on the flip side, if Lucas wasn't still making money from the original trilogy, what other horrors do you think he'd have bestowed upon us?
He would most likely be trying to create something new and original, rather than milking his old, no longer profitable, work. In other words, there'd be no prequels.
Agree completely, since 365-331 equals 34 total days off all year, minus then ten or so standard holidays, implies he worked full time absolutely every single day except for holidays and three weeks vacation.
It doesn't say that the 331 days were all in a single year.
They didn't define porn in this context. Is it just a random hit? I ahve hit porn site accidently while looking up job related sites.
Actually, they did define it. One senior executive was chatting with webcam girls — all the time. And he did eventually get caught, and he immediately "retired" as a result. Another had a porn collection on his hard drive, and another had nude pictures of herself on her hard drive.
Having said that, the article is still complete garbage. Best post on this topic is here.
Did he spend 331 days, or did he check at some point every day he was at work?
Once we get past "surfed porn at work", the number of hours seems more relvent than the number of days.
He spent his days surfing porn and chatting with webcam girls when he was supposed to be working. It was well known to all who worked under him. He knew damn well that what he was doing was wrong, which is why he "retired" as soon as he got caught.
Has anyone here independently seen this supposed Apache installation?
And why would it be a huge issue anyway? Does the installer also hack into your firewall configuration, open port 80, and port map it to your workstation?
Okay, okay, I realize there are still a few people out there who don't connect to the internet through a router. My ultra-luddite sister, who only abandoned dial-up last year, comes to mind — of course, she would also never own an iPhone. But even if Apache is automatically installed (which appears questionable), does it also automatically open port 80 on the Windows firewall?
Most prisoners can't afford to get PhDs. I wonder where he got the money and found the time for education like that (a PhD no less!); most prison jobs pay slavery wages.
He didn't get his PhD in prison. He had it long before his time at ADM.
Or will you just brainwash them into your way of life?
All parents "brainwash" their children into their way of life. My parents never asked me whether or not I wanted to eat meat. They simply fed me what they fed themselves. Thus I became a meat-eater, not by choice, but by default because of my parents' choices (or, perhaps, because of their parents' choices, and so on).
the original use of the phrase, was applied to physical properties not intellectual.
Regardless of what the original use of the phrase may have been, the use that is relevant to any discussion of evolution is that of Charles Darwin. From Wikipedia:
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869. Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape". Hence, it is not a scientific description, and is both incomplete and misleading.
Update: We first wrote these "10 things" several years ago. From time to time we revisit this list to see if it still holds true. We hope it does — and you can hold us to that. (September 2009)
If you think they've strayed from it, contact them and "hold them to it".
Optimistic locking often makes sense if a user will only spend a short period of time on a record before saving.
However, if I'm going to spend 20 minutes on a record, the last thing I want is to get to the end of that and finally be informed that someone else has been working on the same record this whole time, and now it's up to me to deal with merging the changes. If I'm going to commit that much time to a record, I want to be told beforehand that someone else is working on it. This is an opportunity for a process-based solution rather than a technical solution (ie. I can contact the other person working on the record so we can discuss and coordinate our changes).
Obviously there are issues that arise, but they are easily dealt with. Locks can be designed to timeout if the user "is hit by a bus". There can also be the option to override a lock. Users are much happier when they're informed of what's going on and given options to deal with it before they commit considerable time to working on something.
Most managers care a LOT about cleaning up code. It's a waste of time in their eyes and most will write you up for wasting time if they discover that you are doing it.
Bad managers, maybe. I've worked with managers who actually understand enough about software development to know that sometimes it pays in the long term to spend a little short term effort on changes that no one but the developers will actually see. In fact, I did a pretty significant refactoring/clean-up on my current project just a few weeks ago with full support from those above me because I told them it would save me time working on future enhancements (which it has).
First of all, you're describing the women in fashion magazines, not general women's magazines.
Second, you're confused about the motivation for buying magazines. Men buy magazines containing pictures of women because they enjoy looking at pictures of women. Women buy magazines containing pictures of women because the magazines contain information that they feel will be useful and/or entertaining to them. They then see the women in these magazines and want to emulate them, not because they like the look, but because they think others like the look — why else would they be in those magazines if others didn't like the look?
At one time these magazines showed real women. It was at that time that they gained credibility with women for providing useful information. Over time, the women appearing in the magazines have gotten skinnier and sicklier. Women have taken this as a guide as to what is desirable, and therefore what they should try to become.
if it didn't appeal to women on some level, the magazine wouldn't sell.
