i'm with you on most of that, except (at least in the US) the ban on mobile phones is from the government, not the airlines. i suppose the airlines asked the gov't to make the rule, but it's about interferrance with the airplane's radio signals, not catching lying ground employees.
you're wearing army clothes (but you're no longer in the army) or else a plaid flannel shirt, aren't you. you have a pwo/mia decal and more than 2 american flags on your 20 your old car, and you have a beard, long hair and if you have any job at all, it's collecting money 'for the veterans' outside a supermarket. right?
and you don't really understand the issue of the thread.
and terrorists would never lie when giving that info. so we can all feel really safe now. all the honest, non-terrorist people's itineraries have been collected. whew! that was a close one.
and it's perfectly logical that 'platinum card members' don't have to have tabs kept on them?
and i've got to wonder what sort of host you are at a 'large party at your house' if you follow all the guests around to 'monitor' them and see what they're snooping into.
well, yeah, and we already know terrorists spend a couple of years doing tests. that oughta earn 'em a platinum card. "oh, sorry sir, i see you've been scouting our security procedures for some time now. you may pass right through. please excuse the inconvenience."
My guess is that almost all Slash-Dotters are young people, who's hearing is still acute. It's a shame that crappy quality devices and purchased d/l's are depriving them of the complete experience. You mention classical cuts that wouldn't be acceptable at low bit rates. Answer me this, Batman: Would any artist OK a 128kbs version of his work? Oh, wait. You're saying, Oh yeah, 500,000 of them have, since that's how many songs are offered at 99 cents and 128kbs.
Nope. That's the record companies doing. Let's do a thought experiment. How many musical artists have low quality mp3s of their or any other artists' work?
Crap. I said I'd get off my soapbox a while ago. But this really boils my beans.
If you didn't read it and you like music, read it. It won't change your life, but it might get you thinking. My hearing is on the downside now, so lossless isn't important to me. But I'll always champion quality audio.
Toss the crappy little earbuds, stop buying 99 cent songs that sound like crap, learn to really HEAR the music. Those $15 speakers on your PC are worthless. You should go buy decent speakers (they cost all of $40), but if you insist that the free speakers that came with you PC are 'good', then maybe you're hopeless.
Rip at 192 or better. That's sort of settled in as the minimum. A few years ago, 128 was the 'miminum' because it didn't sound shitty but it could be 'shared' easily. But that's been replaced. Like 5 years ago. Catch up. The download sites like Napster, iTunes, Whatever, are serving up the 'good stuff' as it was declared to be seven or eight years ago! That's crap. Their 128 kbs junk isn't worth 9 cents, let alone 99 cents.
Make your peace with it: Either you don't care that you're not hearing all the music, so 128 kbs is fine, or, you can and do hear the difference, and you'll not d/l (and definitely not pay for) anything less.
I know from my former life as a worker bee that people in call centers routinely say "I'm going to put you on hold while I pull up your file" or some such nonsense. But all they really do is mute their mic. (Hmmm, sounds kinky. Hey babe, you ever mute your mic?)
Just be aware that 'hold' doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. Perhaps only 2% of calls are recorded/monitored, but I can tell you, someone's hearing you a lot more of the time than you think. Play with it. Next time you're on hold, mutter to yourself, "OMG, this man/woman has the sexiest voice I've ever heard. I'd do him/her in a New York minute." (Results will vary according to the perceived sexes of the two parties.):)
Hmmm....a rule where the word group is plural only if the individual components are being emphasised... That's an interesting thought. Can you provide an example? My little brain can't make a sentence where 'group' isn't singular. Unless it's a verb or adjective.:-) But, seriously, I want to understand. Give me 2 (British English ) sentences, one where group is used and is contextually singular, and one where it's both used and contextually plural. I can learn something here, although I expect it's going to be yet another example of where American English has gone wrong.
