Its a shame that the value of mastering the field of Computer Science has been reduced to merely rewarding you with a programming job, which when its great pays about the same as modeling (as in underwear). A real CS once could do both at the same time, on their yacht somewhere halfway around the world. And how IT ever interests CS grads I'll never understand.
I think maybe you need a refresher on the meaning of the word. Another way to say luck is "good fortune."
The one who becomes CEO gets there through hard work and value added to society.
This is an incredibly naive statement. You must be under 18 (and no offense intended... pretty cool you are forming opinions, even if they are not based on anything).
When you have shareholders, and not your boss, determining whether or not you keep your job, you damn well better know what you are doing. In that case, you should be rewarded for it. Most people choose a monetary reward. That doesnt make them lucky, it means they know what the hell they are doing.
Have you not ever heard "you'll rise to the level of your incompetence?" It means you'll keep getting promoted until you land a position you can't quite handle. And it happens all the time, which is why this colloquialism exists.
In fact, prior to that sentence, I pretty sure that I did not mention you at all.
Then why are you responding to my post? I say "its luck," then you say "It isnt a matter of where you grow up, or who your parents are."... that's where the strawman argument appears.
Well, maybe there should be CEO fan clubs, I don't know, good luck with that... but I've had enough of your straw man arguments. I never said anything about genetics or 'heritage,' (am I the only one that hates that word?), and yet, bizarrely, you are attributing this to me. Frankly, you are rambling. I was talking about luck, and I stand by what I wrote. The rich got lucky, whether they worked hard or not.
Our society creates value based on the value back to society.
No it doesn't. Where did you get this? CEO's get insane salaries because of their value to society? Utter rubbish.
Bill Gates has created a company that provides a better service than a factory worker or construction worker or waiter or maid.
No... he was able to create a successful company based on shrewd business decisions only AFTER he was, luckily, in the right place at the right time, namely, being the son of a mother with questionable sexual habits. The man got really really lucky.
It is not about how much time is put in, or you could sit around you couch and masturbate as hard as you could, and since you worked harder at it than Bill at his job, you would get paid more.
Thanks for making my argument against grandparent post, i.e., hard work has nothing to do with why the wealthy are wealthy (even if they did, in fact, work hard and are wealthy).
See why your argument is stupid?
right back at ya
Some people win lotteries, and they are lucky. Those who lose lotteries tried just as hard, but they dont get paid. No reasonable person complains about this.
Exactly. Its what we call luck.
Had Bill Gates been raised under different conditions, he wouldn't be Bill Gates.
only... he'd have the same DNA, same fingerprints... same stupid smile... actually, he'd be the same person poorer.
Don't compare the rich to the poor based on their upbringing.
I did not. But, still... don't tell me what to do.
Generally, they earned it.
One man's man-hour is the same as another man's man-hour. There's no way its even mathematically possible that any of the top uberwealthy could possibly have earned what they have. There just aren't enough man-hours in a life time. Its luck I tell you.
Blaming your heritage is choosing to not rise above the challenges in your life. There is no reason that anyone cannot escape from where they are if they put forth the effort. That is the american dream and the american reality.
Hey, I didn't say it wasn't possible. That it is possible to become wealthy from humble beginnings is the American Dream to be sure... I'm talking about deserve... deserve has nothing to do with wealth, life or death.
Most millionaires in the U.S. are first generation millionaires, they didn't inherit their wealth. Most often, the wealthy are wealthy because of the work that they do and the decisions they have made.
Aha! So that PROVES that luck had nothing to do with it!
The same is true for much of the poor. Many are where they are because of the choices they have made.
Aha! You really have no idea what you are talking about... and are likely a bigot. Did you not see Trading Places?
Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.
This is total bull. You think Bill Gates works harder than a factory worker or construction worker? Had Bill Gates been born to a poor slum family, he'd just as likely be a petty criminal. Its asinine how the rich think they work harder, and thus their rewards are greater. Its all luck, as far as I'm concerned. The rich no more deserve their wealth than the poor deserve poverty.
