I think part of the problem anyway is that software engineering doesn't tie up with more traditional engineering so that probably does mean it's not engineering.
"Software Engineering" does "tie up" with traditional engineering. The problem is that many people use the title "Software Engineer" with out actually practicing engineering, and should be carrying the title Developer or Programmer. Developers are the plumbers and electricians of software. Some would say that Developers do the real work. But that does not mean that quality software does not include Engineering. Software Engineering, such as that discussed by Frederick Brooks and David Parnas, and utilized at IBM and Xerox, is a far cry from the Software Development done in most start ups today.
Yes, I consider myself a Software Engineer. I take Engineering Ethincs seriously and apply Engineering Principles in my designs.
The article you are referencing says that the Wii U's graphics processor could be "at least a two generations ahead" of the existing consoles. This is not the entirety of the console, and was simply refering to the "shader capabilities, shadowing and lighting effects" and only then it's considering a "generation" to being a new version of Direct X, which is not nearly the same as what a generation is in the normal console sense.
This is not only a miss leading comparison, it has no really baring of processing capability, and is only a portion of the total capabilities of a video game console.
I'm not knocking the Wii U, since I have yet to see one in use and actually think new controlled concept will have a lot more game affect than the waggle of the Wii, I'm just saying you need to understand the details of an article when you are going to use it to justify your name calling of fellow gamers.
Dude, the Jersey Devil is Real. I heard it from a Friend who's friend told him about a story a friend told him about an encounter with the Jersey Devil. If that's not proof I don't know what is.
Actually I have a friend that swears he has seen the Jersey Devil, but that's beside the point
I think many companies should set fair, clear and objective metrics for employees - and then base pay off of it.
Problem with that is that metrics are easy to game. There is a classic example of a company that was providing bonuses to their quality assurance department based on number of bugs found. The engineers and the QA started talked and realized they could easily benefit by release buggy products so they started creating bugs and splitting the bonuses. This is an extreme example of gaming the system, but all metrics can be gamed and ultimately have the same outcome.
If you, in your obese state, chose to operate a motor vehicle and while doing so have a heart attack, veer across traffic and take out a healthy family of 5 you have caused harm to those around. If there is an emergency that requires citizens to assist with physical labor and you are too fat to get off your couch, you are putting those around you at risk. Of course if there is a food shortage your neighbors could just eat your lard ass, since your clear lack of brain cells would make the risk of transfer or prion disease pretty low.
We live in a collective society wether we like it or not, and choosing to make significantly unhealthy choices causes damage to the entire society.
Now I don't think the solution is to ban unhealthy behavior, but restrict those with unhealthy behavior from taking part in certain activities. If you are at a high risk of heart issues then you should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. We already put those restrictions on people with seizure disorders be cause of the risk so why not extend it to include other risky health situations. Those that voluntarily put themselves at risk of health problems should not be able to utilize certain public services, particularly those that often require healthy citizens to operate.
It's actually a selective cut and paste from 25 point program of the German National Socialist Party. It's good that we bring light to the atrocities of WWII but to condemn an entire group of people without understanding the benefits they brought to their country is a little near sighted.
I know just look at some of the claims of the 25 point program:
The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen.
We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness
We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state
Now there are some sick fucks right there. I mean seriously you put those rules in place and people stop profiting from the exploitation of their fellow man, and that my friend would certainly be a shame.
You are comparing kings and tyrants who built their fortunes upon theft and coercion ("taxing" their "subjects"), to people who earned their money through productive labor.
I think you mean "people who earned their money through the productive labor of others which was made possible through coercion by the threat of violence". The wealthy of any age differ very little, be they tribal chiefs, kings, cardinals, or CEOs. You can keep thinking that the exploitation of peasants is somehow different than the exploitation of modern working men and women, but you would be wrong. Honestly I doubt blame you, the world is a better place when you do don't think about the oppressors and the oppression.
Interestingly enough, if you do the math you will see that the poor out number the rich by a large enough amount that the poor are more powerful than the rich. But make sure the poor never actually catch on to that fact or else they might actually use their power.
