Actually this is a pretty large shop where we have people that specialize in those areas, but it's not the average coders doing those jobs. Coders work on code, specialists work on automating builds in conjunction with System Admins that tune and build systems to meet the need. The same with regression testing. Specialists do those tasks, not average coders.
If every coder had task automation as a primary task, we'd be in a world of hurt and probably write very little code.
You are not correct at all. The power of Linux and Unix is not that you can't do things in a GUI. It was always that you were not forced to do so, which was the huge drift since Windows 95 where MS claimed the CLI to be dead and never coming back.
In *nix, we always maintained the ability to have CLI, which means scripting and task automation. Users can still run CAD or CAE applications and click away (though most of them use the CLI built in to CAD and CAE applications since it's more precise and faster to do.). Intro CAD was taught GUI only, OO products don't require CLI, Web Browsers and Email does not require CLI. But damnit if I need to automate a process and my trigger is Email, *nix had a way for me to do just that.
GUIs are not better, or more intuitive. They are more complex than ever and it takes people much longer to perform simple tasks. Example: Change your IP address on a Windows box, and I'll do the same on any *nix system. I can change a few hundred by the time you change one by the way.
Average Users (Joe Web Browser or Sally Word Processor) don't use or need a CLI, never have. That goes way way back to the DOS days by the way (obviously before Web Browsing), when a dual floppy was required to boot DOS and load Wordperfect. They didn't know DOS and didn't need to. But bet your ass some guy used a CLI to make the Average User function day to day.
Summary: CLI was never meant to be a User tool, it was meant for Power users and Administration. MS even realized this, though way to late when they started adding commands back in to the CLI and added Powershell more recently.
I replied to your statement which gives no room for benefit of the doubt and no room for an opposing view. Your quote was "If you initiate sex with a sleeping person you don't have consent. Sex without consent is by definiton rape. It doesn't matter if it wakes the person up or not, it's still sex without consent."
The person you replied to gave a good example of being in a relationship where his partner stated that they enjoyed being woken up that way. You chose who to reply to and you did not limit your comments to the Assange case. You implied that the person waking his partner up this way was raping his partner.
Those are your words, if you don't like to choke on them don't use them! If you had restricted your comments to Assange I would not have said what I did.
Critical thinking, logic, rhetoric, and debate ARE required learning at most universities offering 4 year or better degree programs. Maybe you should reconsider your level of education.
Sorry, but you are simply not telling the truth. Maybe you should start searching requirements for Science degrees. Most require a single semester, and Humanities and Political Science coursed can be used to fill the requirement. I have 2 math degrees, and was required a single semester of Philosophy. Humanities counted for the slot at my school. I took PHI 1 for the requirement, but ended up taking PHI 2, Ethics, and Logic because I enjoyed them not because they were required. That should not imply that all Universities are the same, I'm stating most don't have high requirements. More on this in a moment however.
Outside of the Universities, there used to be requirements for learning Philosophy much much earlier. It was expected that one could critically think by the time they reached college, so debate was Junior high and upward. Grammar and Rhetoric were taught at from Elementary school up, and Philosophy and Ethics were taught in High school. This really changed in the 60s and 70s.
One may argue that Universities never had high requirements because it was assumed that students learned all of those things prior to attending.
How do I know? My parents both had the curriculum I mentioned, my generation may have been the first (at least in Michigan) that was taught to pass standards tests instead of thinking. My parents were pretty vocal about it being a problem, and actively involved in politics and education system in the late 60s and early 70s. There is a tremendous amount information available on how our educational system has been changed in the last half century, pros and cons, etc.. Hell I'm not going to do everything for you so you can search it out.
Wow, where to start. I guess the first thing to state is that nowhere did I mention a Bible, or a specific Religion for that matter. That is not the topic, and introduces complications to the question that are not required initially. Sure, if you already believe in a creator Theology comes in to play. But if you are not sure, or disbelieve then why bother? That simplicity is the beauty of Aristotle's argument.. You know, the guy that pretty much invented most of what we know as Calculus and defined Physics for centuries.
Next is to "Science has no need for gods to explain things and by the very nature of how science functions, unobservable and untestable gods can not be the explanation. ". I replied to the other poster, so see that response. Basically, Science can not answer what started the Universe any more than Theology. There are reasons for this which should be painfully obvious to anyone that claims to believe in and understand physical science. Since it can not be answered through physical science, the question and answer become Philosophical. It is the only possible method, which leaves you with 2 possible choices. 1) The Universe just popped in to existence from nothing. 2) A creator made the Universe. It really is that simple, but of course truly understanding the question and answers is an extraordinarily complex task.
To your Einstein quote outside of the obvious editing: Why did you not bother to find and read the full quote? Why is it edited to back an atheist view?
The full quote is:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Do you see how the edits can completely change the statements being made? Wow, what a dirty trick people have been playing huh?
This is another very nice quote which I think illustrates his thoughts
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
I do understand that this is an appeal to authority to mention such a thing. It is however done to show the untruth spread by atheists claiming that smart people don't believe, and often citing Albert Einstein as an atheist as you did above (perhaps unintentionally).