But it just kills me that 'evolving' means accepting that using it incorrectly, which begins with it not being taught correctly/completely/thoroughly/properly, is acceptable. Sure, it evolves, but should we ever accept "a group have discovered..."? Does it then follow that "They reports their discovery"?
Yes, but not A group. A group is singular, and so requires a singular verb sense. Yes, I'm an American, so I say "in school" but not "in hospital". Makes no sense. But I, and we, and I expect you, don't (correctly) say "a group of professors have found...". Some professors have found... professors have found, many professors have found... but, a group of professors has found...
And, by the way, I worked for a British firm, and I was always impressed with the proper English with which they (you) corresponded. We had plenty of terms that were not in common, but their use of the basics of our tongue was always impressive. I was am still ashamed at Americans' sloppy use of the language.
Oh, yeah. Those flying cars. Even as recently as... what, two years ago? There were articles about a company manufacturing them, or that was about to. I wanted one sooooo much. Still do.
...a group of MIT professors have almost completed
A group... have... completed ? Doesn't anyone pass high school English any more? Or is this a reflection on the quality of those passing out the grades?
Oh, wait. You don't even see what I mean, do you? Nevermind.
OK, now you're starting to get through to me. My son has done some work in your area, roughly: software to find errors in software.
I apologize for publically doubting you. But Joel's essay was, as far as I can tell, directed at mainstream CS candidates, those who will enter the real world of programming the stuff you're working to investigate.
You might be too good to waste on academia. Consider getting a real job, OK? The world has passed beyond caring whether or not software is working well. It's accepted that it isn't, and the real world just fixes it and moves on (or, for the users, accepts it and moves on). The big deal now is how fast you can develop something, not how perfect it is. Sad for some of us (kills me), but that's the way the world works.
You still haven't shown you're any better, or even right. Lots of words, lots of college stuff, lots of fancy words, but show me the... stuff.
Your first post, the one you're referring to, doesn't give any reasons, any proofs, any support; just arcane words about why Joel is 'wrong'. But he's wrong only if you're 'right'. You never show you're right, just that he might be wrong, or at least not perfect.
Same claim from me: you posted a lot of meaningless crap, and you do that at your job and lots of people buy into it because you're smarter than they are. I don't fault you for that... that's what capitalism is all about. But don't come in here with your meaningless BS. OK?
OK, so why didn't you reply to the first post with this kind of intelligence? Your grammar isn't the best, but, without having any idea whether or not YOU had any real input into those projects, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... sorta. I surely didn't trace down all the links and the links they led to. And that's a lot of my point: Show me the real stuff. What have you really done? Not what projects have you worked on, not what requirements did you code to. What have you done that says you know anything about the real business world? The 'paper I wrote', 'big shot' and 'working for NASA' things don't mean shit. Like NASA's gonna badmouth somebody they hired. Your 'piece of software'... gee, you submitted something to open source. Wow, not much of that goes on.
So what do you know about the real world? The world that runs on commerce and business and actual accomplishments?
You're no dummy, but you're not, so far, in my eyes, someone who is making a difference with computers.
I guess I'm late with this, but I'm really happy with all my Hotmail accounts (8 of 'em) and the way they all come together in Outlook Express. I have searched them a couple of times, and it took a minute or so to search 80 or 90 megs of messages... what do I care? Faster than I could do it on my own.
Now I know the poster above said just "Outlook', but I've got to think Outlook Express is at least as accommodating as the full Outlook.
And I'm not even mentioning how spam-free they (Hotmail accts) are, compared to a year or so ago. I'm not a BG fan, but Hotmail and Outlook Express are high on my list of good, free stuff
OK, I guess I'm getting a little pissy about this with you, but Joel's whole point is that successful people who are passionate about programming need to be firmly rooted in the real business world. All that crap you spewed up there doesn't mean you know anything about it. I could google a couple of things and come up with the same arcane terms. Not saying that's what you did, but so what?
