Yes, barring this kind of agreement, life has a tendency to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. When you lose the shared agreements on behavior, you fall back on animalistic barbarism.
We also like to pretend that we earn every dime that goes are way
Fact is that almost everything I care about is paid for local and state taxes. Those taxes pay for roads, education, health care, police, and administration. I have no problem paying those taxes.
What I have a problem with is paying large amounts of federal taxes so that Democrats, Republicans, and the various administrations that come and go can enrich themselves and their big industry buddies with that. And Obama in particular has been lying through his teeth, pretending that without him and the federal government everything I care about would disappear.
Now, tell me, are you simply too stupid to understand the difference between local, state and federal taxes, or are you a paid propagandist for the administration?
Considering you haven't posted in this entire thread chain, why would your opinions have any bearing on what I said? You can't be annoyed I didn't take your federal government hate into account, when I didn't bring up the federal government, nor is there any implicit connection to this concept in the entire discussion.
Also, that's some extraordinary levels of paranoia that causes you to assume someone posting an opinion on the internet is somehow implicitly involved in some conspiracy. Might wanna visit a psychiatrist sometime. It's not possible to diagnose these things over the internet, but that seems like a red flag to me.
I have a social contract with America? Can you point out where I signed that particular piece of paper?
Quoting since the thread depth cutoff has made me start to appear schizophrenic.
The social contract is signed every day you're not dead from the laws protecting you. You're free to reject the contract at any time, but then you lose the implicit protections. In fact, we're so nice with our social contract in modern liberal democracies, we limit how much protection you lose based on the severity of your breach. Isn't that nice of us?
Sort of. Double negatives have value in communicating certain complex ideas in the space of first order logic. Not for all people like GP not would hire the OP. There are other ways of semantically communicating the same idea, but that's the way I chose this time.
How is this reply not just answering "C. Freedom" to every question? Should companies be allowed to dump their toxic waste on their own property situated above the water table? C. Freedom!
Now, if I were in charge, what you just said wouldn't be a reason to not hire you. There are lots of good programmers who don't have time for extra programming, but the best programmers, in my experience, are those who really enjoy it, and will take on small projects for fun from time to time.
We also like to pretend that we earn every dime that goes are way, and in no way are dependent on society at large for the potential to do so. We are by-and-large stuck up pricks who don't understand social contract theory, it's all about freedom.
If you gave us Americans a multiple choice test about how the world works we'd just go down and answer every single question "C. Freedom" without reading what it said. Well, some would answer "Jesus" to every question, but the lever of understanding reflected is the same.
I assume you're referring to the common deluded misinterpretation of the "climategate" emails, wherein someone used basic statistical principles to align a dataset, and a bunch of morons, without looking at the actual changes, immediately presume that this somehow negates an entire branch of study supported by basic thermodynamics, satellite observation, thermometer data, ice core samples, sea level measurement, and lots of non-corrected tree data.
I'm sorry, but slashdot was here first with shitty humour. We pioneered the bad pun chain(being the first with nested comments). I mean you'll see prototypical bad humour on usenet, but it hadn't bloomed into full-on awfulness until slashdot.
Yeah, I know how much we all hate well tested and verified software. It's so annoying when I start an application, and an edge case bug that represents my main usage fails to explode the whole thing.
I'm a developer, not a tester, and good understanding of testing is essential to good software.
Yes, but when you do divide them, all the following also happen:
#1 You enrage parents: "How dare you classify my child as 'average'? You're monsters!" #2 You enrage teachers: "You mean we have pay based on student performance and you assigned me a 'below average' group. You're monsters!" #3 You enrage people interested in social justice "Oh, so it just so happens that all the [poor/minority/female] students get classified into a 'seperate but equal' below average class. You're monsters!" #4 You really do dictate a child's future based on their present.
I know where you're coming from, but you hurt so many groups with this kind of change that it's politically and maybe ethically untenable.
See, you blame the networks, but I have an alternate hypothesis:
People interested in intellectually deep material fled to the internet, and stopped being an available pool for the networks to target. The people who still watch TV are the people who, in the early 2000s, were still willing to suffer advertisements, forced time slots, and reruns in their entertainment. The rest of started reading websites and watching online videos. The edutainment networks ran to the audience they still had, people who watched documentary videos for the spectacle.
That's not what collision detection is. It audibly alerts you if your current vector is likely to collide with something in the next N seconds(like say, when you're changing lanes).
The null hypothesis here is based on telomere degradation. Telomeres are a part of DNA that is reduced every time a cell splits by mitosis(but are restored by meiosis). It's beleived that as they degrade they turn individual genes on and off.
Um, without seeing the psuedocode, how am I supposed to assess the readability to see if it undermines my point. I feel like I'm missing something. Your acting like your link is a refutation, but it's just a theoretical concept.
I always suspect that companies in these cases deserve what happens to them, even though the other party in the fiasco demonstrates their own lack of ethical principals.
I have never seen an elegant algorithm performancewise that didn't have fundementally, an elegant(easy to understand) approach to iteration/recursion. The readability of bubblesort is way lower than a quicksort(barring terrible variable naming).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, barring this kind of agreement, life has a tendency to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. When you lose the shared agreements on behavior, you fall back on animalistic barbarism.
Fact is that almost everything I care about is paid for local and state taxes. Those taxes pay for roads, education, health care, police, and administration. I have no problem paying those taxes.
