In light of the post I saw earlier about "achievements" being added to Visual Studio, Microsoft could make a DoD version and add special military achievements to it. Project types could be:
* Create new weapons system project * Create new flight control system project...
Based on the Visual Studio project type, you unlock different achievements when Visual Studio catches you writing bad code.
"If the infant had a medical reason to get a CT scan each year, that condition is far more dangerous that the radiation from the scan itself. I'd wager the doctor would say to do it in that case."
Agreed, but I was thinking of the head scan every 3 months, and I can't imagine the doctor asking for it that often unless the child was dying, in which case risking cancer when he's older is better than just letting him die now. While I know that the current "safe" levels are incredibly low (a fraction of what's considered even a little dangerous), I don't know what studies, if any, have determined how much more strongly radiation levels affect infants. I wonder if the person in charge of the company who decided to sell the contaminated concrete instead of properly disposing of it knows. That's the real issue here, IMO. Did they carefully dilute it until it was deemed "safe"? My guess would be no since it's above the legal level.
According to that chart (which has typos in it and a disclaimer calling you an idiot if you use it to determine what's "safe")*, it's also approximately 1 head CT scan every few months, and it's exposed to children of all ages. It's not directed at one part of the body like an X-ray or CT scan. It's everywhere, it's (relatively) constant, and it's in addition to any other radiation they might be exposed to (which I would expect to be higher than normal given where they live). Ask a doctor who administers CT scans if he'd risk an infant with that much constant radiation, and I'm pretty sure I know what his answer would be.
"And conversely, thinking that their actions don't reflect on the corps, US military and the US as a whole is equally misguided."
That's not what I said. You don't have to go to one extreme to argue against another extreme. Your point about the accolades is flawed as well. The Corps goes to great lengths to train and encourage heroic acts, so when one of them receives accolades for it, the Corps deserves some of the credit. The Corps does NOT train and encourage Marines to piss on corpses. In fact, they tend to strongly discourage and punish acts that make the rest of the Corps look bad. By your logic, it sounds like the Corps should take just as much credit for the things they strongly discourage as for the things they strongly encourage. I'm not talking about whether it's their responsibility to fix it (it is), just whether they deserve the blame (they don't). Will it reflect badly on the Corps? Sure it will. Just as much as 9/11 reflected badly on Muslims in general. Is it deserved? IMO it depends on how they handle it.
"Are you seriously suggesting that the US Marine Corps doesn't represent the US?"
First of all, while a lot of fine men and women join the US Marine Corps, a lot of grade A assholes who just want to learn to "kick some ass" join it as well. I was in junior ROTC in high school and met quite a few guys like that. I even went to Parris Island with some of them. Are you seriously suggesting that the very worst examples of the US Marine Corps represent the rest of them?
The post you're so quick to disparage made a very good point. You can't take the worst individuals of a fine organization and claim they represent everyone in that organization. And you can't have an organization that large without its fair share of jackoffs (whether they're from Detroit or anywhere else).
IMO it's not so much about advancing a career as it is about finding new things to learn (the learning is the fun part). If you still enjoy it, I would recommend looking for something that requires different languages, tools, skill-sets, etc. so you can continue learning and keeping it fun.
If you're tired of it, then go for management or a lateral movement. Some have mentioned an architect role, but there are also positions like product and/or project management, technical lead for a sales team, etc.
It might be popular if it stood a chance of working...
Wikipedia quote: One third of the world's population is thought to be infected with M. tuberculosis,[3][4] and new infections occur at a rate of about one per second.[3] In 2007 there were an estimated 13.7 million chronic active cases,[5] and in 2010 8.8 million new cases, and 1.45 million deaths, mostly in developing countries.[6] The absolute number of tuberculosis cases has been decreasing since 2006 and new cases since 2002.[6] In addition, more people in the developing world contract tuberculosis because their immune systems are more likely to be compromised due to higher rates of AIDS.[7] The distribution of tuberculosis is not uniform across the globe; about 80% of the population in many Asian and African countries test positive in tuberculin tests, while only 5–10% of the U.S. population test positive.[1]
It sounds like many Asian and African countries need the opposite (a place for all the healthy people to go).
I agree, but it's even better to give them a basic set of 2D primitives (point, line, rect, oval, poly, text, textured sprite) and a range of music and sound effects. Let them play with their own sprite textures, animate them, move them around on the screen, and play silly sound effects. Some of them will be creating their own silly graphics demos or side-scrollers in no time.
