Of course, a decent copy of XP Pro costs as much as two of those Mac OS X upgrades combined, and a copy of Vista Ultimate would pay for pretty much every OS X update that has been released.
Not to mention the fact that in terms of features, the jump from XP to SP3 has been smaller than any of the OS X upgrades.
XCode never stopped working on an upgrade, you just can't necessarily run the new XCode because of the new API's that are part of the new Operating system... sounds kind of normal to me. Stuff that they can backport reasonably they do, something that is core to the new functionality they don't.
There is no way I would have appreciated a master's degree, or even learned as much from it, had I done it right after of college compared to after 2-3 years of work experience.
And you can save up to pay for your tuition that way, too.
Job experience teaches you to be confident in your code, to work with standards and within an office with actual structure to how they code. But you learn very specific technologies. I went into a job writing a 3d Rendering engine after specializing in computer graphics in college - I've learned so much more about actually being a programmer by being in this job, but I learned way more about computer graphics in college. You narrow yourself a lot in what actual textbook type knowledge you gain, but you develop much more as an adult and as a computer science professional by being out of school.
Let's put it this way - you work on a bunch of interesting project in college, but every one of them was completed in less than a semester. You could be working on the same project for years in a job. The scale of everything is tremendously different, and you grow so much by learning that you can handle that scale and work within it.
After you've had that growth - sure go back for your master's if you liked the learning and want to improve yourself, and you'll appreciate it so much more from seeing what the "real world" is like.
I'd bet it'll be sometime around when the US firebombs a couple thousand of its own people. Or forcibly relocates millions of them.
The US government has problems, but it isn't a tyranny in the US yet. It's a imperialist power to a few other parts of the world. It's restricted speech and freedoms in ways it shouldn't here. It puts more people in prison than it should (but only after something that comes closer to approximating due process than any totalitarian state I've studied). But for all its faults, just because we're busy fucking up a third world country (but hey, what major power hasn't?) doesn't mean our government is so oppressive that revolution is a better option.
I know that people are worrying about "NetBook" type machines - but seriously - who would try running Win 7 AND an XP VM in only 1 GB of RAM? It's just not that core a scenario.
You seem to be missing the point of the technology, which is that *everyone* who wants to run Windows 7 will be doing this with the a large number of their apps for several years after Windows 7 comes out.
Ok, one study has, in nature, as referenced by a poster above.
But the real point is that it doesn't matter if Britannica is 99% accurate and Wikipedia is 90%. If people learn not to trust wikipedia as the final source for their information, they can be more likely to catch the errors in the 10% than the 1% in Britanica. Or, at least, to catch enough that wikipedia still provides an extremely valuable service.
And of course people actually read the retraction, and it comes up first whenever someone searches their site for information on somebody, not the original article.
Retractions are there to save the newspaper face, not to correct public knowledge.
Something more reliable, like the newspaper? The same newspapers that are apparently referencing wikipedia without checking it? Why would you trust them to find a more accurate source if wikipedia did not exist.
Studies have shown wikipedia to be, in general, nearly as accurate as more established encyclopedias. But that isn't the point.
The point is that by not hiding behind an establishment of respectability, wikipedia shows that trusting any single source for your information is ludicrous. When Britannica is wrong, no one writes an article about it.
I'd say it is more that some players enjoy the greater complexity, and many of those players are the sorts of people who go into game development.
Some people get a big mental reward from being presented with a difficult thing, mastering it, and then using it. It's like racing with an automatic versus a stick. Automatic drivers would be people like you, who want to enjoy the depth of driving without having to master complex controls to do it (put gas to go, point car at destination - then let the course provide the difficulty). Whereas people who prefer a stick enjoy having the extra control, and honestly even the extra complexity that it requires.
There's a market for both people. The problem is that generally the more one gets into a hobby, the more one becomes the second group. How many racers prefer an automatic, versus how many drivers? Not many. And the people who play games all the time (and are looking for more complexity and control) are the ones making the games.
I wonder why those are not mentioned often in the US. They're the most widely used form of birth control in the world (basically because it's what everyone uses in China) but I had never heard of them until doing some research on my own. My wife's doctor never brought them up, instead trying several different arrangements of pills, all of which turned my reasonable, rational wife into a crazy person.
