One could argue that the source code is the final say in how software operates. Documentation can be out of date, and the professors at your overpriced ivy league campus are probably more so.
When I can't solve something, I usually go right to the site of the software in question and check the forum and mailing list archives, or, rarely, join the irc channel. If the community isn't already complaining about the problem, I look over the docs to see if they're more helpful than the ones on the local system, and if not, I pull the source and use grep and friends to find what I'm looking for. It's really not that hard, and it's not something I have to do very often. It's also a lot more pleasant than wading through a closed vendor's bureaucracy to get at someone who knows something. Sitting in a classroom watching some fool write unix command lines up on a whiteboard, and getting points off on lab assignments because they weren't submitted as word documents, isn't a productive use of time either. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
..and what do you do with the computer again? besides facebook? You're right in a way, though, as people with simple enough needs don't need to touch it..no matter what system they use. What I don't understand is why a simpleton like yourself is even posting here.
If creepos with tennis-shoe mirrors and pole-mounted cameras want to ruin it for the rest of us... well, then, they should be shot or put in jail. To wit; if my girl decides to stop occasionally going panty-less (exciting to both of us) because of a few pervs, then this idiotic up-skirt photography behavior should be stopped.
The world doesn't revolve around your sex life, nor should it. Tell her to put some fucking clothes on when she goes out and she'll be fine.
Why should the rest of society run around preventing unintended consequences of women's (or anyone's, really) dumb personal choices? If she chooses not to plan ahead and ends up wearing short skirts without underwear while riding a train, whose fault is that?
No, not necessarily. While too much competition can prevent individuals from getting much done as a group, too much cooperation oppresses individual initiative when it denies the opportunity for the individual to advance socially in the group (and materially) for his efforts. It also encourages laziness and apathy among the less capable individuals which creates more resentment from the more capable. This dynamic is the foundation of bureaucracy.
The problem is that associating fun of other activities with activities that are grueling makes the fun activities not fun anymore. Just pay people what they're worth and they'll be motivated enough to come back the next day for more gruel. Gaming it up will just make the most productive of your workers roll their eyes and curse you even more.
It wont' happen if you use a couple of switches and some relays for the wipers instead, and mechanics for the wheel/accel/brake etc....a lot cheaper too.
No thanks. I don't want to deal with my car getting hacked/stolen/monitored/remote controlled, which is infinitely more likely than this overwrought system.. I don't mind it for medical care, but not for my car. Cars should be stupid simple.
You're spiting your own face just to stick it to them. Societies can't function when large percentages of the population are running around with nothing to lose. Of course rehabilitation didn't work. The current system denies the possibility.
They may never be 'model' citizens (whatever that is), but if the system denies them reasonable opportunities to go straight once their term is up, then it is complicit in their return to crime.
Hey, if these companies don't want to hire americans, they obviously don't give a shit about the american economy anyway. They're more than welcome to sell in china where people make pennies on the dollar.
If the future of chat is on mobile devices I guess I won't be doing much chatting. The lack of reasonable IO (keyboard), privacy (all sms is logged), and per-msg charges from providers makes it about the least desirable option.
Yeah, but the moment society closes the doors out of vindictiveness, it's pulled out all the control rods. Unfortunately, the road from being considered law abiding citizen to 'unemployable criminal' grows shorter every day. Once that point is reached, there's no longer any reason to care about anyone else's rules or artificial limitations. There's nothing more to lose.
Exactly. What better way for established governments to justify tyranny than to use implied threats of an enemy we're supposed to 'tolerate' under the guise of 'diversity'?
My point was that affirmative action moves us further away from that goal. All it does is bestow privilege based on the traits that aren't supposed to matter.
Hey, that IS the current party line on the subject. Go read up on current feminist literature and punditry if you like. I knew it'd come up in discussion so I stated my position on it. What the article said is irrelevant as it's still clamoring for more sexist affirmative action as the solution to "the dearth of programmers" in the market. If the author's real goal was to push for a solution to this problem, real or not (instead of piggy backing on it to give his propaganda faux merit), he would've said something along the lines of "we should encourage more people to enter the field." Instead we get:
As I mentioned above, this article is a perfect example of what not to do. If sex doesn't matter, stop re-framing the narrative to make it about one or the other, or one vs the other. How many there are or were, then or now, and the constant reaffirmation that women's problems are men's too (men are codeworded as 'everyone' by these people) makes it pretty clear this was meant as a shaming/propaganda piece and not a rational analysis of anything.
It then goes on to make arguments from authority, and then quotes someone's quality logic:
"..she likes to point to research that shows companies with women in leadership positions offer investors and shareholders better returns than those without."
"There's not a lot of cross-pollination of ideas. Whether you're a woman, a man, short, tall, black, white, Asian, whatever, everybody has a different perspective and the more you mix it up, it's just better."