Last point: Having debt is not how things are supposed to be. While it's understood that everyone can accrue some debt, what we have in the US goes well beyond you purchasing a house and having 30 years to pay off your mortgage.
The whole point of the Silver and Gold standards were to ensure that we in the US never printed a higher value in money that we were worth. Now I want you to check on some history here: When did the current standard get voted in, and how many politicians voted for the Federal Reserve standard? You will probably be shocked by the answer you find, unless you already know the answer.
Magically, in the last 40 years we have been able to burn though our GDP, our debt lease assigned by the Federal Reserve, and much much more. This is in addition to the Government taking money from Social Security, so the actual debt is much much higher than reported.
I'd agree with you that some debt is required simply to function, but I'm also skeptical about that even. The Government should never have to pay out more than it takes in. Just like a company should never have to borrow money every month, month after month to make payroll. It does happen, and I get the special cases very well. The special cases should not be the normal, and should never be considered normal as you are proposing.
You are absolutely wrong, or Linux distributions would not be able to exist either. Last I checked Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and many more all use this exact same model with GPL licensed source and binaries.
By the way, this is extremely similar to the way RedHat started making money. Provide the Distro but only give support and patches to those that pay. It's relatively recent that the model went all paid for, and it's been hurting their business so hopefully they move back to that model.
You are giving an argument from fallacy. The majority of people, including scientists today, still believe that there is a creator. The difference is, that more do not believe in traditional Religions. Even Steven Hawking until about a year ago claimed to believe in a creator. Logic (Philosophical Logic) takes nearly every person that studies the question to the same conclusion. That there is a creator. The only thing we have been able to show so far with Science including Philosophy is that we can't answer the question. Science can only measure after something occurred and prove what has happened. How do you measure a Universe that was not there to know what caused it? We have no possible way of doing so, and most likely we never will be able to.
As previously mentioned, I believe this is more of a question for why we no longer teach Philosophy. Why practicing critical thinking, logic, and ethics has been pushed into a corner and what is published is from a specific mind set (atheism). In fact in many science circles, the term Philosophy has been changed to mean the same thing as Theology. In the last few years, I have been reading more and more scientific blogs that shun Philosophy and the trend seems to be increasing.
Look, I don't care if you believe in a creator or not. Honestly, I have spent more than 20 years on the question personally. It's a constant challenge to weigh the new Cosmology and Physics theories that work against that belief. I'll debate with anyone, and am willing to consider anything logical thrown my way. That is the nature of Philosophy. To think, to question, to break down questions to the simplest form in order to answer, and to explain the answers with clarity.
What bothers me the most, is that the majority of atheists simply refuse to argue any point but their own. Fallacy and Theories is the alleged proof that they are correct, very much the same as you have with any person convinced that their Theology is correct. A Catholic may say "but the Bible" and an atheist will say "But the Big Bang". Neither will debate any further and quite frankly neither is the answer, both are road blocks in between the question and the answer.
I have a few blogs that I wrote on the subject if you are interested, but prefer to point people to Aristotle's work on the Uncaused Cause. While ending in a possible paradox, it's a very complete and well thought out piece of work. It's not biased to any Theology, and in most Universities you will study this work during Philosophy. It's been expanded on by many Philosophers, and still remains a valid set of work.
Most of the people I know in the business have no CS degree if they are technical, usually the CS degrees are owned by management. Personally, I have a dual Mathematics degree. My best friend, also working in the technical side has an Electrical Engineering degree, and many of the people I work with have no degree at all but learned hands on during the early days.
I learned long ago not to rate people on what degree they had. In the past few years, most that I have interviewed with CS degrees are self righteous sexual intellects which I turned away from jobs. (Sexual intellect = F%#ing Know it all)
Many coders were system admin people that enjoyed computers so much they learned and do it for love of coding. Many system admins were CAD designers or even data entry people that learned and enjoyed computers.
In closing, I do think it's important that you have knowledge before you step in to a job. A degree is not the best measure for how well someone will do in that job.
So let me get this right... If you have morning wood and your partner, which you have an active sexual relationship with, decides to wake you up by taking a joy ride.. it's rape?
Come now, you have to have at least a lick of common sense in your head somewhere. Shake your head around really really hard, I think something came loose!
2: 46% of our population think evolution is fiction and that the earth was created by god.
You do realize that the trend toward atheism being cool is extremely recent and not backed by sound Logic right? Whether you believe in Jesus or a different particular "God" is not the same thing as believing in a "Creator". I'm guessing that that thought is well beyond your comprehension, but perhaps you should start realizing that all of the Theories of Cosmology are just that.. Theories. Which is the same as a Theory of having a Creator.. a Theory. The difference however is that logically you can come to a conclusion of having a creator, it's extremely difficult to use logic and determine that the Universe just happened from nothing.
There is no possible way that you could convince me that you are smarter than 99% of the Scientists and Philosophers through history. Aristotle, Newton, Descartes were not only incredibly gifted Scientists but also strong Philosophers that believed in a Creator. The same can be said for Socrates, Plato, Aquinas, Einstein, and the list goes on and on and on. And please pull your head out of your ass well before you say anything about Einstein being a practicing Jew or not.. it's not relevant to the point that he believed in a creator. Read the books, read his work, it's all in plain sight.
