hey AC, parent is right & others like pixelpusher listed these
Unemployment benefits? Medicare cuts? Vouchers for healthcare instead of actual health care? School funding?
you are just wrong, AC. you need to hack through the rhetoric & cognitive dissonance. Trolling is not argumentation & you need to stop...the only way to "lose" a discussion like this is to remain ignorant
the idea that 'saving face' in a discussion is more important than all other factors is the core of trolling...just stop...
That's what it's like for just about every NFL coaching staff for pretty much the entire season starting with training camp in August
whole point of my story was to point out how this is a trope but it's not true
this the support/coaching staff here not the actual athletes we're talking about...they watch more game footage than they need to just to look like they are working "as hard as possible" meaning, in practice, more than the other guy in a tight org. read old SI articles about what the schedule for someone in Coach K's staff is like. Have a look at what people say about working for Van Gundy in his tenure at the Rockets (I also had a friend who worked as a low-level staffer there but we didn't talk as much in depth...she said it was insanely competitive though...way beyond anything except something like the military b/c of the money these athletes/programs make)
look, your ideas of how sports work are a false narrative. yes of course it takes alot of work-hours to prepare an NFL game plan, but that's not my point...the whole point is that sometimes up to 50% of it is just, as Shakespear said,
"Sound and Fury signifying nothing"
the whole point is that spending 80 hours to do 40 hours of work is **the BAD type of obsessive** which b-ball & NFL coaches in the US recently are good examples of
Pro & college football & basketball coaches definitely be the obsessive, but its definitely not the kind that fosters 'genius'.
They work, no joke, 80 hour weeks. (i know, i know, you work that much or w/e too but most professionals dont work more than 60 & to work more than that usually means you are being taken advantage of)
80 hour weeks. And not just the coaches...the whole staff. Sometimes down to the athletic trainers. It was an athletic trainer friend of mine from college who worked for a pro team in Indianapolis brieftly as a trainer.
He said it's **common** for the coaching/support staff to be insanely competitive & to attempt to 'signal value' by being seen at the facility physically virtually all hours. Even in the off season they are at the stadium every day, usually 60 hours a week total.
According to him it's an artificial kind of Darwinian way for these people to do office politics exaggerated b/c it is pro sports.
I know tech usually isnt this bad, but it shows something important about obsessive work.
Obsessive work with a functional goal may be a trait of genius, but Obsessive work doing abastract tasks to demonstrate commitment or some other non-funcitonal melodramatic trait is **pointless**
One thing I try to notice is how much drama a business I'm considering using as a vendor has to conjure up to get work done. If every task is a Shakespearean-in-magnitude epic then I stere clear.
I always think of 'that one experiment' where they give rats the choice between cocaine and food & the rats always choose the coke until they starve to death
or something
the idea of a Behavioral Sink is interesting...but to me it's something to talk about on a message board or in a classroom or w/e
when making choices with people's lives, ideas like 'Behavioral Sink' can be deadly...***especially*** now as computers allow data aggregation and control on global scales.
the thought of some dipshit sitting at some desk with computer screens changing the cost of a global commodity in a spreadsheet slightly to insure "proper" income distribution because of some principle like "behavioral sink" makes me very angry
I remember admiring George HW Bush even though I disagreed with some of his policies
I definitely can relate to this...I wasn't old enough to vote but Bush 1 at the time & into Clinton's first term seemed to be a good choice.
Too bad George H.W. Bush is practically the symbol for the Military/Industrial Complex & global energy oligarchs.
He's orchestrated some really nasty things, some of worst in the 20th century. I didn't want to believe it for a long time, even though there were cracks in the facade.
I know it may seem insensitive or mean to call someone a 'dork' but for the life of me I couldn't & still can't think of a better way to describe it.
It's a concept everyone knows. Like 'slut'...you immediately have an impression of some key facts about a person if you are told by someone you trust that some chick is a 'slut'.
geek, nerd, etc...I picked 'dork' because, unlike 'geek', there is no movement to make it a complimentary term ("geeks get things done"). Obv./. is news for 'nerds' so that's out. Dork is universally known slang that has a bit of..um..whimsy to it. It's not as mean as calling someone an 'aspie' for ex.
