I have a family, but it doesn't involve anyone too young to have their own TV (or to drive, for that matter). I already didn't like the whole "waving around like an electrocuted octopod" thing with the Wii, I can't imagine I'd like it any better on the Wii U. Combined with the fact that N's spent the last 5 years crapping all over the same beloved 1st party titles I'd be most interested in, there's really nothing there for me. If they ever decide to target gamers again, maybe I'll give them another look.
I ask sincerely. It kind of fell off the news feeds shortly after launch, so I sort of assumed it went the same way as the Asian-made android console knockoffs, but I've never gotten to ask someone about their firsthand experience.
Agreed. I've owned every Nintendo console from the original "toaster oven" NES through the Wii, but I'm just tired of the gimmicks. The Wii had much the same problem, and it hurt a lot of games I would have otherwise loved to play (SSBB, Zelda:SS), and the Wii-U is just moer of the same, turned up to 11, and apparently with a battery sucking bastard child of a Game Gear and a Nook. Pretty much done with Nintendo's consoles now (and the other two made sure to take themselves out of the running with the bullshit they pulled last generation, so they weren't even options).
Pretty much. The damage is going to be done either way, and at this point, it's like trying to figure out whether Christianity, Islam, or Wicca "has it right." It's more ideology than anything else now, and a waste of time. At least, if it's actually the danger the one side says it is, there's the slim hope that after "the great burn" or whatever they end up calling it, the remaining humans will be smart enough to kick out politics and religion. Kind of like that Science Fiction/Fantasy/Anime cliche where the agrarian societies turn out to have been technological marvels in the past, but turned away from it after some tech-fueled cataclysm.
The claim that somehow all of the CS grads got wealthy 30 years ago during the "early days",
That was not my claim. I said what we, as students, were told by people that we were dumb enough to believe (parents, guidance counselors, teachers, etc...). The dotCom boom is long over, and I specifically mentioned the "buzz-word-of-today" boom - which has practically nothing to do with CS knowledge and everything to do with marketable ideas.
Another oddity of your just-so story is that it suggests that women are proportionally much more attuned than men to selecting high-income jobs
Not quite sure where you got that idea.
I see no reason to accept that conclusion other than laziness in evaluating the problem.
I'm with many of the others, in that I'm not convinced that it is a problem.
There's extrapolation, then there's bad extrapolation. Can't tell whether they're doing the latter or not, since everyone likes holding the "inconvenient" (yes, intentional) bits back.
Puh-lease, like the US would ever join an "Axis of Evil."
We have way too many marketroids for that. We'd refuse to sign the charter unless they agreed to change the name to something suitably badass, like "The Bad Wolfpack."
A counterpoint: In the mid-80s, computers were "the next great thing." It may not have been as "sexy" as being a doctor or a lawyer, but the way people talked about it, especially to students, it was all about the cha-ching. Barely anything was standardized beyond ASCII and the newly revenged IBM BIOS, and every big company would need their own hackers to bang away on their AS/400s and write purpose-built COBOL code, and pay handsomely those who could do it.
30 years later, computers are ubiquitous. We're still professionals, but CS doesn't make you rich like they told us it would. If you want the big money, you either need to come up with a great idea and get bought out by one of the big players (which tends toward marketing rather than CS), or have a good grasp of the right domain-specific deep wizardry (HST, Medical, etc...).
So it's entirely plausible that 35% of women weren't interested in CS to begin with, they were interested in the money.
Thank you. You've actually given me an answer to at least one of my questions, and I do genuinely appreciate it.
As for the third, I was referring, for example, to one that was mentioned on slashdot some months back (IIRC, time seems to just blend together these days) about a model that closely fit the curves despite minimizing the human element. That one brought the crusaders out en masse.
And, to be perfectly honest, the second half of your post did exactly what I'm talking about: you broke it down into political parties, which is pretty much irrelevant to what I was saying.
You can say by "not caring" I'm "siding" with someone or someone else, but I disagree. The simple fact is that, short of figuring it out from scratch, there's nothing resembling reliable information for me to base an intelligent decision on.
