From what I read of the GPP, it is not that the poster could not work with SQL but rather he did not enjoy or want to work with SQL. Beggars can't be choosers. If you want to work a a programmer you need experience. To get experience you need to get a job as a programmer. If that requires you to know SQL then you learn SQL. If you don't know how prevalent SQL is in programming then you have other problems you need to address.
From that stand point, the fact that SQL is easy is irrelevant. No it has everything to do with it. IF it was difficult there could be an excuse for him to not learn it but it is not.
While poster may or may not be a good programmer, you have no reason to assume he is not a good programmer other than the fact that he says he is a good programmer. My assumption is based on him not having found a job, all the other people who do find programming jobs, his lack of real world experience, the generally low amount of actual programming that they teach in CS programs and my knowledge of human behavior. I was simply pointing out a plausible reason for the original posters problems and one that he can actually overcome.
Please refer to my signature for why this is a bad thing. Irrelevant. I KNOW I'm an asshole (to varying degrees) on the internet and my previous reply was actually absurdly tame by my standards (not even a jab at him having become a teacher).
I would compare this with the carpool lanes on USA highways.They are one of the few instances that I could think of that has signs posted every few hundred feet to warn would-be violators about the dire consequences. It basically boils down to the fact that it is impossible to effectively police the carpool lane vehicle occupant policy (due to the fact that many vehicles have tinted windows and are moving at a high rate of speed, thereby making it difficult to see inside the vehicle), so they have to try and scare people instead. Which makes it no different from any other law, it's not really scaring them as much as making them aware of the consequences. Sure it's half as likely to catch someone but if the penalties are twice as much then logically it comes out the same.
They asked a lot of questions about SQL, which I never really enjoyed so I haven't kept up with it. SQL is easy. If I was looking for a programming job I'd first ask what they're looking for. Then I'd look at what the wanted ads want. Then I'd learn it. Then I'd write a lot of code in it.
If I had an interview in X days and I didn't know Y which may be on it then I'd spend all my time making sure I knew enough of Y. I literally did that for my current job after I did badly during a phone interview, I told them I was rusty and that I won't be in X days and I made sure I wasn't.
I'm a very good programmer Well this is probably your number one problem. You're assuming you're good and likely you're not. Especially by corporate and team based programming standards. Nonetheless since you assume otherwise you blame others for your failures instead of acknowledging the truth and striving to improve yourself.
So, no enjoying a job and being good at it (I'm a very good programmer) are not enough to get you a job in this country any more. If you can't show other people that you're good then you're not good. End of story.
If I was looking for a programming job and I actually enjoyed programming enough then I'd be coding as much OSS in it as possible. High profile OSS aimed at solving problems that I perceive as being important but not tackled. I'd contribute heavily to well organize and well known projects. I'd learn and understand not just the languages that are "hot" but the methodologies behind how actual programmers program.
Anyway if you love programming then you program. If the first thing that comes to your head when you see a new problem with no visible solution isn't "well I can code something to do that" then you really don't love programming. I've written two FF extensions and modified a number of others because there was a need for them and no one else wrote them yet.
The only sites I can imagine who are REALLY anti-ad blockers are those sites who truly make good money on CPM (cost per impression) rather than CPC. CPM sites can also be churn sites (hoping for millions of hits of 1 or 2 pages rather than considerably fewer hits that go deeper into their site). Well from an advertisers point of view there are cases where impressions are almost move important than clicks althrough I think it's not that common. In a branding campaign (not sure if that is the proper term) where a large advertiser wants people to be aware of them even if they don't act on that awareness right then and there. This is akin to the classical type of advertisement for large companies where no direct contact information is provided in the ad. For example an ad for toilet paper isn't expected to make you suddenly jump up and buy toilet paper of that brand but rather to make you more likely to buy that brand when you finally go to buy toilet paper. I think that's the gist of it, not sure as I haven't dealt much with that sort of thing.
Plus I am aware that most advertising middle men (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, in most cases) also manually check sites with high click-through ratios (I believe over 4%). If the site is obviously spam or low quality traffic, the manual check allows the middle man to downgrade the payout for future clicks. A _lot_ of spam site hosts are frustrated because their high incomes are getting slaughtered. Well I know that Yahoo and if I remember Google as well (not sure about Microsoft) have systems in place to pay less per click for traffic from low quality sites. These are presumably (or in a large part at least) are automatic or close to automatic with quality being determined on some metrics (conversions being one).
