Joe BIden would be proud. This is his vision for America. And you can thank the MPAA/RIAA for this draconian activity by law enforcement over what essentialy is a civil matter turned criminal by the MPAA/RIAA/ChrisDodd/JoeBiden/LamarSmith cabal.
To be fair, I've generally been unimpressed with Harvard's CS grads (relative to Harvard's reputation). In contrast, I've found the MIT grads to be top-notch. (I work in Cambridge, so I get plenty of exposure to those groups.)
Me too. It's heartbreaking. There's some insanely cool (and not-immoral) stuff to do in the Government, but few sane and competent programmers would stay there. I'm still sad that I had to leave just so I could actually get software developed.
Perhaps your mistake was to not specialize or learn the right things?
I'm over 40 and have a PhD in computer science, with decent experience in databases and scientific computing. I'm still having an easy time getting work in the greater Boston area.
Or, every nation building new nuclear weapons could maybe scrap the idea and work on space exploration, fusion power, renewable food production, anagathics, or a hundred other good ideas that might actually be of some use instead of a one-time "End it all in case of national butthurt" button.
Probably 97% of humans agree with you. The problem we all face is the persistent 3% that does not.
I am fairly certain that if they fired a guy for saying $50,000 was a too low, they weren't willing to give anything more.
But weren't they just firing him for his refusal to use $50k as his opening bid in the salary negotiation? That still sounds to me like a very different thing from Oracle imposing a race-based limit on where the salary negotiations were allowed to end up.
I don't understand what the problem is here. During salary negotiations, one usually makes an initial salary offer that's at the low end of what you think the candidate will be willing to accept. I thought it's fair game to bring all relevant information to bear when deciding what to make for an opening offer: how desperate the person is for a job, what his current salary is, etc.
The story would be different if Oracle said "Our salary ceiling for Indians is $X, and for Americans it's $Y." But we're just talking about the opening offer, aren't we?
I think what would really sell are condoms for women who don't like to give give blowjobs, such that: - It was acceptable for a (condom-wearing) man to ejaculate in her mouth, and - It was a worthwhile experience for the man.
If that problem could be solved by a condom design, sales would go through the roof, especially for married couples.
Most people use Windows for one of those two things: gaming or business.
Make the following: - Windows 2015: Gaming Edition, optimized for games, no useless services running in the background, only the bare utilities to help setup/add hardware easily. - Windows 2015: Business Edition, optimized for business applications with strong support for emails, calendars, networking, etc.
I partially disagree. My wife uses it for professional Photoshop / Ligthroom work, which I'm guessing you weren't including in the "business" category.
She could use a Mac for that, but (a) they're prohibitively expensive for our situation, and (b) I hate supporting OS X even more than I hate supporting Windows.
I'm glad that's working or you, but I'm not sure how well your approach to (2) would work for particularly rebellious kids. When push comes to shove, especially during adolescence, I suspect kids need to understand that the parent has a coercive power to back up the suspension of privileges. For example, if you ground the kid, and they leave the house anyway, what's your next step?
In the current legal climate, about your only serious recourse, is to call the cops. In my opinion, that's more problematic in a number of ways, then some traditional responses to such rebellion.
Another problem may be modern limits on parental power.
My dad's father came to the U.S. from Ireland, and both my dad and his father attended Catholic parochial school. They had two tools that are denied to modern parents:
1) The schoolteachers could hit you with a ruler if you didn't do your homework.
2) The father could beat the shit out of you if you didn't do your homework, or mouthed off to the teacher.
I'm not saying that all physical punishment is warranted, and I'm not saying it's the only way to motivate a kid to learn. But I suspect that at certain junctures in a kid's life, it's a very effective tool. And when there's something very important at stake such as a kid's future, it may in some case be in the kid's best interest. But it's not a tool that can be legally used in most of the U.S. or western Europe currently, AFAIK.
You use the word "should". So I think you're making a statement about how it's either a moral imperative, or a pragmatic imperative, for schools policies to be the way you described.
Which of those is it? And, can you make an argument in support of your position?
One would think, but no. The prime wrong-doer in this case is Sen. Tom Coburn, of "shrimp on treadmills" mischaracterization infamy. NPR did a story on this recently.
It appears that Coburn knowingly omits context that would put these research projects in a much different light. Coburn is a prime example of politicians who appear to put politics above governance. He truly makes me wish there was a law which would put a bullet in any Congressman who made sophistic arguments in the course of deliberation.
1. Make a unique drawing on a piece of paper. I believe it automatically gets copyright.
2. Drive your car in a pattern matching that drawing.
3. Sue the car maker for having an unauthorized electronic rendition of your copyrighted work. Better yet, get all your friends to do that as well, and make a copyright infringement bomb.
Your complaint about "workers are fungible" sounds like a valid concern about pretty much any model: It's perhaps useful in some cases, but breaks down in some other cases.
Perhaps your concern is that MBA students aren't taught to treat the "workers are fungible" merely as a useful but limited model?
Taxing a billionaire 10% and a homeless man 10% is NOT fair
Define "fair".
Also, our non-flat-tax is so complex, that often billionaires end up paying a lower percentage rate on taxes than do low-income workers. So even if you see a flat tax as inferior to the laws currently on the books, there's some chance that it would actually achieve a more rate-progressive outcome than we currently have.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least you know it isn't vulnerable to SQL injection attacks.
Exactly. Just the other day, they probably told Congress, "We're vulnerable to no SQL injection attacks!"
Joe BIden would be proud. This is his vision for America. And you can thank the MPAA/RIAA for this draconian activity by law enforcement over what essentialy is a civil matter turned criminal by the MPAA/RIAA/ChrisDodd/JoeBiden/LamarSmith cabal.