It's not the entertainment industry attempting to dumb people down. They're giving the masses exactly what they're asking for (via ratings). It's the masses continually keeping the bar low (and occasionally lowering it even further) by making the dumbest shows the most popular. Also, when you say "Western", I think you mean "US". Our education system has fallen behind most of the other "Western" countries, and that has nothing to do with our entertainment industry.
It's a good question, but it's not too hard to imagine that while standing on the shoulders of giants, she spotted something he missed. Would she have spotted it without him? Definitely not. Would he have spotted it without her? Perhaps not. It is often a lot easier for someone with a different perspective to spot something new when you've been staring at it for 20 years. Or if nothing else, to ask questions that challenge assumptions you've built over the years.
OTOH, it's also not too hard to imagine him giving her credit in exchange for sex.;-) I'd say it's about a 50/50 chance one way or the other.
"Cable infrastructure costs money, show production costs money, bandwidth costs money..."
Umm, AFAIK Netflix pays for the bandwidth for their servers (which pays for the cable infrastructure to carry that bandwidth), not the show producers. And it's not the cost of bandwidth that's killing Netflix. I'm not saying the show producers didn't deserve more for their shows, but an order of magnitude increase? Admit it, they got exceedingly greedy. It's killing Netflix, and it's going to kill anyone else who tries to offer reasonably priced entertainment like that.
"Then don't pay it, and explain to your customers why you aren't paying it"
What a brilliant idea! Netflix should have simply stop paying for (and providing) all content! That would have kept their customers happily paying! They did stop paying for some of the most expensive content (e.g. Starz), but the cost of everything went up sharply, and they can't drop everything. Just as many customers are leaving due to the streaming selection drying up as they are due to prices going up. A lot of customers may still love the original DVD option, but once they get used to the convenience of immediate gratification with the streaming content, they'll get pretty upset at having it messed with. If you really take an honest and objective look at it, Netflix didn't have any good options, and their customers were going to get pissed off no matter what they did.
I agree, but what I don't understand is why Netflix customers are lashing out at Netflix when they should be lashing out at Hollywood and trying to stick up for Netflix. I suppose doing things in their own best interest (long-term) is not something Americans excel at.
Comments like this really annoy me. What has happened is that Netflix, a company that has kept rock-bottom prices for years, has been squeezed so hard by its providers that they're losing money hand over fist. Netflix is not losing money for all of 2012 because customers are leaving them.They're losing money because:
"Buying those rights is getting tougher, as studios are demanding more money for their valuable content. One analyst predicted earlier this year that Netflix's streaming content licensing costs will rise from $180 million in 2010 to a whopping $2 billion in 2012."
Netflix's cost of goods is increasing by more than a factor of 10. In light of that, I'm shocked that Netflix still managed to keep the cost to their customers down below $8/month (for streaming). Instead of sticking their customers with the entire increase, they decided to eat some of the cost by selling part of the company instead:
"Netflix now expects to lose money for all of 2012, and it is looking to raise cash in a secondary offering of its stock."
Now, would you rather stick with the company that is still trying its best to give you rock-bottom prices, or go back to the cable/phone companies who have spent decades trying to find ways to trick customers into paying more than you should (and who will go right back to doing it once Netflix has been laid low)? Unfortunately, human nature is such that most people (in the US, at least) would rather whine and act like Eric Cartman when they get upset than to stop and think things through. Netflix's competitors are betting on it, and unfortunately betting on the crappier side of human nature usually pays off for large companies.
1) I was referring to the "We will suck every drop of carbon out of the atmosphere with it." comment. 2) You're right, but I've read a few reports that have claimed that growing biofuel uses more energy than it creates, and it spikes food prices. While that may not be 100% accurate, there is probably some truth to it, and we couldn't possibly grow enough to meet energy demands.
Slashdot Mirror
"You wouldn't be a complete moron and buy the smallest data plan and then let it up-charge you over and over again."
Apparently if you were the author of this article, you would be.
The "assessment" has been completed and - in a very objective way - has found that we need more funding.
In light of the post I saw earlier about "achievements" being added to Visual Studio, Microsoft could make a DoD version and add special military achievements to it. Project types could be:
* Create new weapons system project ...
* Create new flight control system project
Based on the Visual Studio project type, you unlock different achievements when Visual Studio catches you writing bad code.