Just better, eh? Wow, that explains a lot, thanks! What's quoted as an example? Voice recognition, which has nothing to do with leadership skills, actual capability in computer science, or anything else. If that's the summation of the whole problem, we don't need more women in computer science, we need more women in product testing labs...or maybe there's actually some physics (acoustics modeling, differences in male/female voices) involved, but since that would be politically incorrect, any investigative work done by the manufacturers will be shelved to avoid frivolous lawsuits from the legal brigades of the perpetually offended.
Allowing different perspectives into the discussion is one thing, but having to tolerate them just because they came from a specific sex, race, or culture, is quite another, especially in science. Whatever happened to being correct? Hire those people. They're the ones who'll make companies money, male or female, white, not white, gay, straight, whatever. Toss the ones looking for drama out on their asses.
Enough of this narrative already. Women are given every opportunity and are practically begged by universities (via discriminating scholarships under the guise of 'diversity' programs) to major in comp-sci and other engineering/science majors. They've been doing this for decades, now, and they're still looking at it as though it's 1970. The problem is they're measuring success by the standard of equal outcome on the false premise that men and women are physically and psychologically the same. They're not, so they won't always make the same life choices given similar backgrounds and opportunities. Despite what the PC crowd will say, there's nothing wrong with this at all. This is the very essence of diversity. In a diverse systems, equal outcome is not a given.
How about we focus on equal opportunity based upon relevant attributes (ie demonstrated interest and aptitude), rather than building systemic bias into society under the guise of eliminating it? After that, let individuals make their own life choices. The only thing this bias does is teach women how to play better victims, which denies them opportunities to earn real respect among their peers. Getting society to discriminate against men will not empower them, either. It just creates more irrelevant discrimination and bilateral bigotry.
It's perfectly ok for someone to claim that, just as much as it's ok for someone to claim the opposite. It should also be ok for buyer or seller to discriminate for/against each other however they choose. How many liberals discriminate against walmart because they sell firearms? How many conservatives discriminate against Apple for their pro-gay stance?
Slashdot Mirror
One could argue that the source code is the final say in how software operates. Documentation can be out of date, and the professors at your overpriced ivy league campus are probably more so.
When I can't solve something, I usually go right to the site of the software in question and check the forum and mailing list archives, or, rarely, join the irc channel. If the community isn't already complaining about the problem, I look over the docs to see if they're more helpful than the ones on the local system, and if not, I pull the source and use grep and friends to find what I'm looking for. It's really not that hard, and it's not something I have to do very often. It's also a lot more pleasant than wading through a closed vendor's bureaucracy to get at someone who knows something. Sitting in a classroom watching some fool write unix command lines up on a whiteboard, and getting points off on lab assignments because they weren't submitted as word documents, isn't a productive use of time either. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
..and what do you do with the computer again? besides facebook? You're right in a way, though, as people with simple enough needs don't need to touch it..no matter what system they use. What I don't understand is why a simpleton like yourself is even posting here.
Simple. Wear underwear while wearing a skirt and the photo won't show anything interesting.
If creepos with tennis-shoe mirrors and pole-mounted cameras want to ruin it for the rest of us... well, then, they should be shot or put in jail. To wit; if my girl decides to stop occasionally going panty-less (exciting to both of us) because of a few pervs, then this idiotic up-skirt photography behavior should be stopped.
The world doesn't revolve around your sex life, nor should it. Tell her to put some fucking clothes on when she goes out and she'll be fine.
Why should the rest of society run around preventing unintended consequences of women's (or anyone's, really) dumb personal choices? If she chooses not to plan ahead and ends up wearing short skirts without underwear while riding a train, whose fault is that?
it does congest the band though.. if everyone in the area has comcast (likely for a given area), now we have 2x as many accesspoints to contend with.
Keurig also tastes like shit and is overpriced.
No, not necessarily. While too much competition can prevent individuals from getting much done as a group, too much cooperation oppresses individual initiative when it denies the opportunity for the individual to advance socially in the group (and materially) for his efforts. It also encourages laziness and apathy among the less capable individuals which creates more resentment from the more capable. This dynamic is the foundation of bureaucracy.
The problem is that associating fun of other activities with activities that are grueling makes the fun activities not fun anymore. Just pay people what they're worth and they'll be motivated enough to come back the next day for more gruel. Gaming it up will just make the most productive of your workers roll their eyes and curse you even more.
It wont' happen if you use a couple of switches and some relays for the wipers instead, and mechanics for the wheel/accel/brake etc....a lot cheaper too.
No thanks. I don't want to deal with my car getting hacked/stolen/monitored/remote controlled, which is infinitely more likely than this overwrought system.. I don't mind it for medical care, but not for my car. Cars should be stupid simple.
Connectivity used when shit has to just work all the time, regardless how many hipsters are in the area.
That joke has been on topic and relevant for almost 20 years now at least..and becoming more relevant in so-called 'free' countries every day.