And, of course, the American voters.
Agreed. Defending against a false accusation would bankrupt most of us.
Are you missing one? I thought the magic sequence was:
"I don't want to talk to you."
"Am I free to go?"
"I want a lawyer."
To be fair, I've generally been unimpressed with Harvard's CS grads (relative to Harvard's reputation). In contrast, I've found the MIT grads to be top-notch. (I work in Cambridge, so I get plenty of exposure to those groups.)
Me too. It's heartbreaking. There's some insanely cool (and not-immoral) stuff to do in the Government, but few sane and competent programmers would stay there. I'm still sad that I had to leave just so I could actually get software developed.
Well to be fair to those social workers, you did end up as someone who posts anonymously...
Perhaps your mistake was to not specialize or learn the right things?
I'm over 40 and have a PhD in computer science, with decent experience in databases and scientific computing. I'm still having an easy time getting work in the greater Boston area.
Or, every nation building new nuclear weapons could maybe scrap the idea and work on space exploration, fusion power, renewable food production, anagathics, or a hundred other good ideas that might actually be of some use instead of a one-time "End it all in case of national butthurt" button.
Probably 97% of humans agree with you. The problem we all face is the persistent 3% that does not.
I am fairly certain that if they fired a guy for saying $50,000 was a too low, they weren't willing to give anything more.
But weren't they just firing him for his refusal to use $50k as his opening bid in the salary negotiation? That still sounds to me like a very different thing from Oracle imposing a race-based limit on where the salary negotiations were allowed to end up.
I don't understand what the problem is here. During salary negotiations, one usually makes an initial salary offer that's at the low end of what you think the candidate will be willing to accept. I thought it's fair game to bring all relevant information to bear when deciding what to make for an opening offer: how desperate the person is for a job, what his current salary is, etc.
The story would be different if Oracle said "Our salary ceiling for Indians is $X, and for Americans it's $Y." But we're just talking about the opening offer, aren't we?
I think what would really sell are condoms for women who don't like to give give blowjobs, such that:
- It was acceptable for a (condom-wearing) man to ejaculate in her mouth, and
- It was a worthwhile experience for the man.
If that problem could be solved by a condom design, sales would go through the roof, especially for married couples.
Most people use Windows for one of those two things: gaming or business.
Make the following:
- Windows 2015: Gaming Edition, optimized for games, no useless services running in the background, only the bare utilities to help setup/add hardware easily.
- Windows 2015: Business Edition, optimized for business applications with strong support for emails, calendars, networking, etc.
I partially disagree. My wife uses it for professional Photoshop / Ligthroom work, which I'm guessing you weren't including in the "business" category.
She could use a Mac for that, but (a) they're prohibitively expensive for our situation, and (b) I hate supporting OS X even more than I hate supporting Windows.
It only takes one person to disprove nobody. Count me in. I like it.
Well, you've disproved nobody.
That was... anticlimactic.
If you can't tell the difference between your role as a husband and as a parent, I don't think me posting the answer on Slashdot will do much for you.
I'm glad that's working or you, but I'm not sure how well your approach to (2) would work for particularly rebellious kids. When push comes to shove, especially during adolescence, I suspect kids need to understand that the parent has a coercive power to back up the suspension of privileges. For example, if you ground the kid, and they leave the house anyway, what's your next step?
In the current legal climate, about your only serious recourse, is to call the cops. In my opinion, that's more problematic in a number of ways, then some traditional responses to such rebellion.
Another problem may be modern limits on parental power.
My dad's father came to the U.S. from Ireland, and both my dad and his father attended Catholic parochial school. They had two tools that are denied to modern parents:
1) The schoolteachers could hit you with a ruler if you didn't do your homework.
2) The father could beat the shit out of you if you didn't do your homework, or mouthed off to the teacher.
I'm not saying that all physical punishment is warranted, and I'm not saying it's the only way to motivate a kid to learn. But I suspect that at certain junctures in a kid's life, it's a very effective tool. And when there's something very important at stake such as a kid's future, it may in some case be in the kid's best interest. But it's not a tool that can be legally used in most of the U.S. or western Europe currently, AFAIK.
You use the word "should". So I think you're making a statement about how it's either a moral imperative, or a pragmatic imperative, for schools policies to be the way you described.
Which of those is it? And, can you make an argument in support of your position?
One would think, but no. The prime wrong-doer in this case is Sen. Tom Coburn, of "shrimp on treadmills" mischaracterization infamy. NPR did a story on this recently.
It appears that Coburn knowingly omits context that would put these research projects in a much different light. Coburn is a prime example of politicians who appear to put politics above governance. He truly makes me wish there was a law which would put a bullet in any Congressman who made sophistic arguments in the course of deliberation.
No, the big boxy thing is the hard drive you dolt!
Hey, I am a big boxy thing, you insensitive clod!
Because they are run by "Normals"?
As opposed to Brights?
How about this?
1. Make a unique drawing on a piece of paper. I believe it automatically gets copyright.
2. Drive your car in a pattern matching that drawing.
3. Sue the car maker for having an unauthorized electronic rendition of your copyrighted work. Better yet, get all your friends to do that as well, and make a copyright infringement bomb.
Your complaint about "workers are fungible" sounds like a valid concern about pretty much any model: It's perhaps useful in some cases, but breaks down in some other cases.
Perhaps your concern is that MBA students aren't taught to treat the "workers are fungible" merely as a useful but limited model?
I beg you to start using "well-paying" instead of "good paying".
Define "fair".
Also, our non-flat-tax is so complex, that often billionaires end up paying a lower percentage rate on taxes than do low-income workers. So even if you see a flat tax as inferior to the laws currently on the books, there's some chance that it would actually achieve a more rate-progressive outcome than we currently have.