You joke, but the crappy online banking system my bank uses, has assigned me a really hard to remember username.
I can choose my password freely, fortunately, but they have stupid limitations and requirements forcing me to make my password easier. I really need to switch to a different bank someday.
Yes, but the rules should lead to bad neighbourhoods being cleaned up, and not in people in good neighbourhoods being unable to leave the house.
Taking away the rights of poor people is not the solution. You're focusing on the enforcement aspect (riot police) instead of the equality of law.
How are you going to get equality of the law if you're not willing to enforce it? Because I don't see the need to send the police after people who do nothing wrong, I'm not allowed to send police after people who do wrong? That's not equality of the law, that's lawlessness.
Look, I'm not all that big on heavy law enforcement at all, but it's a simple fact that if you've got a problem, you've got to fix it where the problem is, and not somewhere else. If you want to reduce pollution, it's the polluters who need to cut back. The people who don't pollute much just don't have much to reduce. Of course they shouldn't become the next heavy polluters, but that's a completely different situation than the one the US and Europe are in.
What exactly do you expect to happen in the future? That they get richer but keep walking to the market because they're not allowed to have a car? That everybody drives SUVs until we need to start buying boats?
In the future I expect there to be things more desirable than SUVs that are built with economy in mind. Even something like an electric SUV. Do you see a bunch of rich people driving around in vintage 1959 Cadillacs just because they use a lot of gas and that's their prerogative? Do you see many sales of new Hummers to average income people? No they're already interested in saving money by reducing consumption.
See? That's great. And where do you think those electric SUVs will be coming from? My guess is it won't be Africa. Europe and the US will have to be the ones to push that development, because they're the only ones with the wealth and technology for it.
And how exactly do you want to do that? If you love your SUV so much, you probably won't like heavy carbon taxes on your fuel. I think such taxes are absolutely vital to get anywhere, but they will lead to a lot of people being unable to afford the SUVs that they love so much. It will mean prices going up.
Do you not live in the same world as everybody else? In the last decade prices HAVE gone way up. And in the true spirit of fairness, the prices have gone up for EVERYONE, not just the people you decided to arbitrarily punish.
I'm not arbitrarily punishing anyone. I'm pointing to where the pollution is coming from. It's true that gas prices have gone up, but so have carbon emissions. Waiting for simple scarcity to drive prices up is going to be too slow and too late.
I hate neither myself nor your ancestors. I hate your unwillingness to take responsibility and accept consequences.
Someone who says the US got rich and raped the Earth sounds rather hateful. Did my ancestors in the US lovingly rape the Earth? Was their rape of the Earth actually something pleasant? Do you admire my ancestors for raping the Earth?
Would you say you're caressing and cuddling the Earth with oil spills, pesticides, strip mining and deforestation?
I fully admit it's a harsh word, and maybe I shouldn't have used it. I used it in desperation because I have no idea how else to get through to you. You seem to be claiming that it's perfectly fine to get rich through exploitation, and you don't owe anyone anything for it. You deserve your wealth because clearly God loves you more than all other nations in the world.
Much of the wealth of Europe and the US was gained over the backs of others. Other countries were plundered, their people enslaved, nature destroyed, all for just that tiny bit more profit. That is why you and I are rich. Not because we deserve it. We had the fort
Of course not, but it's a lot less urgent, and requires less drastic measures. You're not going to send the riot police there, are you? But you should keep an eye in things.
The exact same laws exist in good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods, and that's good. Enforcement is different, just like it would be with a carbon tax. Everybody playing by the same rules = good, rules that arbitrarily punish specific areas = bad.
Yes, but the rules should lead to bad neighbourhoods being cleaned up, and not in people in good neighbourhoods being unable to leave the house.
You want to take away my car, so someone in a developing country can have a car? Yeah that'll fly.
No. And nowhere did I imply anything like that. But you seem to want to deny them their car so you can keep driving your SUV, because you're too much of a self-righteous dick to admit that your carbon emissions are way beyond reasonable.
The whole argument implies it. The US will have to reduce carbon emissions while developing nations will grow theirs. Your linking with SUVs here and cars in developing countries cemented it. My SUV will go away, they will get new cars.
