Damn straight. From your original post, let's do the math.
1287+1068+1002+959+914+897+753+572+550+513+490+488+487+473+470+457+424+400+371+360+353+353+338+336+331=14646 letters sent to the top 25 universities in 06-07.
And thank you for the compliment. If something I write brings a grin to someone I consider it a job well done. =)
Unfortunately your 'adversary' seems to think in a way I have seen before
Well...I wouldn't call him an adversary. I like the people I debate with. If he were trolling, yeah. But I don't think he was. That's why I don't resort to ad-hom or any of that. This person and I would probably make decent friends and be able to have a laugh about philosophical differences over a beer or three, I'm guessing.
good reasoning and a bit of pun (ready, set,...)
I was wondering if anyone would catch that! My question is indeed a trap. If he had tried, he would have been using falsifiability to disprove falsifiability. In other words, as far as the hard sciences go - falsifiability has not been falsified.
Even if he had found an example, it would have been ironic - he would be using the very same falsifiability criteria to try to prove me wrong...about falsifiability. 'Twas a bit devious of me, I'll admit. He must have seen it too since he didn't bite. Bravo and all that.
In christian terms, you are the devil for him.
Hadn't thought of that but it is true. The story of Job comes to mind. The devil is cast out of heaven ages ago, but somehow shows up on God's doorstep and challenges him to a bet. And He takes it! Then they hang out and discuss philosophical differences like a couple of old college drinking buddies. And abuse the ever living crap out of poor Job just to settle a gentleman's bet. It's really odd, IMHO.
The reason we're able to see them is because of that fact - these are young planets. Still hot. We're photographing them in the near-infrared. Once they cool down (and become possible earth candidates) we won't be able to see them with current techniques.
But! We can see them now. Now it's a known skill, not a theoretical. From here on out it's refinement of that skill. Trying to see colder and colder planets. Getting better estimates of mass, rotation and composition. Eventually, we will be able to make those determinations and see earth like planets.
Not to mention the different ways we tell a story even when we agree on the details.
Well, it depends on the magnitude of the details. Wouldn't it?
Matthew says that there was an earthquake, and the dead rose up and went down into the city. None of the other books even hint at these events.
So if someone is telling a story, and differing in details..."I had the red wine and my wife had the white wine when I propsosed to her. It was about 7pm" and getting that wrong (she had the red, it was really closer to 8), well...sure. I can totally understand that.
For example, the Wikipedia article you linked about falsifiability plainly fails to support your claim.
But it does. It speaks plainly about how falsification is a cornerstone of modern science. Is it the only tool? Certainly not. Is it a topic of some debate? Absolutely. The Wiki article has a "Criticisms" section right there in the middle.
But simply offering up debate over an idea does not automatically invalidate it. No matter what claim you make, you can always find someone willing to argue a counter position. We're pretty sure the earth is a sphere, but you can still find some wacko who thinks it's turtles all the way down.
So - I'll offer up a challenge if you're up for it. Name one major scientific theory in the physical sciences that is widely accepted but does not pass the falsifiability hurdle. Please restrict yourself to physics, mathematics, chemistry and other hard sciences. It must be widely accepted as dependable and true - but be utterly unable to be tested.
Ready - set - go!
Otherwise, one of these days a creationist who actually has studied the philosophy of science is going to pwn you, simply by pointing at the vast philosophical, scientific and history of science literature that's critical of falsificationism.
This hypothetical person you're worried about may be able to pwn me - I'm a computer programmer, not some PhD studying the entire history of science - but I doubt he'd fare so well against the entire Supreme Court. They happen to agree with me, BTW.
And yes, I realize there are people who are critical of the Daubert decision. See my previous comment about the turtles.
Have you considered the possibility that how smart and educated you are may be largely unrelated to what beliefs you have?
It may be, but there would have to be limits. It's the same gray matter holding both. Some of these things are going to be mutually exclusive. If your faith tells you one thing, and the entire physical universe tells you something else - something has to give.
