Effectively. Unfortunately, whatever site that reported on this decided to sensationalize the incident and only focus on the "colorful" tidbits of the whole conversation.
because they're big enough brands to have a show of their own. Why spend the money on an event where you have to fight for attention when you've established your brand enough that the media clamors to be invited to your event?
Actually, as a pilot I experience this sometimes--especially when flying when visibility is not so great. The feel on the seat of my pants is not agreeing with what I'm seeing outside and in my instruments. When I was in flight school my instructor always told me to prioritize what I'm seeing, not what I'm feeling in the seat of my pants. I wonder if the same technique can be used to prevent simulator sickness?
I think that's they key there. You know what's expected of adults, and you decided you're going to be one. I would venture to guess that your parents raised you up to become the responsible adult that you are--that you only stayed for a week after you got your post-college job.
In situations like this, I say that the parents are just as responsible as the adult child. Like others have said, give the kid a month to get his act together or he's out of the house. There comes a point when the parents needs to disconnect themselves from their children.
Just stay away from the branded Lego's
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 1
Just stick to Lego City or the other generic lego ones. Better yet, skip the boxes all together, pick up those cups that they have and start picking off the back wall. I personally think that gives you more bang for your buck.
Years ago I met a CFO who had just finished grilling his tech guy for over an hour getting the tech guy to come up with a worst case scenario for the project they were about to begin. In that hour the tech guy nearly tripled his time and cost estimates. After he left the CFO doubled the time and cost estimate for the budget. In the end the CFO was nearly bang on.
I would say this is a good CFO. The CFO understood that he had a choice: get it done quickly, or get it done right the first time; and he chose the latter.
When I took statistics in college my didn't put so much emphasis on whether we knew the formulas our not, he cared more whether we were able to argue our interpretation of the numbers. He told us that computers and calculators will do a better job of crunching the numbers for us, but it will never be able to do what a human does best: interpret that data based on facts, morals and experience. Most important is the moral judgement. I believe that the market failed because of the lack of moral fortitude of enough people in the market sector.
As Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address, that the US government is "[a] government of the people, by the people, for the people". In order for Mr. Lincoln's vision to truly happen, we Americans, need to use the grey matter sitting on the top of our heads. I agree that it's a shame when people who would be expected to use their intellect--such as slashdot readers--are simply echoing conspiracy theories that cannot be categorically proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would say that we the people have a right to question the motivation of the White House in proposing NSTIC; and I would expect it to come from my fellow slashdotters. However, questioning alone doesn't solve the problem; we should also provide solutions. That, I feel, is what makes a healthy debate. Questioning alone makes you sound like a toddler asking "why" questions because they are learning about the world around them.
My challenge to everyone who would question the motivation of all the players for and against the NSTIC is this: formulate specific questions based on the documents available about the proposed "national online security system". If your question is based on what's not in the document then say so. The government is capable of doing really well, and miserably failing, and it's up to us "the people" to keep them accountable for the activity of the government.
I agree this does sound like an ad for Bjarnne's book and C++. However, he does make a good point about the importance of "know how...to read & write English."
I think a first programming course that focuses more on write design documents (I know that's not a popular thing), instead of diving into a programming language; because in my personal experience the people who write awful code are just as bad at expressing themselves (forget language barrier), and those who write good code are also very good at expressing themselves (I know of one person who on a couple of occasion had to ask another person to translate what he's trying to say).
Just wish people quit pushing the ones that can't hack in CS to QA. I work for a software company as a developer, but so wish the QA people aren't just CS rejects. They need to be good at what they do and good QA people are hard to find.
I agree with RazorBlade99. Good QA is a special breed of people. Timothy, here's an example of what a good QA person is, IMO: Tell them the basic requirements (could include how you plan to implement it) of the project that needs to be worked on, and they come back to you with a list potential pitfalls. Show them your solution to the pitfalls they list and they find more. Basically they can go over things again and again--without repeating the same thing twice--until everyone is satisfied. If you are the type who can dig out pitfalls, then I'd say you'll have a thriving career in QA.