What exactly do you expect to happen in the future? That they get richer but keep walking to the market because they're not allowed to have a car? That everybody drives SUVs until we need to start buying boats?
Whatever the rules are going to be, if they don't somehow lead to cleaner cars and less SUVs, they're useless.
Fair would be to give everybody the chance to earn and enjoy wealth in a sustainable way.
That's basically what I said. Give people the ability to do what they want in a sustainable way. Don't force them to change negatively and adopt something inferior just to help others.
And how exactly do you want to do that? If you love your SUV so much, you probably won't like heavy carbon taxes on your fuel. I think such taxes are absolutely vital to get anywhere, but they will lead to a lot of people being unable to afford the SUVs that they love so much. It will mean prices going up.
Do you think you can just wave a magic wand and everything will be alright? Things will have to change.
Because the US is the first to get rich and rape the earth, that is automatically their god-given right, and nobody else will have that right?
Yeah, pretty much. That's history. I'm not going to accept punishment for myself and my family because you are self-hating and/or you hate my ancestors.
I hate neither myself nor your ancestors. I hate your unwillingness to take responsibility and accept consequences.
I can't believe you are seriously angry at people 200 years ago who didn't know anything about what impact they would have.
I'm not angry at people 200 years ago who didn't know better. I'm angry at people now who do.
Nobody is asking you to hand over all your wealth. I'm just asking you to man up and use it responsibly, rather than acting like a petulant child.
Man up and sacrifice the prosperity of yourself and your family for others! Yeah, that's what men have historically done!
A single nation, US of A releases 25% of world's greenhouse gases. "Third world" is not even in the picture here.
He said "Third world" not "The world". But my point still stands. Should we not care about crime in good neighborhoods because bad neighborhoods exist?
Of course not, but it's a lot less urgent, and requires less drastic measures. You're not going to send the riot police there, are you? But you should keep an eye in things.
If everybody in the whole world polluted as much as the average third world inhabitant, carbon emissions wouldn't be an issue. There's not much there that you can reduce. What you should do, is keep an eye on the economic growth, and make sure that it happens as sustainably as possible. Make sure they get to use the same technologies that we use to reduce our carbon footprint.
The US and Europe are by far the biggest polluters per capita. If you want to put a meaningful dent in carbon emissions, you have to start there.
You have to start everywhere at once, that's the only politically and economically feasible solution.
Different situations require different solutions. Do you want to send the riot police to lock down every neighbourhood because one neighbourhood has out of control rioting? Maybe a bit to make sure the riot doesn't move elsewhere, but not anywhere near the same scale as you should do in the problem areas. And the problem areas are primarily the US, Europe and other western countries, then China and Russia.
Do you want to deny people in developing countries a car while Americans keep driving their fat SUVs?
You want to take away my car, so someone in a developing country can have a car? Yeah that'll fly.
No. And nowhere did I imply anything like that. But you seem to want to deny them their car so you can keep driving your SUV, because you're too much of a self-righteous dick to admit that your carbon emissions are way beyond reasonable.
Fair would be to give everybody the chance to earn and enjoy wealth in a sustainable way. Get a smaller, cleaner car. Pay carbon taxes on your fuel that will be used to trap carbon elsewhere. That sort of thing.
There's nothing anti-US about this argument. It's about fairness and common sense.
When you equate absolute economic equality with fairness, then it is anti-US because the US is above average economically.
Because the US is the first to get rich and rape the earth, that is automatically their god-given right, and nobody else will have that right?
Exactly because the US is the richest, it is the duty of the US to take the first step. You're like an older brother who takes his little brother's toys because he should share, while you don't have to because you were there first. You're a childish brat.
It's like people who say "No I'm not racist, I just don't like the way they dress... wouldn't like a so-and-so to dress that way either... heh."
What does this have to do with anything?
What's fair is to say that if one person has earned something, they get to keep it. If a bunch of people in one society have earned something, they get to keep it.
The first to steal something gets to keep it. The first to exploit something gets to keep it. The first to enslave someone gets to keep him. It's retarded reasoning.
Nobody is asking you to hand over all your wealth. I'm just asking you to man up and use it responsibly, rather than acting like a petulant child.