Which you would be right about if they hadn't, in the executive summary, pointed out that SCOTUS and the US Code holds that the 'militia' consists of every able bodied citizen in the country.
Some of us actually read most of the ruling, rather than redacted summaries highlighting the portions of the ruling that partisan interests wanted to bang their drums about.
Wow. Do the things I gotta do... feed the troll.
I have not and am not debating the definition of what a militia is. I state very clearly my objection, which is that the Founders debated at length and intentionally left out 'self-defense' (I seriously doubt they debated about an individual's right to 'hunting') -- not just the 2nd Amendment, they left it out of the whole Constitution. Its not in there, not at all, not a bit. The point of the 2nd is that militia members, all able bodied whatever, have the uninfringed right (to bear arms) to defend others, other citizens, others who can't defend themselves, against a tyrannical government, and NOT to fight crime or other gun owners vigilante style. The Founders never intended to give paranoid gun owners a right of self-defense, (though that is Scalia's surprising interpretation). Self-defense is either a God-given right, which they did not need to spell out, or a matter left for the state, city, county, or perhaps borough governments.
Furthermore, your barely thought out knee-jerk reaction to my post... to completely misreading my post, and also attempting to add some thin straw man argument, gives away your obviously partisan opinion and equally unimpressive reading comprehension.
Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
You should have a problem with the decision, as it absolutly is intellectually dishonest. Interpreting the 2nd isn't as difficult as they make it. Historians will all agree the Founders debated self-defense, and intentionally left this up to the States, as any literate can testify, no where in the Constitution will you find 'self-defense,' in name OR concept. Neither is 'hunting' for that matter. They wrote 'well-regulated militia,' and that's what they meant, not self-defense against crime or other gun owners but the goverment (and its nice to see so many poster's above acknowledging this, even if jokingly). Scalia and the majority just rewrote the Constitution.
hey, fyi, I made all that up... but I think you missed the point. Life is short, grades are pointless, and at the end the only thing anyone values is family and friends.
I have pride in my intellectual prowess. Its inconceivable I'd cheat this way. I have to show off to the teacher how smart I am. That seems to be a common theme among the posters here... each one immenantly confident in their skills, and each smarter than everyone else. Surely, you and they are all self-deluded, self-absorbed and arrogant. I, for one, never make mistakes myself, and always find simpler solutions to problems than anyone else... although I used to think as you and they do... years ago... but I have overcome these lame social self-awareness issues and now I am perfect in every way.
apparently you are using the word 'friend' in a manner most are unfamiliar with...
I had a friend rely on me for the same thing... only difference is I got him the 'A.' There is nothing I can't ask from him now. So how are you and your 'friend' keeping up?
Even a SOTA reactor creates deadly waste. The US is is big place, and even if (a big IF) storage in Yucca Mountain is a good idea (personally, I think its a terrible idea... but I admit, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS), transporting 75,000 tons (currently... and consider every single temp containment facility is FULL right now) of deadly (for 30K years) nuclear waste TO Yucca Mountain is insanely dangerous (when you consider there are ~3000 train wrecks a year).
Nuclear is a piss poor solution. We need renewable energy solutions... solar & wind, geothermal, hydrolic... etc.
Everyone hates ethenol right now because its corn based... but in a few short years the fermentation crtitters will be developed enough to create cheap fuel from your yard clippings (and anything that grows that isn't food). Oil is going to have a slow thrashing death when ethanol becomes as cheap as fresh water.
Right now, NEXRAD affords a 15-20 minute heads up on tornados, and its not clear if that can be increased. Chaos Theory tells us that if we had a grid of sensors in the atmosphere 1 foot apart all around the globe and took a reading, the accuracy of predictions based on that reading would break down in about an hour. Certainly, tornado watches could be issued earlier, but tornado formation happens so quickly there is a limit to how early they could be predicted with any certainty, regardless of how accurate a radar reading.
Troll, you keep repeating something I never wrote. I never once said binaries were webapps, yet in every reply you add that correction. Installer.app, not a webapp, never ever claimed by me to be a webapp, not even a little bit, RELIES on HTML for more than the initial page load (such as when you tap to get more info on a particular binary, the data that loads is HTML). Let's try something different: please, please troll me again and say I'm writing something I never wrote... Please? Just once more, tell me binaries are not webapps? Learn to comprehend, not confabulate, jackass.
