Add to that the fact that if, as an older applicant, you aren't looking for that salary bump the younger applicant's are (and don't kid employers don't know), then they look at you oddly, not as if you're just comfortable where you are money-wise but not job-wise.
Try explaining that outlook on life to someone under 30.
"Yes, the argument is that it's more economical to contribute to a healthy OSS ecosystem than it is to either leech off of an unhealthy OSS ecosystem or buy proprietary."
And that sentence basically sums it up. It's not about the contracts specified with open source, it's about morals.
Either you really believe in whatever the license that is attached to the open source says or you have a cultish view of who is good and bad by whether they're 'doing their share' or some such determined by behavior that is in no way connected to said license.
People who judge others by whether they want to devote anything further than a number count to someone or ones open source project where *they* clearly don't care if someone contributes but just retains distribution methods, should either one, open their lives to the level of scrutiny of morals that they're insisting the others live up to or two, examine why they feel the need to make those judgments.
You're missing the point. It's not the complexity (although inventing dimensions and pretending they exist is childish), it's the money. His pointing out that the experiments their solutions call for are ghastly in expense. This is a truth.
The question at this juncture is, is the continued near exponential growth of the machinery worth what can be learned? Can that knowledge be put to use in a way that will recoup the billion dollar investments?
It's a legitimate concern and the math boys need to come to grips with the fact that their halcyon days of spending are over.
If matter is illusion, please stand with your eyes closed and allow me to walk up behind you with a ball-peen hammer. Matter is axiomatically not illusion because it doesn't react to your perceptions, your perceptions react to it.
Do you always conflate a language and an editor of it?
That an editor pumps out 50K of HTML says not one thing about HTML, only the editor. That a moron embeds a 3MB video in an email says not one thing about HTML, only the moron.
Your one and only point about HTML is that it's human readable. That's axiomatic as it was designed to by hand written if needed.
The undercurrent I'm picking up is you'd rather people not be able to create web pages at all, but leave that to 'professionals'.
"It seems like they've got everything your average sports fan would enjoy."
Sans players that can actually do the things you're watching, I'd say I agree.
I say this from experience as a spectator/non-player. I don't engage in the games, but when I'm visiting friends that do I find the screen very much like a movie with no plot and mildly entertaining.
Right up until I hear the voice of that creepy thirteen year old geek railing on someone. After that it's completely gone. All I can see for players is some ten year old version of Emo Phyllips sitting in his parent's basement playing sixteen hours a day because his folks won't interact because he's "become creepy".
OK, that's overboard, but it's my point. I'm not spending five bucks on a drink to listen to some ten year old play a pretend sport competitively. Does not compute.
I don't think that big a heave is necessary. Yule is a religious celebration of some sun god such as Bel, making that heave simply from one player to another.
I enjoy the holiday for itself and give a crap as to name. Besides, the ones screwing it up are Christian businessmen anyway and the random AA moron who files a lawsuit over a nativity scene. Real atheists should beat those fuckers to death (in a rhetorical sense).
Thank you, kind sir or madam, for pointing out in a rather dramatic fashion that there are atheists in the world who not only share the same depth of knowledge and grasp of the fundamentals of science as the shallowest of Creationists, but also are proud to stand atop the building and shout their ignorance.
There are just people who won't let go and I'm just not sure it's helpful that there are these "in between" people who keep saying "there's no conflict between the two." That's crap.
That statement shows a fairly shallow understanding of religious thought. Most of the intelligently religious I know cede the physical plane to science. How, pray tell, would you apply science to say law, love, justice, literature, art, or a very large number of other subjects I could list.
I'm atheist and I certainly don't speak of those things using scientific jargon. There are areas that are not the concern of science, ethics for one. Science is the concern of ethics, ethics is not the concern of science. Same with religion, the fields break.
Oddly enough, you just described Europe (GM food, anyone?).
There's a good reason to distrust abstraction. It isn't based on reality. Or to paraphrase JPL, just because you can come up with a formula to describe something doesn't mean that's what's happening. Abstraction.
"these literal interpretations gave then something concrete and immutable to hold on to."
According to the article this thread concerns apparently not, which basically makes your post incorrect on every point.
If that was a snark, it's a big fail. Sounds like you couldn't handle a run on sentence.
Allow me:
One can say they're a bunch of people acting as individuals.
The actions of Anonymous show a strong political motivation in the targets they select.
This makes the first sentence pedantry more than anything.
"However, there's a small subset of the population who actually do innovate;..."
Then they need to get themselves jobs that fulfill those urges. The company will then supply them with the proper tools.
If, however, you're saying that the run of the mill jobs should also provide those kinds of freedoms to 'experiment', I have to say as someone who has run a business - build you own damn company to experiment with.
If you want a job that requires computer interaction, you need to learn to type. It's a job requirement so do it. If not, don't whine the job is unavailable.
For that matter, every high school I can think of offers 'keyboard' (used to by typing). If you don't know how to type you have *actively* refused to learn. Again, don't whine.
The answer is, get yourself prepared for employment, not get a machine they *can* use.
Slashdot Mirror
Add to that the fact that if, as an older applicant, you aren't looking for that salary bump the younger applicant's are (and don't kid employers don't know), then they look at you oddly, not as if you're just comfortable where you are money-wise but not job-wise. Try explaining that outlook on life to someone under 30.
"Yes, the argument is that it's more economical to contribute to a healthy OSS ecosystem than it is to either leech off of an unhealthy OSS ecosystem or buy proprietary."
And that sentence basically sums it up. It's not about the contracts specified with open source, it's about morals.