I think my comment elicited such a response from you because you *lived* that whole thing I described, hated it, and pushed through anyway telling yourself,
"This is what a person has to do to succeed"
Which is fine. My comment is a gripe against your drive to get a good education and do good work.
I'm mad that the situation exists in the first place. It's not necessary...it's a continuation of bulling/pecking order male heirarchal behavior.
Dorks are as bad as 'jocks'!
It's all bullshit and it's only in the very abstract related to success in the industry.
so is that what Google is thinking w/ their 3.2 Billion?
they get energy companies and local installers to push these things and that's how they make a return on their investment?
it seems to me the profitability horizon is farther than the point at which the competition will be able to...um...compete.
energy companies have been at this for a long time, they are like IBM or AT&T in that they manage to stick around using old-school capitialism US big-biz style...google is an ad serving company known for its search and email
i'm saying energy companies, like my local PGE will develop their own more sensitive monitoring along side this
not that i'm criticizing google either...i'd love for them to buy one of my companies for a billion dollars
It's important to note that right now in US politics one party is completely and totally against the concept of scientific inquiry putting Newspeak-like religious rhetoric above all else.
There is no 'but the Democrats...' counterpoint on this...it's ALWAYS REPUBLICANS. It doesn't make the Democrat/Liberals better in some long-term philosophical way at all, but it forces a choice in a real-world context that alot of/.'ers can't mentally make.
I can't stress how important it is when placing blame to see past false dichotomies & historicity filled narratives to understand what these people who run our country *actually do*...and when you look it that way, the GOP are the enemy of society.
As someone pointed out below, the Texas system has a check/balance against this, but AGAIN, the person in that decision node is a REPUBLICAN and they do not operate as individual decision makers weighing options.
The GOP is a cadre of ignorance, working in rabid lockstep to kiss up to whatever money interest is telling them to on any particular day...this time its the religious conservatives anti-science people.
It's ok to just blame one party when they are truly at fault. Decide they are at fault and vote appropriately. The US system has been corrupted but the prinicples of it are sound if we **use** our democracy to it's full power.
the fact that you tried to argue that because I used the word (from the Parent I was responding to btw) 'banished' then developed that thought including exceptions that somehow you aren't a pedantic shit
you're a pedantic shit either way, but i'm right about your overly literal yet under examined reading of my comment and I'm right about the Gaussian Distribution
read the entire fucking comment, respond on topic and we havce a discussion otherwise fuck off
Hey...I'll respond after you contribute to the conversation.
I said this...further down in the post you're responding to, re: Gaussian Distribution
One personal thing I took away was a deep mistrust of anything Gaussian, beyond some astrophysics & math stuff.
The fact that you say this in response: "You categorically said that the Gaussian distribution should be banished." is bullshit and shows me that you are either a) trolling or b) not engaging with the topic enough to justify my time typing.
"{govt agency} collects X data when transmitted through Y channel"
This is crap journalism from the Guardian.
They are doing everything they can to stretch the Snowden material out as long as humanly possible.
I am a rabid defender of the right to privacy. I have actually protested and done activism, but I absolutely hate everything about how this Snowden material was released.
It just continues. The whole Snowden narrative is bullshit. He may or may not have been blackmailed, but he's certainly being manipulated and orchestrated. In Russia now he's practically in jail...worse than what a probationer would face in the US for sure.
Glen Greenwald is a hack and he is most to blame for Snowden's current situation. Greenwald's **job** was to protect his source, but of course he would have to risk possible short term jail in the US.
The Guardian and all the press are too blame as well. Why didn't we have a "national conversation" about this sooner? Dipshit B and C students in college become news producers/editors. These are the idiots who decide what gets reported on and how. The are easily manipulated, quickly corrupted with peer pressure, and will lie to themselves and the whole nation rather than admit that they need to dramatically improve the quality of their news product.
I understand that Snowden supposedly had "undeniable proof" which is of course not true. The Bush admin would have denied everything about it forever in all contexts and it would have eventually gone away...how do I kknow this? **Thats what happened from the Patriot Act through the end of Bush's terms**
I support doing what we need to do to bring Snowden home. I don't want to see him behind bars. Maybe something that could be probation, I don't know. I'd like to know alot more before I decide what should happen to him but I think he's a victim of blackmail here.