Maybe you should start to ask yourself why Philosophy is no longer required learning. Philosophy includes things like Critical Thinking, Logic, Rhetoric, and debate. From all of the stuff you posted, you lack every one of those skills. You regurgitate things people have told you, and probably believe it all to be true. Claiming that our debt is not a problem is purely idiotic. It's a fallacy presented to you, and you just repeat it without checking any facts for yourself.
What we should be doing is not trying to determine blame, but trying to fix the mess we currently have. Yes, it is a monster that has been growing for at least 30 years. Each administration has promised to "fix" things, and yet nothing has been fixed (in fact many obviously broken policies have been expanded). Isn't the more obvious thing to do to look at replacing the administration instead of finding blame? And quite frankly, since the GOP already told voters in Iowa to fuck off, it's going to be hard as hell to fix it. If you are not familiar with my comment regarding the GOP, you can easily find transcripts of the GOP leaders in Iowa stating on Radio that it did not matter what voters want, Ron Paul would not be nominated.
Now, take Ron Paul off that statement and insert any name you want, the party line will be the same. It's very rudimentary critical thinking to do so.
Think about it, Obama had the platform of "Hope and Change". Hell, we all know we need to do just that. Putting in yet another person from a corrupt administration is obviously no longer the change we should be demanding.
I think the difference is that the corruptions are being well hidden in the latter, while it's more open in the former. Think from the mind set of : If you are going to be a criminal and screw over millions of people, at least have the balls to say it.
My bad, add the word "eat" to the search. The first item on the list is a video about reefer madness, the second is a pot brownie, the third is the urban dictionary definition. Here is the search link in case you are lazy.
There is a common sense factor you are not applying. Go ahead and Google "brownies" and see what you get. Even properly supervised your kids are going to see lots of bad things. Why? There are a lot of shitty people in the world that do shitty things, and the internet means that they have instant access to everyone as long as they have a connection. Now when a pr0n provider has no ability to set key words, I'll agree with you. Have you ever pulled a pr0n site key word list just for educational purposes?
Now, is the solution really censorship? Maybe, but perhaps we are not looking at censoring the correct thing.
Look, it's a great cop out to say "But the Parents". But what would you do if a strip joint tried to open next door to your house assuming you have a family? You protest and don't let them open of course. Is it bad that a person can walk in and see a boob and drink a beer? Of course it's not, but you don't want your children exposed to those people and that lifestyle. Roxxy may be a nice person by the way, but is she the role model you want for your daughter?
It's a shame this is posted anonymously since it is an exceptional response. I believe that this is one of many things Ron Paul talked about, as well as numerous other conservatives both R and D. The problem is not that we don't have laws, quite the contrary. It's the massive amount of deregulation and special case clauses we have added to laws that are the problem.
Hell, this goes back 20 years now with Ross Perot. Of course MSM won't talk about it, but the same problems then have been extended and become much worse. Hint (and this is one of hundreds of examples): Tax code 20 years ago was around 20,000 pages long, and today it's over 60,000 pages long. No one can read the damn thing, so how do you know if you are not illegal when filing? File long form? Good luck with that audit.
Probably modded because Ayn Rand is a Philosopher and heaven help anyone that speaks of Philosophy. Fallacy, Rhetoric are generally the other scary words that tend to send sheople screaming.
To second your point however, Plato's Republic also talks about the same issues with the Allegory of the Artisan. It's the same theme set played over and over through history. We humans fail over and over to learn and remember history, so repeat the same things over and over again.
And perhaps an apology is in order, since my reply does not fit with what you were stating regarding technical data and services. The abuse of consumers in the article and market I believe goes way beyond just the meat and potatoes you gave a great example of.
What I wonder is if you realize that there is psychological reasons for pushing and designing games and many forms of entertainment (like Social Media). The current design systems for the most part use psychological methods proven in the 50's to be extremely effective at creating an addictive behaviors. Have you also noticed the amount of people that want you hooked? "Like us on Facebook" means one actually must visit and figure out how to use the site.
Whether it's intentional or not, or nefarious or not, is a different question. There is however a simple reality which is we have known since the 50's how easy it is to create addictive behaviors in people (see Slot machines) and now we are at a time where we are continually being pushed toward those behaviors, and new attractions to the same behaviors have become the normal.
One more piece to add to the creepy factor, is that many brainwashing techniques are currently being used to push people toward certain behaviors and react in certain ways to various subjects. Again, these techniques have been proven to be effective long before the invention of the Internet. As with above, whether it is nefarious and intentional is a different question. The methods are all around you, you just need to look. The internet just makes what we already knew about exploiting people easier for everyone to access.
Actually I make few assumptions since I'm pretty familiar with how it works, hence my example of how law firms will try and continue cases. Do those tactics work with the larger companies? Maybe not, but they do work well with small to middle sized companies, and even the smaller large companies. Remember that the majority of companies and corporations in the US can not afford the type of legal staff you are talking about, or have the operational knowledge you are talking about. The reason is obviously that most businesses in the US are small to middle sized, but I'm sure you know that.