I'd actually prefer to, but in my recent job hunt, nearly every entity has specified Word files only.
Really I'd expect every programmer's resume to be in the form of a web page, but hey, that's just me.
Resumes are just one example, though. Documents sent to clients, term papers, etc. I've never owned a copy of word, and while I as a tech-savvy individual can work around these problems, most people I know cannot.
And technophiles are more likely to be exposed to manga and anime (which has only recently become widely available offline).
Personally, I had the tech half first. I was drawn to anime mostly because of my interest in science fiction and fantasy, combined with an enjoyment of animation in general. There is a much broader variety of fantasy and sci-fi animation (and aimed at at least teenagers instead of toddlers) coming from Japan than in the US.
Unfortunately, early exposure to actual decent films (Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop, nearly everything by Studio Ghibli) combined with a limited supply of new series, often leads fans to an obsession with a strangely distorted view of Japanese culture, extending all the way to grown men watching horrible children's shows just because they are drawn in an anime style.
The strongest selling point that Word has is that if you send someone a resume in ANYTHING else, *you* will look like an idiot because they won't be able to read it without going off an installing something (and good luck convincing someone to do that). Adding the ability to read ODF in word destroys that. The idea is to make it as difficult for anyone else in the world to use anything else, not to make the users of their product happier.
And yet somehow all of the teachers I know live in constant fear of losing their job.
It is nearly impossible to fire a teaching for being bad at their job. But it is fairly easy to get fired for something in no way related to how good of a teacher you are (office politics, ticking off the wrong parent, bullshit accusations of sexual harassment because you patted a kid on the back, or just plain getting downsized because you don't have enough tenure). My mom is a teacher, and apparently they hear stories about this sort of thing all of the time.
I think the problem is a combination of a) union contracts meaning tenure is more important than quality and b) how the heck do you evaluate an elementary school teacher? Grades don't really work - they do the grading themselves, and most of how well kids do in school has to do with their family background than who their teacher is. Same for standardized test scores, with the added problem that you can teach the test instead of caring whether the kids are actually learning anything besides how to take a test. Parental complaints only go so far - most of the complaints I've heard about involve a child who acts up in class all of the time and doesn't do their work somehow having to repeat the grade. And most principals barely have time to come into class and evaluate a few times a year - that only tells you if someone is grossly incompetent.
The plain fact is that teachers are alone with their children for 7-8 hours a day with no one else having real insight into what goes on in the classroom. Combine that with the fact that there are no agreed upon truths of teaching (or so it seems, considering that every year they send my mom to classes that teach them entirely different ways of teaching than what they did last year) so that most "evaluations" come down to how well the teacher babysits and whether they are following the current school-wide teaching fads properly. It comes down to how good the administrations is at feeling out talent and getting rid of the teachers who aren't at least decent in the first couple years - before they are tenured enough that you can only fire them for harassment. The whole system is just fucked, and I haven't seen any possible solutions aside from the "burn it all to the ground and start over" voucher ideas.
Umm... it's still torture, even if you can argue that it was defensible.
If I walked into a camp in Pakistan and shot Osama Bin Laden in the head, it would still be murder, or at the very least, assassination (aka, fancy political murder). Whether it was justified or not does not change what the action was.
Now, given that everyone tortured under the Bush regime had *not* been committed of a crime, that multiple serious studies have shown that torturing is not a useful way to acquire reliable information, and that there has been no proof submitted to the public that the torturing was in any way useful... I'd argue the justification of it, too.
It really depended on what you were trying to do with Classic. As a way to run just a few old apps that never got upgraded, it worked really well. As a main part of your daily workflow, it was a pain in the ass. For most home systems it did what it was designed to do - get people by until they were able to buy the next version of all their favorite software, which was by that time OS X native.
It's a much better solution than either a) not supporting those applications at all or b) maintaining backwards compatibility with a codebase that is that archaically designed.
I don't mean US marines (at least on non-US vessels). I mean some sort of armed force, mercenary or UN or whomever, paid for by the company that owns the ships.
It'd get expensive to guard all of it - but we spent over 10 million on the mission to rescue that one captain. I'm just curious how the actual math would work out - 20,000 ships a year is about 54 ships a day, which would mean less than 1000 soldiers to put 15 men on every ship going through the gulf. That's a lot of armed men, but not from the standpoint of even any single army, let alone the combined armies of everyone who uses that shipping lane.
