So if you're going to eat beef, you might as well be eating beef that tastes good.
On the other hand if you want to have a healthier diet, eat more vegetables and regularly eat oceanic fish (the ones lower down the food chain with less mercury and crap). You can still have a nice steak once in a while.
p.s. if you actually like very lean cuts of beef, then I guess you don't have to worry about the heart disease risk, not so sure about the cancer risk tho.
That's only a concern for sedentary couch potatoes in the industrialized world (specially in the US). In any meat-eating country where you have to walk 2 miles a day at least, saturated fats from red meat becomes a negligible remote possibility, so remote it makes no sense to even consider it.
There isn't much more that can be done with operating systems. Once the kernel works reasonably well, and the interface works reasonably well, there's no way left to improve (see: new versions of Windows improving the UI mainly with flashy graphics, GNOME and KDE starting to do the same). All the development going on right now is in applications and on the internet.
It looks like that *to you*. But the fact is that about 70%-75% of all development going on today IS NOT for internet applications. Automotive and manufacturing, medical devices, military industry, consumer electronics, that's where the bulk of development goes. Ever open that computer of yours and see all those boards in it? Ever seen all those little, strange and mysterious black square thingies, then one called "chips"? Guess what goes on them? Software, and not the internet application type.
Sorry, but that statement is so wrong on so many levels, it is embarrassing.
Furthermore, there will always be improvements on how we create things, operating systems included, not unless all of the sudden we stop making advances in computer electronics, solid state devices and network/communication technologies. Are you so naive so as to think operating systems of today will be capable of handing ever increasing challenges in file systems, networking, larger RAM, larger disks, greater bandwidth and greater parallelism? Seriously, what the hell?
There is such a huge learning curve, there is simply no way for your average young developer to get into it.
Some say that it's good that only older, more experienced people are getting into it. I would argue that when today's youth are older and more experienced, they still won't be working on it.
That's because the average reflects the lowering of standards. Average CS student 15-20 years ago was expected to do Pascal/Ada, C, a full-course on assembly (and not just a few weeks), Lisp/Prolog, create multi-threaded/multi-tasked applications from scratch (and if lucky to be at a good university, create a bootloader or mini-os or an embedded app from scratch as well) by the time of graduation. Some even were lucky to learn how to create primitive calculators with hardware in their computer org classes.
Average CS student now is expected to know how to create a dynamic web site in Java or whatever without ever having to learn how all of this shit works from the moment they press the "power on" button on their computers. Mind you, I do Java for a living, so it's not like I'm a C-enamored freshman bashing Java development for the heck of it.
So to say that the learning curve is too great for the average developer is just a reflection of the averages TODAY (and an indictment of our CS education nowadays.)
Purely anecdotal - younger generation of developers are more geared/equipped towards making web pages (and usually suck at it) than dealing with low-level interesting (and, at least, be decent at it.) They could be working on Java or C# for 8 years (or say they know C/++) and not know who Gosling, Hejlsberg, Stroustrup or K&R are (which is like looking for a job as a Physicist and not know who Newton is.) Don't know who they are after working on their stuff for years, chances are you suck at it. Purely anecdotal so that it for what it is if your mileage has varied when it comes to this.
Yes, as atrocious as I find most OSS code to be, I can only imagine that I would scream in horror after examining Oracle. Perversely, I bet SQLServer would be fairly good however.
Money money money. This is what Larry cares about and NOTHING else.
Uh, is that a surprise? Why should he not? That's what he's paid for, no?
If he's legally responsible to the shareholders, and ethically responsible for the salaries and benefits of every single Oracle employee (which you know, work for money and that stuff needed to pay mortgages, food and stuff), wouldn't it be obvious to the point of oxymoronity that increasing profits is his primary objective?
Money money money. This is what Larry cares about and NOTHING else.
I am sure if it is a possible future asset and its not making money today it will be closed down and stored out of public view. If sun has an open source project you care about a full check out of source would be suggested ASAP.
Why ASAP? Stop being an alarmist. Oracle might decide not to have people on payroll anymore for the purpose of putting *paid* hours of work on open source projects. But that doesn't mean that ZOMG!!! the code will disappear from the surface of the Earth either.
If they are open source (and GPL licensed), the worse that could happen is they cease to code for it and turn the rest of the developers to other projects. The open source portion could then be forked and taken over by others who see the value Oracle missed. Obviously it presumes GPLd code which isn't probably the case here.
Unfortunately, that will be a big bleed for those projects because, when under Sun, there were people hired, paid and on payroll (with benefits and all the nine yards) for working on those projects (which they did full-time and more.)