It appeals to them on the level of indicating what is considered desirable. Women do not consider the ideal female form to be that of a prepubescent boy. They think that men do. Well, actually most know better. They realize this is really the fashion industry's ideal, not normal men's ideal. Whatever the case, the reason they buy the magazines isn't because they prefer the look of these women. They buy magazines for different reasons than men do.
so girls, listen up,... its your own strange female mind that wants you to be so skinny, not us men
No, men generally want women to be skinny. Maybe not as skinny as today's fashion models, but definitely skinny. And large-breasted. You said that women in men's magazines are well-proportioned. If you actually believe that, you haven't seen many real women.
By the way, none of the women you see in men's magazines actually look like that in real life. You will not find a single photo of anyone in a magazine today that isn't photoshopped. Celebrities have PR people who alter and authorize photos before they hit the newsstand, and the "unauthorized" photos are generally photoshopped to make the individuals in them look worse.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
I'm pretty sure that heterosexuals do. However, I'm equally sure that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of getting their ass kicked simply for daring to ask out someone who doesn't match their sexuality.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world where homosexuals do have that fear.
Of course I'd program if I didn't have to work for a living. I mean, I didn't get into this business because I thought it would be profitable. I got into it because it's want I enjoy doing. The fact that I happen to get paid fairly well for it is just bloody awesome, but if it wasn't profitable, I'd have some crappy day job I hate and would code in my spare time. Likewise, if I simply didn't need the money, then I wouldn't need the crappy day job, but I'd still code in my (much more significant) spare time — in addition to all the other things that I enjoy doing.
The tougher question is what projects I'd work on. I suppose I could do anything I want, so I'd probably do less useful coding. I'd build things that have already been built just because I want to see how I would do it. I'd build things that are silly just because the idea popped into my head. I'd probably start tons of projects that I'd never get around to finishing.
From the article: "...is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated..." That's not the same as "is afraid microwave radiation will be increased above acceptable levels". The statement suggests that he is worried about radiation in general (not this specific kind of radiation).
The statement you quoted was made by the writer of the article, not by the farmer. The only direct quotes from him are: "I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules" and "I view it with dread, fear and panic. I don't want to grow food under those conditions", neither of which indicate he's afraid of radiation in general.
Most of us don't care about private people recording people in public. I see people with video cameras and such all the time.
What we don't appreciate is someone with armed forces and the "Law" at their disposal doing the same thing.
But at least when it's being done officially, there's (in theory) some accountability. When it's just some random person recording everything you do, there's no accountability whatsoever.
That's why I don't like being recorded by anyone without my knowledge/consent.
I can magically avoid detection on an audio tape by keeping my damn mouth shut.
That would require you to either: A) be aware of the recording (whereas the point was specifically regarding audio recordings without your knowledge), or B) never speak in a public place, ever, for as long as you live.
I find it interesting that a website filled with people who are normally outraged at the idea of video surveillance in a public place with everyone's knowledge is so accepting of the idea of audio surveillance in a public place without everyone's knowledge.
Personally, I'm on the fence on this. I don't like the idea of people recording me (audio or video) without my knowledge or consent, because as a general rule I don't trust people. However, I'm not sure I want a law to prevent it.
How did I know you vegans would weigh in with your overwrought horror stories.
Unlike you, I've actually worked on a farm, so don't bring that nonsense around here.
Right, because we all know that the world's demand for meat is easily met by your little family farms, and that industrial factory farming is entirely a myth propagated by smelly hippie animal rights terrorists to further their agenda of enslaving meat-eating humans.
In the U.S., four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens. In 1967, there were one million pig farms in America; as of 2002, there were 114,000, with 80 million pigs (out of 95 million) killed each year on factory farms as of 2002, according to the U.S. National Pork Producers Council. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 74 percent of the world's poultry, 43 percent of beef, and 68 percent of eggs are produced this way.
The fourth was OK. Definitely a "OK, here's your damn book, get off my back."
The fourth was my least favourite at the time I read it, which was when I was 13 years old. The first three blew me away as a youngster, and the fifth, which came out when I was in my early twenties, was a welcome sigh of relief after what I perceived to be such a lackluster fourth book.
However, after going back and re-reading the fourth a few times, I've come to the conclusion that it may actually be the best of the five (or maybe second best). It certainly has a different tone than the first three, but it's actually quite brilliant and hilarious.
The fifth is a nice balance of the maturity of the fourth book with the zaniness of the first three. And then there's the Dirk Gently books, which are more along the lines of the fourth and fifth H2G2 books (and also brilliant). Salmon of Doubt had the potential to be just as good, but I guess we'll never know.
Slashdot Mirror
on the flip side, if Lucas wasn't still making money from the original trilogy, what other horrors do you think he'd have bestowed upon us?
He would most likely be trying to create something new and original, rather than milking his old, no longer profitable, work. In other words, there'd be no prequels.
I, for one, would be a happier Star Wars nerd.
Agree completely, since 365-331 equals 34 total days off all year, minus then ten or so standard holidays, implies he worked full time absolutely every single day except for holidays and three weeks vacation.