Um, you're doing exactly what GP objects to: you're taking a minority view among creationists (the idea that the Old Testament literally tells us the age of the Earth), and judging all of them by that standard.
No, I'm explaining why people do this. I'm not making the claim. I'm explaining why the claim gets made. There is a difference.
Falsifiability fails as a demarcation criterion for science.
Let's assume we both have. Exactly what do you take issue with? Don't just pull the "read your own link" argument - it's the internet equivalent of "I'm rubber and you're glue." If you wish to debate, then debate. Point out what I've posted, and a clip from the article, and state your notion on how they disagree.
I'm not going to do your work for you and try to support your thesis. If we are to debate, that's your job.
actual theologists, on the aggregate, don't spend a lot of time on creationism, so don't tar them with the brush that you tar creationists
I did no such thing. I merely suggested a more friendly room for the original poster to discuss creationism in. By your own admission, theologists at least spend some serious discussion time on creationism. Scientists should be spending none, for reasons be both seem to agree on.
With the effect that you'll just get eaten for lunch by any creationist who just happens to be smarter than you, better educated on these topics, and more eloquent.
Smarter? Always possible. More eloquent? Certainly possible. Better educated? Sure. All are possible.
But I think if someone had me beat in all three they would have a hard time also arguing creationism as science, what with all that raw intelligence and education. They would understand even better than I do what science is, and what it isn't.
Such a person would be able to make a better argument than I could about why creationism doesn't belong in a science class.
The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion; and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were there.
The book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the sepulchre the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the septilchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples; and that in consequence of this request the sepulchre was made sure, sealing the stone that covered the mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books say nothing about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the guard, nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were none. Matthew, however, follows up this part of the story of the guard or the watch with a second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it serves to detect the fallacy of those books.
The book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii. 1,) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! They all, however, appear to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that she might be upon the stroll. [The Bishop of Llandaff, in his famous "Apology," censured Paine severely for this insinuation against Mary Magdalene, but the censure really falls on our English version, which, by a chapter-heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified her as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded her.--Editor.]
The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): "And behold there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" But the other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor about the angel rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it and, according to their account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says the angel [Mark says "a young man," and Luke "two men." --Editor.] was within the sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two, and they were both standing up; and John says they were both sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet.
Matthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and that the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the women, upon seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the right side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the two angels that were Standing up; and John says, it was Jesus Christ himself that told it to Mary Magdalene; and that she did not go into the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in.
Now, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court of justice to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by supernatural means,) and had they given their evidence in the same contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books, that have been imposed upon the world as being given by divine inspiration, and as the unchangeable word of God.
If so, you should probably get it right. Not all creationist think that the earth is 6,000 years old. For that matter, very few do. Just like all stereotypes, what very few do gets the entire group labeled.
But the earth being 6000 years old is a possible conclusion of creationism. That's why it attracts ridicule as a theory. If it leads you down that road, it just might be the road that's silly, not just the house at the end of the road that says "6000 years and not one day more."
FWIW, creationism could still be exactly true and it still would never be science. It makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. It may be a theory, but it's not a scientific theory. A scientific theory has certain criteria that creationism does not meet.
And that is why it attracts scorn here. This is a place for science-types. You'd probably have better luck on some board devoted to theology rather than Slashdot.
It's not racism or bigotry. It's exasperation with people who believe in creationism and insist it be taught alongside other scientific theories, even though it simply doesn't belong there.
Maybe it just seems like more of a data point to me because I am in a fairly competitive sport populated by geeks. =)
I'd still say that it might figure into the average geek's life on that one day you yawn and stretch then go pick up a 22" crt, but...that's kind of pushing the argument, so point conceded.
What if you think his race, in that position, can actually improve things?
Then it's frosting on the cake. Vote for the best person. The one most capable of doing the job. If it so happens he has some ethnicity of some perceived value, so be it. But don't choose that way.