I believe the difference is that in Waterfall, the release dates have to move because the features per release are set in stone. In Agile, the release dates are set in stone, and the features are postponed when necessary. If you set everything in stone, then you're mostly producing an enormous pile of stress and frustration.
Who is saying that the rest of the world does not have to reduce its carbon emissions? You want to fight crime in relatively safe neighbourhoods while leaving the worst neighbourhood alone.
The US and Europe are by far the biggest polluters per capita. If you want to put a meaningful dent in carbon emissions, you have to start there. You can make big, relatively easy gains there. Do you want to deny people in developing countries a car while Americans keep driving their fat SUVs?
There's nothing anti-US about this argument. It's about fairness and common sense. You're like a billionaire complaining that the poor should be paying more taxes so you don't have to.
It depends on what you call a great game. It compares quite well with Tetris, I'd say, but that's also not the kind of game that can hold my attention. I prefer heavy strategy stuff, but that's simply not a mainstream market.
My 2.5 year old son is completely addicted. And pretty good at it too. At first he shot the birds in random directions and only accidentally hit something, but now he seems to have a pretty good understanding of the physics involved. He's mastered the abilities of most birds (except for the boomerang bird and maybe that blue parrot). He occasonally overshoots, but surprisingly often he clears out the level with deadly accuracy. At 2.5 years.
I have no idea what this will do for his development, but physics can't really be bad for you, can it? Even if it's 2D?
I think he counts everything that's not US or Western Europe as "third world". That's what ignorance does to you, I guess.
It is really not fair to lump China and Africa together in this case. China and other rapidly industrializing nations do have work to do. Not quite as much as the US and Europe, who really need to reduce their emissions dramatically, but China really should make sure their emissions don't grow beyond their current level, and that's going to be hard with their current economic growth.
It might be worth ponting out that the US isn't the worst per capita offender. Qatar is. But Qatar has only 0.6 million people, so their total doesn't add up as much. The US is also not the only country that needs to fix its energy consumption. Western Europe also has a lot of work to do. China may not be quite that bad per capita, but their energy use is growing rapidly, and with a country that size, any change matters quite a lot.
African carbon emissions on the other hand, really don't matter much. They are really not the problem here, though even there it's worthwhile in the long run to make sure economic growth is as clean as possible.
Of course every country contributes, but the US contribution to carbon emissions is way out of proportion. And so is most of Europe's.
Stating obvious facts is not America-bashing. What you're saying is like saying that the drug wars in Mexico aren't a problem because there's much more total crime in the rest of the world. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say. You're in denial and unwilling to face obvious facts.
An exit talk is always good. It's also valuable for the company you're leaving to know why people are leaving. When several people leave because of a toxic work environment or a particular bad manager, they may be more likely to do something about it. Feedback helps everybody.
Either go above the heads of the manipulative jerks and report what's making a hostile work environment, or start brushing up your resume, practice interviewing, and start looking for a new job.
I'd order that more:
Brush up the resume
Go on some interviews, even though you hate to, you'll get a better feel what's out there
A bit more on this step: It's not just to know what's out there. It's also to brush up on your interviewing skills. Don't just go on interviews for jobs that really interest you; at start, just go to every interview you can get. You may be wasting their time, but it's the only free way to brush up on your interviewing skills, and you'll be more confident when you get to the interviews that matter.
Once you start feeling more at ease at interviews, you can stop wasting everybody's time.
Slashdot Mirror
Games and the fact that it's very difficult to buy a laptop without Windows.
Difficult? Let me help:
1. Walk into an Apple store.
2. Point at a random laptop.
3. Pay. Through the nose, possibly, but it's not difficult.
Just games. I don't know much about Adobe software, but there's plenty available for Mac. For games, however, Windows is still the leading platform.
Yeah, buy what if Zynga is really a front for the Russian mafia?
Zynga are the heroes of the ninety-nine percent.
No, not really. Zynga is the hero of its owner. And he's definitely in the 1%.
If they were the heroes of the 99%, they'd let their employees reap their share of the profits.
I don't metamoderate, rarely sip from the firehose, yet I often get new modpoints just when my old batch runs out.