Its really not, but, well, I applaud your efforts to redefine words. Its an excellent way to write in a manner that will leave your words ambiguous and misunderstood. Ever considered publishing your own dictionary?
we need native applications not half-assed emulators (and yes, it goddamn well IS an eumulator). No, it goddamn well is NOT an emulator. Emulators emulate hardware (e.g. QEMU). And I believe its arguable that we NEED native applictions for an OS that is headed towards abandonware.
Get yer shit straight before you rant next time. Wine is sweet.
Again, parent was claiming binaries would kill webapps, that somehow adding binaries to iPhone would mysteriously make webapps inconvenient. I disagreed. To make my case, I pointed out that binaries have been here all along and webapps are doing just fine with HTML -- in fact, some binaries, such as Installer.app, actually used HTML. Now please stop trolling me.
Installer.app relies on HTML (for its initial page load).
Happy?
My point was that parent was incorrect to predict that binaries will kill webapps when binaries have been here pretty much all along and new webapps appear almost hourly... because they are so easy and convenient to create.
With free speech, I'm able to link as I feel necessary. If I am not free to do so, it is not free speech The AC pwned you, and with your needlessly verbose and wildly innacurate response you dug yourself an even deeper hole by claiming AC has a position that the AC actually did not 'intimate' (did you mean 'insinuate?' 'intimate' means 'very close' or 'familiar').
Libel is not plagerism and plagerism is not speech... and neither is word salad.
just Fyi, I, and roughly a million others (probably more) have been loading binary apps on iPhone for a year or so. Some of these apps, such as the package manager, rely on HTML... and every so often they update and it gets even slicker. I really can't understand what you mean by 'inconvenient,' when it seems the whole point of webapps is precisely for convenience.
huh. So... during heated domestic arguments, does a gun owner actually have less of a chance to shoot his wife in the heat of the moment than the non-gun owner? Like guns all you want, but guns cause far more violent gun crimes than they prevent them (you count up your hero stories, and for each I'll find you 10 gun murders.)
Slashdot Mirror
Its a shame that the value of mastering the field of Computer Science has been reduced to merely rewarding you with a programming job, which when its great pays about the same as modeling (as in underwear). A real CS once could do both at the same time, on their yacht somewhere halfway around the world. And how IT ever interests CS grads I'll never understand.
Too bad they can't use this for remedial immunology... those students are way too slow to play a game.
We're whalers on the Moon
We carry a harpoon
But there ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing our whaling tune
You completely missed the point here. The haves vs the have nots is unrelated to luck by definition. The one who wins the lottery is lucky.
google.com
I think maybe you need a refresher on the meaning of the word. Another way to say luck is "good fortune."
The one who becomes CEO gets there through hard work and value added to society.
This is an incredibly naive statement. You must be under 18 (and no offense intended... pretty cool you are forming opinions, even if they are not based on anything).
When you have shareholders, and not your boss, determining whether or not you keep your job, you damn well better know what you are doing. In that case, you should be rewarded for it. Most people choose a monetary reward. That doesnt make them lucky, it means they know what the hell they are doing.
Have you not ever heard "you'll rise to the level of your incompetence?" It means you'll keep getting promoted until you land a position you can't quite handle. And it happens all the time, which is why this colloquialism exists.
In fact, prior to that sentence, I pretty sure that I did not mention you at all.
Then why are you responding to my post? I say "its luck," then you say "It isnt a matter of where you grow up, or who your parents are."... that's where the strawman argument appears.
Well, maybe there should be CEO fan clubs, I don't know, good luck with that... but I've had enough of your straw man arguments. I never said anything about genetics or 'heritage,' (am I the only one that hates that word?), and yet, bizarrely, you are attributing this to me. Frankly, you are rambling. I was talking about luck, and I stand by what I wrote. The rich got lucky, whether they worked hard or not.