Meh. My internet connection is inherently insecure although it's free so I don't mind too much. I use ssh to a linux server I own as a proxy for anything that I don't want read by others.
Exactly. People seem to not be able to grasp the simple premise that it costs an ad network money to show ads (bandwidth and their own server infrastructure and so on). Logically if clicks and everything else are equal the more impressions you have the less they can pay you as they need to cover their own cost of showing the ads.
And if you're never going to click the adverts, CPM is the only way the web site publisher is going to make any money from you. No they won't. Sane ad network will pay less for ads on sites with low a CTR (well conversion rate). As a result if you show ads to users who you know won't click on them you may actually LOSE money (as the ad network still needs to pay bandwidth which comes out of how much they will pay you for showing the ads).
No, that's NOT how the GPL works. It says simply that if you give someone a binary then you must also give them the source code (if they request it I think). You can modify the code as much as you want and you have NO requirement to release it to anyone UNLESS you already released a binary of it to them. Of course they can in turn give the source code and binary to whomever they wish to.
Yes there is a difference. Some licenses REQUIRE you to release ALL/ANY modifications (even if they are for personal use) to the world or the original author or some such.
Not really that hard just more complicated/specialized, just take a screen shot around each mouse click location (or of the whole screen during a mouse click). Trivial if they do this only for specific websites (ie: only do this type of logging when you are on such a website).
Why exactly do you expect me to care about Erlang, I've never even heard of it before today.
Re:The Seven Deadly Sins of Erlang
on
Programming Erlang
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Foaming at the mouth? No, you;re misunderstanding. we're either on the floor laughing at your stupidity or starting dumbfounded at our screens wondering how someone as stupid as you can possibly exist.
Please do continue posting as it's endlessly amusing, people like you are like digital clowns. After all every society needs a town idiot to make everyone else feel better about themselves.
In the UK being suspected of a crime gets your DNA put on file permanently, even if you are found perfectly innocent the next day and never arrested. I wouldn't be surprised if there were even smaller connections to a crime (victim, on looker, etc.) that also got you on file permanently. By contrast in the US you have to be convicted of a crime for that to happen.
- If there is an atmosphere you can use a simple fan to blow the dust away. Atmosphere is thin.
- Make the solar-collector a little convex and add some type of 'shaker' that would allow the dust drain off the panel. Maybe even just driving around would cause enough vibrations for this. Constant vibrations would probably cause damage to the rover. Curved solar collector is less efficient. Dust seems to stick to the panels so it wouldn't come off anyway.
- For the camera, add a simple lens-cap that could protect it. Now you need a motor to take t off and on, circuitry to control the motor, heaters to keep the whole mess from freezing and so on.
- For additional cleaning of different areas, have a number of tubes to the lens and other critical areas and then have a small fan attached to blow away any remaining dust. Might even be useful to clear away dust from stones it want to study. Atmosphere is thin. Fans would work like shit. Then they'd die from continual usage.
- To reduce the weight why not put most of the processing power into the lander that extends an antenna a few meters into the air while keeping the same size on the solar panels to allow for more power to the instruments and drive, and if the lander-relay is out of range just reduce the power to the instruments and increase the power to the transmitter. Then you need the lander to clean its own panels and keep itself alive. The processing power is already absurdly low. Then you'd need more pwoer for transmission as you need to send more data over the link.
- In the lander build a 'car-wash' that could clean the robots if needed.. No requirement for more weight on the robot... The weight requirement is on the whole bloody system you nitwit.
Or maybe another idea that could be much better... Have a number of much smaller robots that can assist each other with cleaning and/or power each with it's own transmitter that could relay data to the lander-relay, then a much smaller antenna would be needed.. Just put one of those smaller robots so it has clear sight to both robots and it could act as a relay. If one of the smaller robots, with a needed instrument, would get a faulty transmitter they could just bundle it together with one of the working ones. Oh joy, you're an armchair critic to boot. Right now there is no lander. That's because if there is a lander you can only go so far. After that you no longer have lien of sight thus you can't go into a nice crater for example. Smaller robots won't work because this is bloody MARS you nitwit. The temperature goes from -100C to +20C. The terrain is difficult. Small robots would all be dead within 2 weeks as their more precise parts failed or they got stuck on obstacles. Furthermore their instruments would be inferior so they wouldn't even get much science done. FURTHERMORE small robots are inherently less weight efficient as you need to add redundant parts. In other words you get even less done not counting all of the above problems.