I've got mod points almost always. I barely use them.
You joke, but the crappy online banking system my bank uses, has assigned me a really hard to remember username.
I can choose my password freely, fortunately, but they have stupid limitations and requirements forcing me to make my password easier. I really need to switch to a different bank someday.
Yes, but the rules should lead to bad neighbourhoods being cleaned up, and not in people in good neighbourhoods being unable to leave the house.
Taking away the rights of poor people is not the solution. You're focusing on the enforcement aspect (riot police) instead of the equality of law.
How are you going to get equality of the law if you're not willing to enforce it? Because I don't see the need to send the police after people who do nothing wrong, I'm not allowed to send police after people who do wrong? That's not equality of the law, that's lawlessness.
Look, I'm not all that big on heavy law enforcement at all, but it's a simple fact that if you've got a problem, you've got to fix it where the problem is, and not somewhere else. If you want to reduce pollution, it's the polluters who need to cut back. The people who don't pollute much just don't have much to reduce. Of course they shouldn't become the next heavy polluters, but that's a completely different situation than the one the US and Europe are in.
What exactly do you expect to happen in the future? That they get richer but keep walking to the market because they're not allowed to have a car? That everybody drives SUVs until we need to start buying boats?
In the future I expect there to be things more desirable than SUVs that are built with economy in mind. Even something like an electric SUV. Do you see a bunch of rich people driving around in vintage 1959 Cadillacs just because they use a lot of gas and that's their prerogative? Do you see many sales of new Hummers to average income people? No they're already interested in saving money by reducing consumption.
See? That's great. And where do you think those electric SUVs will be coming from? My guess is it won't be Africa. Europe and the US will have to be the ones to push that development, because they're the only ones with the wealth and technology for it.
And how exactly do you want to do that? If you love your SUV so much, you probably won't like heavy carbon taxes on your fuel. I think such taxes are absolutely vital to get anywhere, but they will lead to a lot of people being unable to afford the SUVs that they love so much. It will mean prices going up.
Do you not live in the same world as everybody else? In the last decade prices HAVE gone way up. And in the true spirit of fairness, the prices have gone up for EVERYONE, not just the people you decided to arbitrarily punish.
I'm not arbitrarily punishing anyone. I'm pointing to where the pollution is coming from. It's true that gas prices have gone up, but so have carbon emissions. Waiting for simple scarcity to drive prices up is going to be too slow and too late.
I hate neither myself nor your ancestors. I hate your unwillingness to take responsibility and accept consequences.
Someone who says the US got rich and raped the Earth sounds rather hateful. Did my ancestors in the US lovingly rape the Earth? Was their rape of the Earth actually something pleasant? Do you admire my ancestors for raping the Earth?
Would you say you're caressing and cuddling the Earth with oil spills, pesticides, strip mining and deforestation?
I fully admit it's a harsh word, and maybe I shouldn't have used it. I used it in desperation because I have no idea how else to get through to you. You seem to be claiming that it's perfectly fine to get rich through exploitation, and you don't owe anyone anything for it. You deserve your wealth because clearly God loves you more than all other nations in the world.
Much of the wealth of Europe and the US was gained over the backs of others. Other countries were plundered, their people enslaved, nature destroyed, all for just that tiny bit more profit. That is why you and I are rich. Not because we deserve it. We had the fort
Of course not, but it's a lot less urgent, and requires less drastic measures. You're not going to send the riot police there, are you? But you should keep an eye in things.
The exact same laws exist in good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods, and that's good. Enforcement is different, just like it would be with a carbon tax. Everybody playing by the same rules = good, rules that arbitrarily punish specific areas = bad.
Yes, but the rules should lead to bad neighbourhoods being cleaned up, and not in people in good neighbourhoods being unable to leave the house.
You want to take away my car, so someone in a developing country can have a car? Yeah that'll fly.
No. And nowhere did I imply anything like that. But you seem to want to deny them their car so you can keep driving your SUV, because you're too much of a self-righteous dick to admit that your carbon emissions are way beyond reasonable.
The whole argument implies it. The US will have to reduce carbon emissions while developing nations will grow theirs. Your linking with SUVs here and cars in developing countries cemented it. My SUV will go away, they will get new cars.
