My guess is you use Windows and have anti virus software.
I'll admit that's been the setup for most (not all) of the times I personally have done professional Java work.
Thing is, you only can give Eclipse so much cover for running like a one-legged dog in that kind of environment, because most things don't. Actually I can't think of anything that runs as badly as Eclipse in that environment.
Just because a school has an excellent Computer Science department doesn't mean it's particularly good in Biology.
To take that a step further (depending on what your educational goals are):
Just because a school is considered to have an excellent Computer Science department (that is, it puts out great/important research in that field ) doesn't mean it's a good place to learn as an undergrad, and it doesn't guarantee you'll get a chance to touch any of that research even if you're an undergrad with an eye towards academia.
Nothing against you personally, but I never think variations on "This show was too creative for the plebes with their beer-swilling and their NASCAR to get!" are very good responses to why something is cancelled.
Sometimes a show is just bad. Sometimes it's got a bad schedule slot. Sometimes the producers have no idea how to effectively market it or get people interested. But too formulaic? What a cop-out excuse.
For a person concerned with what's going on in government and what kinds of things will actually happen in the future, you do not have to be biased to be more interested in hearing what the most powerful man in the Senate has to say than in what a Congressman whose own party will not back a majority of his ideas has to say.
One of these people has power, and releatively, one of these people does not. Whether or not they should have that power or its lack is not the topic of conversation.
So NPR/CBS interview the pro-big-government Harry Reid ~1000 times over the last half decade, and they interview presidential candidate Ron Paul twice, and you think this is proof they are unbiased???
I'm sorry that you have not worked with, and apparently were not yourself, a truly good project manager. They are worth their weight in gold.
An awful lot of them are nearly useless, though, I'll give you that. I'll also give you that people making the promotion or hiring decisions rarely can tell the difference. Often whether a project is managed well or poorly is not clear until some time later.
Are they all in San Francisco? When I did the math, I decided that I would need about a $300K pre-tax salary to approximate my standard of living there. I have never understood how people make it on less.
A lot are in the Bay Area if not specifically SF itself, yeah. They used to have a pretty big campus further down the peninsula near San Jose; I don't know if that's still the case or not.
Mostly, they survive by renting and not buying, and sometimes by having roommates. Other than housing it really is not that expensive to live there. You also need less money (and living space) if you're youngish and single as many tech workers in the area are.
Bioshock's a bad example for another reason, though: the game cleverly riffs on the nature/cliches of video games.
You're told to do something, and without question you end up doing it. (There's no way to progress in the game unless you do, of course.) Repeat, repeat, repeat. You pretty much always do this kind of thing in a video game so it never occurs to you to question whether or not your character has free will until the game reveals that he essentially doesn't.
There's just no way to translate that effectively into a movie. Certainly there are movies that pull similar tricks on you by using the conventions of movies against you -- [i]The Sixth Sense[/i] did this, for example, in my opinion -- but I don't know that Bioshock's gimmick and reveal can be shoehorned into that.
Which is pretty much an admission that the majority of people are opposed to this legislation. If the pols don't think that fixing this legislation is going to win them elections, then they must know that the people they allegedly represent don't actually want it.
Nope. Witness the current struggle to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Polling's clear that even a solid majority of Republicans are in favor of repealing it.
Congress is slightly less self-interested than you think, and much much more disfunctional than you think.
Yes, but, well... homosexuality *is* wrong. Homosexual homosapiens are physically unable to reproduce. That is the most damning evidence to support this position.
Perhaps you're familiar with worker bees. God must hate them, too.
Sure some reforms need to be enacted, but this time, how about making is simple and directed...
Because Congress doesn't actually work that way.
If the whole thing gets tossed, what will actually happen is that health care will be too toxic a topic to touch for another twenty years. Politicians aren't in the business of governing, they're in the business of winning elections. Whereas, ironically, there's enough dissatisfaction with the current flawed law that additional reform to it or in general could happen if it stays.
That's not how things would work in an ideal world, but, here we are.
Why, what's it matter if he's the all-time greatest douchebag in the history of douchebaggery?
It matters because it's too easy for his detractors to turn the conversation into one about what a douchebag he is, rather than what he's doing or why.
There was no business reason for Amazon to quit working with Wikileaks, they did nothing illegal.
Wrong!
Amazon has a business reason to do anything that makes them money, or avoids costing them money.
A shitload of people in America (which does not include me, but you've got your head in the sand if you don't notice the sentiment over this) are seriously pissed at Assange and WikiLeaks and want them prosecuted in all kinds of ways that, frankly, are not legally possible.
Do you think Amazon would make more money by dumping WikiLeaks, or by letting the frothing mob above boycott them?
There are more people in America who want to burn Assange at the stake than want to defend him. Washing your hands of the whole thing as best you can is the smart business decision.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think for a minute that people like Franken give a rip about an open free internet, you are absolutely crazy.
Are people with different priorities than yours always secret diabolical agents of communism, or is that just a Mondays thing?
The idea that MS takes *years* between releases of Windows and Office is completely shredded with the speed that Windows 7 came out.
Vista release date: January 2007.
Windows 7 release date: October 2009.
Difference: About 2.75 years.
It would seem your own example demolishes your point.
So you've never heard of "voting with your wallet"?
Perhaps many people could do so in the form of choosing a different one of the total one broadband provider in their area.
My guess is you use Windows and have anti virus software.
I'll admit that's been the setup for most (not all) of the times I personally have done professional Java work.
Thing is, you only can give Eclipse so much cover for running like a one-legged dog in that kind of environment, because most things don't. Actually I can't think of anything that runs as badly as Eclipse in that environment.
Just because a school has an excellent Computer Science department doesn't mean it's particularly good in Biology.