I'm not saying Snowden's revelations aren't having a good effect...but it's all wrong in execution and it didn't help nearly as much as it could have and it became too politicized with people looking to demonize Obama for laws like the Patriot Act etc.
Gaussian distributions are not natural phenomenon. Numbers are not a natural phenomenon.
If humans want to use a Gaussian distribution to get rid of noise in some signal from a WIMP detector, fine....that's not really what we're talking about here.
Using a Gaussian distribution to determine how far from random your Likert scale test of whether video games make people feel more aggression...well that's ruining science.
I always hated frequentist statistical methods and the Gaussian Distribution.
I see below an Astrophysicist echos your claim.
I'm happily surprised to learn I am not the only one who thinks the whole 'gaussian' should be banished.
I come from a Systems Science and Research Methodology background in this area. One of my favorite parts of grad school was a 4 hr one on one tutoring session every week I did for a semester with my large State Univ. Research Director who is the person faculty/staff go to for questions about this stuff. All across the disciplines faculty, post-docs, PhD candidates come to these guys b/c it is their job to know & I was doing work for a prof who got me this and it was really cool.
He explained how each discipline used statistics in their published research & rules for PhD candidates.
One personal thing I took away was a deep mistrust of anything Gaussian, beyond some astrophysics & math stuff.
Without getting too technical, IMHO it's bullshit. It's a scientist assigning what ammount to, not random, but factor analysis that is accurate only because of non-quantifiable expertise-type decisions in how to define the research question, how to test, and what kind of statistics to expect.
I'm not saying they don't make good choices, sometimes these PhD's come up with excellent work across the academic disciplines, I'm just saying that you can piss in a jar and call it statistical significance...
'I want those people to experience what I was privileged enough to have gotten in college and beyond – unimpeded opportunities to develop expertise in something that they find beautiful, practical, and fulfilling.'
academia is typically a very alienating place...in college/undergrad I saw many people discouraged form EE who would have been very good at the actual work of an EE in the real world, but couldn't/would not get past the insane 'weeding out' classes.
in my experience (I changed my major before I started classes but I attended a class just to see what it was like) these were classes all Engineers must take, usually taught by a prof that looked well qualified on paper but was horrible.
The only way to pass the class was to either a) know the material already or b) study all night with other Engineering students in the class
There really wasn't an option to 'have a life'...some tried but one or the other would win out. In order to get an EE degree you simply MUST become a dork. or at least 'dork' in the colloquial sense of looking neutral/unstylish at best, poor social skills, lacking manual skills, etc etc...which would inevitably remain under developed due to a lack of formative experiences, time spent instead in dark rooms eating breadsticks looking at computer screens. Yes alot of good work has gotten done this way, but that doesn't mean you use it as a way to 'weed out' students from the industry!
It was possible, but you had to fight against the grain all the time, and few did it.
at this time, it is plain that the 'left' of US politics favors Net Neutrality.
why do people blame Obama or the 'left' for a decision like this? i understand it was a conservative-appointed court, but that's what **conservative** courts **do**...they rule against 'left' or liberal policies
the false equivalence comes in when the response to a dumb criticism is to say, "Oh, ah well, there all a bunch of crooks"...it's bullshit...there are votes on policies we can track. the 'left' or 'liberal' party, especially the progressive part of that party have consistently favored Net Neutrality. That is a fact.
Republicans have consistently opposed Net Neutrality. That is a fact.
second, I've traveled through Europe and Asia before and after 9/11 and while of course the US 'conservatives' would freak out at what their Continental counterparts, especially UK 'conservatives', consider good policy...yes this is true. however in the 21st Century globalism really has taken hold, and those distinctions are fading. Conservatism in the US (and Canada!) is as abusive and evil as Apartheid Africa. They mathmatically work out how abusive can be to maximize profits.
If you favor Net Neutrality, in the US Democrats are the only choice. The progressives of the Democratic party are the only organized group of politicians advocating pro Net Neutrality policies. This is a legislative fact.