The possibility of losing that kind of man-hour man power is a biggie for an open source project.
the iPad has 10-12 hours of on in heavy use time. Everything else is an epic fail in comparison. I'd gladly give up features to get that kind of battery life from a windows tablet or a netbook.
Dude, my wife's netbook runs 8-9 hours straight (10-12 if she lowers brightness). I guess a 1-2 hour delta is an epic fail (or maybe it is an epic fail to know that in this time and age, batteries in many netbooks can run almost that long.)
Do what I do--run Windows, put Linux in a VM. Virtual Box is free, robust, and easy to use, or there's always VMWare.
Run the VM full screen and you can forget you're not running it natively, so long as you don't need to do anything in 3D or very processor intensive (video encoding, for example). Drop to Windows if you need a Windows app (say, a recent version of Photoshop or real MSOffice) or to play games. Plus, if your chosen distro decides to make horrible decisions that cause massive audio breakage (Ubuntu.... *glower*) you can still listen to music or watch Youtube videos in Windows without rebooting.
Another plus is that your Linux installation is all in a single file that you can back up or transfer very easily.
I find that this works far better than dual booting. Saves disk space, saves time. I felt kind of crappy at first for making Linux a second-class citizen on my machine, but this works so much better that I wish I'd done it years ago--though I supposed high clocked multi-core processors and multi-gigabyte RAM sticks weren't commonplace back then, so the experience might not have been so nice.
Amen to this. This is specially so true for development environments. You can have multiple Linux images with dev tools specific for multiple projects (or when you actually have to have a specific version of the kernel and crap like that.)
The logs aren't very useful, even when they trap things. Unsupported CPUs may also have unsupported or doctored chipsets. Bitching about it, 100 books or no, seems a bit silly. With fast CPUs and weird cache setups, FSB speeds approaching C, you're just going to have problems unless something's vetted.
Moaning about an engineering sample seems nihilistic to me, Windows 7 or no.
Or a desperate call for attention. Nerds, talented or not, are not above (ideological and possibly market-driven) attention whoring:-/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB93-xeFJ40&feature=related
Just to clarify, it is technically feasible. It is technically "just there". But from Apple's standpoint, it makes sense to thwart it (and Flash). Not that we have to like it but it is Apple's right to make that decision.
For all those people who don't like that (I can see some going NERDRAGE!!! APPLE BAAAAD!), then do your best to develop kick-ass applications on Android and BlackBerry above and beyond whatever technical problems those platforms might have.
Better parenting and accepting responsibility for one's children teaching: my sisters when to public school and got an awesome education. But then again, we expected that from them, taking every hard elective they could get, even on summer, never taking a summer break.
A public education system that resembles the German model of education, a system geared towards training kids from an early age so that they become useful and self-reliant. We have this notion of middle and high school that are just baby sitting for teens, and that the only way to *make it* is to get a university degree. Bullshit on both.
Abandon the "everyone is equal". No, we are not. We have been confusing "we have a right to the same opportunities" with "we are equal". This is strongly related to the previous point: not everyone is made for university and not everyone that goes to university is guaranteed to make it.
Get rid of the stigma of technical trades. We have this shitty thinking of "plumber bad, mba good". Incredibly stupid way of thinking. College professions and technical traders are to be nurtured and respected.
Instead of throwing money for a 5th year for brainiacs, fix the entire system. It makes no sense to have HS graduates who can't do fractions. Many kids in other parts of the world (even in developing countries) end their HS with a solid foundation in algebra, trig/geometry, vectors, biology, chemistry, classical physics and world history.
If we are to throw money, do it for the purpose of changing our way of thinking.
Just last year I was tearing my hair when Word 2003 kept changing the layout whenever I tried to print an important document as PDF. Wouldn't it be wonderful if such issues simply did not occur?
It sucks that it happens, and it would be nice if it didn't. But it does. One's miles varies from case to case, but for me, I have never had a problem printing complex documents (be it from Word, LyX or Google Docs) to PDF using a PDF print driver.
At work, I simply print the bloody doc on paper, then scan it on a PDF scanner. Voila, works all the time. Print it on a medium that you know won't change styles and then scan it into a PDF.
It does suck to have those problems, but we just simply work around them.
Immediate need for programmer with 10 years experience developing Objective C 2.0 for the iPad. Experience with developing for Intel i9 based Mac Pros is a major plus!
I've seen that sh*t too. Back in 1995 I was applying for a VB 3.0 job and got rejected because I didn't have 7 years of experience (VB 3.0 was less than two years old, and the whole VB line wasn't 7 years old at all.)