I am sort of curious why this sort of a solution is not often suggested.
It has been said that the reason crewmen are not armed is that they are not trained, and that it is illegal to have armed crewmen at many major port cities where these ships are headed.
It has also been said that stationing mercenaries or marines on board all ships all the time is prohibitively expensive, and possibly has the same legal problems.
But the area in which these problems are occurring seems to be relatively small, compared to the entire trip these ships are taking. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to drop off 10-15 marines/mercenaries at a point before they get close enough for pirates to be a threat, and pick them up on the other side. You'd think that it would be getting cheaper than just buying insurance on the cargo pretty soon.
Or, for as bad as the news makes it seem, go back to the old World War II convoy system. If the gulf is too big to have warships patrolling the entire thing, have a convoy leaving twice a day with a bunch of tankers and 1-2 warships covering it.
The fact that these steps have not been taken must mean that the chances of any one ship being taken are still small enough that most companies can afford to take the risk.
They made a better action-adventure story, but a worse work of literature.
I re-read the book right after I saw the movie, and I hadn't realized how many character details they had cut.
They left in visual details, plot details... I honestly thought the plot adjustments were fine. But they skipped on so many of the little character lines that made them people with depth.
I will probably be buying the ultra-extended black freighter dvd anyway, though, just to see what they managed to add back in.
You can appreciate quite a lot of a person's philosophy without thinking that they were wrong about a few things.
For example, I an appreciate Gandhi's stance on peaceful resistance, but I disagree with him on preferring to let his family die than to have doctors use animal byproducts to save them. (FYI They went ahead with the procedure against his wishes).
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, a decent copy of XP Pro costs as much as two of those Mac OS X upgrades combined, and a copy of Vista Ultimate would pay for pretty much every OS X update that has been released.
Not to mention the fact that in terms of features, the jump from XP to SP3 has been smaller than any of the OS X upgrades.
XCode never stopped working on an upgrade, you just can't necessarily run the new XCode because of the new API's that are part of the new Operating system... sounds kind of normal to me. Stuff that they can backport reasonably they do, something that is core to the new functionality they don't.
There is no way I would have appreciated a master's degree, or even learned as much from it, had I done it right after of college compared to after 2-3 years of work experience.
And you can save up to pay for your tuition that way, too.
Job experience teaches you to be confident in your code, to work with standards and within an office with actual structure to how they code. But you learn very specific technologies. I went into a job writing a 3d Rendering engine after specializing in computer graphics in college - I've learned so much more about actually being a programmer by being in this job, but I learned way more about computer graphics in college. You narrow yourself a lot in what actual textbook type knowledge you gain, but you develop much more as an adult and as a computer science professional by being out of school.
Let's put it this way - you work on a bunch of interesting project in college, but every one of them was completed in less than a semester. You could be working on the same project for years in a job. The scale of everything is tremendously different, and you grow so much by learning that you can handle that scale and work within it.
After you've had that growth - sure go back for your master's if you liked the learning and want to improve yourself, and you'll appreciate it so much more from seeing what the "real world" is like.
I'd bet it'll be sometime around when the US firebombs a couple thousand of its own people. Or forcibly relocates millions of them.
The US government has problems, but it isn't a tyranny in the US yet. It's a imperialist power to a few other parts of the world. It's restricted speech and freedoms in ways it shouldn't here. It puts more people in prison than it should (but only after something that comes closer to approximating due process than any totalitarian state I've studied). But for all its faults, just because we're busy fucking up a third world country (but hey, what major power hasn't?) doesn't mean our government is so oppressive that revolution is a better option.
I know that people are worrying about "NetBook" type machines - but seriously - who would try running Win 7 AND an XP VM in only 1 GB of RAM? It's just not that core a scenario.
You seem to be missing the point of the technology, which is that *everyone* who wants to run Windows 7 will be doing this with the a large number of their apps for several years after Windows 7 comes out.
Ok, one study has, in nature, as referenced by a poster above.
But the real point is that it doesn't matter if Britannica is 99% accurate and Wikipedia is 90%. If people learn not to trust wikipedia as the final source for their information, they can be more likely to catch the errors in the 10% than the 1% in Britanica. Or, at least, to catch enough that wikipedia still provides an extremely valuable service.