Yes, degrees from Georgia Tech are something to be proud of, VERY proud of. You've done more than I ever did. In college. But they don't show you understand what Joel, and I, are saying.
Sorry. None of that says you're a good programmer or know anything about the business. I worked with a few people good at throwing around fancy words and dropping names and obscure terms. None of them could code their way out of a paper bag.
And I'd WAY sooner trust Joel's skills (completely unknown to me) than those of bureaucrats doling out contracts to whomever lavished the most upon them at dinner.
You're ringing the same bell as Joel. Do you see what you're saying? "Have a good basic knowledge about the real world." Not your words, but the idea, I think. But you're not a real programmer, not a ture coder. You're a Consulant. So while I agree with half your point, I have to say this about the other half: Those that can, do; those that can't, consult.
I've never heard of nor read the book (well, shit, if I've never heard of it, I guess I've never read it. Anyway, my comment is this: Yes. 10 years might be about right. Maybe a little less these days. Things move faster. But the point is, no one who graduated last spring is as good as she or he will be in a few years. And after that, they'll be ready to, and should, move on, most likely into the business side. A few openings in IT will be there, but the best opportunities for most will be on the business/client/customer side.
Slashdot Mirror
i'm with you on most of that, except (at least in the US) the ban on mobile phones is from the government, not the airlines. i suppose the airlines asked the gov't to make the rule, but it's about interferrance with the airplane's radio signals, not catching lying ground employees.
you're wearing army clothes (but you're no longer in the army) or else a plaid flannel shirt, aren't you. you have a pwo/mia decal and more than 2 american flags on your 20 your old car, and you have a beard, long hair and if you have any job at all, it's collecting money 'for the veterans' outside a supermarket. right?
and you don't really understand the issue of the thread.
and terrorists would never lie when giving that info. so we can all feel really safe now. all the honest, non-terrorist people's itineraries have been collected. whew! that was a close one.
and i've got to wonder what sort of host you are at a 'large party at your house' if you follow all the guests around to 'monitor' them and see what they're snooping into.
well, yeah, and we already know terrorists spend a couple of years doing tests. that oughta earn 'em a platinum card. "oh, sorry sir, i see you've been scouting our security procedures for some time now. you may pass right through. please excuse the inconvenience."
Nope. That's the record companies doing. Let's do a thought experiment. How many musical artists have low quality mp3s of their or any other artists' work?
Crap. I said I'd get off my soapbox a while ago. But this really boils my beans.
The poster's point is valid. So's mine. I say. Shun the crap below 192kbs :)
Toss the crappy little earbuds, stop buying 99 cent songs that sound like crap, learn to really HEAR the music. Those $15 speakers on your PC are worthless. You should go buy decent speakers (they cost all of $40), but if you insist that the free speakers that came with you PC are 'good', then maybe you're hopeless.
Rip at 192 or better. That's sort of settled in as the minimum. A few years ago, 128 was the 'miminum' because it didn't sound shitty but it could be 'shared' easily. But that's been replaced. Like 5 years ago. Catch up. The download sites like Napster, iTunes, Whatever, are serving up the 'good stuff' as it was declared to be seven or eight years ago! That's crap. Their 128 kbs junk isn't worth 9 cents, let alone 99 cents.
Make your peace with it: Either you don't care that you're not hearing all the music, so 128 kbs is fine, or, you can and do hear the difference, and you'll not d/l (and definitely not pay for) anything less.
Off soapbox now. :)
Just be aware that 'hold' doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. Perhaps only 2% of calls are recorded/monitored, but I can tell you, someone's hearing you a lot more of the time than you think. Play with it. Next time you're on hold, mutter to yourself, "OMG, this man/woman has the sexiest voice I've ever heard. I'd do him/her in a New York minute." (Results will vary according to the perceived sexes of the two parties.) :)
Hmmm. ...a rule where the word group is plural only if the individual components are being emphasised... That's an interesting thought. Can you provide an example? My little brain can't make a sentence where 'group' isn't singular. Unless it's a verb or adjective. :-) But, seriously, I want to understand. Give me 2 (British English ) sentences, one where group is used and is contextually singular, and one where it's both used and contextually plural. I can learn something here, although I expect it's going to be yet another example of where American English has gone wrong.
