The extremists want an outright ban even on stem cell research that uses embryos that would otherwise be DISCARDED
I agree that the arguments get kind of arcane at that point, and I'm not sure I agree with them.
But there's a somewhat parallel example from history: the Nazis performed medical experimentation on Jews in concentration camps. After WW2 was over, the scientific community wrestled with whether or not to use the resulting data. On the one hand, nothing could un-kill the victims, and maybe at least some (medical) good could come of it.
On the other hand, did the scientists really want to dignify the Nazis' actions by letting them make a contribution to the corpus of scientific knowledge? And even if they could get past prima facia the vileness of it, would using those data encourage future monsters to perform vivisections on their victims, taking comfort (or even inspiration) from the idea that their work was not in vain?
He acknowledged that nonbelievers are American citizens, and reaffirmed the separation of church/state and science.
I think one problem with embryonic stem cell debate, though, is that it lies at a nexus of science and religion.
Science can show us if/how stem cell therapies can be successful, but it's incapable of showing us whether or not it's a good thing to, for example, kill a viable embryo s.t. a parent of young children might live.
(Not to knock science, of course. For example, science might show us how a given stem cell therapy can be achieved without harming a viable embryo.)
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
The RIAA is using the courts to ensure that the cost of downloading a song is far greater than $0.
I had a similar urge some years back, so I volunteered at the local Habitat for Humanity office. They had some need for simple IT work, and I probably could have done just fine.
But... then I got busy with other stuff. And I found my passion for helping people wasn't consistent. Before long I handed back my office key. They probably put more effort into getting me up to speed than they ever recouped from my help.
I think this makes it hard to do good volunteer IT work. Much IT work benefits greatly from low turnover, as opposed to picking up garbage in a park, where turnover rate probably is irrelevant.
So I guess my advice is to avoid talking up your usefulness to the people you're trying to help, until you're sure you'll have the interest and free time to really stick with it. On the other hand, even IT people can still pick up garbage in the park.
You're talking about hacking (and currently virus writing); past programming doesn't mean convoluted coding.
Agreed. But I am talking about a missile computer my dad worked on, and in another case, a scientific program that I'm becoming the maintainer of.
It's fair to say that there existed both simple and complex software 40-30 years ago, and there exists both simple and complex software today. By coryking's statement had basically been that complex software was purely modern phenomenon, which I was trying to refute by counter-example.
Sorry to be harsh, but get with the times. Computing these days is vastly more complex then back in the "good old days".
You. are. fucking. kidding. me., right?
The sources of complexity have changed, but not significantly increased.
When's the last time your code had to:
Employ overlays to make your code fit into memory?
Write a large, complex algorithm in assembly, or even (in the 50's) straight machine language?
Consider writing self-modifying code, just to make the program require less memory?
Make "clever" use of obscure, corner-case behavior of certain machine instructions, not because you like to screw the people who will inherit the code, but because you have only a time amount memory to work with?
Intentionally mis-DIMENSION an array in fortran 77 code, knowing that it will work out okay at runtime, just to avoid (by necessity) the runtime cost of using array-slicing functions?
For the life I me, I can't figure out what the choice of {waterfall vs. cyclic} has to do with {writing code that checks for error return codes vs. not}.
Waterfall vs. cyclic development is mostly about how you discover requirements, including what features you want to include. It also lets you pipeline the writing of software tests, rather than waiting until the end and doing it big-bang approach. Whether or not you're sloppy about checking return codes, etc., is a completely separate issue.
Despite the author's protests to the contrary, he really is mostly complaining incoherently about the way whipper-snappers approach software development these days.
The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.
It sounds like you didn't read the article, but in this case, that's a compliment, not a criticism. The article was an unbelievable waste of time, and although it was in a "top 10 list, countdown to 1" style, there was no payoff at the end.
Anyway, for each of those 10 companies, their conclusion was basically, "not likely to go away".
I believe that patents or some other IP framework protects the coding schema used in medical billing.
Will the same thing happen with whatever schema comes with Obama's proposal? And if so, does that mean I can't have copies of my medical records without violating someone's patents?