I think the whole idea of race is silly and wrong, so I cannot support it tactically even when I know it affects others.
Certainly many people did not follow this path, but it's disingenuous to say it doesn't exist.
I would never say that people don't think that way. I would just say that it's something we need to grow out of. That's why I can't support using it as a tactic.
People of different races can transfuse blood to each other, have children, etc. Race is just an artificial label. There is only one race, the human race. The rest is just melanin.
But what if Obama was the best candidate in this election and the reason for his success was because of race?
Same answer. They're morons.
Doesn't matter if they did the right thing, they did it for the wrong reasons. Voting one way or another based on perceptions about race is wrong. Wrong, no matter what, period.
For example, if someone doesn't stick their hand in a fire because they think the flame is full of elves that will scorch their fingers, they've come to the right conclusion - you shouldn't put your hand in a fire - but they are still an idiot.
I was going to type something up but this totally trumps my idea. It's a near-perfect answer. The only thing I'd add is a suggestion for the guy to keep a log book so he can get better data points and make more accurate estimations. Mod up, please.
This is an intense and physically demanding sport, and most of the people involved are in IT, math, engineering, academia, or some other/. style pursuit.
And FWIW, your physical performance does matter. Always. Not just in sports. Your body is the machine that keeps you tied to the planet earth. Any advice to make you healthier (read that as 'keep you alive longer') is automatically useful, IMHO.
The second half of his question is about pay rates and how to find programmers for hire. He does mention open source in the first half of the question though.
It seems like he wants to scratch a personal itch, but he's willing to put up some cash for someone to scratch it for him. Then once it's working, open source it and have the community improve upon it. So it's not the typical open source scenario of "start it yourself, put it on sourceforge, then try to get people involved."
I'm picturing this guy as an open source project manager. Eventually anyways. He's going to start out as a client to some programming firm. Then he'll take the code he paid for and open source it on sourceforge. Then he'll go through an open source recruitment phase. Finally, he'll be the one saying "we need this feature" and "I'm not accepting that patch."
What I'd recommend is to read the commit logs and notes for a large project. Study your Linus Torvalds. Read how he manages kernel commits paying close attention to how he handles rejected submissions. And the occasionally poorly received edict (for instance, when Linus moved to a pseudo-proprietary source control system) X.org might not be a bad study either, especially around the time of the split from XFree.
Learn how to manage an open source project correctly, and your odds for success will greatly improve.
It's news for nerds because they're gobbling up space on nameservers. It does affect you.
BTW, these signs are all over NE Ohio as well. I concluded it was some local get-rich-quick schmuck with a magic marker. Seriously interesting to find out that's not the case.
I think the biggest sign of Microsoft's impending fall is the fact that idiot business guys are in charge now.
It's interesting you'd point that out. I was thinking something similar. Mostly in the way the request was worded. I've spent some time around inept managers and you can see a lot of the same in the summary:
"urging device manufacturers to start immediate testing with its pre-beta release" - Translation: Get on the ball and do our work for us.
"to avoid the widespread hardware compatibility problems that contributed so much to the negative perception of Vista" - Translation: Our failures are not our fault. They are your fault. Get on the ball and fix it.
"'There is not another WinHEC planned before Windows 7 is released,' Microsoft has warned them." - Translation: We have you by the balls. Don't make us squeeze. We want you to do things for our benefit, and we're unwilling to wait, or even to ask nicely.
Now, in contrast what they should have done is this.
Windows 7 is being released, and soon. Yeah, we screwed the pooch with Vista. But we'd like to fix things, and we'd like your help. Towards that end we are making a pre-release version of Windows 7 beta available to developers so we can make something that has the promise of Vista, but actually delivers. And we'll be holding several WinHEC sessions, to help you, our valued partners make this next Windows the best product it can be.
Engage us as coder geeks, and we would be far more happy to comply. Speak to us - geek to geek. Let us know why Windows 7 is exciting. And admit your mistakes with Vista, so you have some credibility when you try to engage us.