Slashdot Mirror
Effectively. Unfortunately, whatever site that reported on this decided to sensationalize the incident and only focus on the "colorful" tidbits of the whole conversation.
because they're big enough brands to have a show of their own. Why spend the money on an event where you have to fight for attention when you've established your brand enough that the media clamors to be invited to your event?
Actually, as a pilot I experience this sometimes--especially when flying when visibility is not so great. The feel on the seat of my pants is not agreeing with what I'm seeing outside and in my instruments. When I was in flight school my instructor always told me to prioritize what I'm seeing, not what I'm feeling in the seat of my pants. I wonder if the same technique can be used to prevent simulator sickness?
I think that's they key there. You know what's expected of adults, and you decided you're going to be one. I would venture to guess that your parents raised you up to become the responsible adult that you are--that you only stayed for a week after you got your post-college job. In situations like this, I say that the parents are just as responsible as the adult child. Like others have said, give the kid a month to get his act together or he's out of the house. There comes a point when the parents needs to disconnect themselves from their children.
Just stick to Lego City or the other generic lego ones. Better yet, skip the boxes all together, pick up those cups that they have and start picking off the back wall. I personally think that gives you more bang for your buck.
Years ago I met a CFO who had just finished grilling his tech guy for over an hour getting the tech guy to come up with a worst case scenario for the project they were about to begin. In that hour the tech guy nearly tripled his time and cost estimates. After he left the CFO doubled the time and cost estimate for the budget. In the end the CFO was nearly bang on.
I would say this is a good CFO. The CFO understood that he had a choice: get it done quickly, or get it done right the first time; and he chose the latter.
I think someone's going to get their hands slapped really good next week.
It's called the warm fuzzy. I think the problem really boils down to who do the people making the final decisions really listen to.
When I took statistics in college my didn't put so much emphasis on whether we knew the formulas our not, he cared more whether we were able to argue our interpretation of the numbers. He told us that computers and calculators will do a better job of crunching the numbers for us, but it will never be able to do what a human does best: interpret that data based on facts, morals and experience. Most important is the moral judgement. I believe that the market failed because of the lack of moral fortitude of enough people in the market sector.
As Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address, that the US government is "[a] government of the people, by the people, for the people". In order for Mr. Lincoln's vision to truly happen, we Americans, need to use the grey matter sitting on the top of our heads. I agree that it's a shame when people who would be expected to use their intellect--such as slashdot readers--are simply echoing conspiracy theories that cannot be categorically proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would say that we the people have a right to question the motivation of the White House in proposing NSTIC; and I would expect it to come from my fellow slashdotters. However, questioning alone doesn't solve the problem; we should also provide solutions. That, I feel, is what makes a healthy debate. Questioning alone makes you sound like a toddler asking "why" questions because they are learning about the world around them. My challenge to everyone who would question the motivation of all the players for and against the NSTIC is this: formulate specific questions based on the documents available about the proposed "national online security system". If your question is based on what's not in the document then say so. The government is capable of doing really well, and miserably failing, and it's up to us "the people" to keep them accountable for the activity of the government.
I agree this does sound like an ad for Bjarnne's book and C++. However, he does make a good point about the importance of "know how...to read & write English." I think a first programming course that focuses more on write design documents (I know that's not a popular thing), instead of diving into a programming language; because in my personal experience the people who write awful code are just as bad at expressing themselves (forget language barrier), and those who write good code are also very good at expressing themselves (I know of one person who on a couple of occasion had to ask another person to translate what he's trying to say).
Just wish people quit pushing the ones that can't hack in CS to QA. I work for a software company as a developer, but so wish the QA people aren't just CS rejects. They need to be good at what they do and good QA people are hard to find.
I agree with RazorBlade99. Good QA is a special breed of people. Timothy, here's an example of what a good QA person is, IMO: Tell them the basic requirements (could include how you plan to implement it) of the project that needs to be worked on, and they come back to you with a list potential pitfalls. Show them your solution to the pitfalls they list and they find more. Basically they can go over things again and again--without repeating the same thing twice--until everyone is satisfied. If you are the type who can dig out pitfalls, then I'd say you'll have a thriving career in QA.
You pathetic fool! What the hell does Squaresoft getting Dell to ship their Final Fantasy game have to do with looking for parties/raves?