"If the infant had a medical reason to get a CT scan each year, that condition is far more dangerous that the radiation from the scan itself. I'd wager the doctor would say to do it in that case."
Agreed, but I was thinking of the head scan every 3 months, and I can't imagine the doctor asking for it that often unless the child was dying, in which case risking cancer when he's older is better than just letting him die now. While I know that the current "safe" levels are incredibly low (a fraction of what's considered even a little dangerous), I don't know what studies, if any, have determined how much more strongly radiation levels affect infants. I wonder if the person in charge of the company who decided to sell the contaminated concrete instead of properly disposing of it knows. That's the real issue here, IMO. Did they carefully dilute it until it was deemed "safe"? My guess would be no since it's above the legal level.
According to that chart (which has typos in it and a disclaimer calling you an idiot if you use it to determine what's "safe")*, it's also approximately 1 head CT scan every few months, and it's exposed to children of all ages. It's not directed at one part of the body like an X-ray or CT scan. It's everywhere, it's (relatively) constant, and it's in addition to any other radiation they might be exposed to (which I would expect to be higher than normal given where they live). Ask a doctor who administers CT scans if he'd risk an infant with that much constant radiation, and I'm pretty sure I know what his answer would be.
* Unless it's a bananaphone
"And conversely, thinking that their actions don't reflect on the corps, US military and the US as a whole is equally misguided."
That's not what I said. You don't have to go to one extreme to argue against another extreme. Your point about the accolades is flawed as well. The Corps goes to great lengths to train and encourage heroic acts, so when one of them receives accolades for it, the Corps deserves some of the credit. The Corps does NOT train and encourage Marines to piss on corpses. In fact, they tend to strongly discourage and punish acts that make the rest of the Corps look bad. By your logic, it sounds like the Corps should take just as much credit for the things they strongly discourage as for the things they strongly encourage. I'm not talking about whether it's their responsibility to fix it (it is), just whether they deserve the blame (they don't). Will it reflect badly on the Corps? Sure it will. Just as much as 9/11 reflected badly on Muslims in general. Is it deserved? IMO it depends on how they handle it.
"Are you seriously suggesting that the US Marine Corps doesn't represent the US?"
First of all, while a lot of fine men and women join the US Marine Corps, a lot of grade A assholes who just want to learn to "kick some ass" join it as well. I was in junior ROTC in high school and met quite a few guys like that. I even went to Parris Island with some of them. Are you seriously suggesting that the very worst examples of the US Marine Corps represent the rest of them?
The post you're so quick to disparage made a very good point. You can't take the worst individuals of a fine organization and claim they represent everyone in that organization. And you can't have an organization that large without its fair share of jackoffs (whether they're from Detroit or anywhere else).
I agree wholeheartedly, but have one correction to make. Instead of:
"Did this guy miss WWII?"
It should be:
"Did this guy miss every other war in history?"
I would be shocked if historians could point out any war where every single soldier treated the bodies of their enemies with respect.
IMO it's not so much about advancing a career as it is about finding new things to learn (the learning is the fun part). If you still enjoy it, I would recommend looking for something that requires different languages, tools, skill-sets, etc. so you can continue learning and keeping it fun.
If you're tired of it, then go for management or a lateral movement. Some have mentioned an architect role, but there are also positions like product and/or project management, technical lead for a sales team, etc.
It might be popular if it stood a chance of working...
Wikipedia quote:
One third of the world's population is thought to be infected with M. tuberculosis,[3][4] and new infections occur at a rate of about one per second.[3] In 2007 there were an estimated 13.7 million chronic active cases,[5] and in 2010 8.8 million new cases, and 1.45 million deaths, mostly in developing countries.[6] The absolute number of tuberculosis cases has been decreasing since 2006 and new cases since 2002.[6] In addition, more people in the developing world contract tuberculosis because their immune systems are more likely to be compromised due to higher rates of AIDS.[7] The distribution of tuberculosis is not uniform across the globe; about 80% of the population in many Asian and African countries test positive in tuberculin tests, while only 5–10% of the U.S. population test positive.[1]
It sounds like many Asian and African countries need the opposite (a place for all the healthy people to go).
IBM's new vision:
A scanning tunneling microscope in every home with an IBM sticker on it.