Parent has it. China is obviously very important, but fearing the 'rise' of China as some global dragon is insane and stupid.
We have plenty of reasons to 'fear' what's happening in China. China is a beast of pollution and bad "face"...the people of China are as good as any people anywhere, but their government has ruined at least an entire generation with the one child policy & done irrevocable damage to their environment.
It's kind of crass for an American to say "we won" but its true. This is the internet after all, crass is to be expected. It doesn't invalidate the entire point of the post.
We need to foster Democracy in China & stop using predatory capitalism as a long-term tool of diplomacy.
We need to stop this bullshit of looking for the 'next' superpower for us to irrationally fear. We won that whole thing. Now we have new problems that require a new paradigm.
We obviously should still have the best military in the world. TFA is fear mongering and China propaganda. Remember the same people who control China's wealth are in partnership with the people who profit from military spending.
Yet another super awesome framework/system/language/whatever to make a shopping cart in as few lines as possible.
yeah...see this is true, and my question is WHY?
this happens predictably (at least for any rational person who looks at how this part of the computing industry changes over time)
someone tries to build something remotely complex and it all falls to shit
but still people spend good time/money, sometimes lots of a few people's time, to make another and the cycle starts over again
is it possible to interview for a company, or be the head 'coder' during a major decision time for a new client or product, and just say, "No, from a coding perspective this is theoretically possible but it can't be done. This is bad design and we can code something that has this function and meet our quality standards."
Slashdot Mirror
hey AC, parent is right & others like pixelpusher listed these
you are just wrong, AC. you need to hack through the rhetoric & cognitive dissonance. Trolling is not argumentation & you need to stop...the only way to "lose" a discussion like this is to remain ignorant
the idea that 'saving face' in a discussion is more important than all other factors is the core of trolling...just stop...
whole point of my story was to point out how this is a trope but it's not true
this the support/coaching staff here not the actual athletes we're talking about...they watch more game footage than they need to just to look like they are working "as hard as possible" meaning, in practice, more than the other guy in a tight org. read old SI articles about what the schedule for someone in Coach K's staff is like. Have a look at what people say about working for Van Gundy in his tenure at the Rockets (I also had a friend who worked as a low-level staffer there but we didn't talk as much in depth...she said it was insanely competitive though...way beyond anything except something like the military b/c of the money these athletes/programs make)
look, your ideas of how sports work are a false narrative. yes of course it takes alot of work-hours to prepare an NFL game plan, but that's not my point...the whole point is that sometimes up to 50% of it is just, as Shakespear said,
"Sound and Fury signifying nothing"
the whole point is that spending 80 hours to do 40 hours of work is **the BAD type of obsessive** which b-ball & NFL coaches in the US recently are good examples of
It's got to be the router or switch that runs Dijkstra's algorythm on every packet that gets sent through any router or switch anywhere ever.
The code varies by router type, network topology, etc etc, but the code would fit into 3 lines.
Everythign from the Application Layer of the TC/IP suite has this algorythm done on it, including HTTP and SMS.
I cant figure it now but it has to rival the option I saw above for the monitor refresh program & the windoze system idle process
good call on the frame buffer loop
I have a thought it may be a router command somewhere in the OSI model ;)
Pro & college football & basketball coaches definitely be the obsessive, but its definitely not the kind that fosters 'genius'.
They work, no joke, 80 hour weeks. (i know, i know, you work that much or w/e too but most professionals dont work more than 60 & to work more than that usually means you are being taken advantage of)
80 hour weeks. And not just the coaches...the whole staff. Sometimes down to the athletic trainers. It was an athletic trainer friend of mine from college who worked for a pro team in Indianapolis brieftly as a trainer.
He said it's **common** for the coaching/support staff to be insanely competitive & to attempt to 'signal value' by being seen at the facility physically virtually all hours. Even in the off season they are at the stadium every day, usually 60 hours a week total.
According to him it's an artificial kind of Darwinian way for these people to do office politics exaggerated b/c it is pro sports.
I know tech usually isnt this bad, but it shows something important about obsessive work.