But it just kills me that 'evolving' means accepting that using it incorrectly, which begins with it not being taught correctly/completely/thoroughly/properly, is acceptable. Sure, it evolves, but should we ever accept "a group have discovered..."? Does it then follow that "They reports their discovery"?
And, by the way, I worked for a British firm, and I was always impressed with the proper English with which they (you) corresponded. We had plenty of terms that were not in common, but their use of the basics of our tongue was always impressive. I was am still ashamed at Americans' sloppy use of the language.
Oh, yeah. Those flying cars. Even as recently as ... what, two years ago? There were articles about a company manufacturing them, or that was about to. I wanted one sooooo much. Still do.
A group ... have ... completed ? Doesn't anyone pass high school English any more? Or is this a reflection on the quality of those passing out the grades?
Oh, wait. You don't even see what I mean, do you? Nevermind.
I apologize for publically doubting you. But Joel's essay was, as far as I can tell, directed at mainstream CS candidates, those who will enter the real world of programming the stuff you're working to investigate.
You might be too good to waste on academia. Consider getting a real job, OK? The world has passed beyond caring whether or not software is working well. It's accepted that it isn't, and the real world just fixes it and moves on (or, for the users, accepts it and moves on). The big deal now is how fast you can develop something, not how perfect it is. Sad for some of us (kills me), but that's the way the world works.
Any way to factor that into your doctorate?
Your first post, the one you're referring to, doesn't give any reasons, any proofs, any support; just arcane words about why Joel is 'wrong'. But he's wrong only if you're 'right'. You never show you're right, just that he might be wrong, or at least not perfect.
Same claim from me: you posted a lot of meaningless crap, and you do that at your job and lots of people buy into it because you're smarter than they are. I don't fault you for that... that's what capitalism is all about. But don't come in here with your meaningless BS. OK?
So what do you know about the real world? The world that runs on commerce and business and actual accomplishments?
You're no dummy, but you're not, so far, in my eyes, someone who is making a difference with computers.
Now I know the poster above said just "Outlook', but I've got to think Outlook Express is at least as accommodating as the full Outlook.
And I'm not even mentioning how spam-free they (Hotmail accts) are, compared to a year or so ago. I'm not a BG fan, but Hotmail and Outlook Express are high on my list of good, free stuff
Yes, degrees from Georgia Tech are something to be proud of, VERY proud of. You've done more than I ever did. In college. But they don't show you understand what Joel, and I, are saying.
And I'd WAY sooner trust Joel's skills (completely unknown to me) than those of bureaucrats doling out contracts to whomever lavished the most upon them at dinner.
And why doesn't his advice, even the 'don't worry about India' part, not apply to you?
Go back and read it again, wondering why I'd say this, while considering what you wrote about GPAs.
You're ringing the same bell as Joel. Do you see what you're saying? "Have a good basic knowledge about the real world." Not your words, but the idea, I think. But you're not a real programmer, not a ture coder. You're a Consulant. So while I agree with half your point, I have to say this about the other half: Those that can, do; those that can't, consult.
How did this person even get to Slashdot? Whew! I've got issues, but usually they're somehow related to the topic.
I've never heard of nor read the book (well, shit, if I've never heard of it, I guess I've never read it. Anyway, my comment is this: Yes. 10 years might be about right. Maybe a little less these days. Things move faster. But the point is, no one who graduated last spring is as good as she or he will be in a few years. And after that, they'll be ready to, and should, move on, most likely into the business side. A few openings in IT will be there, but the best opportunities for most will be on the business/client/customer side.