I agree, but it's even better to give them a basic set of 2D primitives (point, line, rect, oval, poly, text, textured sprite) and a range of music and sound effects. Let them play with their own sprite textures, animate them, move them around on the screen, and play silly sound effects. Some of them will be creating their own silly graphics demos or side-scrollers in no time.
I like to think it depends on what device the button is connected to.
It's not the entertainment industry attempting to dumb people down. They're giving the masses exactly what they're asking for (via ratings). It's the masses continually keeping the bar low (and occasionally lowering it even further) by making the dumbest shows the most popular. Also, when you say "Western", I think you mean "US". Our education system has fallen behind most of the other "Western" countries, and that has nothing to do with our entertainment industry.
Just light a match. (Oh, and stand back a bit.)
It's not lying, it's marketing and/or sales.
Information wants to be free, right? IMO this is awesome.
It's a good question, but it's not too hard to imagine that while standing on the shoulders of giants, she spotted something he missed. Would she have spotted it without him? Definitely not. Would he have spotted it without her? Perhaps not. It is often a lot easier for someone with a different perspective to spot something new when you've been staring at it for 20 years. Or if nothing else, to ask questions that challenge assumptions you've built over the years.
OTOH, it's also not too hard to imagine him giving her credit in exchange for sex. ;-) I'd say it's about a 50/50 chance one way or the other.
"Cable infrastructure costs money, show production costs money, bandwidth costs money..."
Umm, AFAIK Netflix pays for the bandwidth for their servers (which pays for the cable infrastructure to carry that bandwidth), not the show producers. And it's not the cost of bandwidth that's killing Netflix. I'm not saying the show producers didn't deserve more for their shows, but an order of magnitude increase? Admit it, they got exceedingly greedy. It's killing Netflix, and it's going to kill anyone else who tries to offer reasonably priced entertainment like that.
"Then don't pay it, and explain to your customers why you aren't paying it"
What a brilliant idea! Netflix should have simply stop paying for (and providing) all content! That would have kept their customers happily paying! They did stop paying for some of the most expensive content (e.g. Starz), but the cost of everything went up sharply, and they can't drop everything. Just as many customers are leaving due to the streaming selection drying up as they are due to prices going up. A lot of customers may still love the original DVD option, but once they get used to the convenience of immediate gratification with the streaming content, they'll get pretty upset at having it messed with. If you really take an honest and objective look at it, Netflix didn't have any good options, and their customers were going to get pissed off no matter what they did.
The only part I agree with you on is the PR BS.
I agree, but what I don't understand is why Netflix customers are lashing out at Netflix when they should be lashing out at Hollywood and trying to stick up for Netflix. I suppose doing things in their own best interest (long-term) is not something Americans excel at.
Comments like this really annoy me. What has happened is that Netflix, a company that has kept rock-bottom prices for years, has been squeezed so hard by its providers that they're losing money hand over fist. Netflix is not losing money for all of 2012 because customers are leaving them.They're losing money because:
"Buying those rights is getting tougher, as studios are demanding more money for their valuable content. One analyst predicted earlier this year that Netflix's streaming content licensing costs will rise from $180 million in 2010 to a whopping $2 billion in 2012."
Netflix's cost of goods is increasing by more than a factor of 10. In light of that, I'm shocked that Netflix still managed to keep the cost to their customers down below $8/month (for streaming). Instead of sticking their customers with the entire increase, they decided to eat some of the cost by selling part of the company instead:
"Netflix now expects to lose money for all of 2012, and it is looking to raise cash in a secondary offering of its stock."
Now, would you rather stick with the company that is still trying its best to give you rock-bottom prices, or go back to the cable/phone companies who have spent decades trying to find ways to trick customers into paying more than you should (and who will go right back to doing it once Netflix has been laid low)? Unfortunately, human nature is such that most people (in the US, at least) would rather whine and act like Eric Cartman when they get upset than to stop and think things through. Netflix's competitors are betting on it, and unfortunately betting on the crappier side of human nature usually pays off for large companies.
If it's using JavaScript, they should call this version OpenPBP.
Or at least a "Score: 5 Funny" rating.
1) I was referring to the "We will suck every drop of carbon out of the atmosphere with it." comment.
2) You're right, but I've read a few reports that have claimed that growing biofuel uses more energy than it creates, and it spikes food prices. While that may not be 100% accurate, there is probably some truth to it, and we couldn't possibly grow enough to meet energy demands.