Don't have the time? You really have two options: play by university rules and be a bland student, or stand out and go the extra mile. Guess which ones gets the job?
I think it depends on your career aspirations. GPA matters quite a bit for some internships, and is very important for getting into a good graduate program.
Which means that indirectly, GPA can matter quite a bit for getting your first job, as you yourself said that internships matter. If you had two otherwise equal candidates just out of school, but one had a successful internship at Google, while the other had a successful internship at the local library's IT department, whom would you likely hire?
1. IT seen as an expense of questionable benefit. So it gets greatly cut back (e.g., layoffs).
2. Company discovers that some (probably not all) of those cut-backs caused very painful results. Those people are hired back. (Hopefully the managers/executives involved don't bitch about the cost of IT for a while afterward.)
3. Economy recovers. Company gets deeper pockets, and stops being so lean on IT again. Projects with speculative payoff are once again funded. IT department gets back to point where it has more staff than needed for skeleton operation. So next economic downturn, go to Step 1 above.
Obviously, there are some nastier possible outcomes as well, from the IT worker perspective. Company dies, or discovers it can get by with skeleton crew, or finds that some stuff like web hosting or email can be trusted to cheaper providers in "the cloud".
So now it seems Google is answering your calls, promising in this article on CNET a deadline for Mac and Linux support.
The article actually used phrases like "hopes to" and "wants to" regarding the release dates.
If Google promised specific release dates, I'd get really worried about quality, and about Google becoming a marketing-driven rather than engineering-driven organization.
As Blizzard has shown us, the "we'll release it when it's ready" policy correlates well with excellent products.
Slashdot Mirror
The extremists want an outright ban even on stem cell research that uses embryos that would otherwise be DISCARDED
I agree that the arguments get kind of arcane at that point, and I'm not sure I agree with them.
But there's a somewhat parallel example from history: the Nazis performed medical experimentation on Jews in concentration camps. After WW2 was over, the scientific community wrestled with whether or not to use the resulting data. On the one hand, nothing could un-kill the victims, and maybe at least some (medical) good could come of it.
On the other hand, did the scientists really want to dignify the Nazis' actions by letting them make a contribution to the corpus of scientific knowledge? And even if they could get past prima facia the vileness of it, would using those data encourage future monsters to perform vivisections on their victims, taking comfort (or even inspiration) from the idea that their work was not in vain?
He acknowledged that nonbelievers are American citizens, and reaffirmed the separation of church/state and science.
I think one problem with embryonic stem cell debate, though, is that it lies at a nexus of science and religion.
Science can show us if/how stem cell therapies can be successful, but it's incapable of showing us whether or not it's a good thing to, for example, kill a viable embryo s.t. a parent of young children might live.
(Not to knock science, of course. For example, science might show us how a given stem cell therapy can be achieved without harming a viable embryo.)
This is basic economics. If the perceived cost doesn't outweigh the perceived benefit, then the rational actor won't do something. IOW, if the cost of a song is more than someone thinks it's worth, they won't buy it. But if the cost is effectively zero, then it only takes a small benefit to make it worthwhile to download.
The RIAA is using the courts to ensure that the cost of downloading a song is far greater than $0.
I had a similar urge some years back, so I volunteered at the local Habitat for Humanity office. They had some need for simple IT work, and I probably could have done just fine.
But... then I got busy with other stuff. And I found my passion for helping people wasn't consistent. Before long I handed back my office key. They probably put more effort into getting me up to speed than they ever recouped from my help.
I think this makes it hard to do good volunteer IT work. Much IT work benefits greatly from low turnover, as opposed to picking up garbage in a park, where turnover rate probably is irrelevant.
So I guess my advice is to avoid talking up your usefulness to the people you're trying to help, until you're sure you'll have the interest and free time to really stick with it. On the other hand, even IT people can still pick up garbage in the park.
Correction: ..."
"An marketing drone writes to tell us that his company has demonstrated a
There, fixed for ya ;)
No problem.
Hey, Ray, by the way, I think I speak for lots of people when I say thank you for what you're doing in this area.