It doesn't say that the 331 days were all in a single year.
They didn't define porn in this context. Is it just a random hit? I ahve hit porn site accidently while looking up job related sites.
Actually, they did define it. One senior executive was chatting with webcam girls — all the time. And he did eventually get caught, and he immediately "retired" as a result. Another had a porn collection on his hard drive, and another had nude pictures of herself on her hard drive.
Having said that, the article is still complete garbage. Best post on this topic is here.
Did he spend 331 days, or did he check at some point every day he was at work?
Once we get past "surfed porn at work", the number of hours seems more relvent than the number of days.
He spent his days surfing porn and chatting with webcam girls when he was supposed to be working. It was well known to all who worked under him. He knew damn well that what he was doing was wrong, which is why he "retired" as soon as he got caught.
Has anyone here independently seen this supposed Apache installation?
And why would it be a huge issue anyway? Does the installer also hack into your firewall configuration, open port 80, and port map it to your workstation?
Okay, okay, I realize there are still a few people out there who don't connect to the internet through a router. My ultra-luddite sister, who only abandoned dial-up last year, comes to mind — of course, she would also never own an iPhone. But even if Apache is automatically installed (which appears questionable), does it also automatically open port 80 on the Windows firewall?
He actually got 2 more PhDs while in prison. (I forget what they were for though)
Good point. I missed that. He did earn a PhD in Psychology and another in Economics while in prison, in addition to some other degrees.
Most prisoners can't afford to get PhDs. I wonder where he got the money and found the time for education like that (a PhD no less!); most prison jobs pay slavery wages.
He didn't get his PhD in prison. He had it long before his time at ADM.
Or will you just brainwash them into your way of life?
All parents "brainwash" their children into their way of life. My parents never asked me whether or not I wanted to eat meat. They simply fed me what they fed themselves. Thus I became a meat-eater, not by choice, but by default because of my parents' choices (or, perhaps, because of their parents' choices, and so on).
Why should vegetarian parents be any different?
the original use of the phrase, was applied to physical properties not intellectual.
Regardless of what the original use of the phrase may have been, the use that is relevant to any discussion of evolution is that of Charles Darwin. From Wikipedia:
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869. Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape". Hence, it is not a scientific description, and is both incomplete and misleading.
Interesting note at the bottom of the page:
Update: We first wrote these "10 things" several years ago. From time to time we revisit this list to see if it still holds true. We hope it does — and you can hold us to that. (September 2009)
If you think they've strayed from it, contact them and "hold them to it".
Optimistic locking often makes sense if a user will only spend a short period of time on a record before saving.
However, if I'm going to spend 20 minutes on a record, the last thing I want is to get to the end of that and finally be informed that someone else has been working on the same record this whole time, and now it's up to me to deal with merging the changes. If I'm going to commit that much time to a record, I want to be told beforehand that someone else is working on it. This is an opportunity for a process-based solution rather than a technical solution (ie. I can contact the other person working on the record so we can discuss and coordinate our changes).
Obviously there are issues that arise, but they are easily dealt with. Locks can be designed to timeout if the user "is hit by a bus". There can also be the option to override a lock. Users are much happier when they're informed of what's going on and given options to deal with it before they commit considerable time to working on something.
Most managers care a LOT about cleaning up code. It's a waste of time in their eyes and most will write you up for wasting time if they discover that you are doing it.
Bad managers, maybe. I've worked with managers who actually understand enough about software development to know that sometimes it pays in the long term to spend a little short term effort on changes that no one but the developers will actually see. In fact, I did a pretty significant refactoring/clean-up on my current project just a few weeks ago with full support from those above me because I told them it would save me time working on future enhancements (which it has).
People can walk away from volunteer 'jobs' anytime they want without losing money though. That's very different from a paid job.
And people who walk away from volunteer 'jobs' are easily replaced without losing money. That's very different from a paid job.
Those two facts tend to balance each other out a bit.
First of all, you're describing the women in fashion magazines, not general women's magazines.
Second, you're confused about the motivation for buying magazines. Men buy magazines containing pictures of women because they enjoy looking at pictures of women. Women buy magazines containing pictures of women because the magazines contain information that they feel will be useful and/or entertaining to them. They then see the women in these magazines and want to emulate them, not because they like the look, but because they think others like the look — why else would they be in those magazines if others didn't like the look?
At one time these magazines showed real women. It was at that time that they gained credibility with women for providing useful information. Over time, the women appearing in the magazines have gotten skinnier and sicklier. Women have taken this as a guide as to what is desirable, and therefore what they should try to become.
if it didn't appeal to women on some level, the magazine wouldn't sell.