Obsessive work with a functional goal may be a trait of genius, but Obsessive work doing abastract tasks to demonstrate commitment or some other non-funcitonal melodramatic trait is **pointless**
One thing I try to notice is how much drama a business I'm considering using as a vendor has to conjure up to get work done. If every task is a Shakespearean-in-magnitude epic then I stere clear.
well that's interesting
I always think of 'that one experiment' where they give rats the choice between cocaine and food & the rats always choose the coke until they starve to death
or something
the idea of a Behavioral Sink is interesting...but to me it's something to talk about on a message board or in a classroom or w/e
when making choices with people's lives, ideas like 'Behavioral Sink' can be deadly...***especially*** now as computers allow data aggregation and control on global scales.
the thought of some dipshit sitting at some desk with computer screens changing the cost of a global commodity in a spreadsheet slightly to insure "proper" income distribution because of some principle like "behavioral sink" makes me very angry
are you trying to have a discussion on this topic?
posting links to Fox News and blockquoting me in large swaths is not a discussion...it's you trying to earn your pay as a paid PR commentator
get a real fucking job...or at least do yours better & try engaging in a discussion
I definitely can relate to this...I wasn't old enough to vote but Bush 1 at the time & into Clinton's first term seemed to be a good choice.
Too bad George H.W. Bush is practically the symbol for the Military/Industrial Complex & global energy oligarchs.
He's orchestrated some really nasty things, some of worst in the 20th century. I didn't want to believe it for a long time, even though there were cracks in the facade.
look just deal with it
I know it may seem insensitive or mean to call someone a 'dork' but for the life of me I couldn't & still can't think of a better way to describe it.
It's a concept everyone knows. Like 'slut'...you immediately have an impression of some key facts about a person if you are told by someone you trust that some chick is a 'slut'.
geek, nerd, etc...I picked 'dork' because, unlike 'geek', there is no movement to make it a complimentary term ("geeks get things done"). Obv. /. is news for 'nerds' so that's out. Dork is universally known slang that has a bit of..um..whimsy to it. It's not as mean as calling someone an 'aspie' for ex.
I think my comment elicited such a response from you because you *lived* that whole thing I described, hated it, and pushed through anyway telling yourself,
"This is what a person has to do to succeed"
Which is fine. My comment is a gripe against your drive to get a good education and do good work.
I'm mad that the situation exists in the first place. It's not necessary...it's a continuation of bulling/pecking order male heirarchal behavior.
Dorks are as bad as 'jocks'!
It's all bullshit and it's only in the very abstract related to success in the industry.
so you're calling the thing I linked to a lie?
what part from that USA Today article, specifically, is a 'lie'?
second question, you knew the government was collecting data after 2001, but...what?
"that information came from different channels?"
so you knew the government was spying on you through different channels since 2001...WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID
so you agree with me and think the link I posted to the USA Today article is a 'lie'?
so is that what Google is thinking w/ their 3.2 Billion?
they get energy companies and local installers to push these things and that's how they make a return on their investment?
it seems to me the profitability horizon is farther than the point at which the competition will be able to...um...compete.
energy companies have been at this for a long time, they are like IBM or AT&T in that they manage to stick around using old-school capitialism US big-biz style...google is an ad serving company known for its search and email
i'm saying energy companies, like my local PGE will develop their own more sensitive monitoring along side this
not that i'm criticizing google either...i'd love for them to buy one of my companies for a billion dollars
who do this shit!
It's important to note that right now in US politics one party is completely and totally against the concept of scientific inquiry putting Newspeak-like religious rhetoric above all else.
There is no 'but the Democrats...' counterpoint on this...it's ALWAYS REPUBLICANS. It doesn't make the Democrat/Liberals better in some long-term philosophical way at all, but it forces a choice in a real-world context that alot of /.'ers can't mentally make.
I can't stress how important it is when placing blame to see past false dichotomies & historicity filled narratives to understand what these people who run our country *actually do*...and when you look it that way, the GOP are the enemy of society.
As someone pointed out below, the Texas system has a check/balance against this, but AGAIN, the person in that decision node is a REPUBLICAN and they do not operate as individual decision makers weighing options.
The GOP is a cadre of ignorance, working in rabid lockstep to kiss up to whatever money interest is telling them to on any particular day...this time its the religious conservatives anti-science people.