Of course, inept power happy managers would never say such a thing. And it's the product that suffers. I've seen it before, just never quite on this scale before. Treat your developers like peons and they will abandon you. Programmers tend to be a little rogue in their perceptions. I can see a great many people reading that press release and thinking "well screw that crap".
At least now we have someone in the office who actually does wish to change those things.
Wanting is the first step. So we've moved from a condition of "no hope for any change whatsoever" to "some hope for some change".
It's sort of like playing the lottery. If you buy a ticket, your odds are infinitesimal. But if you don't buy one, your odds are zero. If you buy a ticket you move from the land of "absolutely not" to the land of "maybe so".
So yeah, I doubt Mr. Obama will be able to do a tenth of what he says. He will be blocked by The Powers That Be at every single turn. Just watch the lobbying Exxon does in the next four years to keep him from pursuing his biofuels initiative, for example. It's gonna make your head spin.
But at least he wants to try to fix things rather than make them worse, and 10% is better than nothing. Hell, if all he does is sit in the oval office and play XBox for the next four years we'll be better off than the active malevolence of the W administration. Just a moratorium on undermining the Bill of Rights will be worth it, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight. From your original post, let's do the math.
1287+1068+1002+959+914+897+753+572+550+513+490+488+487+473+470+457+424+400+371+360+353+353+338+336+331=14646 letters sent to the top 25 universities in 06-07.
14646*($3000) (the typical settlement amount) = $43,938,000
Sure beats working for a living, doesn't it? Greed personified.
Thanks, it made a smile appear on my face
And thank you for the compliment. If something I write brings a grin to someone I consider it a job well done. =)
Unfortunately your 'adversary' seems to think in a way I have seen before
Well...I wouldn't call him an adversary. I like the people I debate with. If he were trolling, yeah. But I don't think he was. That's why I don't resort to ad-hom or any of that. This person and I would probably make decent friends and be able to have a laugh about philosophical differences over a beer or three, I'm guessing.
good reasoning and a bit of pun (ready, set, ...)
I was wondering if anyone would catch that! My question is indeed a trap. If he had tried, he would have been using falsifiability to disprove falsifiability. In other words, as far as the hard sciences go - falsifiability has not been falsified.
Even if he had found an example, it would have been ironic - he would be using the very same falsifiability criteria to try to prove me wrong...about falsifiability. 'Twas a bit devious of me, I'll admit. He must have seen it too since he didn't bite. Bravo and all that.
In christian terms, you are the devil for him.
Hadn't thought of that but it is true. The story of Job comes to mind. The devil is cast out of heaven ages ago, but somehow shows up on God's doorstep and challenges him to a bet. And He takes it! Then they hang out and discuss philosophical differences like a couple of old college drinking buddies. And abuse the ever living crap out of poor Job just to settle a gentleman's bet. It's really odd, IMHO.
these aren't earth-style planets.
The reason we're able to see them is because of that fact - these are young planets. Still hot. We're photographing them in the near-infrared. Once they cool down (and become possible earth candidates) we won't be able to see them with current techniques.
But! We can see them now. Now it's a known skill, not a theoretical. From here on out it's refinement of that skill. Trying to see colder and colder planets. Getting better estimates of mass, rotation and composition. Eventually, we will be able to make those determinations and see earth like planets.
Can't wait! Very exciting stuff.
Not to mention the different ways we tell a story even when we agree on the details.
Well, it depends on the magnitude of the details. Wouldn't it?
Matthew says that there was an earthquake, and the dead rose up and went down into the city. None of the other books even hint at these events.
So if someone is telling a story, and differing in details..."I had the red wine and my wife had the white wine when I propsosed to her. It was about 7pm" and getting that wrong (she had the red, it was really closer to 8), well...sure. I can totally understand that.
But missing earthquakes and zombie uprisings?
Come on.
For example, the Wikipedia article you linked about falsifiability plainly fails to support your claim.