Move the clock forwards to 1998, same deal, got rejected at two applications: one for not having 7 years of experience in Java and another one for not having 8 years of experience with C++ STL. 1998 people!!!. And then in 2001, same again, but this time it was 10 years of Java experience. How the hell can HR screw up like that is beyond me. I was very desperate to get a job on those years, leaving me very bitter against HR and recruiters. Now I laugh.
If someone tells me that they are looking someone with 7 years in JavaFX, I'll just laugh, looking at the whole thing as a sign of God to avoid working with retards.
Personally I love it when they ask for this. Nothing pleases me more than writing a resume whose formatting seems to change based on what version of Office you're using...
Uhhh, welcome to the 90's? I haven't seen such incompatibilities since 1998-2000. A person has to suck tremendously to create a resume that changes style from version to version. Not that Word is the right tool, but it is so widespread and so common in usage, anyone claiming to work in tech short of being a hermit working on an underground lab running a copy of Slackware Linux downloaded (probably via CompuServe) back in 95, should be able to create a resume that has zero to very little variability from one system to the next.
How much can a techie suck at simple word processing that he/she is unable to create a stable, professional resume in Word? I mean, seriously?
Nobody, and I mean, nobody worth counting uses anything older than MS Office 2000. Sorry dude, that argument makes no sense. There are many reasons for bashing MS Office (actually not that many for Office 2000, but lots for Office 2007). This one ain't one.
With this subject line, you are sure to get a bad developer. I have never seen a good VB developer.
I have. He was good at a lot of other languages and platforms, too. I can pick any tech stack or language (be it application or systems programming), and I can assure you, most of its programmers suck.
To find a bad programmer (or bad anything actually) hire anyone whose resume/CV features "certified" or "certification" by a corporation that sells the product covered by the certificate (e.g.: "microsoft certified"). The circular nature of such training guarantees a worker who's view is designed to be narrow.
Woa, woa, woa, wait there. Are you saying that you can get any microsoft certification just by paying, without any type of evaluation at all?
You want a good coder?... Have them write you something small for free.
Most of the good coders I know would walk right on out the door if the first thing you asked them to do was write something for free.
Even if what they are asked to write is a function that calculates the GCD of two numbers, or a pseudocode showing one understands a classic algorithm or data structure (which btw are very legit coding questions for an interview)?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, that's almost like promoting junk food that tastes crappier but is a bit healthier for you ;).
Beef isn't the healthiest of foods for humans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Health_risks ).
So if you're going to eat beef, you might as well be eating beef that tastes good.
On the other hand if you want to have a healthier diet, eat more vegetables and regularly eat oceanic fish (the ones lower down the food chain with less mercury and crap). You can still have a nice steak once in a while.
p.s. if you actually like very lean cuts of beef, then I guess you don't have to worry about the heart disease risk, not so sure about the cancer risk tho.
That's only a concern for sedentary couch potatoes in the industrialized world (specially in the US). In any meat-eating country where you have to walk 2 miles a day at least, saturated fats from red meat becomes a negligible remote possibility, so remote it makes no sense to even consider it.
There isn't much more that can be done with operating systems. Once the kernel works reasonably well, and the interface works reasonably well, there's no way left to improve (see: new versions of Windows improving the UI mainly with flashy graphics, GNOME and KDE starting to do the same). All the development going on right now is in applications and on the internet.
It looks like that *to you*. But the fact is that about 70%-75% of all development going on today IS NOT for internet applications. Automotive and manufacturing, medical devices, military industry, consumer electronics, that's where the bulk of development goes. Ever open that computer of yours and see all those boards in it? Ever seen all those little, strange and mysterious black square thingies, then one called "chips"? Guess what goes on them? Software, and not the internet application type.
Sorry, but that statement is so wrong on so many levels, it is embarrassing.
Furthermore, there will always be improvements on how we create things, operating systems included, not unless all of the sudden we stop making advances in computer electronics, solid state devices and network/communication technologies. Are you so naive so as to think operating systems of today will be capable of handing ever increasing challenges in file systems, networking, larger RAM, larger disks, greater bandwidth and greater parallelism? Seriously, what the hell?
There is such a huge learning curve, there is simply no way for your average young developer to get into it. Some say that it's good that only older, more experienced people are getting into it. I would argue that when today's youth are older and more experienced, they still won't be working on it.
That's because the average reflects the lowering of standards. Average CS student 15-20 years ago was expected to do Pascal/Ada, C, a full-course on assembly (and not just a few weeks), Lisp/Prolog, create multi-threaded/multi-tasked applications from scratch (and if lucky to be at a good university, create a bootloader or mini-os or an embedded app from scratch as well) by the time of graduation. Some even were lucky to learn how to create primitive calculators with hardware in their computer org classes.