Billing from an Attorney/Firm is generally accurate, however there are many fees and costs which don't make sense to average Joe. I'm sure you know that "Filings" as a billing category is a very general item. It could be preparation, research, countless types of requests for the court, writing the documents, and finally actually filing something. Big companies may ask for a break down, but generally it's only provided on request and usually has additional fees.
I don't believe that many law firms are actually, in your terms, abusive. I do believe that many will squeeze a bit extra out of anyone possible, and assuming the money keeps rolling in they will pursue cases that are lost before they hit the court room.
Lastly, with Business Process Patents there are far more turds than anything else on both ends of the spectrum. All of those turds are sitting in a patch of grass that should have never been, since the patenting of ideas is not something that should have been allowed and is against the concept of a patent as a whole. Abuse is rampant in the system, and as with my example above it's horrible for everyone except: Legal people that make money from it, and businesses that can afford to buy in to the game. Those two things are an extremely small percentage of the social and economical make up of the USA.
Wait, you are claiming that the post is not valid because in-house lawyers don't generally do the litigation? You state yourself that outside firms normally handle that litigation. This points at the post being more correct, not less correct based on that fact. An outside firm has to worry about their jobs, so of course prolong cases to increase revenue when possible. At the same time, I'm sure that businesses are shown over and over how companyA won a million dollars from companyB, and using case law think they can win.. even in cases like SCO vs. IBM.
The whole idea patent bullshit needs to be reverted and removed from the system. Let's all just call it a social experiment that went totally wrong and be done already. It has broken the patent system as to be nothing but a big joke to everyone except a few select law firms and companies that make money trolling on patents, and of course those with enough capital to staff law firms and patent writers.
Nobody want's to innovate in this environment for fear of being sued into Chinese rice farmer poverty. Hell, look at the innovation rewards Nest is getting thanks to Honeywell. In case you are not familiar here is an article. The opinions expressed against Honeywell don't take away the lawsuit, the C&D orders, the lost revenue, etc.. etc...
Thank you! Wholly shit I wish I could get the 5 minutes back I wasted reading that turd someone labeled "article".
Didn't read TFA? Consider yourself lucky. Rambling about nothing important to anyone except the author. Should have been posted as Facebook status, not an article pointed to on/.
Make it up? Wholly shit you don't even know the theories you prescribe to do you? Until about a year ago, the teaching from Cosmology was that the Universe expanded from a ball of spinning mass, estimated at 170,000 light years across. This is what is being taught to kids in school presently, go ahead and visit your local schools and read their science books (this in addition to searching the web for similar text). Of course the size of the mass and rotation has changed as often as aging the Universe in the last 30 years. Today, you will find not less than 3 different ages according to the links in the paper below.
In the last couple years papers have been released stating the Universe came from mass of less in size than the head of a pin. Here is the link. This is not the globally accepted model, but is the current cosmology.
Notice that the hypothetical values here for invisible made up things like Dark matter and Dark energy (not to be confused with physics probable Heavy Elements) puts the actual value of atoms and energy at a whopping 4% of the total Universe.
96% of the Universe by this model is invisible and speculation. We have never detected the actual presence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy after over 4 decades of space travel, including numerous trips to our Moon, Mars, Saturn, and even 2 space craft hitting the edge of our solar system.
Believing that much is okay, but if you believe there was a creator that started the event one is just insane right?
And yes, by all of the current cosmology descriptions available for the Big Bang and expansion of the Universe you end up with a condition of nothing as the precursor as an atheist, unless of course you are using a non-standard definition of atheism. A creator would be the cause for the mass and event, and an atheist does not believe in a creator.
Most recruiters will go through the long list of expertise you are looking for, and stick your resume in the circular file as soon as you say "I'm not an expert with that one". From experience, you can get interviews if you bullshit them and say "Fu*$ Yeah!, I'm an expert with any technology!". This is why you have companies training people on the list of 80,000 acronyms one must have in order to get a job in the US, and how to quickly Google answers. Of course I have yet to see someone come from one of those training places and be worth more than a turd in the trashcan when it came to actual knowledge and skills.
I started replying back to people stating that they are not looking for a single person, since no single person could possibly be an expert with what they were asking. I try to do so in a professional manner so they get the point, but at the same time they will receive lots of replies to that same job posting from people that claim to be experts in everything.
A side note among all the others is to never ever under any circumstances run a web browser as someone that can have their privileges elevated to root, or more obviously a root user.
That one simple thing is the reason you will be hard pressed to find any viruses for Linux in the wild. Conceptually possible of course, and that should not discount the threat of brute force attacks or buffer over flow attacks. Root is the only thing that can mess with system level functions.
If you are using Ubuntu, it's important to think about removing your account from sudoers if browsing. Ubuntu (last I checked) by default asks you for a user name and password for non-root activities, but then creates a no-password entry in sudo for that same account.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually this is a pretty large shop where we have people that specialize in those areas, but it's not the average coders doing those jobs. Coders work on code, specialists work on automating builds in conjunction with System Admins that tune and build systems to meet the need. The same with regression testing. Specialists do those tasks, not average coders.
If every coder had task automation as a primary task, we'd be in a world of hurt and probably write very little code.
You are not correct at all. The power of Linux and Unix is not that you can't do things in a GUI. It was always that you were not forced to do so, which was the huge drift since Windows 95 where MS claimed the CLI to be dead and never coming back.
In *nix, we always maintained the ability to have CLI, which means scripting and task automation. Users can still run CAD or CAE applications and click away (though most of them use the CLI built in to CAD and CAE applications since it's more precise and faster to do.). Intro CAD was taught GUI only, OO products don't require CLI, Web Browsers and Email does not require CLI. But damnit if I need to automate a process and my trigger is Email, *nix had a way for me to do just that.
GUIs are not better, or more intuitive. They are more complex than ever and it takes people much longer to perform simple tasks. Example: Change your IP address on a Windows box, and I'll do the same on any *nix system. I can change a few hundred by the time you change one by the way.
Average Users (Joe Web Browser or Sally Word Processor) don't use or need a CLI, never have. That goes way way back to the DOS days by the way (obviously before Web Browsing), when a dual floppy was required to boot DOS and load Wordperfect. They didn't know DOS and didn't need to. But bet your ass some guy used a CLI to make the Average User function day to day.
Summary: CLI was never meant to be a User tool, it was meant for Power users and Administration. MS even realized this, though way to late when they started adding commands back in to the CLI and added Powershell more recently.
I replied to your statement which gives no room for benefit of the doubt and no room for an opposing view. Your quote was "If you initiate sex with a sleeping person you don't have consent. Sex without consent is by definiton rape. It doesn't matter if it wakes the person up or not, it's still sex without consent."
The person you replied to gave a good example of being in a relationship where his partner stated that they enjoyed being woken up that way. You chose who to reply to and you did not limit your comments to the Assange case. You implied that the person waking his partner up this way was raping his partner.
Those are your words, if you don't like to choke on them don't use them! If you had restricted your comments to Assange I would not have said what I did.
I missed something very important also:
Critical thinking, logic, rhetoric, and debate ARE required learning at most universities offering 4 year or better degree programs. Maybe you should reconsider your level of education.
Sorry, but you are simply not telling the truth. Maybe you should start searching requirements for Science degrees. Most require a single semester, and Humanities and Political Science coursed can be used to fill the requirement. I have 2 math degrees, and was required a single semester of Philosophy. Humanities counted for the slot at my school. I took PHI 1 for the requirement, but ended up taking PHI 2, Ethics, and Logic because I enjoyed them not because they were required. That should not imply that all Universities are the same, I'm stating most don't have high requirements. More on this in a moment however.
Outside of the Universities, there used to be requirements for learning Philosophy much much earlier. It was expected that one could critically think by the time they reached college, so debate was Junior high and upward. Grammar and Rhetoric were taught at from Elementary school up, and Philosophy and Ethics were taught in High school. This really changed in the 60s and 70s.
One may argue that Universities never had high requirements because it was assumed that students learned all of those things prior to attending.
How do I know? My parents both had the curriculum I mentioned, my generation may have been the first (at least in Michigan) that was taught to pass standards tests instead of thinking. My parents were pretty vocal about it being a problem, and actively involved in politics and education system in the late 60s and early 70s. There is a tremendous amount information available on how our educational system has been changed in the last half century, pros and cons, etc.. Hell I'm not going to do everything for you so you can search it out.
Wow, where to start. I guess the first thing to state is that nowhere did I mention a Bible, or a specific Religion for that matter. That is not the topic, and introduces complications to the question that are not required initially. Sure, if you already believe in a creator Theology comes in to play. But if you are not sure, or disbelieve then why bother? That simplicity is the beauty of Aristotle's argument.. You know, the guy that pretty much invented most of what we know as Calculus and defined Physics for centuries.
Next is to "Science has no need for gods to explain things and by the very nature of how science functions, unobservable and untestable gods can not be the explanation. ". I replied to the other poster, so see that response. Basically, Science can not answer what started the Universe any more than Theology. There are reasons for this which should be painfully obvious to anyone that claims to believe in and understand physical science. Since it can not be answered through physical science, the question and answer become Philosophical. It is the only possible method, which leaves you with 2 possible choices. 1) The Universe just popped in to existence from nothing. 2) A creator made the Universe. It really is that simple, but of course truly understanding the question and answers is an extraordinarily complex task.
To your Einstein quote outside of the obvious editing: Why did you not bother to find and read the full quote? Why is it edited to back an atheist view? The full quote is:
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Do you see how the edits can completely change the statements being made? Wow, what a dirty trick people have been playing huh?
This is another very nice quote which I think illustrates his thoughts
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
I do understand that this is an appeal to authority to mention such a thing. It is however done to show the untruth spread by atheists claiming that smart people don't believe, and often citing Albert Einstein as an atheist as you did above (perhaps unintentionally).
Last point: Having debt is not how things are supposed to be. While it's understood that everyone can accrue some debt, what we have in the US goes well beyond you purchasing a house and having 30 years to pay off your mortgage.
The whole point of the Silver and Gold standards were to ensure that we in the US never printed a higher value in money that we were worth. Now I want you to check on some history here: When did the current standard get voted in, and how many politicians voted for the Federal Reserve standard? You will probably be shocked by the answer you find, unless you already know the answer.
Magically, in the last 40 years we have been able to burn though our GDP, our debt lease assigned by the Federal Reserve, and much much more. This is in addition to the Government taking money from Social Security, so the actual debt is much much higher than reported.
I'd agree with you that some debt is required simply to function, but I'm also skeptical about that even. The Government should never have to pay out more than it takes in. Just like a company should never have to borrow money every month, month after month to make payroll. It does happen, and I get the special cases very well. The special cases should not be the normal, and should never be considered normal as you are proposing.
You are absolutely wrong, or Linux distributions would not be able to exist either. Last I checked Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, and many more all use this exact same model with GPL licensed source and binaries.
By the way, this is extremely similar to the way RedHat started making money. Provide the Distro but only give support and patches to those that pay. It's relatively recent that the model went all paid for, and it's been hurting their business so hopefully they move back to that model.
You are giving an argument from fallacy. The majority of people, including scientists today, still believe that there is a creator. The difference is, that more do not believe in traditional Religions. Even Steven Hawking until about a year ago claimed to believe in a creator. Logic (Philosophical Logic) takes nearly every person that studies the question to the same conclusion. That there is a creator. The only thing we have been able to show so far with Science including Philosophy is that we can't answer the question. Science can only measure after something occurred and prove what has happened. How do you measure a Universe that was not there to know what caused it? We have no possible way of doing so, and most likely we never will be able to.
As previously mentioned, I believe this is more of a question for why we no longer teach Philosophy. Why practicing critical thinking, logic, and ethics has been pushed into a corner and what is published is from a specific mind set (atheism). In fact in many science circles, the term Philosophy has been changed to mean the same thing as Theology. In the last few years, I have been reading more and more scientific blogs that shun Philosophy and the trend seems to be increasing.
Look, I don't care if you believe in a creator or not. Honestly, I have spent more than 20 years on the question personally. It's a constant challenge to weigh the new Cosmology and Physics theories that work against that belief. I'll debate with anyone, and am willing to consider anything logical thrown my way. That is the nature of Philosophy. To think, to question, to break down questions to the simplest form in order to answer, and to explain the answers with clarity.
What bothers me the most, is that the majority of atheists simply refuse to argue any point but their own. Fallacy and Theories is the alleged proof that they are correct, very much the same as you have with any person convinced that their Theology is correct. A Catholic may say "but the Bible" and an atheist will say "But the Big Bang". Neither will debate any further and quite frankly neither is the answer, both are road blocks in between the question and the answer.
I have a few blogs that I wrote on the subject if you are interested, but prefer to point people to Aristotle's work on the Uncaused Cause. While ending in a possible paradox, it's a very complete and well thought out piece of work. It's not biased to any Theology, and in most Universities you will study this work during Philosophy. It's been expanded on by many Philosophers, and still remains a valid set of work.
I believe you are confusing System Administration with Coders, there is a huge huge difference.
Most of the people I know in the business have no CS degree if they are technical, usually the CS degrees are owned by management. Personally, I have a dual Mathematics degree. My best friend, also working in the technical side has an Electrical Engineering degree, and many of the people I work with have no degree at all but learned hands on during the early days.
I learned long ago not to rate people on what degree they had. In the past few years, most that I have interviewed with CS degrees are self righteous sexual intellects which I turned away from jobs. (Sexual intellect = F%#ing Know it all)
Many coders were system admin people that enjoyed computers so much they learned and do it for love of coding. Many system admins were CAD designers or even data entry people that learned and enjoyed computers.
In closing, I do think it's important that you have knowledge before you step in to a job. A degree is not the best measure for how well someone will do in that job.
So let me get this right... If you have morning wood and your partner, which you have an active sexual relationship with, decides to wake you up by taking a joy ride.. it's rape?
Come now, you have to have at least a lick of common sense in your head somewhere. Shake your head around really really hard, I think something came loose!
2: 46% of our population think evolution is fiction and that the earth was created by god.
You do realize that the trend toward atheism being cool is extremely recent and not backed by sound Logic right? Whether you believe in Jesus or a different particular "God" is not the same thing as believing in a "Creator". I'm guessing that that thought is well beyond your comprehension, but perhaps you should start realizing that all of the Theories of Cosmology are just that.. Theories. Which is the same as a Theory of having a Creator.. a Theory. The difference however is that logically you can come to a conclusion of having a creator, it's extremely difficult to use logic and determine that the Universe just happened from nothing.
There is no possible way that you could convince me that you are smarter than 99% of the Scientists and Philosophers through history. Aristotle, Newton, Descartes were not only incredibly gifted Scientists but also strong Philosophers that believed in a Creator. The same can be said for Socrates, Plato, Aquinas, Einstein, and the list goes on and on and on. And please pull your head out of your ass well before you say anything about Einstein being a practicing Jew or not.. it's not relevant to the point that he believed in a creator. Read the books, read his work, it's all in plain sight.
Maybe you should start to ask yourself why Philosophy is no longer required learning. Philosophy includes things like Critical Thinking, Logic, Rhetoric, and debate. From all of the stuff you posted, you lack every one of those skills. You regurgitate things people have told you, and probably believe it all to be true. Claiming that our debt is not a problem is purely idiotic. It's a fallacy presented to you, and you just repeat it without checking any facts for yourself.
What we should be doing is not trying to determine blame, but trying to fix the mess we currently have. Yes, it is a monster that has been growing for at least 30 years. Each administration has promised to "fix" things, and yet nothing has been fixed (in fact many obviously broken policies have been expanded). Isn't the more obvious thing to do to look at replacing the administration instead of finding blame? And quite frankly, since the GOP already told voters in Iowa to fuck off, it's going to be hard as hell to fix it. If you are not familiar with my comment regarding the GOP, you can easily find transcripts of the GOP leaders in Iowa stating on Radio that it did not matter what voters want, Ron Paul would not be nominated.
Now, take Ron Paul off that statement and insert any name you want, the party line will be the same. It's very rudimentary critical thinking to do so.
Think about it, Obama had the platform of "Hope and Change". Hell, we all know we need to do just that. Putting in yet another person from a corrupt administration is obviously no longer the change we should be demanding.
I think the difference is that the corruptions are being well hidden in the latter, while it's more open in the former. Think from the mind set of : If you are going to be a criminal and screw over millions of people, at least have the balls to say it.
My bad, add the word "eat" to the search. The first item on the list is a video about reefer madness, the second is a pot brownie, the third is the urban dictionary definition. Here is the search link in case you are lazy.
There is a common sense factor you are not applying. Go ahead and Google "brownies" and see what you get. Even properly supervised your kids are going to see lots of bad things. Why? There are a lot of shitty people in the world that do shitty things, and the internet means that they have instant access to everyone as long as they have a connection. Now when a pr0n provider has no ability to set key words, I'll agree with you. Have you ever pulled a pr0n site key word list just for educational purposes?
Now, is the solution really censorship? Maybe, but perhaps we are not looking at censoring the correct thing.
Look, it's a great cop out to say "But the Parents". But what would you do if a strip joint tried to open next door to your house assuming you have a family? You protest and don't let them open of course. Is it bad that a person can walk in and see a boob and drink a beer? Of course it's not, but you don't want your children exposed to those people and that lifestyle. Roxxy may be a nice person by the way, but is she the role model you want for your daughter?
It's a shame this is posted anonymously since it is an exceptional response. I believe that this is one of many things Ron Paul talked about, as well as numerous other conservatives both R and D. The problem is not that we don't have laws, quite the contrary. It's the massive amount of deregulation and special case clauses we have added to laws that are the problem.
Hell, this goes back 20 years now with Ross Perot. Of course MSM won't talk about it, but the same problems then have been extended and become much worse. Hint (and this is one of hundreds of examples): Tax code 20 years ago was around 20,000 pages long, and today it's over 60,000 pages long. No one can read the damn thing, so how do you know if you are not illegal when filing? File long form? Good luck with that audit.
Probably modded because Ayn Rand is a Philosopher and heaven help anyone that speaks of Philosophy. Fallacy, Rhetoric are generally the other scary words that tend to send sheople screaming.
To second your point however, Plato's Republic also talks about the same issues with the Allegory of the Artisan. It's the same theme set played over and over through history. We humans fail over and over to learn and remember history, so repeat the same things over and over again.
And perhaps an apology is in order, since my reply does not fit with what you were stating regarding technical data and services. The abuse of consumers in the article and market I believe goes way beyond just the meat and potatoes you gave a great example of.
What I wonder is if you realize that there is psychological reasons for pushing and designing games and many forms of entertainment (like Social Media). The current design systems for the most part use psychological methods proven in the 50's to be extremely effective at creating an addictive behaviors. Have you also noticed the amount of people that want you hooked? "Like us on Facebook" means one actually must visit and figure out how to use the site.
Whether it's intentional or not, or nefarious or not, is a different question. There is however a simple reality which is we have known since the 50's how easy it is to create addictive behaviors in people (see Slot machines) and now we are at a time where we are continually being pushed toward those behaviors, and new attractions to the same behaviors have become the normal.
One more piece to add to the creepy factor, is that many brainwashing techniques are currently being used to push people toward certain behaviors and react in certain ways to various subjects. Again, these techniques have been proven to be effective long before the invention of the Internet. As with above, whether it is nefarious and intentional is a different question. The methods are all around you, you just need to look. The internet just makes what we already knew about exploiting people easier for everyone to access.