The colleges with the closest names to "College of Rhode Island" are:
As a RI resident, I can pretty confidently say that there no "College of Rhode Island".
But still no jail time. That's what really bugs me.
So once again, people who ran a criminal organization can just give the government a part of their profits, in exchange for getting of Scott free?
I sure hope no one shoots down their idea.
Correct.
You're talking about hacking (and currently virus writing); past programming doesn't mean convoluted coding.
Agreed. But I am talking about a missile computer my dad worked on, and in another case, a scientific program that I'm becoming the maintainer of.
It's fair to say that there existed both simple and complex software 40-30 years ago, and there exists both simple and complex software today. By coryking's statement had basically been that complex software was purely modern phenomenon, which I was trying to refute by counter-example.
I'm afraid you've entirely missed the point. You may want to re-read your original post and my response.
Any further elaboration would come across as trolling, so I'll simply say good day to you.
You. are. fucking. kidding. me., right?
The sources of complexity have changed, but not significantly increased.
When's the last time your code had to:
For the life I me, I can't figure out what the choice of {waterfall vs. cyclic} has to do with {writing code that checks for error return codes vs. not}.
Waterfall vs. cyclic development is mostly about how you discover requirements, including what features you want to include. It also lets you pipeline the writing of software tests, rather than waiting until the end and doing it big-bang approach. Whether or not you're sloppy about checking return codes, etc., is a completely separate issue.
Despite the author's protests to the contrary, he really is mostly complaining incoherently about the way whipper-snappers approach software development these days.
The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.
It sounds like you didn't read the article, but in this case, that's a compliment, not a criticism. The article was an unbelievable waste of time, and although it was in a "top 10 list, countdown to 1" style, there was no payoff at the end.
Anyway, for each of those 10 companies, their conclusion was basically, "not likely to go away".
I want my 5 minutes back.
Man, New Orleans can't catch a freaking break!
I believe that patents or some other IP framework protects the coding schema used in medical billing.
Will the same thing happen with whatever schema comes with Obama's proposal? And if so, does that mean I can't have copies of my medical records without violating someone's patents?
Before we shut down Google, we might also want to consider the benefits (both environmental and other) of the Google service.
How much carbon does it save by sparing us trips to the local or university library? Or in having books shipped to us?
How much CO2 is saved by having Google Maps give good directions, so that we don't drive around looking for our destination?
Or how about the green-energy research and procurement that's enabled by people's use of Google?
Also, consider that Google's porn search eliminates all the carbon emission needed to take a woman out to dinner and a movie.
I think it depends on your career aspirations. GPA matters quite a bit for some internships, and is very important for getting into a good graduate program.
Which means that indirectly, GPA can matter quite a bit for getting your first job, as you yourself said that internships matter. If you had two otherwise equal candidates just out of school, but one had a successful internship at Google, while the other had a successful internship at the local library's IT department, whom would you likely hire?
Maybe it will go down like this in some places:
1. IT seen as an expense of questionable benefit. So it gets greatly cut back (e.g., layoffs).
2. Company discovers that some (probably not all) of those cut-backs caused very painful results. Those people are hired back. (Hopefully the managers/executives involved don't bitch about the cost of IT for a while afterward.)
3. Economy recovers. Company gets deeper pockets, and stops being so lean on IT again. Projects with speculative payoff are once again funded. IT department gets back to point where it has more staff than needed for skeleton operation. So next economic downturn, go to Step 1 above.
Obviously, there are some nastier possible outcomes as well, from the IT worker perspective. Company dies, or discovers it can get by with skeleton crew, or finds that some stuff like web hosting or email can be trusted to cheaper providers in "the cloud".
You're giving Windows boxes to people who are already unstable? Are you trying to push them completely over the edge???
The article actually used phrases like "hopes to" and "wants to" regarding the release dates.
If Google promised specific release dates, I'd get really worried about quality, and about Google becoming a marketing-driven rather than engineering-driven organization.
As Blizzard has shown us, the "we'll release it when it's ready" policy correlates well with excellent products.
Darl has now gone from rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to throwing them overboard...
Sounds like Balmer's approach to fishing.