Our society creates value based on the value back to society.
No it doesn't. Where did you get this? CEO's get insane salaries because of their value to society? Utter rubbish.
Bill Gates has created a company that provides a better service than a factory worker or construction worker or waiter or maid.
No... he was able to create a successful company based on shrewd business decisions only AFTER he was, luckily, in the right place at the right time, namely, being the son of a mother with questionable sexual habits. The man got really really lucky.
It is not about how much time is put in, or you could sit around you couch and masturbate as hard as you could, and since you worked harder at it than Bill at his job, you would get paid more.
Thanks for making my argument against grandparent post, i.e., hard work has nothing to do with why the wealthy are wealthy (even if they did, in fact, work hard and are wealthy).
See why your argument is stupid?
right back at ya
Some people win lotteries, and they are lucky. Those who lose lotteries tried just as hard, but they dont get paid. No reasonable person complains about this.
Exactly. Its what we call luck.
Had Bill Gates been raised under different conditions, he wouldn't be Bill Gates.
only... he'd have the same DNA, same fingerprints... same stupid smile... actually, he'd be the same person poorer.
Don't compare the rich to the poor based on their upbringing.
I did not. But, still... don't tell me what to do.
Generally, they earned it.
One man's man-hour is the same as another man's man-hour. There's no way its even mathematically possible that any of the top uberwealthy could possibly have earned what they have. There just aren't enough man-hours in a life time. Its luck I tell you.
Blaming your heritage is choosing to not rise above the challenges in your life. There is no reason that anyone cannot escape from where they are if they put forth the effort. That is the american dream and the american reality.
Hey, I didn't say it wasn't possible. That it is possible to become wealthy from humble beginnings is the American Dream to be sure... I'm talking about deserve... deserve has nothing to do with wealth, life or death.
Most millionaires in the U.S. are first generation millionaires, they didn't inherit their wealth. Most often, the wealthy are wealthy because of the work that they do and the decisions they have made.
Aha! So that PROVES that luck had nothing to do with it!
The same is true for much of the poor. Many are where they are because of the choices they have made.
Aha! You really have no idea what you are talking about... and are likely a bigot. Did you not see Trading Places?
Why should someone who works harder, innovates, starts their own business, or pursues a higher-wage career be penalized? It is not 'unfair' that some people have higher salaries than others.
This is total bull. You think Bill Gates works harder than a factory worker or construction worker? Had Bill Gates been born to a poor slum family, he'd just as likely be a petty criminal. Its asinine how the rich think they work harder, and thus their rewards are greater. Its all luck, as far as I'm concerned. The rich no more deserve their wealth than the poor deserve poverty.
Which you would be right about if they hadn't, in the executive summary, pointed out that SCOTUS and the US Code holds that the 'militia' consists of every able bodied citizen in the country.
Some of us actually read most of the ruling, rather than redacted summaries highlighting the portions of the ruling that partisan interests wanted to bang their drums about.
Wow. Do the things I gotta do... feed the troll.
I have not and am not debating the definition of what a militia is. I state very clearly my objection, which is that the Founders debated at length and intentionally left out 'self-defense' (I seriously doubt they debated about an individual's right to 'hunting') -- not just the 2nd Amendment, they left it out of the whole Constitution. Its not in there, not at all, not a bit. The point of the 2nd is that militia members, all able bodied whatever, have the uninfringed right (to bear arms) to defend others, other citizens, others who can't defend themselves, against a tyrannical government, and NOT to fight crime or other gun owners vigilante style. The Founders never intended to give paranoid gun owners a right of self-defense, (though that is Scalia's surprising interpretation). Self-defense is either a God-given right, which they did not need to spell out, or a matter left for the state, city, county, or perhaps borough governments.
Furthermore, your barely thought out knee-jerk reaction to my post... to completely misreading my post, and also attempting to add some thin straw man argument, gives away your obviously partisan opinion and equally unimpressive reading comprehension.
Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
You should have a problem with the decision, as it absolutly is intellectually dishonest. Interpreting the 2nd isn't as difficult as they make it. Historians will all agree the Founders debated self-defense, and intentionally left this up to the States, as any literate can testify, no where in the Constitution will you find 'self-defense,' in name OR concept. Neither is 'hunting' for that matter. They wrote 'well-regulated militia,' and that's what they meant, not self-defense against crime or other gun owners but the goverment (and its nice to see so many poster's above acknowledging this, even if jokingly). Scalia and the majority just rewrote the Constitution.hey, fyi, I made all that up... but I think you missed the point. Life is short, grades are pointless, and at the end the only thing anyone values is family and friends.
apparently you are using the word 'friend' in a manner most are unfamiliar with...
I had a friend rely on me for the same thing... only difference is I got him the 'A.' There is nothing I can't ask from him now. So how are you and your 'friend' keeping up?
Even a SOTA reactor creates deadly waste. The US is is big place, and even if (a big IF) storage in Yucca Mountain is a good idea (personally, I think its a terrible idea... but I admit, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS), transporting 75,000 tons (currently... and consider every single temp containment facility is FULL right now) of deadly (for 30K years) nuclear waste TO Yucca Mountain is insanely dangerous (when you consider there are ~3000 train wrecks a year).
Nuclear is a piss poor solution. We need renewable energy solutions... solar & wind, geothermal, hydrolic... etc.
Everyone hates ethenol right now because its corn based... but in a few short years the fermentation crtitters will be developed enough to create cheap fuel from your yard clippings (and anything that grows that isn't food). Oil is going to have a slow thrashing death when ethanol becomes as cheap as fresh water.
figure out a way to run 5000 simultaneous desktop environments on those 500 processors... and that might help the environment quite a lot
Right now, NEXRAD affords a 15-20 minute heads up on tornados, and its not clear if that can be increased. Chaos Theory tells us that if we had a grid of sensors in the atmosphere 1 foot apart all around the globe and took a reading, the accuracy of predictions based on that reading would break down in about an hour. Certainly, tornado watches could be issued earlier, but tornado formation happens so quickly there is a limit to how early they could be predicted with any certainty, regardless of how accurate a radar reading.
Troll, you keep repeating something I never wrote. I never once said binaries were webapps, yet in every reply you add that correction. Installer.app, not a webapp, never ever claimed by me to be a webapp, not even a little bit, RELIES on HTML for more than the initial page load (such as when you tap to get more info on a particular binary, the data that loads is HTML). Let's try something different: please, please troll me again and say I'm writing something I never wrote... Please? Just once more, tell me binaries are not webapps? Learn to comprehend, not confabulate, jackass.
Its really not, but, well, I applaud your efforts to redefine words. Its an excellent way to write in a manner that will leave your words ambiguous and misunderstood. Ever considered publishing your own dictionary?
If I ever sprinkle holy water on someone, I certainly will do. Thanks, Nazi.
Get yer shit straight before you rant next time. Wine is sweet.
Your reading something I've not written.
Again, parent was claiming binaries would kill webapps, that somehow adding binaries to iPhone would mysteriously make webapps inconvenient. I disagreed. To make my case, I pointed out that binaries have been here all along and webapps are doing just fine with HTML -- in fact, some binaries, such as Installer.app, actually used HTML. Now please stop trolling me.
Installer.app relies on HTML (for its initial page load).
Happy?
My point was that parent was incorrect to predict that binaries will kill webapps when binaries have been here pretty much all along and new webapps appear almost hourly... because they are so easy and convenient to create.
Libel is not plagerism and plagerism is not speech... and neither is word salad.
just Fyi, I, and roughly a million others (probably more) have been loading binary apps on iPhone for a year or so. Some of these apps, such as the package manager, rely on HTML... and every so often they update and it gets even slicker. I really can't understand what you mean by 'inconvenient,' when it seems the whole point of webapps is precisely for convenience.
huh. So... during heated domestic arguments, does a gun owner actually have less of a chance to shoot his wife in the heat of the moment than the non-gun owner? Like guns all you want, but guns cause far more violent gun crimes than they prevent them (you count up your hero stories, and for each I'll find you 10 gun murders.)