The problem is that in this case the "debt fuly owed" is one's life. If you look at the history of the world you will find that prior to social welfare programs, the ultra wealthy were not taxed, they were killed. Time and time again through history, when a single person amassed too much power or wealth, the poor and needy would rise up to take what was built upon their broken backs, and in so doing taking the life of those that would oppress.
This is why I promote the abolishment of taxation. Not because of some objectivist pipe dream, but because when given no other choice, the people will rise up against their oppressors. Go ahead 1%ers, and probably even 5%, who I happen to be one of, stop giving to those in need, and see what happens next.
I've seen a paper about it: the most significant contributor to anorexia is social context, specially advertising.
Not sure what paper you read but this is not at all accurate. Anorexia has nearly nothing at all to do with body image, and particularly little with trying to meet a perceived standard. People suffering with anorexia are not attempting to be as skinny, they are attempting to disappear. There is no "thin enough" for someone suffering with anorexia.
If you are really interested read up on it in books like Anatomy of Anorexia by Steven Levenkron or The Body Betrayed by Kathryn Zerbe. Attend an Open ABA meeting. Go inside a eating disorder treatment facility. Live with someone suffering from anorexia. These are how you understand what anorexia is, not by the mass media outlets.
Sorry but having a loved one that suffers from anorexia, I take this pretty damn personally.
Copyright is not something that you "do". Copyright is something that you "have." You own the full right to copy any works which you create. There is no process to be granted copy right, it is a natural artifact of the creation process. You don't even need to include copyright notice, though that does make your claim of copyright easier to prove.
Are you a parent and married? Usually, "mom knows best" and gets her way when it comes to the kids. You can try to fight it, but it'll be a losing battle.
Once you have sustained injuries that require hospitalization it's gone way to far.
So if you pick a fight with someone and they punch you, you should be able to shoot them?
You have every right to defend yourself before you sustain any injury at all. You also have a right to talk smack all you want, and if someone brings the threat of physical harm against you then you also have every right to defend yourself to the fullest of your abilities. So put simply, it doesn't matter how much a douche someone is you have no right to be a physical aggressor, and you should only do so if you are prepared to be mortally wounded for your actions.
People get in fights all the time, do we really want to escalate every single one to "killing in self defense"?
That certainly would cut down on the number of idiots that can't keep their violent tendencies in check. Most people don't get into fights all the time. Most people don't get into physical altercations at any point in their adult lives.
You think maybe white people,or hispanics in this case, should riot if he is wrongly convicted? Won't happen since white people in the US don't riot, but would be an interesting turn of events.
Don't forget that MOS was able to under cut the price of every other vendor at the time because, MOS and only MOS had a process to correct flaws in their masks after producing them and before replication. This process allowed MOS to achieve a 70% production rate compared to the 30% that was industry standard. Thus allowing MOS to sell the 6502 was soat $25 each compared to the competitors of Zilog and Motorola that where selling at nearly $200 each for comparable products. This and this alone was the key factor in success of the MOS IC lines.
That's not to say that the 65xx line isn't better than it's competitors, as in many ways it is, but that was not the key to success.
You would probably do well to brush up on your reading comprehension, so that you can realize that a wife asking her husband to impregnate her is not done "with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend". But of course you can't get all up in arms about it if you don't misrepresent it in some way.
By this law, from what I understand, Arizona could prosecute me for the very comment I made
Arizona can prosecute you for that comment with or without the law, and their ability to convict you of a crime does not change. This law does not say that you can not criticise. It does not say that you can not offend or annoy. What it says, and we can all read this together "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend". So if your goal is to offend someone, then yes you would be violating the law, but if your goal is to bring light to a law you feel is inappropriate then you are not in violation of the law.
I don't think you should be held criminally liable simple because you explicit intend to offend people, but I do think it's a pretty damn serious waste of your time.
The law is just as violated if some suggests you fuck yourself and the request annoys or offends you.
Nope. Only true if your "intent" is to annoy or offend them. If your "intent" is to get them to fuck themselves, then it's perfectly legal.
All this law states is that it is illegal to harass people using digital medium.