And even if I could find the unadulterated data somewhere, if I *was* to take several years out of my life to do it, as you did, at the end of the day, it won't matter. Since I'd only be much applying the same logic and math (also being CS trained myself) that you did, neither group of nitwits is going to listen to me anyway, and I'd still be subjected to the same stupidity, since the "sides" are in power, regardless of any of the facts.
So what I was getting at about "not caring" is basically a sense of resignation that no, I'll never know what the hell is actually going on, these dipshits will keep using it as a political battering ram until Florida is a taiga, and I'll be long dead before any of it actually matters.
Someone already pointed out that your first three points are merely an expression of your own ignorance of the research that's already been done. I'll just point out the flaw in your own logic in that sentence: you freely admit that you are incapable of understanding the raw data. At the same time, you disagree with the conclusions of pretty much all the experts out there who do have the training to understand the data, because you're resorting to a thinly veiled of ad-hominem of "they're all bought anyway".
Yes, the "somebody" who pointed out my ignorance was, in fact, me. I admitted to it, and expressed that I was frustrated at the lack of straight answers I got from it. That was the entire point to my stating why I couldn't analyze the raw data myself, and that the people who are DOING the analysis have, ON BOTH SIDES, so obvious an agenda that no, I don't consider them trustworthy, because this has been reduced to a religious issue. I never said I disagreed with anyone's conclusions, I said that they were obviously biased and untrustworthy, on both sides.
Doing that, and then bitching about "reducing people's understanding of science" is disingenuous, at best.
Since you seemed to completely miss the entire point of everything I posted, I'll just put this down as "QED".
responsible for a documented decrease in Americans' scientific understanding
Oh, FFS. The core of "scientific understanding" is critical thinking and questioning presented "facts", the possession of which naturally results in skepticism when doing so invokes this sort of garbage. "Clearly anyone who doesn't blindly accept what we're saying, without question, doesn't understand science" isn't "science", it's dogma.
I've still never had anyone offer me any reasonable answers to many of my legitimate questions on these "studies." e.g.:
1. Some studies claim to be based on as much as 1000 years of temperature data. Exactly how widespread, accurate and rigorous was temperature recording during the Dark Ages?
2. How, exactly, is 100, 200, or even 1000 years a suitable sample period in geological terms? It seems remarkably short-term.
3. Why is any study that doesn't rival "Young Earth Creationism" in Anthrocentrism derided and disregarded as "bad science"?
4. Is there anything to any of these studies that's *not* spawned of wanton use of extrapolation?
Okay, admittedly #4 is more an expression of frustration. I'm not a geologist or meteorologist, so pointing me at the raw data doesn't tell me anything, but having it "translated" for my by "experts" has proven all but useless, since this "debate" still doesn't seem to have much to do with science as opposed to politicization of funding.
Ideology and science are incompatible, whether it's about teaching schoolkids about evolution, or the world catching on fire. As it is now, I still don't know if global warming is a thing, if it's a human-caused thing, or if it's bullshit. All that's come out of this whole thing is that I pretty much don't care, since the way it's being handled is more like two schoolkids arguing over whether Batman can beat up Superman.
Obama has faults, but being a slave to money doesn't seem to be one of them.
You're joking, right? I mean, I know we're 6 years in and it doesn't come up anymore, what with the idiocy that is ObomneyCare (a giftwrapped blowjob to the InsCos) and doing his damndest to keep us moving down that path to "1984 Meets Shadowrun," but it was less than a month before he threw himself right into the same pit as all of his predecessors, in the face of his own "promise" to "stop the revolving door."
Slashdot Mirror
We have representatives
Coulda fooled me...
I have a family, but it doesn't involve anyone too young to have their own TV (or to drive, for that matter). I already didn't like the whole "waving around like an electrocuted octopod" thing with the Wii, I can't imagine I'd like it any better on the Wii U. Combined with the fact that N's spent the last 5 years crapping all over the same beloved 1st party titles I'd be most interested in, there's really nothing there for me. If they ever decide to target gamers again, maybe I'll give them another look.
Wow, the social justice brigade is really stretching it lately, ain't they?
Same as I did with the Ouya
How did that work out for you?
