I would think here of all places someone wouldn't be advocating for the position that someone who breaks the law is automatically evil without further explanation.
I would have said that someone who thinks Lotus Notes was "Designed by geniuses" has no right to write period. If there was a god, he would break Woody Leonhard's thumbs for that.
Microsoft also exerted an extraordinary amount of power to displace Netscape from the desktop, much like they displaced BeOS before.
Ironically, this was wasted energy, as Netscape rapidly went from being great to possibly the worst piece of commercial software of the decade of its own accord.
Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion.
Sure.
Unless he thinks it's worth more than that, or thinks that it will be worth more than that, which I think it's safe to say he does. In which case he'd be an idiot to cash out like that.
(I've never seen someone put 2 views against a single controller in a real life commercial project, but these days everyone wears that complexity because it is accepted that this is how it's done)
I've seen it happen exactly once in my career; that's also the number of times I've seen a commercial project need to switch database platforms, another possibility that has been architected into every Java project forever but almost never comes up in practice.
There's a thin line between designing your solutions in such a way that future changes/surprises are as painless as reasonably possible, and putting way too much time in up-front to future-proof against a lot of situations which aren't likely to actually occur. If your stereotypical Java architect was a civil engineer, every road would have at least ten lanes in each direction, every underpass would be ready to pass the highest truck that exists + 20 more feet, and every bridge would be built to handle semi trucks full of lead bricks gridlocked end to end.
Ignoring your blatant trolling there, Apple may not be perfect, but they are certainly not as evil as M$.
Would you like to back that up? So far your defense is, "I like Apple, so they're less evil, and when they do bad things, it's because I deserve it or for my own good.", which makes you one black eye from Steve Jobs away from being the basis of a Lifetime movie of the week.
Everyone thinks they're pro-small-government. Just about everyone also wants government involved in something it isn't now.
Very few people are willing to be specific about what they'd cut, such that what they'd cut actually amounts to a significant chunk of the budget.
(Hint: if defense, Medicare, and Social Security don't make the list, you're not cutting anything significant -- and if you're going to advocate for cutting one of those, you're never going to get elected.)
There's gems of interviews and stuff on any of the networks, but you have to sift through a lot of dross for them. I did catch a good one with John Thune on CNN a few weeks ago, and he really came across as the kind of guy with whom you might or might not agree, but nonetheless was arguing intelligently/honestly for his points. Watching that, it's like, why isn't there more of this on cable news? Apparently people saying crazy crap is better ratings.
so things may have changed on FNC since the last time.
It really has. At one point, O'Reilly was supposed to be the conservative firebrand of the network. At this point, he's the voice of reason and restraint, and it's not because he's become more moderate.
For what it's worth, I think Maddow usually has something interesting to say, even though I almost always disagree with it. I feel the same way about, say, Pat Buchanan. (And in favor of each, I'd say that they're people who very much do not regurgitate other people's talking points -- they're policy nerds and they like arguing about policy.) I think we're enriched by those kinds of viewpoints as long as they're not all we read or listen to.
It seems to me that it is much more likely that those who say that Fox News is heavily biased are themselves at least as heavily biased in the other direction, and that while Fox News leans to the Right that it is more much centrist than these liberals think.
My take on it is that Fox News isn't so much conservative as fear-mongering and the things it says often aren't right-wing so much as exaggerated or simply untrue.
"OMG Muslims are out to get you" doesn't have a political slant -- it's something you say so people will be scared and keep watching.
Conservatives should be angrier at FNC than anyone, because dialogue on how to actually cut the size of government (for example) is not going to happen there, and its existance crowds out outlets where a genuine version of that conversation might take place.
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
It's possible, though I seriously doubt it -- some conservatives are reactionary enough to want to invalidate the Obama presidency for whatever reason whether it's fact-based or not, but who on the liberal end of things would do the same thing to a President McCain if it could leave them with President Palin? The intersection of the sets of people who are fringe liberal and people who would prefer Palin to McCain is the null set.
That being said, if it did happen, at least that "birtherism" would be based in some semblance of fact.
I'm really getting tired of the FNC bashing. The other channels (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc) are no better. They all lie to you. Didn't you know that?
Sure, but the lies really are not on the same order of magnitude.
If someone who tells huge lies is equivalent to someone who tells smaller lies to you, I suggest you've forfeited your ability to make a meaningful distinction.
We could use a news channel slanted towards giving a bigger voice to ideas like genuine fiscal conservatism. FNC is not it.