Average CS student now is expected to know how to create a dynamic web site in Java or whatever without ever having to learn how all of this shit works from the moment they press the "power on" button on their computers. Mind you, I do Java for a living, so it's not like I'm a C-enamored freshman bashing Java development for the heck of it.
So to say that the learning curve is too great for the average developer is just a reflection of the averages TODAY (and an indictment of our CS education nowadays.)
Purely anecdotal - younger generation of developers are more geared/equipped towards making web pages (and usually suck at it) than dealing with low-level interesting (and, at least, be decent at it.) They could be working on Java or C# for 8 years (or say they know C/++) and not know who Gosling, Hejlsberg, Stroustrup or K&R are (which is like looking for a job as a Physicist and not know who Newton is.) Don't know who they are after working on their stuff for years, chances are you suck at it. Purely anecdotal so that it for what it is if your mileage has varied when it comes to this.
Yes, as atrocious as I find most OSS code to be, I can only imagine that I would scream in horror after examining Oracle. Perversely, I bet SQLServer would be fairly good however.
Pure unsubstantiated conjecture.
Some might argue they are doing better than Oracle.
At the time of this posting RHT is $31.08/share, while ORCL is only $26.00/share.
Some might == weasel words. Besides, whoever they are, they are wrong. Why? Market capital.
Money money money. This is what Larry cares about and NOTHING else.
Uh, is that a surprise? Why should he not? That's what he's paid for, no?
If he's legally responsible to the shareholders, and ethically responsible for the salaries and benefits of every single Oracle employee (which you know, work for money and that stuff needed to pay mortgages, food and stuff), wouldn't it be obvious to the point of oxymoronity that increasing profits is his primary objective?
Money money money. This is what Larry cares about and NOTHING else.
I am sure if it is a possible future asset and its not making money today it will be closed down and stored out of public view. If sun has an open source project you care about a full check out of source would be suggested ASAP.
Why ASAP? Stop being an alarmist. Oracle might decide not to have people on payroll anymore for the purpose of putting *paid* hours of work on open source projects. But that doesn't mean that ZOMG!!! the code will disappear from the surface of the Earth either.
If they are open source (and GPL licensed), the worse that could happen is they cease to code for it and turn the rest of the developers to other projects. The open source portion could then be forked and taken over by others who see the value Oracle missed. Obviously it presumes GPLd code which isn't probably the case here.
Unfortunately, that will be a big bleed for those projects because, when under Sun, there were people hired, paid and on payroll (with benefits and all the nine yards) for working on those projects (which they did full-time and more.)
The possibility of losing that kind of man-hour man power is a biggie for an open source project.
the iPad has 10-12 hours of on in heavy use time. Everything else is an epic fail in comparison. I'd gladly give up features to get that kind of battery life from a windows tablet or a netbook.
Dude, my wife's netbook runs 8-9 hours straight (10-12 if she lowers brightness). I guess a 1-2 hour delta is an epic fail (or maybe it is an epic fail to know that in this time and age, batteries in many netbooks can run almost that long.)
One of the reasons I use Linux is that, currently, it is much more secure than Windows, given my personal use scenario .
If I could mod up you more, I would. Very few people in /. explicitly make the caveat of their own specific work needs. Kudos to you sir.
Do what I do--run Windows, put Linux in a VM. Virtual Box is free, robust, and easy to use, or there's always VMWare.
Run the VM full screen and you can forget you're not running it natively, so long as you don't need to do anything in 3D or very processor intensive (video encoding, for example). Drop to Windows if you need a Windows app (say, a recent version of Photoshop or real MSOffice) or to play games. Plus, if your chosen distro decides to make horrible decisions that cause massive audio breakage (Ubuntu.... *glower*) you can still listen to music or watch Youtube videos in Windows without rebooting.
Another plus is that your Linux installation is all in a single file that you can back up or transfer very easily.
I find that this works far better than dual booting. Saves disk space, saves time. I felt kind of crappy at first for making Linux a second-class citizen on my machine, but this works so much better that I wish I'd done it years ago--though I supposed high clocked multi-core processors and multi-gigabyte RAM sticks weren't commonplace back then, so the experience might not have been so nice.
Amen to this. This is specially so true for development environments. You can have multiple Linux images with dev tools specific for multiple projects (or when you actually have to have a specific version of the kernel and crap like that.)
The logs aren't very useful, even when they trap things. Unsupported CPUs may also have unsupported or doctored chipsets. Bitching about it, 100 books or no, seems a bit silly. With fast CPUs and weird cache setups, FSB speeds approaching C, you're just going to have problems unless something's vetted.