Either you really believe in whatever the license that is attached to the open source says or you have a cultish view of who is good and bad by whether they're 'doing their share' or some such determined by behavior that is in no way connected to said license.
People who judge others by whether they want to devote anything further than a number count to someone or ones open source project where *they* clearly don't care if someone contributes but just retains distribution methods, should either one, open their lives to the level of scrutiny of morals that they're insisting the others live up to or two, examine why they feel the need to make those judgments.
"... you could even make an automated tool to do it."
Like say, a browser or updating function?
You're missing the point. It's not the complexity (although inventing dimensions and pretending they exist is childish), it's the money. His pointing out that the experiments their solutions call for are ghastly in expense. This is a truth.
The question at this juncture is, is the continued near exponential growth of the machinery worth what can be learned? Can that knowledge be put to use in a way that will recoup the billion dollar investments?
It's a legitimate concern and the math boys need to come to grips with the fact that their halcyon days of spending are over.
If matter is illusion, please stand with your eyes closed and allow me to walk up behind you with a ball-peen hammer. Matter is axiomatically not illusion because it doesn't react to your perceptions, your perceptions react to it.
This is what happens when a group of people believe infinity is a real thing.
"Both rivers flow from west to east..."
East would be downstream.
Do you always conflate a language and an editor of it?
That an editor pumps out 50K of HTML says not one thing about HTML, only the editor. That a moron embeds a 3MB video in an email says not one thing about HTML, only the moron.
Your one and only point about HTML is that it's human readable. That's axiomatic as it was designed to by hand written if needed.
The undercurrent I'm picking up is you'd rather people not be able to create web pages at all, but leave that to 'professionals'.
"It seems like they've got everything your average sports fan would enjoy."
Sans players that can actually do the things you're watching, I'd say I agree.
I say this from experience as a spectator/non-player. I don't engage in the games, but when I'm visiting friends that do I find the screen very much like a movie with no plot and mildly entertaining.
Right up until I hear the voice of that creepy thirteen year old geek railing on someone. After that it's completely gone. All I can see for players is some ten year old version of Emo Phyllips sitting in his parent's basement playing sixteen hours a day because his folks won't interact because he's "become creepy".
OK, that's overboard, but it's my point. I'm not spending five bucks on a drink to listen to some ten year old play a pretend sport competitively. Does not compute.
You are completely wrong. Religious people examine their scriptures all the time - The Jesus Seminar.
I don't think that big a heave is necessary. Yule is a religious celebration of some sun god such as Bel, making that heave simply from one player to another.
I enjoy the holiday for itself and give a crap as to name. Besides, the ones screwing it up are Christian businessmen anyway and the random AA moron who files a lawsuit over a nativity scene. Real atheists should beat those fuckers to death (in a rhetorical sense).
Thank you, kind sir or madam, for pointing out in a rather dramatic fashion that there are atheists in the world who not only share the same depth of knowledge and grasp of the fundamentals of science as the shallowest of Creationists, but also are proud to stand atop the building and shout their ignorance.
You are to be commended.
There are just people who won't let go and I'm just not sure it's helpful that there are these "in between" people who keep saying "there's no conflict between the two." That's crap.
That statement shows a fairly shallow understanding of religious thought. Most of the intelligently religious I know cede the physical plane to science. How, pray tell, would you apply science to say law, love, justice, literature, art, or a very large number of other subjects I could list.
I'm atheist and I certainly don't speak of those things using scientific jargon. There are areas that are not the concern of science, ethics for one. Science is the concern of ethics, ethics is not the concern of science. Same with religion, the fields break.
"On one hand ... deeply anti-intellectual bias. "
Oddly enough, you just described Europe (GM food, anyone?).
There's a good reason to distrust abstraction. It isn't based on reality. Or to paraphrase JPL, just because you can come up with a formula to describe something doesn't mean that's what's happening. Abstraction.
"these literal interpretations gave then something concrete and immutable to hold on to."
According to the article this thread concerns apparently not, which basically makes your post incorrect on every point.
If that was a snark, it's a big fail. Sounds like you couldn't handle a run on sentence.
Allow me:
One can say they're a bunch of people acting as individuals.
The actions of Anonymous show a strong political motivation in the targets they select.
This makes the first sentence pedantry more than anything.
Yes, and the ignorant atheist doesn't read them at all and so criticizes about that which he knows nothing.
Two of my least favorites groups of people: religious and atheist proselytizers (in no order, it's a tie).
Smart people don't presume what other smart people are doing. You have intelligence and pomposity conflated.
Are *all* the rationale you use no more than idiotic emotional pimples?
You mean Ctrl-U or Firefox/Web Developer/View Page Source?
In this case I think 'many', when considered as a percentage of business code base, equals 'a few'.
Then spend many, many times that amount fighting malware.
"However, there's a small subset of the population who actually do innovate;..."
Then they need to get themselves jobs that fulfill those urges. The company will then supply them with the proper tools.
If, however, you're saying that the run of the mill jobs should also provide those kinds of freedoms to 'experiment', I have to say as someone who has run a business - build you own damn company to experiment with.
If you want a job that requires computer interaction, you need to learn to type. It's a job requirement so do it. If not, don't whine the job is unavailable.
For that matter, every high school I can think of offers 'keyboard' (used to by typing). If you don't know how to type you have *actively* refused to learn. Again, don't whine.
The answer is, get yourself prepared for employment, not get a machine they *can* use.
The word simpler does not occur in the article. He just misread.
I am a biologist. It's not. It's very similar. That's the word he misread - similar.