What I have a problem with is paying large amounts of federal taxes so that Democrats, Republicans, and the various administrations that come and go can enrich themselves and their big industry buddies with that. And Obama in particular has been lying through his teeth, pretending that without him and the federal government everything I care about would disappear.
Now, tell me, are you simply too stupid to understand the difference between local, state and federal taxes, or are you a paid propagandist for the administration?
Considering you haven't posted in this entire thread chain, why would your opinions have any bearing on what I said? You can't be annoyed I didn't take your federal government hate into account, when I didn't bring up the federal government, nor is there any implicit connection to this concept in the entire discussion.
Also, that's some extraordinary levels of paranoia that causes you to assume someone posting an opinion on the internet is somehow implicitly involved in some conspiracy. Might wanna visit a psychiatrist sometime. It's not possible to diagnose these things over the internet, but that seems like a red flag to me.
I have a social contract with America? Can you point out where I signed that particular piece of paper?
Quoting since the thread depth cutoff has made me start to appear schizophrenic.
The social contract is signed every day you're not dead from the laws protecting you. You're free to reject the contract at any time, but then you lose the implicit protections. In fact, we're so nice with our social contract in modern liberal democracies, we limit how much protection you lose based on the severity of your breach. Isn't that nice of us?
Extraordinary insight. I had forgotten how relevant cocks were to social theory.
Sort of. Double negatives have value in communicating certain complex ideas in the space of first order logic. Not for all people like GP not would hire the OP. There are other ways of semantically communicating the same idea, but that's the way I chose this time.
How is this reply not just answering "C. Freedom" to every question? Should companies be allowed to dump their toxic waste on their own property situated above the water table? C. Freedom!
Now, if I were in charge, what you just said wouldn't be a reason to not hire you. There are lots of good programmers who don't have time for extra programming, but the best programmers, in my experience, are those who really enjoy it, and will take on small projects for fun from time to time.
to find programmers who like contests.
or who like gaming contests.
That is to say future business leaders.
We also like to pretend that we earn every dime that goes are way, and in no way are dependent on society at large for the potential to do so. We are by-and-large stuck up pricks who don't understand social contract theory, it's all about freedom.
If you gave us Americans a multiple choice test about how the world works we'd just go down and answer every single question "C. Freedom" without reading what it said. Well, some would answer "Jesus" to every question, but the lever of understanding reflected is the same.
Thanks mods. Casual bigotry without so much as a punchline: +1 funny, right?
I assume you're referring to the common deluded misinterpretation of the "climategate" emails, wherein someone used basic statistical principles to align a dataset, and a bunch of morons, without looking at the actual changes, immediately presume that this somehow negates an entire branch of study supported by basic thermodynamics, satellite observation, thermometer data, ice core samples, sea level measurement, and lots of non-corrected tree data.
Right? That's what you mean?
I'm sorry, but slashdot was here first with shitty humour. We pioneered the bad pun chain(being the first with nested comments). I mean you'll see prototypical bad humour on usenet, but it hadn't bloomed into full-on awfulness until slashdot.
Yeah, I know how much we all hate well tested and verified software. It's so annoying when I start an application, and an edge case bug that represents my main usage fails to explode the whole thing.
I'm a developer, not a tester, and good understanding of testing is essential to good software.
Yes, but when you do divide them, all the following also happen:
#1 You enrage parents: "How dare you classify my child as 'average'? You're monsters!"
#2 You enrage teachers: "You mean we have pay based on student performance and you assigned me a 'below average' group. You're monsters!"
#3 You enrage people interested in social justice "Oh, so it just so happens that all the [poor/minority/female] students get classified into a 'seperate but equal' below average class. You're monsters!"
#4 You really do dictate a child's future based on their present.
I know where you're coming from, but you hurt so many groups with this kind of change that it's politically and maybe ethically untenable.
See, you blame the networks, but I have an alternate hypothesis:
People interested in intellectually deep material fled to the internet, and stopped being an available pool for the networks to target. The people who still watch TV are the people who, in the early 2000s, were still willing to suffer advertisements, forced time slots, and reruns in their entertainment. The rest of started reading websites and watching online videos. The edutainment networks ran to the audience they still had, people who watched documentary videos for the spectacle.
...Prius going 88MPH ...
So, hybrids are from the future.
That's not what collision detection is. It audibly alerts you if your current vector is likely to collide with something in the next N seconds(like say, when you're changing lanes).
The null hypothesis here is based on telomere degradation. Telomeres are a part of DNA that is reduced every time a cell splits by mitosis(but are restored by meiosis). It's beleived that as they degrade they turn individual genes on and off.
And you somehow have the moral high ground with your own evil desires? I at least know that I'm wrong. You're just a bad person.
I think I just lack empathy for non-humans. Companies aren't people. When they suffer, I just see numbers changing on a ledger.
Um, without seeing the psuedocode, how am I supposed to assess the readability to see if it undermines my point. I feel like I'm missing something. Your acting like your link is a refutation, but it's just a theoretical concept.
I'm confused.
I always suspect that companies in these cases deserve what happens to them, even though the other party in the fiasco demonstrates their own lack of ethical principals.
It's like a psychological glitch, I guess.
I have never seen an elegant algorithm performancewise that didn't have fundementally, an elegant(easy to understand) approach to iteration/recursion. The readability of bubblesort is way lower than a quicksort(barring terrible variable naming).
Elegant is supposed to be readable. They're supposed to be the same. If you write code no one understands, it's not elegant, it's obtuse.
I don't think I was really defending businessmen who didn't wear suits. I was just falling back on a convenient stereotype for the sake of brevity.