Moaning about an engineering sample seems nihilistic to me, Windows 7 or no.
Or a desperate call for attention. Nerds, talented or not, are not above (ideological and possibly market-driven) attention whoring :-/
if you rang MS for support they would reject your call as using unsupported hardware.
Does Linux run on it?
I suspect the same request for help to the Linux community would be met with a MUCH more enthusiastic response.
Non sequitur. I know it felt great to say that, but it is still non sequitur.
For all those people who don't like that (I can see some going NERDRAGE!!! APPLE BAAAAD!), then do your best to develop kick-ass applications on Android and BlackBerry above and beyond whatever technical problems those platforms might have.
They are porting the CRL to Objective-C and so far it looks promising. Whether this can go through Apple's hell gates that's another thing.
Instead of throwing money for a 5th year for brainiacs, fix the entire system. It makes no sense to have HS graduates who can't do fractions. Many kids in other parts of the world (even in developing countries) end their HS with a solid foundation in algebra, trig/geometry, vectors, biology, chemistry, classical physics and world history.
If we are to throw money, do it for the purpose of changing our way of thinking.
Just last year I was tearing my hair when Word 2003 kept changing the layout whenever I tried to print an important document as PDF. Wouldn't it be wonderful if such issues simply did not occur?
It sucks that it happens, and it would be nice if it didn't. But it does. One's miles varies from case to case, but for me, I have never had a problem printing complex documents (be it from Word, LyX or Google Docs) to PDF using a PDF print driver.
At work, I simply print the bloody doc on paper, then scan it on a PDF scanner. Voila, works all the time. Print it on a medium that you know won't change styles and then scan it into a PDF.
It does suck to have those problems, but we just simply work around them.
Immediate need for programmer with 10 years experience developing Objective C 2.0 for the iPad. Experience with developing for Intel i9 based Mac Pros is a major plus!
I've seen that sh*t too. Back in 1995 I was applying for a VB 3.0 job and got rejected because I didn't have 7 years of experience (VB 3.0 was less than two years old, and the whole VB line wasn't 7 years old at all.)
Move the clock forwards to 1998, same deal, got rejected at two applications: one for not having 7 years of experience in Java and another one for not having 8 years of experience with C++ STL. 1998 people!!!. And then in 2001, same again, but this time it was 10 years of Java experience. How the hell can HR screw up like that is beyond me. I was very desperate to get a job on those years, leaving me very bitter against HR and recruiters. Now I laugh.
If someone tells me that they are looking someone with 7 years in JavaFX, I'll just laugh, looking at the whole thing as a sign of God to avoid working with retards.
Personally I love it when they ask for this. Nothing pleases me more than writing a resume whose formatting seems to change based on what version of Office you're using...
Uhhh, welcome to the 90's? I haven't seen such incompatibilities since 1998-2000. A person has to suck tremendously to create a resume that changes style from version to version. Not that Word is the right tool, but it is so widespread and so common in usage, anyone claiming to work in tech short of being a hermit working on an underground lab running a copy of Slackware Linux downloaded (probably via CompuServe) back in 95, should be able to create a resume that has zero to very little variability from one system to the next.
How much can a techie suck at simple word processing that he/she is unable to create a stable, professional resume in Word? I mean, seriously?
Nobody, and I mean, nobody worth counting uses anything older than MS Office 2000. Sorry dude, that argument makes no sense. There are many reasons for bashing MS Office (actually not that many for Office 2000, but lots for Office 2007). This one ain't one.
With this subject line, you are sure to get a bad developer. I have never seen a good VB developer.
I have. He was good at a lot of other languages and platforms, too. I can pick any tech stack or language (be it application or systems programming), and I can assure you, most of its programmers suck.
To find a bad programmer (or bad anything actually) hire anyone whose resume/CV features "certified" or "certification" by a corporation that sells the product covered by the certificate (e.g.: "microsoft certified"). The circular nature of such training guarantees a worker who's view is designed to be narrow.
Woa, woa, woa, wait there. Are you saying that you can get any microsoft certification just by paying, without any type of evaluation at all?
You want a good coder? ... Have them write you something small for free.
Most of the good coders I know would walk right on out the door if the first thing you asked them to do was write something for free.
Even if what they are asked to write is a function that calculates the GCD of two numbers, or a pseudocode showing one understands a classic algorithm or data structure (which btw are very legit coding questions for an interview)?
There's definitely some truth in that. It seems like 80% of Slashdotters think that 80% of programmers suck but they're not part of that 80%.
It is called the Slashdot Paradox.
Someone hug me!