But it does. It speaks plainly about how falsification is a cornerstone of modern science. Is it the only tool? Certainly not. Is it a topic of some debate? Absolutely. The Wiki article has a "Criticisms" section right there in the middle.
But simply offering up debate over an idea does not automatically invalidate it. No matter what claim you make, you can always find someone willing to argue a counter position. We're pretty sure the earth is a sphere, but you can still find some wacko who thinks it's turtles all the way down.
So - I'll offer up a challenge if you're up for it. Name one major scientific theory in the physical sciences that is widely accepted but does not pass the falsifiability hurdle. Please restrict yourself to physics, mathematics, chemistry and other hard sciences. It must be widely accepted as dependable and true - but be utterly unable to be tested.
Ready - set - go!
Otherwise, one of these days a creationist who actually has studied the philosophy of science is going to pwn you, simply by pointing at the vast philosophical, scientific and history of science literature that's critical of falsificationism.
And yet, it's currently the gold standard.
This hypothetical person you're worried about may be able to pwn me - I'm a computer programmer, not some PhD studying the entire history of science - but I doubt he'd fare so well against the entire Supreme Court. They happen to agree with me, BTW.
And yes, I realize there are people who are critical of the Daubert decision. See my previous comment about the turtles.
Have you considered the possibility that how smart and educated you are may be largely unrelated to what beliefs you have?
It may be, but there would have to be limits. It's the same gray matter holding both. Some of these things are going to be mutually exclusive. If your faith tells you one thing, and the entire physical universe tells you something else - something has to give.
Um, you're doing exactly what GP objects to: you're taking a minority view among creationists (the idea that the Old Testament literally tells us the age of the Earth), and judging all of them by that standard.
No, I'm explaining why people do this. I'm not making the claim. I'm explaining why the claim gets made. There is a difference.
Falsifiability fails as a demarcation criterion for science.
I think you'll find falsifiability to be a cornerstone of science, and one of the best tools keeping science separate from metaphysics.
(And, BTW, read your own fricking link.)
Let's assume we both have. Exactly what do you take issue with? Don't just pull the "read your own link" argument - it's the internet equivalent of "I'm rubber and you're glue." If you wish to debate, then debate. Point out what I've posted, and a clip from the article, and state your notion on how they disagree.
I'm not going to do your work for you and try to support your thesis. If we are to debate, that's your job.
actual theologists, on the aggregate, don't spend a lot of time on creationism, so don't tar them with the brush that you tar creationists
I did no such thing. I merely suggested a more friendly room for the original poster to discuss creationism in. By your own admission, theologists at least spend some serious discussion time on creationism. Scientists should be spending none, for reasons be both seem to agree on.
With the effect that you'll just get eaten for lunch by any creationist who just happens to be smarter than you, better educated on these topics, and more eloquent.
Smarter? Always possible. More eloquent? Certainly possible. Better educated? Sure. All are possible.
But I think if someone had me beat in all three they would have a hard time also arguing creationism as science, what with all that raw intelligence and education. They would understand even better than I do what science is, and what it isn't.
Such a person would be able to make a better argument than I could about why creationism doesn't belong in a science class.
That's exactly what Thomas Paine said in The Age of Reason.
The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion; and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were there.
The book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the sepulchre the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the septilchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples; and that in consequence of this request the sepulchre was made sure, sealing the stone that covered the mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books say nothing about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the guard, nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were none. Matthew, however, follows up this part of the story of the guard or the watch with a second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it serves to detect the fallacy of those books.
The book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii. 1,) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! They all, however, appear to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture that she might be upon the stroll. [The Bishop of Llandaff, in his famous "Apology," censured Paine severely for this insinuation against Mary Magdalene, but the censure really falls on our English version, which, by a chapter-heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified her as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded her.--Editor.]
The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): "And behold there was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" But the other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor about the angel rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it and, according to their account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says the angel [Mark says "a young man," and Luke "two men." --Editor.] was within the sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two, and they were both standing up; and John says they were both sitting down, one at the head and the other at the feet.
Matthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and that the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the women, upon seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the right side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the two angels that were Standing up; and John says, it was Jesus Christ himself that told it to Mary Magdalene; and that she did not go into the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in.
Now, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court of justice to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by supernatural means,) and had they given their evidence in the same contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books, that have been imposed upon the world as being given by divine inspiration, and as the unchangeable word of God.
If so, you should probably get it right. Not all creationist think that the earth is 6,000 years old. For that matter, very few do. Just like all stereotypes, what very few do gets the entire group labeled.
But the earth being 6000 years old is a possible conclusion of creationism. That's why it attracts ridicule as a theory. If it leads you down that road, it just might be the road that's silly, not just the house at the end of the road that says "6000 years and not one day more."
FWIW, creationism could still be exactly true and it still would never be science. It makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. It may be a theory, but it's not a scientific theory. A scientific theory has certain criteria that creationism does not meet.
And that is why it attracts scorn here. This is a place for science-types. You'd probably have better luck on some board devoted to theology rather than Slashdot.
It's not racism or bigotry. It's exasperation with people who believe in creationism and insist it be taught alongside other scientific theories, even though it simply doesn't belong there.
What would have made it a fair test would have been to include Windows XP into the benchmarks.
That way, you'd know if it's just raw cpu loops being benchmarked, or some vista-ish feature of Vista/Windows 7.
True. I see your point.
Maybe it just seems like more of a data point to me because I am in a fairly competitive sport populated by geeks. =)
I'd still say that it might figure into the average geek's life on that one day you yawn and stretch then go pick up a 22" crt, but...that's kind of pushing the argument, so point conceded.
What if you think his race, in that position, can actually improve things?
Then it's frosting on the cake. Vote for the best person. The one most capable of doing the job. If it so happens he has some ethnicity of some perceived value, so be it. But don't choose that way.
I think the whole idea of race is silly and wrong, so I cannot support it tactically even when I know it affects others.
Certainly many people did not follow this path, but it's disingenuous to say it doesn't exist.
I would never say that people don't think that way. I would just say that it's something we need to grow out of. That's why I can't support using it as a tactic.
People of different races can transfuse blood to each other, have children, etc. Race is just an artificial label. There is only one race, the human race. The rest is just melanin.
Thanks. Yup, it's a two way street. Racism of any kind is dumb.
It's a long list, too. The people over at Stormfront are dumb, just like affirmative action and the NAACP are dumb. It's all racism, it's all dumb.
It's just melanin in your skin, or the lack thereof. It doesn't mean a thing.
But what if Obama was the best candidate in this election and the reason for his success was because of race?
Same answer. They're morons.
Doesn't matter if they did the right thing, they did it for the wrong reasons. Voting one way or another based on perceptions about race is wrong. Wrong, no matter what, period.
For example, if someone doesn't stick their hand in a fire because they think the flame is full of elves that will scorch their fingers, they've come to the right conclusion - you shouldn't put your hand in a fire - but they are still an idiot.
Vote for the best person and you cannot go wrong.
I was going to type something up but this totally trumps my idea. It's a near-perfect answer. The only thing I'd add is a suggestion for the guy to keep a log book so he can get better data points and make more accurate estimations. Mod up, please.
You should always vote for the best person.
People with small minds vote based on race. So do your best to put them in the minority.
This is an intense and physically demanding sport, and most of the people involved are in IT, math, engineering, academia, or some other /. style pursuit.
And FWIW, your physical performance does matter. Always. Not just in sports. Your body is the machine that keeps you tied to the planet earth. Any advice to make you healthier (read that as 'keep you alive longer') is automatically useful, IMHO.
The second half of his question is about pay rates and how to find programmers for hire. He does mention open source in the first half of the question though.