Now I don't support it since I believe in true freedom of speech (even yelling fire in a crowded room should be legal, but causing a panic is another story), but if you are going to criticise it, at least do it with some sort of accuracy.
This is the reason that Facebook is stepping into this issue. Facebook may or may not care about your privacy, but the whole reason they are taking an interest is out of fear of losing members. I personally do not have, and see no reason to ever have, a Facebook account so it doesn't affect me, but I would still walk away from any employer that even asked me for access to my, non-existent, Facebook account.
You are missing that he still has the 500k he did not lose, plus the casino paid him 100k to play. At the end of the last hand he played he had 500k banked. After cashing out he had 600k. The casino paid him 100k to play. He then goes back with 600k and starts the process all over again. as long as his odds where less than 20% against him, then he is making money every time he plays (not that he goes home with money, but he is affectively making money).
The guy without the discount is out his full losses, and even with the house only having a quarter of a percent advantage he is losing money every time he plays.
You are not understanding the discounts and how it applies in this case. In games of odds reducing lose is as good as winning (assuming there is at least some chance of winning). As his example explains if he spent 500k, he could cash out and actually get 100k of that back. It's the same as a rebate, where you buy something for 500k and then you get 100k back after purchase. Even if the house had a 19% advantage he would still be able to profit if he played statistically perfectly (as the article claims he does). Over the course of spending a million dollars he would lose 19% (190k) and gain 20%(200k) for a net gain of (10k), assuming he cashed out after ever loss. The fact that the house percentage in this case was 1/4 of one percent just made the profit that much higher. If it were not for the discount he would have ultimately lost money.
In reality he only cashed out after a certain level of loss so his gains where not the full 20% but still more than enough of an advantage to beat the house.
I am a piss poor Black Jack player, since I focus on Poker games, but if I were offered a 20% discount on my loss I would sit at the table until my discount ran out, because even with my poor play the house would not have a 20% advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
I think part of the problem anyway is that software engineering doesn't tie up with more traditional engineering so that probably does mean it's not engineering.
"Software Engineering" does "tie up" with traditional engineering. The problem is that many people use the title "Software Engineer" with out actually practicing engineering, and should be carrying the title Developer or Programmer. Developers are the plumbers and electricians of software. Some would say that Developers do the real work. But that does not mean that quality software does not include Engineering. Software Engineering, such as that discussed by Frederick Brooks and David Parnas, and utilized at IBM and Xerox, is a far cry from the Software Development done in most start ups today.
Yes, I consider myself a Software Engineer. I take Engineering Ethincs seriously and apply Engineering Principles in my designs.
The article you are referencing says that the Wii U's graphics processor could be "at least a two generations ahead" of the existing consoles. This is not the entirety of the console, and was simply refering to the "shader capabilities, shadowing and lighting effects" and only then it's considering a "generation" to being a new version of Direct X, which is not nearly the same as what a generation is in the normal console sense.
This is not only a miss leading comparison, it has no really baring of processing capability, and is only a portion of the total capabilities of a video game console.
I'm not knocking the Wii U, since I have yet to see one in use and actually think new controlled concept will have a lot more game affect than the waggle of the Wii, I'm just saying you need to understand the details of an article when you are going to use it to justify your name calling of fellow gamers.
now if only we can figure out what to do with the 600,000 (minimum) extra babies...
Jonathan Swift had a solution to that problem in 1729, I bet it would still work today.
As an Anarcho-Syndiclist I object to organizations and companies so I respectful request that be remove the .org and .com TLDs.
Bull, we never once thought they were myths.
Dude, the Jersey Devil is Real. I heard it from a Friend who's friend told him about a story a friend told him about an encounter with the Jersey Devil. If that's not proof I don't know what is. Actually I have a friend that swears he has seen the Jersey Devil, but that's beside the point
I think many companies should set fair, clear and objective metrics for employees - and then base pay off of it.
Problem with that is that metrics are easy to game. There is a classic example of a company that was providing bonuses to their quality assurance department based on number of bugs found. The engineers and the QA started talked and realized they could easily benefit by release buggy products so they started creating bugs and splitting the bonuses. This is an extreme example of gaming the system, but all metrics can be gamed and ultimately have the same outcome.