What exactly do you expect to happen in the future? That they get richer but keep walking to the market because they're not allowed to have a car? That everybody drives SUVs until we need to start buying boats?
Whatever the rules are going to be, if they don't somehow lead to cleaner cars and less SUVs, they're useless.
Fair would be to give everybody the chance to earn and enjoy wealth in a sustainable way.
That's basically what I said. Give people the ability to do what they want in a sustainable way. Don't force them to change negatively and adopt something inferior just to help others.
And how exactly do you want to do that? If you love your SUV so much, you probably won't like heavy carbon taxes on your fuel. I think such taxes are absolutely vital to get anywhere, but they will lead to a lot of people being unable to afford the SUVs that they love so much. It will mean prices going up.
Do you think you can just wave a magic wand and everything will be alright? Things will have to change.
Because the US is the first to get rich and rape the earth, that is automatically their god-given right, and nobody else will have that right?
Yeah, pretty much. That's history. I'm not going to accept punishment for myself and my family because you are self-hating and/or you hate my ancestors.
I hate neither myself nor your ancestors. I hate your unwillingness to take responsibility and accept consequences.
I can't believe you are seriously angry at people 200 years ago who didn't know anything about what impact they would have.
I'm not angry at people 200 years ago who didn't know better. I'm angry at people now who do.
Nobody is asking you to hand over all your wealth. I'm just asking you to man up and use it responsibly, rather than acting like a petulant child.
Man up and sacrifice the prosperity of yourself and your family for others! Yeah, that's what men have historically done!
Not sacrifice it, but use it responsibly.
Sorry, the original quote was
A single nation, US of A releases 25% of world's greenhouse gases. "Third world" is not even in the picture here.
He said "Third world" not "The world". But my point still stands. Should we not care about crime in good neighborhoods because bad neighborhoods exist?
Of course not, but it's a lot less urgent, and requires less drastic measures. You're not going to send the riot police there, are you? But you should keep an eye in things.
If everybody in the whole world polluted as much as the average third world inhabitant, carbon emissions wouldn't be an issue. There's not much there that you can reduce. What you should do, is keep an eye on the economic growth, and make sure that it happens as sustainably as possible. Make sure they get to use the same technologies that we use to reduce our carbon footprint.
The US and Europe are by far the biggest polluters per capita. If you want to put a meaningful dent in carbon emissions, you have to start there.
You have to start everywhere at once, that's the only politically and economically feasible solution.
Different situations require different solutions. Do you want to send the riot police to lock down every neighbourhood because one neighbourhood has out of control rioting? Maybe a bit to make sure the riot doesn't move elsewhere, but not anywhere near the same scale as you should do in the problem areas. And the problem areas are primarily the US, Europe and other western countries, then China and Russia.
Do you want to deny people in developing countries a car while Americans keep driving their fat SUVs?
You want to take away my car, so someone in a developing country can have a car? Yeah that'll fly.
No. And nowhere did I imply anything like that. But you seem to want to deny them their car so you can keep driving your SUV, because you're too much of a self-righteous dick to admit that your carbon emissions are way beyond reasonable.
Fair would be to give everybody the chance to earn and enjoy wealth in a sustainable way. Get a smaller, cleaner car. Pay carbon taxes on your fuel that will be used to trap carbon elsewhere. That sort of thing.
There's nothing anti-US about this argument. It's about fairness and common sense.
When you equate absolute economic equality with fairness, then it is anti-US because the US is above average economically.
Because the US is the first to get rich and rape the earth, that is automatically their god-given right, and nobody else will have that right?
Exactly because the US is the richest, it is the duty of the US to take the first step. You're like an older brother who takes his little brother's toys because he should share, while you don't have to because you were there first. You're a childish brat.
It's like people who say "No I'm not racist, I just don't like the way they dress... wouldn't like a so-and-so to dress that way either... heh."
What does this have to do with anything?
What's fair is to say that if one person has earned something, they get to keep it. If a bunch of people in one society have earned something, they get to keep it.
The first to steal something gets to keep it. The first to exploit something gets to keep it. The first to enslave someone gets to keep him. It's retarded reasoning.