To take that a step further (depending on what your educational goals are):
Just because a school is considered to have an excellent Computer Science department (that is, it puts out great/important research in that field ) doesn't mean it's a good place to learn as an undergrad, and it doesn't guarantee you'll get a chance to touch any of that research even if you're an undergrad with an eye towards academia.
He said not formulaic enough, not too formulaic
Yup. That's what I get for not using preview. I think my post makes more sense if you pretend I said 'not formulaic enough' as would be correct.
But apparently not formulaic enough.
Nothing against you personally, but I never think variations on "This show was too creative for the plebes with their beer-swilling and their NASCAR to get!" are very good responses to why something is cancelled.
Sometimes a show is just bad. Sometimes it's got a bad schedule slot. Sometimes the producers have no idea how to effectively market it or get people interested. But too formulaic? What a cop-out excuse.
If most Americans didn't want more government, they'd stop voting for it. This has never occured.
You always get more government. Voting just picks what kind.
And add to that:
For a person concerned with what's going on in government and what kinds of things will actually happen in the future, you do not have to be biased to be more interested in hearing what the most powerful man in the Senate has to say than in what a Congressman whose own party will not back a majority of his ideas has to say.
One of these people has power, and releatively, one of these people does not. Whether or not they should have that power or its lack is not the topic of conversation.
Can you seriously not understand that?
So NPR/CBS interview the pro-big-government Harry Reid ~1000 times over the last half decade, and they interview presidential candidate Ron Paul twice, and you think this is proof they are unbiased???
1. Citation?
2. Since when does NPR = CBS?
Press release done in MS WORD without even bothering to scrub it of basic metadata, anyone?
Jesus called this one 2000 years ago when he said: "Put your (M)S WORD in its place, for all who take the (M)S WORD will perish by the (M)S WORD."
If only Anonymous were proper God-fearing people they'd have heeded the warning!
And of course, rebuttal funded by Google.
So it's a wash.
I'm sorry that you have not worked with, and apparently were not yourself, a truly good project manager. They are worth their weight in gold.
An awful lot of them are nearly useless, though, I'll give you that. I'll also give you that people making the promotion or hiring decisions rarely can tell the difference. Often whether a project is managed well or poorly is not clear until some time later.
Are they all in San Francisco? When I did the math, I decided that I would need about a $300K pre-tax salary to approximate my standard of living there. I have never understood how people make it on less.
A lot are in the Bay Area if not specifically SF itself, yeah. They used to have a pretty big campus further down the peninsula near San Jose; I don't know if that's still the case or not.
Mostly, they survive by renting and not buying, and sometimes by having roommates. Other than housing it really is not that expensive to live there. You also need less money (and living space) if you're youngish and single as many tech workers in the area are.
They should be tossing hamsters or other small rodents into their server rooms. That'll show em.
Sure, but it's awfully hard to do that from your mom's basement.
Bioshock's a bad example for another reason, though: the game cleverly riffs on the nature/cliches of video games.
You're told to do something, and without question you end up doing it. (There's no way to progress in the game unless you do, of course.) Repeat, repeat, repeat. You pretty much always do this kind of thing in a video game so it never occurs to you to question whether or not your character has free will until the game reveals that he essentially doesn't.
There's just no way to translate that effectively into a movie. Certainly there are movies that pull similar tricks on you by using the conventions of movies against you -- [i]The Sixth Sense[/i] did this, for example, in my opinion -- but I don't know that Bioshock's gimmick and reveal can be shoehorned into that.
I hate to be pedantic, but it's not really sex if no sexual reproduction is not involved.
So you're using the Bill Clinton dictionary, then. . .
Which is pretty much an admission that the majority of people are opposed to this legislation. If the pols don't think that fixing this legislation is going to win them elections, then they must know that the people they allegedly represent don't actually want it.
Nope. Witness the current struggle to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Polling's clear that even a solid majority of Republicans are in favor of repealing it.
Congress is slightly less self-interested than you think, and much much more disfunctional than you think.
Yes, but, well... homosexuality *is* wrong. Homosexual homosapiens are physically unable to reproduce. That is the most damning evidence to support this position.
Perhaps you're familiar with worker bees. God must hate them, too.
All evidence indicates we would be better off for that fact, in so many ways.
(citation needed)
Sure some reforms need to be enacted, but this time, how about making is simple and directed...
Because Congress doesn't actually work that way.
If the whole thing gets tossed, what will actually happen is that health care will be too toxic a topic to touch for another twenty years. Politicians aren't in the business of governing, they're in the business of winning elections. Whereas, ironically, there's enough dissatisfaction with the current flawed law that additional reform to it or in general could happen if it stays.
That's not how things would work in an ideal world, but, here we are.
Having used both... nope, the Oracle one is somehow worse.
Why, what's it matter if he's the all-time greatest douchebag in the history of douchebaggery?
It matters because it's too easy for his detractors to turn the conversation into one about what a douchebag he is, rather than what he's doing or why.
There was no business reason for Amazon to quit working with Wikileaks, they did nothing illegal.
Wrong!
Amazon has a business reason to do anything that makes them money, or avoids costing them money.
A shitload of people in America (which does not include me, but you've got your head in the sand if you don't notice the sentiment over this) are seriously pissed at Assange and WikiLeaks and want them prosecuted in all kinds of ways that, frankly, are not legally possible.
Do you think Amazon would make more money by dumping WikiLeaks, or by letting the frothing mob above boycott them?
There are more people in America who want to burn Assange at the stake than want to defend him. Washing your hands of the whole thing as best you can is the smart business decision.
...and a couple of decades later, no one will care anymore.
This.
Those who are alive long enough can remember when having children out of wedlock was a Big Deal. Or biracial children.
Now? Not so much.