It's ok to just blame one party when they are truly at fault. Decide they are at fault and vote appropriately. The US system has been corrupted but the prinicples of it are sound if we **use** our democracy to it's full power.
you have to read the entire comment, man
the fact that you tried to argue that because I used the word (from the Parent I was responding to btw) 'banished' then developed that thought including exceptions that somehow you aren't a pedantic shit
you're a pedantic shit either way, but i'm right about your overly literal yet under examined reading of my comment and I'm right about the Gaussian Distribution
read the entire fucking comment, respond on topic and we havce a discussion otherwise fuck off
Hey...I'll respond after you contribute to the conversation.
I said this...further down in the post you're responding to, re: Gaussian Distribution
The fact that you say this in response: "You categorically said that the Gaussian distribution should be banished." is bullshit and shows me that you are either a) trolling or b) not engaging with the topic enough to justify my time typing.
"{govt agency} collects X data when transmitted through Y channel"
This is crap journalism from the Guardian.
They are doing everything they can to stretch the Snowden material out as long as humanly possible.
I am a rabid defender of the right to privacy. I have actually protested and done activism, but I absolutely hate everything about how this Snowden material was released.
It just continues. The whole Snowden narrative is bullshit. He may or may not have been blackmailed, but he's certainly being manipulated and orchestrated. In Russia now he's practically in jail...worse than what a probationer would face in the US for sure.
Glen Greenwald is a hack and he is most to blame for Snowden's current situation. Greenwald's **job** was to protect his source, but of course he would have to risk possible short term jail in the US.
The Guardian and all the press are too blame as well. Why didn't we have a "national conversation" about this sooner? Dipshit B and C students in college become news producers/editors. These are the idiots who decide what gets reported on and how. The are easily manipulated, quickly corrupted with peer pressure, and will lie to themselves and the whole nation rather than admit that they need to dramatically improve the quality of their news product.
The PATRIOT ACT happened in 2001!!!! The USA Today reported on this in **2006** http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
I understand that Snowden supposedly had "undeniable proof" which is of course not true. The Bush admin would have denied everything about it forever in all contexts and it would have eventually gone away...how do I kknow this? **Thats what happened from the Patriot Act through the end of Bush's terms**
I support doing what we need to do to bring Snowden home. I don't want to see him behind bars. Maybe something that could be probation, I don't know. I'd like to know alot more before I decide what should happen to him but I think he's a victim of blackmail here.
I'm not saying Snowden's revelations aren't having a good effect...but it's all wrong in execution and it didn't help nearly as much as it could have and it became too politicized with people looking to demonize Obama for laws like the Patriot Act etc.
Gaussian distributions are not natural phenomenon. Numbers are not a natural phenomenon.
If humans want to use a Gaussian distribution to get rid of noise in some signal from a WIMP detector, fine....that's not really what we're talking about here.
Using a Gaussian distribution to determine how far from random your Likert scale test of whether video games make people feel more aggression...well that's ruining science.
I always hated frequentist statistical methods and the Gaussian Distribution.
I see below an Astrophysicist echos your claim.
I'm happily surprised to learn I am not the only one who thinks the whole 'gaussian' should be banished.
I come from a Systems Science and Research Methodology background in this area. One of my favorite parts of grad school was a 4 hr one on one tutoring session every week I did for a semester with my large State Univ. Research Director who is the person faculty/staff go to for questions about this stuff. All across the disciplines faculty, post-docs, PhD candidates come to these guys b/c it is their job to know & I was doing work for a prof who got me this and it was really cool.
He explained how each discipline used statistics in their published research & rules for PhD candidates.
One personal thing I took away was a deep mistrust of anything Gaussian, beyond some astrophysics & math stuff.
Without getting too technical, IMHO it's bullshit. It's a scientist assigning what ammount to, not random, but factor analysis that is accurate only because of non-quantifiable expertise-type decisions in how to define the research question, how to test, and what kind of statistics to expect.