It appeals to them on the level of indicating what is considered desirable. Women do not consider the ideal female form to be that of a prepubescent boy. They think that men do. Well, actually most know better. They realize this is really the fashion industry's ideal, not normal men's ideal. Whatever the case, the reason they buy the magazines isn't because they prefer the look of these women. They buy magazines for different reasons than men do.
so girls, listen up, ... its your own strange female mind that wants you to be so skinny, not us men
No, men generally want women to be skinny. Maybe not as skinny as today's fashion models, but definitely skinny. And large-breasted. You said that women in men's magazines are well-proportioned. If you actually believe that, you haven't seen many real women.
By the way, none of the women you see in men's magazines actually look like that in real life. You will not find a single photo of anyone in a magazine today that isn't photoshopped. Celebrities have PR people who alter and authorize photos before they hit the newsstand, and the "unauthorized" photos are generally photoshopped to make the individuals in them look worse.
The biggest privacy hole on Facebook is the "Sign Up" button.
Where can I download this "real world" you speak of? Is it a one time purchase or a subscription fee?
I think it's here.
Do you think that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of mutual embarrassment and summary rejection?
I'm pretty sure that heterosexuals do. However, I'm equally sure that heterosexuals don't hold back from asking people out for fear of getting their ass kicked simply for daring to ask out someone who doesn't match their sexuality.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world where homosexuals do have that fear.
Of course I'd program if I didn't have to work for a living. I mean, I didn't get into this business because I thought it would be profitable. I got into it because it's want I enjoy doing. The fact that I happen to get paid fairly well for it is just bloody awesome, but if it wasn't profitable, I'd have some crappy day job I hate and would code in my spare time. Likewise, if I simply didn't need the money, then I wouldn't need the crappy day job, but I'd still code in my (much more significant) spare time — in addition to all the other things that I enjoy doing.
The tougher question is what projects I'd work on. I suppose I could do anything I want, so I'd probably do less useful coding. I'd build things that have already been built just because I want to see how I would do it. I'd build things that are silly just because the idea popped into my head. I'd probably start tons of projects that I'd never get around to finishing.
From the article: "...is afraid his organic crop could be irradiated..." That's not the same as "is afraid microwave radiation will be increased above acceptable levels". The statement suggests that he is worried about radiation in general (not this specific kind of radiation).
The statement you quoted was made by the writer of the article, not by the farmer. The only direct quotes from him are: "I think over a period of time it will change the DNA of the garlic because it shakes up the molecules" and "I view it with dread, fear and panic. I don't want to grow food under those conditions", neither of which indicate he's afraid of radiation in general.
Most of us don't care about private people recording people in public. I see people with video cameras and such all the time.
What we don't appreciate is someone with armed forces and the "Law" at their disposal doing the same thing.
But at least when it's being done officially, there's (in theory) some accountability. When it's just some random person recording everything you do, there's no accountability whatsoever.
That's why I don't like being recorded by anyone without my knowledge/consent.
I can magically avoid detection on an audio tape by keeping my damn mouth shut.
That would require you to either: A) be aware of the recording (whereas the point was specifically regarding audio recordings without your knowledge), or B) never speak in a public place, ever, for as long as you live.
I find it interesting that a website filled with people who are normally outraged at the idea of video surveillance in a public place with everyone's knowledge is so accepting of the idea of audio surveillance in a public place without everyone's knowledge.
Personally, I'm on the fence on this. I don't like the idea of people recording me (audio or video) without my knowledge or consent, because as a general rule I don't trust people. However, I'm not sure I want a law to prevent it.
However, I do not have the opportunity to choose only "wild and free" cows to eat.
Actually, you do.
Not that I'm suggesting you start eating meat. But for those who do choose to eat meat, there is a slightly more ethical alternative.
How did I know you vegans would weigh in with your overwrought horror stories.
Unlike you, I've actually worked on a farm, so don't bring that nonsense around here.
Right, because we all know that the world's demand for meat is easily met by your little family farms, and that industrial factory farming is entirely a myth propagated by smelly hippie animal rights terrorists to further their agenda of enslaving meat-eating humans.
The fourth was OK. Definitely a "OK, here's your damn book, get off my back."
The fourth was my least favourite at the time I read it, which was when I was 13 years old. The first three blew me away as a youngster, and the fifth, which came out when I was in my early twenties, was a welcome sigh of relief after what I perceived to be such a lackluster fourth book.
However, after going back and re-reading the fourth a few times, I've come to the conclusion that it may actually be the best of the five (or maybe second best). It certainly has a different tone than the first three, but it's actually quite brilliant and hilarious.
The fifth is a nice balance of the maturity of the fourth book with the zaniness of the first three. And then there's the Dirk Gently books, which are more along the lines of the fourth and fifth H2G2 books (and also brilliant). Salmon of Doubt had the potential to be just as good, but I guess we'll never know.