If you, in your obese state, chose to operate a motor vehicle and while doing so have a heart attack, veer across traffic and take out a healthy family of 5 you have caused harm to those around. If there is an emergency that requires citizens to assist with physical labor and you are too fat to get off your couch, you are putting those around you at risk. Of course if there is a food shortage your neighbors could just eat your lard ass, since your clear lack of brain cells would make the risk of transfer or prion disease pretty low.
We live in a collective society wether we like it or not, and choosing to make significantly unhealthy choices causes damage to the entire society.
Now I don't think the solution is to ban unhealthy behavior, but restrict those with unhealthy behavior from taking part in certain activities. If you are at a high risk of heart issues then you should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. We already put those restrictions on people with seizure disorders be cause of the risk so why not extend it to include other risky health situations. Those that voluntarily put themselves at risk of health problems should not be able to utilize certain public services, particularly those that often require healthy citizens to operate.
It's actually a selective cut and paste from 25 point program of the German National Socialist Party. It's good that we bring light to the atrocities of WWII but to condemn an entire group of people without understanding the benefits they brought to their country is a little near sighted.
The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen.
We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness
We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state
Now there are some sick fucks right there. I mean seriously you put those rules in place and people stop profiting from the exploitation of their fellow man, and that my friend would certainly be a shame.
You are comparing kings and tyrants who built their fortunes upon theft and coercion ("taxing" their "subjects"), to people who earned their money through productive labor.
I think you mean "people who earned their money through the productive labor of others which was made possible through coercion by the threat of violence". The wealthy of any age differ very little, be they tribal chiefs, kings, cardinals, or CEOs. You can keep thinking that the exploitation of peasants is somehow different than the exploitation of modern working men and women, but you would be wrong. Honestly I doubt blame you, the world is a better place when you do don't think about the oppressors and the oppression.
Interestingly enough, if you do the math you will see that the poor out number the rich by a large enough amount that the poor are more powerful than the rich. But make sure the poor never actually catch on to that fact or else they might actually use their power.
The problem is that in this case the "debt fuly owed" is one's life. If you look at the history of the world you will find that prior to social welfare programs, the ultra wealthy were not taxed, they were killed. Time and time again through history, when a single person amassed too much power or wealth, the poor and needy would rise up to take what was built upon their broken backs, and in so doing taking the life of those that would oppress.
This is why I promote the abolishment of taxation. Not because of some objectivist pipe dream, but because when given no other choice, the people will rise up against their oppressors. Go ahead 1%ers, and probably even 5%, who I happen to be one of, stop giving to those in need, and see what happens next.
I've seen a paper about it: the most significant contributor to anorexia is social context, specially advertising.
Not sure what paper you read but this is not at all accurate. Anorexia has nearly nothing at all to do with body image, and particularly little with trying to meet a perceived standard. People suffering with anorexia are not attempting to be as skinny, they are attempting to disappear. There is no "thin enough" for someone suffering with anorexia.
If you are really interested read up on it in books like Anatomy of Anorexia by Steven Levenkron or The Body Betrayed by Kathryn Zerbe. Attend an Open ABA meeting. Go inside a eating disorder treatment facility. Live with someone suffering from anorexia. These are how you understand what anorexia is, not by the mass media outlets.
Sorry but having a loved one that suffers from anorexia, I take this pretty damn personally.
Copyright is not something that you "do". Copyright is something that you "have." You own the full right to copy any works which you create. There is no process to be granted copy right, it is a natural artifact of the creation process. You don't even need to include copyright notice, though that does make your claim of copyright easier to prove.
Are you a parent and married? Usually, "mom knows best" and gets her way when it comes to the kids. You can try to fight it, but it'll be a losing battle.
As a Parent I have but one word to say: Bullshit.
So if you pick a fight with someone and they punch you, you should be able to shoot them?