I'm not saying they don't make good choices, sometimes these PhD's come up with excellent work across the academic disciplines, I'm just saying that you can piss in a jar and call it statistical significance...
here's the important message of the whole thing:
academia is typically a very alienating place...in college/undergrad I saw many people discouraged form EE who would have been very good at the actual work of an EE in the real world, but couldn't/would not get past the insane 'weeding out' classes.
in my experience (I changed my major before I started classes but I attended a class just to see what it was like) these were classes all Engineers must take, usually taught by a prof that looked well qualified on paper but was horrible.
The only way to pass the class was to either a) know the material already or b) study all night with other Engineering students in the class
There really wasn't an option to 'have a life'...some tried but one or the other would win out. In order to get an EE degree you simply MUST become a dork. or at least 'dork' in the colloquial sense of looking neutral/unstylish at best, poor social skills, lacking manual skills, etc etc...which would inevitably remain under developed due to a lack of formative experiences, time spent instead in dark rooms eating breadsticks looking at computer screens. Yes alot of good work has gotten done this way, but that doesn't mean you use it as a way to 'weed out' students from the industry!
It was possible, but you had to fight against the grain all the time, and few did it.
at this time, it is plain that the 'left' of US politics favors Net Neutrality.
why do people blame Obama or the 'left' for a decision like this? i understand it was a conservative-appointed court, but that's what **conservative** courts **do**...they rule against 'left' or liberal policies
the false equivalence comes in when the response to a dumb criticism is to say, "Oh, ah well, there all a bunch of crooks"...it's bullshit...there are votes on policies we can track. the 'left' or 'liberal' party, especially the progressive part of that party have consistently favored Net Neutrality. That is a fact.
Republicans have consistently opposed Net Neutrality. That is a fact.
second, I've traveled through Europe and Asia before and after 9/11 and while of course the US 'conservatives' would freak out at what their Continental counterparts, especially UK 'conservatives', consider good policy...yes this is true. however in the 21st Century globalism really has taken hold, and those distinctions are fading. Conservatism in the US (and Canada!) is as abusive and evil as Apartheid Africa. They mathmatically work out how abusive can be to maximize profits.
If you favor Net Neutrality, in the US Democrats are the only choice. The progressives of the Democratic party are the only organized group of politicians advocating pro Net Neutrality policies. This is a legislative fact.
well I would want to 'move on' too if I had done what these guys did back when they did it...same goes for the guy who made napster Shawn Fanning.
remember when releasing software like this could get you sued for millions?
I used Sonique briefly when it first came out. This was in the ICQ chat service days too IIRC.
I switched back to winamp fairly quickly usually. I didn't stop using winamp until i got a mac & ipod.
Parent has it. China is obviously very important, but fearing the 'rise' of China as some global dragon is insane and stupid.
We have plenty of reasons to 'fear' what's happening in China. China is a beast of pollution and bad "face"...the people of China are as good as any people anywhere, but their government has ruined at least an entire generation with the one child policy & done irrevocable damage to their environment.
It's kind of crass for an American to say "we won" but its true. This is the internet after all, crass is to be expected. It doesn't invalidate the entire point of the post.
We need to foster Democracy in China & stop using predatory capitalism as a long-term tool of diplomacy.
We need to stop this bullshit of looking for the 'next' superpower for us to irrationally fear. We won that whole thing. Now we have new problems that require a new paradigm.
We obviously should still have the best military in the world. TFA is fear mongering and China propaganda. Remember the same people who control China's wealth are in partnership with the people who profit from military spending.
I agree with your tirade, AC...there's no rational reason not to advance as humans and take advantage of the automation we can achieve today.
There IS a reason...it's not rational but it is always in play when it comes to any capital resource or essential service: artificial scarcity.
A human engineered economic shortage in some way, a shortage that would not exist in a natural free-market scenario.
yeah...see this is true, and my question is WHY?
this happens predictably (at least for any rational person who looks at how this part of the computing industry changes over time)
but still people spend good time/money, sometimes lots of a few people's time, to make another and the cycle starts over again
is it possible to interview for a company, or be the head 'coder' during a major decision time for a new client or product, and just say, "No, from a coding perspective this is theoretically possible but it can't be done. This is bad design and we can code something that has this function and meet our quality standards."
can that happen?
that was a link about snowboarding
here's the link about Petreaus/John Allen's corruption: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal