... and have a connection with local computer science, and Americans, and I think there's a mixed bag of reasons. Education style is a factor: education here is "memorize these twenty sort of situations and learn to recognize them. Next week you'll memorize twenty more." American education is more creative, and against "rote learning." The result is that here in Eurasia students have very strong memories, are very good at pattern recognition, and can beat the Americans in a question of "How do you code Kruskal's algorithm? Quick!" The Americans are not very good at memorizing anything, but I think they do better on problems that might be unlike any problem they've seen before, that maybe stumps a local. Also there are cultural factors. On the plus side, clever geeks here are definitely into programming, and PCs are more or less affordable; coding is pretty accessible. Lots of people see education and qualifications as their big ray of hope to make a decent living in a precarious economy -- and there is some truth to this point of view. On the minus side, creating a strong object-oriented design, writing maintainable software, doing good documentation -- not very much encouraged here. It's hard work, it is not nearly as fun as writing really hot code. So there is a tendency to turn code into an Olympic sport, with an accent on speed coding, learning all the cool algorithm paradigms, using clever tricks, the saving four bytes of memory, the saving of two clock cycles... and writing unreadable, unmaintainable, undocumented code. That kind of coding is fun, but it isn't pro quality software engineering.
Remember that Minix Master and Amoeba Artiste AST spells his name with two, not three, Ns: Andrew Tanenbaum. I learned so much dissecting Minix version 1 way back when, I have a warm place in my heart for that guy.
Agreed. Dull-witted myopia cannot really be rigidly separated from wickness: it's all depravity, ultimately. Both extremes form a single projective limit, rather than two affine limits.
I used to get all mad at Christians for not seeing this, until I realized that actually it's a foundation of their theology, albeit sometimes-forgotten.
Only people with no motivation or no skill make $25k a year for any extended period of time.
You forgot "no greed," or some qualifier like "in the UNITED STATES" or some other highly developed country. For example, consider Peace Corps volunteers. Some are very talented and motivated. They live on peanuts, and they change the world at a grassroots level. I'm not one of them, but I've seen what they do and it looks like very satisfying work.
You are hereby commanded to cease your public "beating a dead horse" until such time as you have obtained a license to the relevant patent 937,105,195, Method for Endlessly Prolonging Slashdot Threads, to which my company, LandruBek Holdings LLP, holds title. And jealously guards!
Trade secrets leakage are probably NOT covered by first amendment freedom of speech. If the general public are protected by leakage, then yes....
IANAL but I would guess that Congress shall make no law abridging one's freedom to leak trade secrets. Hypothetically, what if you worked for AT&T and wanted to make known the fact that the company was (secretly) giving the NSA broad access to your company's switching equipment? (I know it doesn't sound much like a trade secret, but I bet that label could be flexed to cover such a case.)
Basically, it is none of the Feds' business whether Joe Employee decides, for whatever reason (maybe money, maybe conscience) to spill the beans about something going on at work. If Joe is violating his NDA, then there are already state laws that will take care of that problem.
The scenario you are suggesting is that if Congress passed such a law, non-disclosure agreements would be pretty much unnecessary, and it would be a Federal crime to reveal a trade secret! Bad scene.
Pretty good (for a pun). For the non-HAMs, look here.
Fun fact: the Yagi-Uda antenna was more the work of Uda, but since Yagi did the English translation of the paper, he ended up with the bulk of the fame. Ah life.
Although I don't like DRM I think this is something of a hopeful sign -- to see more legal movie distribution via download. If it gets to be common knowledge that download != illegal (much less "piracy" or "theft"), then the MPAA and RIAA won't (I predict) be able to pass a lot of goofy, anti-P2P legislation.
The stifling effect of widespread DRM is another serious problem, but I would rather for the moment rather see legitimate, mass-consumption downloads, and then we'll see less "troll" legislation.
Wow, that bill is terrific! It makes me want to move to New Hampshire. I'm likely to relocate back to the USA soon, so if all other factors were equal, this could have been important. Unfortunately I didn't get accepted to grad school there -- and all other factors are far from equal. *Sigh*
Confuzzled, I'm with you, and I can't see how GP got modded up so high. I hope this gets examined in meta-moderation, because GP is just spewing nonsense.
This reminds me -- did you know that in Russian prisons, there is a tremendous "tattoo culture"? Permanent as branding, but more refined. For the most part the prisoners tattoo themselves. The tattoos form a symbolic language, often employing religious images, whether or not the prisoners themselves are believers. Sorry it's a bit Offtopic but I hope this is Interesting.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Christians are the primary anti-science force in the US and Europe?
GP is objecting to the fallacy of "affirming the conclusion." Anti-science morons seem to be Christians. So if someone is a Christian, does that mean he/she is a moron? What would Spock say?
I know correlation does not imply causation. I did not know there's a correlation between race and crime -- and I'm kind of skeptical -- but if there is, one could still cobble together a hypothesis about it, involving explotation, cycles of poverty, which crimes are easier to prosecute, etc. Surely sociologists would say there's a cause behind the correlation -- people in the west are all so in love with Aristotelian ontology that they say there is a cause for EVERY effect.
But in the case of sexual abuse and homosexuality, it is difficult to think of an external cause that explains things. If we narrow the discussion to the correlation between childhood sexual abuse and later homosexuality, then consider these hypotheses:
1. The abuse itself is at least a partial cause of homosexuality; or 2. Homosexuality is totally genetic, and...
2A....abusers (somehow) seek out pre-gay children; or
2B....the victims are somehow responsible. (Abusers sometimes say this.)
2C....there's some sort of third, external cause -- maybe a historical cause keeping abusers and pre-gay kids together, and the abusers attack at random.
Or something else. Alright, this will be my last post on this thread. I'm just sayin', it sounds like you are saying that the environment has ABSOLUTELY NO effect on orientation, and that strikes me as dogmatic. Hypothesis #1 to me sounds easier to buy than 2A, 2B, or 2C.
I think we both would agree that sexual orientation isn't something that people ever just "suddenly decide" upon. All I'm saying is that orientation isn't necessarily 100% genetic. You're probably aware of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality. Hypothesizing that "environment" can have at least SOME effect on sexual orientation provides an explanation for this correlation, whereas hypothesizing that orientation is purely genetic doesn't, I think, allow any good explanation.
The "was" part is not obvious. Pretty obvious she now IS bisexual (depending on your definition) but the GP is suggesting she might have become so because she was raped at least 3 times. I can't imagine a trauma like that but, geez, it's a big deal -- don't you think it could be responsible?
Slashdot Mirror
... and have a connection with local computer science, and Americans, and I think there's a mixed bag of reasons. Education style is a factor: education here is "memorize these twenty sort of situations and learn to recognize them. Next week you'll memorize twenty more." American education is more creative, and against "rote learning." The result is that here in Eurasia students have very strong memories, are very good at pattern recognition, and can beat the Americans in a question of "How do you code Kruskal's algorithm? Quick!" The Americans are not very good at memorizing anything, but I think they do better on problems that might be unlike any problem they've seen before, that maybe stumps a local. Also there are cultural factors. On the plus side, clever geeks here are definitely into programming, and PCs are more or less affordable; coding is pretty accessible. Lots of people see education and qualifications as their big ray of hope to make a decent living in a precarious economy -- and there is some truth to this point of view. On the minus side, creating a strong object-oriented design, writing maintainable software, doing good documentation -- not very much encouraged here. It's hard work, it is not nearly as fun as writing really hot code. So there is a tendency to turn code into an Olympic sport, with an accent on speed coding, learning all the cool algorithm paradigms, using clever tricks, the saving four bytes of memory, the saving of two clock cycles ... and writing unreadable, unmaintainable, undocumented code. That kind of coding is fun, but it isn't pro quality software engineering.
Can you point me to any links, papers, whatnot on why GCC is, or can sometimes be, so bad?
Dying? It sad they can't somehow, how to say in English, change themselves, alter their way of doing things ... ach, what is that word?
Remember that Minix Master and Amoeba Artiste AST spells his name with two, not three, Ns: Andrew Tanenbaum.
I learned so much dissecting Minix version 1 way back when, I have a warm place in my heart for that guy.
Agreed. Dull-witted myopia cannot really be rigidly separated from wickness: it's all depravity, ultimately. Both extremes form a single projective limit, rather than two affine limits.
I used to get all mad at Christians for not seeing this, until I realized that actually it's a foundation of their theology, albeit sometimes-forgotten.
Only people with no motivation or no skill make $25k a year for any extended period of time.
You forgot "no greed," or some qualifier like "in the UNITED STATES" or some other highly developed country. For example, consider Peace Corps volunteers. Some are very talented and motivated. They live on peanuts, and they change the world at a grassroots level. I'm not one of them, but I've seen what they do and it looks like very satisfying work.
Dear Mr Catskul:
You are hereby commanded to cease your public "beating a dead horse" until such time as you have obtained a license to the relevant patent 937,105,195, Method for Endlessly Prolonging Slashdot Threads, to which my company, LandruBek Holdings LLP, holds title. And jealously guards!
Cordially yours,
LandruBek, esq.
Trade secrets leakage are probably NOT covered by first amendment freedom of speech. If the general public are protected by leakage, then yes....
IANAL but I would guess that Congress shall make no law abridging one's freedom to leak trade secrets. Hypothetically, what if you worked for AT&T and wanted to make known the fact that the company was (secretly) giving the NSA broad access to your company's switching equipment? (I know it doesn't sound much like a trade secret, but I bet that label could be flexed to cover such a case.)
