain technical skills, which in CS are constantly changing.
The technologies may change, but the principles of CS don't. Whatever technical skills you might need, liberal arts won't be one of them.
It's not the user's job to design the interface. It's in fact the job of the developers, no matter how much they stand there declaring that there are no tanks in Baghdad.
You pay for X-Factor though, everytime you buy something from Tesco.
If I watch a programme on ITV, but don't buy the products advertised, I don't get taken to court. That's the difference between commercial TV and the BBC.
I don't see why the licence fee can't fund individual programmes rather than channels. So the licence would pay for Planet Earth, Life in Cold Blood etc, but they'd have to put adverts in the shit like the Andrew Lloyd-Webber adverts^W talent shows.
And British TV as a whole would be better off if they cut off the BBC3/4, ITV2/3/4/2+1 E4, More4, E4+1 and all those other pointless channels, and instead gave more bandwidth to the main channels so they weren't full of compression artifacts.
Of course, rather than bringing in talented foreigners, enriching America with their skills and work ethic, why not instead just give pay rises to the same old American workers, even though they're not actually doing any more than they were before.
So then, as in your entire post you didn't even attempt to refute anything he said about the 50s, we can assume it's all correct?
Because, as you were there yourself, if the things he'd said about poor healthcare, poor food, poor working conditions etc. were all false, you'd be there to instantly correct it.
3.11% is much higher than nearly anyone else is getting, so I don't know what the hell you're complaining about. Only on Slashdot could someone complain about a TWO GRAND pay-rise. Back in the real world, most people are lucky to get two hundred. But go on, keep complaining about them foreigners tekking yerrrrr jerrbss.
I played MUDs in the 80s, and the ones I played (MUME, for example)
How did you do that, considering that MUME wasn't around until the early 90s? And while you lost equipment on death, it only took at most an afternoon to get it back, rather than months like in WoW.
Why should a multi-billion dollar company get a competitive advantage over local businesses? Hate taxes all you want, but hate them fairly, not just those on your local small businesses.
What exactly stops small businesses shipping across state lines?
If all business moves to the Internet, then states with sales taxes will have to compete to lower taxes, which probably isn't a bad thing.
I agree. I remember the days when games like Mario 64 were coming out, when 3D was a huge novelty and something to get excited about after decades of 2D games. Nowadays, graphical improvements generally just mean slightly sharper textures, a bit more draw depth, some fancy lighting technique you don't notice anyway unless you're looking for it etc.
I'd rather developers concentrated on making games look better with artwork, animation, modelling, scenery etc, rather than just throwing endless buzzwords at the same shit we've been looking at for the last decade.
I'd go one further, and say that everything on a computer is a hack. Unless you're actually building the scene, shining light on it, then capturing it with a camera to display on the screen, all your graphics are just algorithms, hacks and approximations.
Ray-tracing is just a particularly inefficient hack.
GDP = gross domestic product. Less producing = less GDP.
You're assuming that the people laid off from the factory don't get other jobs and produce other things.
If people like you had your way, America would just be full of people working shifts in filthy mines and factories. In fact there'd be nothing to produce because anyone capable of inventing anything would be stuck doing manual labour.
Slashdot Mirror
So American democracy rests on college students learning liberal arts? Despite the fact that most American voters haven't, never have, and never will never go to college?
And I'm not sure how a voter is made more educated by spending four years listening to extreme-left liberal professors. In any case it would be much easier and cheaper to make them read the Guardian for four years.
Universities are becoming trade schools because more people are going there to better themselves, rather than in the old days where they were merely playgrounds for the rich to waste a few years, being groomed to move into politics or corporate management. This is a good thing.
So every time you don't like the service a company is offering, have the government ban it?
Well, I don't like the fact that Nestle stopped making the Secret bar, can someone please pass legislation to bring it back?
Or we could just make our own decisions in life, rather than expecting the government to hold our hands from cradle to grave.
As for being state-funded, I don't see why a dustman should pay taxes so an Etonian can study PPE and get drunk every day.
It's not the user's job to design the interface. It's in fact the job of the developers, no matter how much they stand there declaring that there are no tanks in Baghdad.
Unless you're a 'wog' or an 'abbo' of course.
I don't see why the licence fee can't fund individual programmes rather than channels. So the licence would pay for Planet Earth, Life in Cold Blood etc, but they'd have to put adverts in the shit like the Andrew Lloyd-Webber adverts^W talent shows.
And British TV as a whole would be better off if they cut off the BBC3/4, ITV2/3/4/2+1 E4, More4, E4+1 and all those other pointless channels, and instead gave more bandwidth to the main channels so they weren't full of compression artifacts.
Of course, rather than bringing in talented foreigners, enriching America with their skills and work ethic, why not instead just give pay rises to the same old American workers, even though they're not actually doing any more than they were before.
Because, as you were there yourself, if the things he'd said about poor healthcare, poor food, poor working conditions etc. were all false, you'd be there to instantly correct it.
But you didn't say anything...
3.11% is much higher than nearly anyone else is getting, so I don't know what the hell you're complaining about. Only on Slashdot could someone complain about a TWO GRAND pay-rise. Back in the real world, most people are lucky to get two hundred. But go on, keep complaining about them foreigners tekking yerrrrr jerrbss.
If all business moves to the Internet, then states with sales taxes will have to compete to lower taxes, which probably isn't a bad thing.
Plus, it's not a duty to charge the same sales tax as any other goods bought in the state.
I agree. I remember the days when games like Mario 64 were coming out, when 3D was a huge novelty and something to get excited about after decades of 2D games. Nowadays, graphical improvements generally just mean slightly sharper textures, a bit more draw depth, some fancy lighting technique you don't notice anyway unless you're looking for it etc.
I'd rather developers concentrated on making games look better with artwork, animation, modelling, scenery etc, rather than just throwing endless buzzwords at the same shit we've been looking at for the last decade.
I'd go one further, and say that everything on a computer is a hack. Unless you're actually building the scene, shining light on it, then capturing it with a camera to display on the screen, all your graphics are just algorithms, hacks and approximations.
Ray-tracing is just a particularly inefficient hack.
Losing at games makes me throw around and smash up cups and glasses, not to mention controllers.
Now? I've been banking online with Natwest using Firefox on Linux for years. In fact I haven't found a single banking site which has turned me down.
But bloggers copy most of their news from elsewhere anyway, so why do they need all those people?
How could city-level politicians affect national and international IP laws?
If people like you had your way, America would just be full of people working shifts in filthy mines and factories. In fact there'd be nothing to produce because anyone capable of inventing anything would be stuck doing manual labour.