Nobody is asking you to hand over all your wealth. I'm just asking you to man up and use it responsibly, rather than acting like a petulant child.
I believe the difference is that in Waterfall, the release dates have to move because the features per release are set in stone. In Agile, the release dates are set in stone, and the features are postponed when necessary. If you set everything in stone, then you're mostly producing an enormous pile of stress and frustration.
Who is saying that the rest of the world does not have to reduce its carbon emissions? You want to fight crime in relatively safe neighbourhoods while leaving the worst neighbourhood alone.
The US and Europe are by far the biggest polluters per capita. If you want to put a meaningful dent in carbon emissions, you have to start there. You can make big, relatively easy gains there. Do you want to deny people in developing countries a car while Americans keep driving their fat SUVs?
There's nothing anti-US about this argument. It's about fairness and common sense. You're like a billionaire complaining that the poor should be paying more taxes so you don't have to.
Whatever anyone thinks of Angry Birds, is't infinitly better than FarmVille.
That much was obvious to everybody already.
What Godskitchen didn't mention is where he lives now, but he implies it's the US.
- Kids get it because the graphics are simple. Pigs and birds are easy for even a 2 year old to comprehend.
Absolutely! My 2.5 year old son loves it, and is quite good at it too.
The game may not have revolutionary game mechanics, but it's incredibly well made, and very good at what it does.
It depends on what you call a great game. It compares quite well with Tetris, I'd say, but that's also not the kind of game that can hold my attention. I prefer heavy strategy stuff, but that's simply not a mainstream market.
My 2.5 year old son is completely addicted. And pretty good at it too. At first he shot the birds in random directions and only accidentally hit something, but now he seems to have a pretty good understanding of the physics involved. He's mastered the abilities of most birds (except for the boomerang bird and maybe that blue parrot). He occasonally overshoots, but surprisingly often he clears out the level with deadly accuracy. At 2.5 years.
I have no idea what this will do for his development, but physics can't really be bad for you, can it? Even if it's 2D?
Define "better".
Scoring more stars.
I think he counts everything that's not US or Western Europe as "third world". That's what ignorance does to you, I guess.
It is really not fair to lump China and Africa together in this case. China and other rapidly industrializing nations do have work to do. Not quite as much as the US and Europe, who really need to reduce their emissions dramatically, but China really should make sure their emissions don't grow beyond their current level, and that's going to be hard with their current economic growth.
It might be worth ponting out that the US isn't the worst per capita offender. Qatar is. But Qatar has only 0.6 million people, so their total doesn't add up as much. The US is also not the only country that needs to fix its energy consumption. Western Europe also has a lot of work to do. China may not be quite that bad per capita, but their energy use is growing rapidly, and with a country that size, any change matters quite a lot.
African carbon emissions on the other hand, really don't matter much. They are really not the problem here, though even there it's worthwhile in the long run to make sure economic growth is as clean as possible.
Of course every country contributes, but the US contribution to carbon emissions is way out of proportion. And so is most of Europe's.
Stating obvious facts is not America-bashing. What you're saying is like saying that the drug wars in Mexico aren't a problem because there's much more total crime in the rest of the world. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say. You're in denial and unwilling to face obvious facts.
An exit talk is always good. It's also valuable for the company you're leaving to know why people are leaving. When several people leave because of a toxic work environment or a particular bad manager, they may be more likely to do something about it. Feedback helps everybody.
Either go above the heads of the manipulative jerks and report what's making a hostile work environment, or start brushing up your resume, practice interviewing, and start looking for a new job.
I'd order that more:
A bit more on this step: It's not just to know what's out there. It's also to brush up on your interviewing skills. Don't just go on interviews for jobs that really interest you; at start, just go to every interview you can get. You may be wasting their time, but it's the only free way to brush up on your interviewing skills, and you'll be more confident when you get to the interviews that matter.
Once you start feeling more at ease at interviews, you can stop wasting everybody's time.
It's one of the reasons why I prefer to work at small organizations.
Lots of companies claim to do Scrum, but make a very good effort of fucking up every possible aspect of it.
In my experience, there's just stand-up meetings (still a good idea), and a vague intention to write some unit tests if we ever get around to it.