Basically, it is none of the Feds' business whether Joe Employee decides, for whatever reason (maybe money, maybe conscience) to spill the beans about something going on at work. If Joe is violating his NDA, then there are already state laws that will take care of that problem.
The scenario you are suggesting is that if Congress passed such a law, non-disclosure agreements would be pretty much unnecessary, and it would be a Federal crime to reveal a trade secret! Bad scene.
And where then would the EFF be in its suit against AT&T?
Pretty good (for a pun). For the non-HAMs, look here.
Fun fact: the Yagi-Uda antenna was more the work of Uda, but since Yagi did the English translation of the paper, he ended up with the bulk of the fame. Ah life.
Why is it that with cells, multiplication and divison are the same thing? It's like some weird algebra. Yet the inverse operation is super-difficult.
Although I don't like DRM I think this is something of a hopeful sign -- to see more legal movie distribution via download. If it gets to be common knowledge that download != illegal (much less "piracy" or "theft"), then the MPAA and RIAA won't (I predict) be able to pass a lot of goofy, anti-P2P legislation.
The stifling effect of widespread DRM is another serious problem, but I would rather for the moment rather see legitimate, mass-consumption downloads, and then we'll see less "troll" legislation.
oh if only there were a way!
oops, I eat my words. I forgot about the three strikes law.
Wow, that bill is terrific! It makes me want to move to New Hampshire. I'm likely to relocate back to the USA soon, so if all other factors were equal, this could have been important. Unfortunately I didn't get accepted to grad school there -- and all other factors are far from equal. *Sigh*
Well no, She's not married
I know "Celeborn" looks a bit like "celibate" and his relationship with Galadriel seems a bit . . . aloof. But they at least claim to be married.
On the other hand, I see in the Wikipedia article that his name, in Quenya, is "Teleporno." I leave it to you to make your own joke about this.
Confuzzled, I'm with you, and I can't see how GP got modded up so high. I hope this gets examined in meta-moderation, because GP is just spewing nonsense.
...and also those are just dog years, if I this thread understand correctly.
In Soviet union KGB convicts and brands you.
This reminds me -- did you know that in Russian prisons, there is a tremendous "tattoo culture"? Permanent as branding, but more refined. For the most part the prisoners tattoo themselves. The tattoos form a symbolic language, often employing religious images, whether or not the prisoners themselves are believers. Sorry it's a bit Offtopic but I hope this is Interesting.
Man, you Google-haters *love* to try to use the "but teh chinks is evil!" argument.
I'm indignant with Google, but don't call me a racist because of that. What if *I* am Chinese?
only way ... was to fucking kill them all, ...
With a tip o' the hat to Ballmer. Thank you, imadork.
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Christians are the primary anti-science force in the US and Europe?
GP is objecting to the fallacy of "affirming the conclusion." Anti-science morons seem to be Christians. So if someone is a Christian, does that mean he/she is a moron? What would Spock say?
I know correlation does not imply causation. I did not know there's a correlation between race and crime -- and I'm kind of skeptical -- but if there is, one could still cobble together a hypothesis about it, involving explotation, cycles of poverty, which crimes are easier to prosecute, etc. Surely sociologists would say there's a cause behind the correlation -- people in the west are all so in love with Aristotelian ontology that they say there is a cause for EVERY effect.
...abusers (somehow) seek out pre-gay children; or ...the victims are somehow responsible. (Abusers sometimes say this.) ...there's some sort of third, external cause -- maybe a historical cause keeping abusers and pre-gay kids together, and the abusers attack at random.
But in the case of sexual abuse and homosexuality, it is difficult to think of an external cause that explains things. If we narrow the discussion to the correlation between childhood sexual abuse and later homosexuality, then consider these hypotheses:
1. The abuse itself is at least a partial cause of homosexuality; or
2. Homosexuality is totally genetic, and...
2A.
2B.
2C.
Or something else. Alright, this will be my last post on this thread. I'm just sayin', it sounds like you are saying that the environment has ABSOLUTELY NO effect on orientation, and that strikes me as dogmatic. Hypothesis #1 to me sounds easier to buy than 2A, 2B, or 2C.
I think we both would agree that sexual orientation isn't something that people ever just "suddenly decide" upon. All I'm saying is that orientation isn't necessarily 100% genetic. You're probably aware of the correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality. Hypothesizing that "environment" can have at least SOME effect on sexual orientation provides an explanation for this correlation, whereas hypothesizing that orientation is purely genetic doesn't, I think, allow any good explanation.
Pretty obvious she was bisexual, then.
The "was" part is not obvious. Pretty obvious she now IS bisexual (depending on your definition) but the GP is suggesting she might have become so because she was raped at least 3 times. I can't imagine a trauma like that but, geez, it's a big deal -- don't you think it could be responsible?
And if I lived on Verkulon 4, then the holy Brogulops would have chosen me.
We're drinkin' pretty deeply from the springs of hypothesis.