The only sure thing is that all of these ignorant religious retards are going to get us all fucking killed on the sidelines in their rush to wipe each other off the earth and deliver the self-prophesied Armageddon in their life times that they can't stop creaming their pants over.
I couldn't even watch it. Just looking at the still before pressing 'play' was enough to turn me off. Of all the things you could do, acting out a tired internet meme that wasn't really interesting the first time is just . . . sad. They might as well have been bouncing around in banana suits and singing "peanut butter jelly time" for all it mattered.
Because the scarcity of bits and bytes is an artificial thing manufactured by the ISPs. Electricity is a finite resource. Data is not. Both are traveling over a pipe that can carry infinite amounts of each thing (but only so much at one time). Expanding the size of the "pipe" does not magically generate more electricity. However, expanding the size of the pipe *does* allow more data -- which as mentioned, is not in any way a limited resource. The only limitation is the same as that on a high-way during rush hour -- how much can go through at one time. Not how much can go through in a month. And that is easily solved with peak-time traffic shaping. Of course, that makes too much sense. It's better to convince the suckers that it's some precious finite resource that you have to charge more for (or limit entirely, so you don't have to expand your infrastructure).
Water, electricity, and gas are finite resources. Bandwidth is not. Setting up any discussion to surround treating it like a precious resource and public utility is exactly what the providers and regulators want. That's how they try to dishonestly frame EVERY conversation about this. The more you keep in that mindset, the more ready you are to accept their arguments that restrictions and high fees and per-gig-charges are fair. After all, gosh, think of all that precious internet that you are wasting!
I hope you're being sarcastic, because my electricity is provided by a public utility and my UPSes have to kick in at least twice every single day just to make sure my computers and appliances stay alive during the regular split-second drop-outs. Not to mention the frequent power outages throughout the year. Why would I want to give internet providers even LESS reason to feel the pressure to expand their capacity and services while charging me out the ass for additional fees and taxes?
If you're going to be a great developer, you will have learned everything of importance by age 40. Who cares about specific APIs, frameworks, etc? You've seen them all a hundred times before.
Yes, that was the point I made. There is a difference between learning new things as we get older (35, 45, 55, 65) and learning iterations on things we already know. Learning a new programming language on top of those you already know, at 40, is not the same as picking up a new instrument with no prior musical education. I suspect that when we talk about the difficulty of learning new things as we age, we mean *truly new things* with entirely different paradigms that those we already operate in.
40 is well into middle age. (The average male lives to something like 75. So take out 10 years for the "middle age" decade and divide by two. Middle age is your early thirties to early forties). So it's reasonable to be looking toward the end of your career and usefulness around that time. Maybe not so fatalistically, but at least to be pragmatic about it.
Also, it was always asserted (though I'm not entirely clear what it is based on -- I guess physiology and brain response) that you become progressively worse at learning after the age of 25.
Of course, I suppose that largely depends on what you're learning and in what context. If I'm already entrenched in technology and even possibly coding, then it should not be the same thing to learn how to code better or in more forms at 40 or 50 as it would be to learn how to play a musical instrument for the first time at those ages.
It's pretty fucking depressing that all of the biggest news items in the press about an SUV that we drop on another planet is . . . the social networking it does.
Maybe it's time to just pack it in, consume whatever is left on this planet, and flash out of existence.
The person who wrote that article should be fired:
What's a rich space tourist to do? If you want to fly in space, seats are harder to find than a flight out of Chicago's O'Hare airport during a blizzard. So your only option is to bump an astronaut from a seat on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft going to the International Space Station.
I can't be the only one who found that to be one of the clumsiest, stupidest, most high-school-journalism-y opening paragraphs, ever?
What does speed matter, when the CEOs of all the big ISPs claim that 99% of users only use a couple gigabytes of data a month? I mean, the way they describe it, dial-up should be sufficient for 99% of their members, right?
I just want to say that I met Steve Wozniak, briefly, many years ago. I was just starting my career. There's no way he would remember me, though. I was struck by how accurate his reputation for being friendly, kind, generous, and good-natured was. He left an impression on me. Though I fail miserably at it, I try to go about my daily life both professionally and personally trying to live up to the kind of attitude that Woz so personifies. I want to be known as an expert at my craft and successful and all of that, but I also want to be known as the friendly guy who uplifts a room. I want to be more concerned with what I leave behind and how much I *enjoy* being able to enjoy my life.
There are a lot of technological geniuses out there. Woz is one of the earlier and one of the greatest. But his attitude and his generosity with it toward everyone around him is what truly sets him apart.
I truly hope he feels the warmth and respect the geek community has for him.
Slashdot Mirror
The only sure thing is that all of these ignorant religious retards are going to get us all fucking killed on the sidelines in their rush to wipe each other off the earth and deliver the self-prophesied Armageddon in their life times that they can't stop creaming their pants over.
I don't buy it when people make these claims. How do you reconcile the two?
Worse, it's what close to half of America thinks, too.
Pretty sure he works for Apple; not this ad agency.
I couldn't even watch it. Just looking at the still before pressing 'play' was enough to turn me off. Of all the things you could do, acting out a tired internet meme that wasn't really interesting the first time is just . . . sad. They might as well have been bouncing around in banana suits and singing "peanut butter jelly time" for all it mattered.