I ask sincerely. It kind of fell off the news feeds shortly after launch, so I sort of assumed it went the same way as the Asian-made android console knockoffs, but I've never gotten to ask someone about their firsthand experience.
XBMC doesn't have Netflix, the Wii does. It's a pretty common use case now.
Shh! We've ALL been trying to forget the Saturn for years.
(6? with all but Zelda being immense rehashes of the previous game with a gimmick, like cat mario).
How does Zelda not fit that pattern, exactly? The console releases are just gimmicky rehashes of OoT, and the portables of LttP
Agreed. I've owned every Nintendo console from the original "toaster oven" NES through the Wii, but I'm just tired of the gimmicks. The Wii had much the same problem, and it hurt a lot of games I would have otherwise loved to play (SSBB, Zelda:SS), and the Wii-U is just moer of the same, turned up to 11, and apparently with a battery sucking bastard child of a Game Gear and a Nook. Pretty much done with Nintendo's consoles now (and the other two made sure to take themselves out of the running with the bullshit they pulled last generation, so they weren't even options).
Guess I'm dedicating myself to the GPCGMR now.
Wisdom... results in stagnation? Really?
'Murica...
That gives you NNTP access, but I think what GP meant was that Google finished the job that AOL started when they kicked off the Eternal September.
Posted this day, Tuesday, September 7447, 1993.
Pretty much. The damage is going to be done either way, and at this point, it's like trying to figure out whether Christianity, Islam, or Wicca "has it right." It's more ideology than anything else now, and a waste of time. At least, if it's actually the danger the one side says it is, there's the slim hope that after "the great burn" or whatever they end up calling it, the remaining humans will be smart enough to kick out politics and religion. Kind of like that Science Fiction/Fantasy/Anime cliche where the agrarian societies turn out to have been technological marvels in the past, but turned away from it after some tech-fueled cataclysm.
Weak adhom. 2/10
If you don't know, then just say so. Ignorance isn't something to be ashamed of until you refuse to remedy it.
The claim that somehow all of the CS grads got wealthy 30 years ago during the "early days",
That was not my claim. I said what we, as students, were told by people that we were dumb enough to believe (parents, guidance counselors, teachers, etc...). The dotCom boom is long over, and I specifically mentioned the "buzz-word-of-today" boom - which has practically nothing to do with CS knowledge and everything to do with marketable ideas.
Another oddity of your just-so story is that it suggests that women are proportionally much more attuned than men to selecting high-income jobs
Not quite sure where you got that idea.
I see no reason to accept that conclusion other than laziness in evaluating the problem.
I'm with many of the others, in that I'm not convinced that it is a problem.
There's extrapolation, then there's bad extrapolation. Can't tell whether they're doing the latter or not, since everyone likes holding the "inconvenient" (yes, intentional) bits back.
ObXKCD.
So then you're happy for us to hope some psychotic dickhole shoots you in the face for being a douchebag on the internet? "Golden Rule," and all.
Puh-lease, like the US would ever join an "Axis of Evil."
We have way too many marketroids for that. We'd refuse to sign the charter unless they agreed to change the name to something suitably badass, like "The Bad Wolfpack."
A counterpoint: In the mid-80s, computers were "the next great thing." It may not have been as "sexy" as being a doctor or a lawyer, but the way people talked about it, especially to students, it was all about the cha-ching. Barely anything was standardized beyond ASCII and the newly revenged IBM BIOS, and every big company would need their own hackers to bang away on their AS/400s and write purpose-built COBOL code, and pay handsomely those who could do it.
30 years later, computers are ubiquitous. We're still professionals, but CS doesn't make you rich like they told us it would. If you want the big money, you either need to come up with a great idea and get bought out by one of the big players (which tends toward marketing rather than CS), or have a good grasp of the right domain-specific deep wizardry (HST, Medical, etc...).
So it's entirely plausible that 35% of women weren't interested in CS to begin with, they were interested in the money.
Thank you. You've actually given me an answer to at least one of my questions, and I do genuinely appreciate it.
As for the third, I was referring, for example, to one that was mentioned on slashdot some months back (IIRC, time seems to just blend together these days) about a model that closely fit the curves despite minimizing the human element. That one brought the crusaders out en masse.