Authoritative sources have been using that authority to publish misinformation for years. Look at Hearst and the Spanish American War http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/app.htm , or Hearst and marijuana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_.281900s.29 or Fox News and Obama being muslim... the list goes on. The point is that nothing on wikipedia is going to be so trusted (we hope) for the public in general to use it as a primary source for something more important than slashdot arguments.
And of course people actually read the retraction, and it comes up first whenever someone searches their site for information on somebody, not the original article.
Retractions are there to save the newspaper face, not to correct public knowledge.
Something more reliable, like the newspaper? The same newspapers that are apparently referencing wikipedia without checking it? Why would you trust them to find a more accurate source if wikipedia did not exist.
Studies have shown wikipedia to be, in general, nearly as accurate as more established encyclopedias. But that isn't the point.
The point is that by not hiding behind an establishment of respectability, wikipedia shows that trusting any single source for your information is ludicrous. When Britannica is wrong, no one writes an article about it.
I'd say it is more that some players enjoy the greater complexity, and many of those players are the sorts of people who go into game development.
Some people get a big mental reward from being presented with a difficult thing, mastering it, and then using it. It's like racing with an automatic versus a stick. Automatic drivers would be people like you, who want to enjoy the depth of driving without having to master complex controls to do it (put gas to go, point car at destination - then let the course provide the difficulty). Whereas people who prefer a stick enjoy having the extra control, and honestly even the extra complexity that it requires.
There's a market for both people. The problem is that generally the more one gets into a hobby, the more one becomes the second group. How many racers prefer an automatic, versus how many drivers? Not many. And the people who play games all the time (and are looking for more complexity and control) are the ones making the games.
I wonder why those are not mentioned often in the US. They're the most widely used form of birth control in the world (basically because it's what everyone uses in China) but I had never heard of them until doing some research on my own. My wife's doctor never brought them up, instead trying several different arrangements of pills, all of which turned my reasonable, rational wife into a crazy person.
I'd actually prefer to, but in my recent job hunt, nearly every entity has specified Word files only.
Really I'd expect every programmer's resume to be in the form of a web page, but hey, that's just me.
Resumes are just one example, though. Documents sent to clients, term papers, etc. I've never owned a copy of word, and while I as a tech-savvy individual can work around these problems, most people I know cannot.
And technophiles are more likely to be exposed to manga and anime (which has only recently become widely available offline).
Personally, I had the tech half first. I was drawn to anime mostly because of my interest in science fiction and fantasy, combined with an enjoyment of animation in general. There is a much broader variety of fantasy and sci-fi animation (and aimed at at least teenagers instead of toddlers) coming from Japan than in the US.
Unfortunately, early exposure to actual decent films (Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop, nearly everything by Studio Ghibli) combined with a limited supply of new series, often leads fans to an obsession with a strangely distorted view of Japanese culture, extending all the way to grown men watching horrible children's shows just because they are drawn in an anime style.
No, it wouldn't.
The strongest selling point that Word has is that if you send someone a resume in ANYTHING else, *you* will look like an idiot because they won't be able to read it without going off an installing something (and good luck convincing someone to do that). Adding the ability to read ODF in word destroys that. The idea is to make it as difficult for anyone else in the world to use anything else, not to make the users of their product happier.
And yet somehow all of the teachers I know live in constant fear of losing their job.
It is nearly impossible to fire a teaching for being bad at their job. But it is fairly easy to get fired for something in no way related to how good of a teacher you are (office politics, ticking off the wrong parent, bullshit accusations of sexual harassment because you patted a kid on the back, or just plain getting downsized because you don't have enough tenure). My mom is a teacher, and apparently they hear stories about this sort of thing all of the time.
I think the problem is a combination of a) union contracts meaning tenure is more important than quality and b) how the heck do you evaluate an elementary school teacher? Grades don't really work - they do the grading themselves, and most of how well kids do in school has to do with their family background than who their teacher is. Same for standardized test scores, with the added problem that you can teach the test instead of caring whether the kids are actually learning anything besides how to take a test. Parental complaints only go so far - most of the complaints I've heard about involve a child who acts up in class all of the time and doesn't do their work somehow having to repeat the grade. And most principals barely have time to come into class and evaluate a few times a year - that only tells you if someone is grossly incompetent.