You're spiting your own face just to stick it to them. Societies can't function when large percentages of the population are running around with nothing to lose. Of course rehabilitation didn't work. The current system denies the possibility.
They may never be 'model' citizens (whatever that is), but if the system denies them reasonable opportunities to go straight once their term is up, then it is complicit in their return to crime.
Hey, if these companies don't want to hire americans, they obviously don't give a shit about the american economy anyway. They're more than welcome to sell in china where people make pennies on the dollar.
If the future of chat is on mobile devices I guess I won't be doing much chatting. The lack of reasonable IO (keyboard), privacy (all sms is logged), and per-msg charges from providers makes it about the least desirable option.
Good. I hope it dies. Things like facebook seem to bring out junior high school level behavior from supposed adults.
If these companies aren't willing to hire local talent and pay living wages, then maybe we should start placing embargoes on their goods and services.
Ok fine, you don't want to hire local talent? You can't sell your products/services locally! Move your headquarters to one of those hellpit countries.
I think this would be a reasonable way to balance workforce/workload.
Yeah, but the moment society closes the doors out of vindictiveness, it's pulled out all the control rods. Unfortunately, the road from being considered law abiding citizen to 'unemployable criminal' grows shorter every day. Once that point is reached, there's no longer any reason to care about anyone else's rules or artificial limitations. There's nothing more to lose.
Wouldn't just about everyone who comes here know what netflow is? Why openbsd? netflow is available everywhere now.
Exactly. What better way for established governments to justify tyranny than to use implied threats of an enemy we're supposed to 'tolerate' under the guise of 'diversity'?
My point was that affirmative action moves us further away from that goal. All it does is bestow privilege based on the traits that aren't supposed to matter.
.
Hey, that IS the current party line on the subject. Go read up on current feminist literature and punditry if you like. I knew it'd come up in discussion so I stated my position on it. What the article said is irrelevant as it's still clamoring for more sexist affirmative action as the solution to "the dearth of programmers" in the market. If the author's real goal was to push for a solution to this problem, real or not (instead of piggy backing on it to give his propaganda faux merit), he would've said something along the lines of "we should encourage more people to enter the field." Instead we get:
As I mentioned above, this article is a perfect example of what not to do. If sex doesn't matter, stop re-framing the narrative to make it about one or the other, or one vs the other. How many there are or were, then or now, and the constant reaffirmation that women's problems are men's too (men are codeworded as 'everyone' by these people) makes it pretty clear this was meant as a shaming/propaganda piece and not a rational analysis of anything.
It then goes on to make arguments from authority, and then quotes someone's quality logic:
"..she likes to point to research that shows companies with women in leadership positions offer investors and shareholders better returns than those without."
"There's not a lot of cross-pollination of ideas. Whether you're a woman, a man, short, tall, black, white, Asian, whatever, everybody has a different perspective and the more you mix it up, it's just better."
Just better, eh? Wow, that explains a lot, thanks! What's quoted as an example? Voice recognition, which has nothing to do with leadership skills, actual capability in computer science, or anything else. If that's the summation of the whole problem, we don't need more women in computer science, we need more women in product testing labs...or maybe there's actually some physics (acoustics modeling, differences in male/female voices) involved, but since that would be politically incorrect, any investigative work done by the manufacturers will be shelved to avoid frivolous lawsuits from the legal brigades of the perpetually offended.
Allowing different perspectives into the discussion is one thing, but having to tolerate them just because they came from a specific sex, race, or culture, is quite another, especially in science. Whatever happened to being correct? Hire those people. They're the ones who'll make companies money, male or female, white, not white, gay, straight, whatever. Toss the ones looking for drama out on their asses.
Enough of this narrative already. Women are given every opportunity and are practically begged by universities (via discriminating scholarships under the guise of 'diversity' programs) to major in comp-sci and other engineering/science majors. They've been doing this for decades, now, and they're still looking at it as though it's 1970. The problem is they're measuring success by the standard of equal outcome on the false premise that men and women are physically and psychologically the same. They're not, so they won't always make the same life choices given similar backgrounds and opportunities. Despite what the PC crowd will say, there's nothing wrong with this at all. This is the very essence of diversity. In a diverse systems, equal outcome is not a given.
How about we focus on equal opportunity based upon relevant attributes (ie demonstrated interest and aptitude), rather than building systemic bias into society under the guise of eliminating it? After that, let individuals make their own life choices. The only thing this bias does is teach women how to play better victims, which denies them opportunities to earn real respect among their peers. Getting society to discriminate against men will not empower them, either. It just creates more irrelevant discrimination and bilateral bigotry.
It's perfectly ok for someone to claim that, just as much as it's ok for someone to claim the opposite. It should also be ok for buyer or seller to discriminate for/against each other however they choose. How many liberals discriminate against walmart because they sell firearms? How many conservatives discriminate against Apple for their pro-gay stance?