Apple will wind down OS X over the decade - the PC era is over.
Wrong!
In people's homes, certainly desktops will continue to lose some marketshare to alternatives.
In offices? Not so much. Sure, you have (and will continue to have) some office workers who continue to use laptops in docking stations as essentially desktops, and some that just use laptops as such period. I don't see much if any of that market moving to tablets anytime soon, and the migration of the things those people do to web-based solutions is just not happening very fast, where it's happening at all. At this point, most of what's going to internal web apps or virtualized workstations in the next decade already has.
It works great, until you work at a company where the IT people understand what an encrypted tunnel is, watch for them, and are panicked that you're using one.
It only happened to me once but man was that an awkward conversation with my boss.
[quote]It's a juggernaut built on the backs of broken promises and stolen dreams, with an army of giddy fanboys clamoring for their turn to be chewed up and spit out by the machine.[/quote]... I don't think they really need drama majors, anyway.
That is what you are, right? Or did Slashcode eat the [emo] tags around that post?
Re:In the End...
on
Why Microsoft?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You would be a hypocrite to work for a company that conflicts with your moral and ideological beliefs; however, I suspect when you look back in ten years you'll think that your current moral and ideological beliefs were some combination of naive and misguided. Probably not that they were wrong, exactly, but more likely that some things that you thought were very important actually aren't important at all.
Then kids ten years younger will call you a sell-out and the cycle will repeat.
That's not to say that you should work for Microsoft (or any specific company) or that you would be happier if you had gone there. There are lots of reasons to like or not like a job, and there are lots of reasons to choose one job over another.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think here of all places someone wouldn't be advocating for the position that someone who breaks the law is automatically evil without further explanation.
I would have said that someone who thinks Lotus Notes was "Designed by geniuses" has no right to write period. If there was a god, he would break Woody Leonhard's thumbs for that.
Hey now. That's below the belt.
Microsoft also exerted an extraordinary amount of power to displace Netscape from the desktop, much like they displaced BeOS before.
Ironically, this was wasted energy, as Netscape rapidly went from being great to possibly the worst piece of commercial software of the decade of its own accord.
That's not really accurate.
Some people on Slashdot bash Jobs; others are lining up to fellate him.
Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion.
Sure.
Unless he thinks it's worth more than that, or thinks that it will be worth more than that, which I think it's safe to say he does. In which case he'd be an idiot to cash out like that.
(I've never seen someone put 2 views against a single controller in a real life commercial project, but these days everyone wears that complexity because it is accepted that this is how it's done)
I've seen it happen exactly once in my career; that's also the number of times I've seen a commercial project need to switch database platforms, another possibility that has been architected into every Java project forever but almost never comes up in practice.
There's a thin line between designing your solutions in such a way that future changes/surprises are as painless as reasonably possible, and putting way too much time in up-front to future-proof against a lot of situations which aren't likely to actually occur. If your stereotypical Java architect was a civil engineer, every road would have at least ten lanes in each direction, every underpass would be ready to pass the highest truck that exists + 20 more feet, and every bridge would be built to handle semi trucks full of lead bricks gridlocked end to end.
Ignoring your blatant trolling there, Apple may not be perfect, but they are certainly not as evil as M$.
Would you like to back that up? So far your defense is, "I like Apple, so they're less evil, and when they do bad things, it's because I deserve it or for my own good.", which makes you one black eye from Steve Jobs away from being the basis of a Lifetime movie of the week.
Everyone thinks they're pro-small-government. Just about everyone also wants government involved in something it isn't now.
Very few people are willing to be specific about what they'd cut, such that what they'd cut actually amounts to a significant chunk of the budget.
(Hint: if defense, Medicare, and Social Security don't make the list, you're not cutting anything significant -- and if you're going to advocate for cutting one of those, you're never going to get elected.)
I pretty well agree with that.
There's gems of interviews and stuff on any of the networks, but you have to sift through a lot of dross for them. I did catch a good one with John Thune on CNN a few weeks ago, and he really came across as the kind of guy with whom you might or might not agree, but nonetheless was arguing intelligently/honestly for his points. Watching that, it's like, why isn't there more of this on cable news? Apparently people saying crazy crap is better ratings.
You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts. Truth is not a majority-rules exercise.
What makes you think I'm a liberal?
Oh, I see. It's because I said something you don't like.
They keep repeating that lie where Glenn Beck raped some girl back in the 90s.