It seems like he wants to scratch a personal itch, but he's willing to put up some cash for someone to scratch it for him. Then once it's working, open source it and have the community improve upon it. So it's not the typical open source scenario of "start it yourself, put it on sourceforge, then try to get people involved."
I'm picturing this guy as an open source project manager. Eventually anyways. He's going to start out as a client to some programming firm. Then he'll take the code he paid for and open source it on sourceforge. Then he'll go through an open source recruitment phase. Finally, he'll be the one saying "we need this feature" and "I'm not accepting that patch."
What I'd recommend is to read the commit logs and notes for a large project. Study your Linus Torvalds. Read how he manages kernel commits paying close attention to how he handles rejected submissions. And the occasionally poorly received edict (for instance, when Linus moved to a pseudo-proprietary source control system) X.org might not be a bad study either, especially around the time of the split from XFree.
Learn how to manage an open source project correctly, and your odds for success will greatly improve.
It's news for nerds because they're gobbling up space on nameservers. It does affect you.
BTW, these signs are all over NE Ohio as well. I concluded it was some local get-rich-quick schmuck with a magic marker. Seriously interesting to find out that's not the case.
I think the biggest sign of Microsoft's impending fall is the fact that idiot business guys are in charge now.
It's interesting you'd point that out. I was thinking something similar. Mostly in the way the request was worded. I've spent some time around inept managers and you can see a lot of the same in the summary:
"urging device manufacturers to start immediate testing with its pre-beta release" - Translation: Get on the ball and do our work for us.
"to avoid the widespread hardware compatibility problems that contributed so much to the negative perception of Vista" - Translation: Our failures are not our fault. They are your fault. Get on the ball and fix it.
"'There is not another WinHEC planned before Windows 7 is released,' Microsoft has warned them." - Translation: We have you by the balls. Don't make us squeeze. We want you to do things for our benefit, and we're unwilling to wait, or even to ask nicely.
Now, in contrast what they should have done is this.
Windows 7 is being released, and soon. Yeah, we screwed the pooch with Vista. But we'd like to fix things, and we'd like your help. Towards that end we are making a pre-release version of Windows 7 beta available to developers so we can make something that has the promise of Vista, but actually delivers. And we'll be holding several WinHEC sessions, to help you, our valued partners make this next Windows the best product it can be.
Engage us as coder geeks, and we would be far more happy to comply. Speak to us - geek to geek. Let us know why Windows 7 is exciting. And admit your mistakes with Vista, so you have some credibility when you try to engage us.
Of course, inept power happy managers would never say such a thing. And it's the product that suffers. I've seen it before, just never quite on this scale before. Treat your developers like peons and they will abandon you. Programmers tend to be a little rogue in their perceptions. I can see a great many people reading that press release and thinking "well screw that crap".
I certainly would.
At least now we have someone in the office who actually does wish to change those things.
Wanting is the first step. So we've moved from a condition of "no hope for any change whatsoever" to "some hope for some change".
It's sort of like playing the lottery. If you buy a ticket, your odds are infinitesimal. But if you don't buy one, your odds are zero. If you buy a ticket you move from the land of "absolutely not" to the land of "maybe so".
So yeah, I doubt Mr. Obama will be able to do a tenth of what he says. He will be blocked by The Powers That Be at every single turn. Just watch the lobbying Exxon does in the next four years to keep him from pursuing his biofuels initiative, for example. It's gonna make your head spin.
But at least he wants to try to fix things rather than make them worse, and 10% is better than nothing. Hell, if all he does is sit in the oval office and play XBox for the next four years we'll be better off than the active malevolence of the W administration. Just a moratorium on undermining the Bill of Rights will be worth it, IMO.
Sounds closer to these guys to me.
AC, I wish I knew who you were so I could thank you appropriately. I just found it online and read it. And it is positively brilliant.
Thank you.
...just to watch it die.
They have a lame duck on the cover of the book.
Exactly what I came in here to say. I thought they gave up playing videos and became the Jackass channel sometime in the mid-90's.