Actually I make few assumptions since I'm pretty familiar with how it works, hence my example of how law firms will try and continue cases. Do those tactics work with the larger companies? Maybe not, but they do work well with small to middle sized companies, and even the smaller large companies. Remember that the majority of companies and corporations in the US can not afford the type of legal staff you are talking about, or have the operational knowledge you are talking about. The reason is obviously that most businesses in the US are small to middle sized, but I'm sure you know that.
Billing from an Attorney/Firm is generally accurate, however there are many fees and costs which don't make sense to average Joe. I'm sure you know that "Filings" as a billing category is a very general item. It could be preparation, research, countless types of requests for the court, writing the documents, and finally actually filing something. Big companies may ask for a break down, but generally it's only provided on request and usually has additional fees.
I don't believe that many law firms are actually, in your terms, abusive. I do believe that many will squeeze a bit extra out of anyone possible, and assuming the money keeps rolling in they will pursue cases that are lost before they hit the court room.
Lastly, with Business Process Patents there are far more turds than anything else on both ends of the spectrum. All of those turds are sitting in a patch of grass that should have never been, since the patenting of ideas is not something that should have been allowed and is against the concept of a patent as a whole. Abuse is rampant in the system, and as with my example above it's horrible for everyone except: Legal people that make money from it, and businesses that can afford to buy in to the game. Those two things are an extremely small percentage of the social and economical make up of the USA.
Wait, you are claiming that the post is not valid because in-house lawyers don't generally do the litigation? You state yourself that outside firms normally handle that litigation. This points at the post being more correct, not less correct based on that fact. An outside firm has to worry about their jobs, so of course prolong cases to increase revenue when possible. At the same time, I'm sure that businesses are shown over and over how companyA won a million dollars from companyB, and using case law think they can win.. even in cases like SCO vs. IBM.
The whole idea patent bullshit needs to be reverted and removed from the system. Let's all just call it a social experiment that went totally wrong and be done already. It has broken the patent system as to be nothing but a big joke to everyone except a few select law firms and companies that make money trolling on patents, and of course those with enough capital to staff law firms and patent writers.
Nobody want's to innovate in this environment for fear of being sued into Chinese rice farmer poverty. Hell, look at the innovation rewards Nest is getting thanks to Honeywell. In case you are not familiar here is an article. The opinions expressed against Honeywell don't take away the lawsuit, the C&D orders, the lost revenue, etc.. etc...
Thank you! Wholly shit I wish I could get the 5 minutes back I wasted reading that turd someone labeled "article".
Didn't read TFA? Consider yourself lucky. Rambling about nothing important to anyone except the author. Should have been posted as Facebook status, not an article pointed to on /.
/sigh
Make it up? Wholly shit you don't even know the theories you prescribe to do you? Until about a year ago, the teaching from Cosmology was that the Universe expanded from a ball of spinning mass, estimated at 170,000 light years across. This is what is being taught to kids in school presently, go ahead and visit your local schools and read their science books (this in addition to searching the web for similar text). Of course the size of the mass and rotation has changed as often as aging the Universe in the last 30 years. Today, you will find not less than 3 different ages according to the links in the paper below.
In the last couple years papers have been released stating the Universe came from mass of less in size than the head of a pin. Here is the link. This is not the globally accepted model, but is the current cosmology.
Notice that the hypothetical values here for invisible made up things like Dark matter and Dark energy (not to be confused with physics probable Heavy Elements) puts the actual value of atoms and energy at a whopping 4% of the total Universe.
96% of the Universe by this model is invisible and speculation. We have never detected the actual presence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy after over 4 decades of space travel, including numerous trips to our Moon, Mars, Saturn, and even 2 space craft hitting the edge of our solar system.
Believing that much is okay, but if you believe there was a creator that started the event one is just insane right?
And yes, by all of the current cosmology descriptions available for the Big Bang and expansion of the Universe you end up with a condition of nothing as the precursor as an atheist, unless of course you are using a non-standard definition of atheism. A creator would be the cause for the mass and event, and an atheist does not believe in a creator.
Most recruiters will go through the long list of expertise you are looking for, and stick your resume in the circular file as soon as you say "I'm not an expert with that one". From experience, you can get interviews if you bullshit them and say "Fu*$ Yeah!, I'm an expert with any technology!". This is why you have companies training people on the list of 80,000 acronyms one must have in order to get a job in the US, and how to quickly Google answers. Of course I have yet to see someone come from one of those training places and be worth more than a turd in the trashcan when it came to actual knowledge and skills.
I started replying back to people stating that they are not looking for a single person, since no single person could possibly be an expert with what they were asking. I try to do so in a professional manner so they get the point, but at the same time they will receive lots of replies to that same job posting from people that claim to be experts in everything.
A side note among all the others is to never ever under any circumstances run a web browser as someone that can have their privileges elevated to root, or more obviously a root user.
That one simple thing is the reason you will be hard pressed to find any viruses for Linux in the wild. Conceptually possible of course, and that should not discount the threat of brute force attacks or buffer over flow attacks. Root is the only thing that can mess with system level functions.
If you are using Ubuntu, it's important to think about removing your account from sudoers if browsing. Ubuntu (last I checked) by default asks you for a user name and password for non-root activities, but then creates a no-password entry in sudo for that same account.