Apparently, that whooshing sound you've been hearing is the sound of a joke repeatedly going over your head.
so things may have changed on FNC since the last time.
It really has. At one point, O'Reilly was supposed to be the conservative firebrand of the network. At this point, he's the voice of reason and restraint, and it's not because he's become more moderate.
For what it's worth, I think Maddow usually has something interesting to say, even though I almost always disagree with it. I feel the same way about, say, Pat Buchanan. (And in favor of each, I'd say that they're people who very much do not regurgitate other people's talking points -- they're policy nerds and they like arguing about policy.) I think we're enriched by those kinds of viewpoints as long as they're not all we read or listen to.
Citation?
Obviously my version is exaggerated for comic effect, but look up pretty much any of the coverage on the "9/11 Mosque".
There's nothing ideologically conservative about that particular manufactured controversy.
It seems to me that it is much more likely that those who say that Fox News is heavily biased are themselves at least as heavily biased in the other direction, and that while Fox News leans to the Right that it is more much centrist than these liberals think.
My take on it is that Fox News isn't so much conservative as fear-mongering and the things it says often aren't right-wing so much as exaggerated or simply untrue.
"OMG Muslims are out to get you" doesn't have a political slant -- it's something you say so people will be scared and keep watching.
Conservatives should be angrier at FNC than anyone, because dialogue on how to actually cut the size of government (for example) is not going to happen there, and its existance crowds out outlets where a genuine version of that conversation might take place.
If McCain had won, I suspect that a group of the same size would exist as a "birthers".
It's possible, though I seriously doubt it -- some conservatives are reactionary enough to want to invalidate the Obama presidency for whatever reason whether it's fact-based or not, but who on the liberal end of things would do the same thing to a President McCain if it could leave them with President Palin? The intersection of the sets of people who are fringe liberal and people who would prefer Palin to McCain is the null set.
That being said, if it did happen, at least that "birtherism" would be based in some semblance of fact.
By "not on the same order of magnitude," you actually mean "one makes lies that slant toward my ideology and the other slants against it."
Nope. I'm literate in English and I meant exactly what I wrote.
Do a scientific study and you'll find that those others are just as bad as, if not worse than Fox News.
It's been done, and shockingly, the results are exactly the opposite of what you said.
If anything they are more trusting because they haven't been lied to as much.
That's the dumbest thing anyone has said in this thread, and that's saying something.
I'm really getting tired of the FNC bashing. The other channels (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc) are no better. They all lie to you. Didn't you know that?
Sure, but the lies really are not on the same order of magnitude.
If someone who tells huge lies is equivalent to someone who tells smaller lies to you, I suggest you've forfeited your ability to make a meaningful distinction.
We could use a news channel slanted towards giving a bigger voice to ideas like genuine fiscal conservatism. FNC is not it.
The Desktop OS is dead.
Apple will wind down OS X over the decade - the PC era is over.
Wrong!
In people's homes, certainly desktops will continue to lose some marketshare to alternatives.
In offices? Not so much. Sure, you have (and will continue to have) some office workers who continue to use laptops in docking stations as essentially desktops, and some that just use laptops as such period. I don't see much if any of that market moving to tablets anytime soon, and the migration of the things those people do to web-based solutions is just not happening very fast, where it's happening at all. At this point, most of what's going to internal web apps or virtualized workstations in the next decade already has.
Isn't that the only way you should work?
It works great, until you work at a company where the IT people understand what an encrypted tunnel is, watch for them, and are panicked that you're using one.
It only happened to me once but man was that an awkward conversation with my boss.
[quote]It's a juggernaut built on the backs of broken promises and stolen dreams, with an army of giddy fanboys clamoring for their turn to be chewed up and spit out by the machine.[/quote] ... I don't think they really need drama majors, anyway.
That is what you are, right? Or did Slashcode eat the [emo] tags around that post?
You would be a hypocrite to work for a company that conflicts with your moral and ideological beliefs; however, I suspect when you look back in ten years you'll think that your current moral and ideological beliefs were some combination of naive and misguided. Probably not that they were wrong, exactly, but more likely that some things that you thought were very important actually aren't important at all.
Then kids ten years younger will call you a sell-out and the cycle will repeat.
That's not to say that you should work for Microsoft (or any specific company) or that you would be happier if you had gone there. There are lots of reasons to like or not like a job, and there are lots of reasons to choose one job over another.