You have every right to defend yourself before you sustain any injury at all. You also have a right to talk smack all you want, and if someone brings the threat of physical harm against you then you also have every right to defend yourself to the fullest of your abilities. So put simply, it doesn't matter how much a douche someone is you have no right to be a physical aggressor, and you should only do so if you are prepared to be mortally wounded for your actions.
People get in fights all the time, do we really want to escalate every single one to "killing in self defense"?
That certainly would cut down on the number of idiots that can't keep their violent tendencies in check. Most people don't get into fights all the time. Most people don't get into physical altercations at any point in their adult lives.
After which come the riots....
You think maybe white people,or hispanics in this case, should riot if he is wrongly convicted? Won't happen since white people in the US don't riot, but would be an interesting turn of events.
Don't forget that MOS was able to under cut the price of every other vendor at the time because, MOS and only MOS had a process to correct flaws in their masks after producing them and before replication. This process allowed MOS to achieve a 70% production rate compared to the 30% that was industry standard. Thus allowing MOS to sell the 6502 was soat $25 each compared to the competitors of Zilog and Motorola that where selling at nearly $200 each for comparable products. This and this alone was the key factor in success of the MOS IC lines.
That's not to say that the 65xx line isn't better than it's competitors, as in many ways it is, but that was not the key to success.
You would probably do well to brush up on your reading comprehension, so that you can realize that a wife asking her husband to impregnate her is not done "with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend". But of course you can't get all up in arms about it if you don't misrepresent it in some way.
By this law, from what I understand, Arizona could prosecute me for the very comment I made
Arizona can prosecute you for that comment with or without the law, and their ability to convict you of a crime does not change. This law does not say that you can not criticise. It does not say that you can not offend or annoy. What it says, and we can all read this together "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend". So if your goal is to offend someone, then yes you would be violating the law, but if your goal is to bring light to a law you feel is inappropriate then you are not in violation of the law.
I don't think you should be held criminally liable simple because you explicit intend to offend people, but I do think it's a pretty damn serious waste of your time.
The law is just as violated if some suggests you fuck yourself and the request annoys or offends you.
Nope. Only true if your "intent" is to annoy or offend them. If your "intent" is to get them to fuck themselves, then it's perfectly legal.
All this law states is that it is illegal to harass people using digital medium.
Now I don't support it since I believe in true freedom of speech (even yelling fire in a crowded room should be legal, but causing a panic is another story), but if you are going to criticise it, at least do it with some sort of accuracy.
This is the reason that Facebook is stepping into this issue. Facebook may or may not care about your privacy, but the whole reason they are taking an interest is out of fear of losing members. I personally do not have, and see no reason to ever have, a Facebook account so it doesn't affect me, but I would still walk away from any employer that even asked me for access to my, non-existent, Facebook account.
You are missing that he still has the 500k he did not lose, plus the casino paid him 100k to play. At the end of the last hand he played he had 500k banked. After cashing out he had 600k. The casino paid him 100k to play. He then goes back with 600k and starts the process all over again. as long as his odds where less than 20% against him, then he is making money every time he plays (not that he goes home with money, but he is affectively making money).
The guy without the discount is out his full losses, and even with the house only having a quarter of a percent advantage he is losing money every time he plays.
You are not understanding the discounts and how it applies in this case. In games of odds reducing lose is as good as winning (assuming there is at least some chance of winning). As his example explains if he spent 500k, he could cash out and actually get 100k of that back. It's the same as a rebate, where you buy something for 500k and then you get 100k back after purchase. Even if the house had a 19% advantage he would still be able to profit if he played statistically perfectly (as the article claims he does). Over the course of spending a million dollars he would lose 19% (190k) and gain 20%(200k) for a net gain of (10k), assuming he cashed out after ever loss. The fact that the house percentage in this case was 1/4 of one percent just made the profit that much higher. If it were not for the discount he would have ultimately lost money.
In reality he only cashed out after a certain level of loss so his gains where not the full 20% but still more than enough of an advantage to beat the house.
I am a piss poor Black Jack player, since I focus on Poker games, but if I were offered a 20% discount on my loss I would sit at the table until my discount ran out, because even with my poor play the house would not have a 20% advantage.