Another idea to reduce the need for heavy and power-hungry transmitters could be to place loads of micro-sats in orbit around the planet that just would relay data, What do you THINK the current rovers send data to, it still takes a good amount of power.
Cant understand why NASA needs to implement everything in a single bot since by splitting it up into lots of smaller ones you would have a much lower risk of losing everything and the ability to explore a much larger area. No it doesn't.
In summary, learn something about engineering, robots and mars before attempting to talk about any of them in the future.
(All of this has been said if a Capitalist would have said it. Perhaps, Marx was right in that the main failing of Capitalism is that it does not take into consideration the aspect of the human condition: discovery.) No it's what a idiotic and foolish capitalist would say. It also shows a glaring inability to understand the complexities of modern society, the broad effect of science, the interconnected notion of science and the inherent inability to predict the future.
And I assume you do? I assume that every time you buy milk you do a detailed analysis of not just the company but the exact branch/location that supplied that milk. In turn you also go and visit them so as to interview the employees in person. Right?
Interesting. He's a waste of skin because he does things for reasons other than pure monetary profit? Or is he a waste of skin because he can give away $30k worth of car at will while you can't?
Yet if you sell your drm restricted product to a corporation or business there is no problem. You can restrict updatability as much has you want. Interesting definition of free you seem to have there. Free as long as one of our major supporters (IBM) isn't hurt by it, eh? Great moral based design you have there.
Not quite, quote quote wikipedia:
Anytime deep focus was impossible -- for example in the scene when Kane finishes a bad review of Alexander's opera while at the same time firing the person who started the review -- Toland used an optical printer to make the whole screen appear in focus (one piece of film is printed onto another piece of film). However, many deep focus shots were the result of in-camera effects, as in the famous example of the scene where Kane breaks into Susan Alexander's room after her suicide attempt. In the background, Kane and another man break into the room, while simultaneously the medicine bottle and a glass with a spoon in it are in closeup in the foreground. The shot was an in-camera matte shot. The foreground was shot first, with the background dark. Then the background was lit, the foreground darkened, the film rewound, and the scene re-shot with the background action.
Interesting that despite having such a deep personal relationship with their god people seem to not actually hear him that much.After all they all seem to instead listen to some random stranger, the clergy of their religion, who in turn tells them what god supposedly said.
As I understand it molecular clocks are usually based around junk dna, in other words dna whose change does not affect the creature. This is in contrast to genes which when changed can significantly alter the creature.
What is the point of logging in? Why can't I just connect to my buddies' computer whose address I already have? Just like I can dial the telephone # of someone I know? If you want that then use another bloody service which does that. I've used Skype in a Swedish airport using headphones for a microphone to call land line numbers in three different countries.
Skype lets you connect to people easily without the hassle of remembering exactly which ip your friend got from his ISP and if it changes every other Tuesday or Thursday. Likewise I don't have to remember if this week my friend is visiting his parents or on a trip to Europe. Nor do he have to deal with trying to convince his hotel to punch a hole in their firewall for him.
It is because of firewalls, dynamic IPs, and p2p stupidness. Firewalls are good, dynamic IPs are mostly also good (no IP is ever truly static in terms of identifying a given person) and what the bloody hell does this have to do with p2p?
Slashdot Mirror
How will you request data from those servers then if you can't send any packets to them?
If I had an interview in X days and I didn't know Y which may be on it then I'd spend all my time making sure I knew enough of Y. I literally did that for my current job after I did badly during a phone interview, I told them I was rusty and that I won't be in X days and I made sure I wasn't. I'm a very good programmer Well this is probably your number one problem. You're assuming you're good and likely you're not. Especially by corporate and team based programming standards. Nonetheless since you assume otherwise you blame others for your failures instead of acknowledging the truth and striving to improve yourself. So, no enjoying a job and being good at it (I'm a very good programmer) are not enough to get you a job in this country any more. If you can't show other people that you're good then you're not good. End of story.