The government gave out many billions in tax payer money to subsidize infrastructure expansion. The industry chose to just pocket the money.
Yes, that would be exactly the case, if the government allowed a competitive market rather than granting regional monopolies.
Because the scarcity of bits and bytes is an artificial thing manufactured by the ISPs. Electricity is a finite resource. Data is not. Both are traveling over a pipe that can carry infinite amounts of each thing (but only so much at one time). Expanding the size of the "pipe" does not magically generate more electricity. However, expanding the size of the pipe *does* allow more data -- which as mentioned, is not in any way a limited resource. The only limitation is the same as that on a high-way during rush hour -- how much can go through at one time. Not how much can go through in a month. And that is easily solved with peak-time traffic shaping. Of course, that makes too much sense. It's better to convince the suckers that it's some precious finite resource that you have to charge more for (or limit entirely, so you don't have to expand your infrastructure).
In most of the US, it tends to be billed at a tiered rate. The more water you use, the higher amount you pay per thousand gallons.
No, your argument is, well, wrong.
Your argument suggests that highways are limited resources and the more cars that use them, the faster you use up that precious highway resource.
Water, electricity, and gas are finite resources. Bandwidth is not. Setting up any discussion to surround treating it like a precious resource and public utility is exactly what the providers and regulators want. That's how they try to dishonestly frame EVERY conversation about this. The more you keep in that mindset, the more ready you are to accept their arguments that restrictions and high fees and per-gig-charges are fair. After all, gosh, think of all that precious internet that you are wasting!
I hope you're being sarcastic, because my electricity is provided by a public utility and my UPSes have to kick in at least twice every single day just to make sure my computers and appliances stay alive during the regular split-second drop-outs. Not to mention the frequent power outages throughout the year. Why would I want to give internet providers even LESS reason to feel the pressure to expand their capacity and services while charging me out the ass for additional fees and taxes?
This is why hippies fucking smell so atrocious.
Sorry, I stopped reading the submission at the word "turd-eating".
If you're not going to take yourself (or your publication) seriously, neither am I. Talk like a grown up; not a four year old.
If you're going to be a great developer, you will have learned everything of importance by age 40. Who cares about specific APIs, frameworks, etc? You've seen them all a hundred times before.
Yes, that was the point I made. There is a difference between learning new things as we get older (35, 45, 55, 65) and learning iterations on things we already know. Learning a new programming language on top of those you already know, at 40, is not the same as picking up a new instrument with no prior musical education. I suspect that when we talk about the difficulty of learning new things as we age, we mean *truly new things* with entirely different paradigms that those we already operate in.
The average life expectancy of a male is not "post-100". It is 78.
40 is well into middle age. (The average male lives to something like 75. So take out 10 years for the "middle age" decade and divide by two. Middle age is your early thirties to early forties). So it's reasonable to be looking toward the end of your career and usefulness around that time. Maybe not so fatalistically, but at least to be pragmatic about it.
Also, it was always asserted (though I'm not entirely clear what it is based on -- I guess physiology and brain response) that you become progressively worse at learning after the age of 25.
Of course, I suppose that largely depends on what you're learning and in what context. If I'm already entrenched in technology and even possibly coding, then it should not be the same thing to learn how to code better or in more forms at 40 or 50 as it would be to learn how to play a musical instrument for the first time at those ages.
It's pretty fucking depressing that all of the biggest news items in the press about an SUV that we drop on another planet is . . . the social networking it does.
Maybe it's time to just pack it in, consume whatever is left on this planet, and flash out of existence.
The person who wrote that article should be fired:
What's a rich space tourist to do? If you want to fly in space, seats are harder to find than a flight out of Chicago's O'Hare airport during a blizzard. So your only option is to bump an astronaut from a seat on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft going to the International Space Station.
I can't be the only one who found that to be one of the clumsiest, stupidest, most high-school-journalism-y opening paragraphs, ever?
To be fair, I've never heard of "Sarah Brightman" either.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't pronounced, *period*. It's an initialism.
What does speed matter, when the CEOs of all the big ISPs claim that 99% of users only use a couple gigabytes of data a month? I mean, the way they describe it, dial-up should be sufficient for 99% of their members, right?
I just want to say that I met Steve Wozniak, briefly, many years ago. I was just starting my career. There's no way he would remember me, though. I was struck by how accurate his reputation for being friendly, kind, generous, and good-natured was. He left an impression on me. Though I fail miserably at it, I try to go about my daily life both professionally and personally trying to live up to the kind of attitude that Woz so personifies. I want to be known as an expert at my craft and successful and all of that, but I also want to be known as the friendly guy who uplifts a room. I want to be more concerned with what I leave behind and how much I *enjoy* being able to enjoy my life.
There are a lot of technological geniuses out there. Woz is one of the earlier and one of the greatest. But his attitude and his generosity with it toward everyone around him is what truly sets him apart.
I truly hope he feels the warmth and respect the geek community has for him.
While you're throwing your money away on stupid ideas, go invest in some Second Life real-estate.
No, it isn't.