And, to be perfectly honest, the second half of your post did exactly what I'm talking about: you broke it down into political parties, which is pretty much irrelevant to what I was saying.
You can say by "not caring" I'm "siding" with someone or someone else, but I disagree. The simple fact is that, short of figuring it out from scratch, there's nothing resembling reliable information for me to base an intelligent decision on.
And even if I could find the unadulterated data somewhere, if I *was* to take several years out of my life to do it, as you did, at the end of the day, it won't matter. Since I'd only be much applying the same logic and math (also being CS trained myself) that you did, neither group of nitwits is going to listen to me anyway, and I'd still be subjected to the same stupidity, since the "sides" are in power, regardless of any of the facts.
So what I was getting at about "not caring" is basically a sense of resignation that no, I'll never know what the hell is actually going on, these dipshits will keep using it as a political battering ram until Florida is a taiga, and I'll be long dead before any of it actually matters.
Someone already pointed out that your first three points are merely an expression of your own ignorance of the research that's already been done. I'll just point out the flaw in your own logic in that sentence: you freely admit that you are incapable of understanding the raw data. At the same time, you disagree with the conclusions of pretty much all the experts out there who do have the training to understand the data, because you're resorting to a thinly veiled of ad-hominem of "they're all bought anyway".
Yes, the "somebody" who pointed out my ignorance was, in fact, me. I admitted to it, and expressed that I was frustrated at the lack of straight answers I got from it. That was the entire point to my stating why I couldn't analyze the raw data myself, and that the people who are DOING the analysis have, ON BOTH SIDES, so obvious an agenda that no, I don't consider them trustworthy, because this has been reduced to a religious issue. I never said I disagreed with anyone's conclusions, I said that they were obviously biased and untrustworthy, on both sides.
Doing that, and then bitching about "reducing people's understanding of science" is disingenuous, at best.
Since you seemed to completely miss the entire point of everything I posted, I'll just put this down as "QED".
So "racism" that has nothing to do with race? And people wonder why their pet issues aren't taken seriously...
responsible for a documented decrease in Americans' scientific understanding
Oh, FFS. The core of "scientific understanding" is critical thinking and questioning presented "facts", the possession of which naturally results in skepticism when doing so invokes this sort of garbage. "Clearly anyone who doesn't blindly accept what we're saying, without question, doesn't understand science" isn't "science", it's dogma.
I've still never had anyone offer me any reasonable answers to many of my legitimate questions on these "studies." e.g.:
Okay, admittedly #4 is more an expression of frustration. I'm not a geologist or meteorologist, so pointing me at the raw data doesn't tell me anything, but having it "translated" for my by "experts" has proven all but useless, since this "debate" still doesn't seem to have much to do with science as opposed to politicization of funding.
Ideology and science are incompatible, whether it's about teaching schoolkids about evolution, or the world catching on fire. As it is now, I still don't know if global warming is a thing, if it's a human-caused thing, or if it's bullshit. All that's come out of this whole thing is that I pretty much don't care, since the way it's being handled is more like two schoolkids arguing over whether Batman can beat up Superman.
Obama has faults, but being a slave to money doesn't seem to be one of them.
You're joking, right? I mean, I know we're 6 years in and it doesn't come up anymore, what with the idiocy that is ObomneyCare (a giftwrapped blowjob to the InsCos) and doing his damndest to keep us moving down that path to "1984 Meets Shadowrun," but it was less than a month before he threw himself right into the same pit as all of his predecessors, in the face of his own "promise" to "stop the revolving door."
He's as much of a whore as any of them.
Mere ideas cannot be patented, contrary to what many Slashdot posters would like you to believe
Don't tell us, tell the USPTO
The AC was being a smartass, and you missed it.
the sum of phones, tablets and PCs running Microsoft's NT OS.
NT-based OSes only run on PC, so the sum of "phones, tablets, and PCs" running it is 0 + 0 + N
All in all, though, yeah, this is a pretty imbecilic fluff piece.
"Mal... 'Bad'. In the latin." - River Tamm