If I was looking for a programming job and I actually enjoyed programming enough then I'd be coding as much OSS in it as possible. High profile OSS aimed at solving problems that I perceive as being important but not tackled. I'd contribute heavily to well organize and well known projects. I'd learn and understand not just the languages that are "hot" but the methodologies behind how actual programmers program.
Anyway if you love programming then you program. If the first thing that comes to your head when you see a new problem with no visible solution isn't "well I can code something to do that" then you really don't love programming. I've written two FF extensions and modified a number of others because there was a need for them and no one else wrote them yet.
Meh. My internet connection is inherently insecure although it's free so I don't mind too much. I use ssh to a linux server I own as a proxy for anything that I don't want read by others.
Exactly. People seem to not be able to grasp the simple premise that it costs an ad network money to show ads (bandwidth and their own server infrastructure and so on). Logically if clicks and everything else are equal the more impressions you have the less they can pay you as they need to cover their own cost of showing the ads.
You forgot:
6. Has so much javascript and such a slow ad server that my browser freezes for 20 seconds while the ad loads.
Personally if an ad annoys me I block the whole ad network.
No, that's NOT how the GPL works. It says simply that if you give someone a binary then you must also give them the source code (if they request it I think). You can modify the code as much as you want and you have NO requirement to release it to anyone UNLESS you already released a binary of it to them. Of course they can in turn give the source code and binary to whomever they wish to.
Yes there is a difference. Some licenses REQUIRE you to release ALL/ANY modifications (even if they are for personal use) to the world or the original author or some such.
Not really that hard just more complicated/specialized, just take a screen shot around each mouse click location (or of the whole screen during a mouse click). Trivial if they do this only for specific websites (ie: only do this type of logging when you are on such a website).
Why exactly do you expect me to care about Erlang, I've never even heard of it before today.
Foaming at the mouth? No, you;re misunderstanding. we're either on the floor laughing at your stupidity or starting dumbfounded at our screens wondering how someone as stupid as you can possibly exist.
Please do continue posting as it's endlessly amusing, people like you are like digital clowns. After all every society needs a town idiot to make everyone else feel better about themselves.
In the UK being suspected of a crime gets your DNA put on file permanently, even if you are found perfectly innocent the next day and never arrested. I wouldn't be surprised if there were even smaller connections to a crime (victim, on looker, etc.) that also got you on file permanently. By contrast in the US you have to be convicted of a crime for that to happen.
In summary, learn something about engineering, robots and mars before attempting to talk about any of them in the future.
And I assume you do? I assume that every time you buy milk you do a detailed analysis of not just the company but the exact branch/location that supplied that milk. In turn you also go and visit them so as to interview the employees in person. Right?
Interesting. He's a waste of skin because he does things for reasons other than pure monetary profit? Or is he a waste of skin because he can give away $30k worth of car at will while you can't?
Yet if you sell your drm restricted product to a corporation or business there is no problem. You can restrict updatability as much has you want. Interesting definition of free you seem to have there. Free as long as one of our major supporters (IBM) isn't hurt by it, eh? Great moral based design you have there.
Interesting that despite having such a deep personal relationship with their god people seem to not actually hear him that much .After all they all seem to instead listen to some random stranger, the clergy of their religion, who in turn tells them what god supposedly said.
As I understand it molecular clocks are usually based around junk dna, in other words dna whose change does not affect the creature. This is in contrast to genes which when changed can significantly alter the creature.
Yeah and then some idiot will make them self-replicating and set the self-replication priority to 999 to maximize their return on the investment.
Why can't I just connect to my buddies' computer whose address I already have? Just like I can dial the telephone # of someone I know? If you want that then use another bloody service which does that. I've used Skype in a Swedish airport using headphones for a microphone to call land line numbers in three different countries.
Skype lets you connect to people easily without the hassle of remembering exactly which ip your friend got from his ISP and if it changes every other Tuesday or Thursday. Likewise I don't have to remember if this week my friend is visiting his parents or on a trip to Europe. Nor do he have to deal with trying to convince his hotel to punch a hole in their firewall for him. It is because of firewalls, dynamic IPs, and p2p stupidness. Firewalls are good, dynamic IPs are mostly also good (no IP is ever truly static in terms of identifying a given person) and what the bloody hell does this have to do with p2p?