The plain fact is that teachers are alone with their children for 7-8 hours a day with no one else having real insight into what goes on in the classroom. Combine that with the fact that there are no agreed upon truths of teaching (or so it seems, considering that every year they send my mom to classes that teach them entirely different ways of teaching than what they did last year) so that most "evaluations" come down to how well the teacher babysits and whether they are following the current school-wide teaching fads properly. It comes down to how good the administrations is at feeling out talent and getting rid of the teachers who aren't at least decent in the first couple years - before they are tenured enough that you can only fire them for harassment. The whole system is just fucked, and I haven't seen any possible solutions aside from the "burn it all to the ground and start over" voucher ideas.
Umm... it's still torture, even if you can argue that it was defensible.
If I walked into a camp in Pakistan and shot Osama Bin Laden in the head, it would still be murder, or at the very least, assassination (aka, fancy political murder). Whether it was justified or not does not change what the action was.
Now, given that everyone tortured under the Bush regime had *not* been committed of a crime, that multiple serious studies have shown that torturing is not a useful way to acquire reliable information, and that there has been no proof submitted to the public that the torturing was in any way useful... I'd argue the justification of it, too.
Follow up question - how well can you live in Shanghai on that money?
It really depended on what you were trying to do with Classic. As a way to run just a few old apps that never got upgraded, it worked really well. As a main part of your daily workflow, it was a pain in the ass. For most home systems it did what it was designed to do - get people by until they were able to buy the next version of all their favorite software, which was by that time OS X native.
It's a much better solution than either a) not supporting those applications at all or b) maintaining backwards compatibility with a codebase that is that archaically designed.
I don't mean US marines (at least on non-US vessels). I mean some sort of armed force, mercenary or UN or whomever, paid for by the company that owns the ships.
Also, I'm not saying *we* should pay for it all. Just trying to make a rough ballpark estimate of how much total manpower it would take to do it.
It'd get expensive to guard all of it - but we spent over 10 million on the mission to rescue that one captain. I'm just curious how the actual math would work out - 20,000 ships a year is about 54 ships a day, which would mean less than 1000 soldiers to put 15 men on every ship going through the gulf. That's a lot of armed men, but not from the standpoint of even any single army, let alone the combined armies of everyone who uses that shipping lane.
I agree, but I'd imagine that the guys on the ships don't get to make those laws.
Sometimes you have to work within the rules.
It'd be at least as effective of a stimulus as what we're actually getting! ;-)
At this point the best thing we do is stop making things worse.
http://reason.com/news/show/132942.html
We didn't create their situation, but we've definitely exacerbated it.
I am sort of curious why this sort of a solution is not often suggested.
It has been said that the reason crewmen are not armed is that they are not trained, and that it is illegal to have armed crewmen at many major port cities where these ships are headed.
It has also been said that stationing mercenaries or marines on board all ships all the time is prohibitively expensive, and possibly has the same legal problems.
But the area in which these problems are occurring seems to be relatively small, compared to the entire trip these ships are taking. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to drop off 10-15 marines/mercenaries at a point before they get close enough for pirates to be a threat, and pick them up on the other side. You'd think that it would be getting cheaper than just buying insurance on the cargo pretty soon.
Or, for as bad as the news makes it seem, go back to the old World War II convoy system. If the gulf is too big to have warships patrolling the entire thing, have a convoy leaving twice a day with a bunch of tankers and 1-2 warships covering it.
The fact that these steps have not been taken must mean that the chances of any one ship being taken are still small enough that most companies can afford to take the risk.
They made a better action-adventure story, but a worse work of literature.
I re-read the book right after I saw the movie, and I hadn't realized how many character details they had cut.
They left in visual details, plot details... I honestly thought the plot adjustments were fine. But they skipped on so many of the little character lines that made them people with depth.
I will probably be buying the ultra-extended black freighter dvd anyway, though, just to see what they managed to add back in.
You can appreciate quite a lot of a person's philosophy without thinking that they were wrong about a few things.
For example, I an appreciate Gandhi's stance on peaceful resistance, but I disagree with him on preferring to let his family die than to have doctors use animal byproducts to save them. (FYI They went ahead with the procedure against his wishes).