about 35% of our networking and programming classes are black as well as about the same ratio of our teachers.... I know folks like to talk about the racist south... Nobody here at ITT gives a crap about what race you are
There is a form of inequity shown in your post. Whether it is direct racism, or just a huge economic disparity (which might be the result of racism), can't be proven without research. But the problem is this: if your state is 20% black, and your ITT classes are 35% black, then I betting that a whole lot of white kids got sent to a 'real' university, and most of the black kids got shunted to ITT. If you really care about what you are doing, you can get a good education anywhere. But don't delude yourself; ITT is seen as a third-rate institution. Sending a million white kids to state and private universities, and sending a million black kids to ITT, is not proof against racism in education.
BTW, fair or not, the view that ITT is inferior will impact your job opportunities until you have about ten years of professional experience on your resume (at which point nobody much cares where you went to school).
many ebooks you can find these days on P2P and so forth were never released as ebooks. cut, scan, OCR, assemble, distribute.
OMG, you're right! The law that bans TV capture cards to "plug the analog hole" should also outlaw paper books. Only by forcing all content to be protected by DRM can we protect the artists!
i mean, i don't have that kind of free time, and i see it as sacrilege to harm a book
Read an L. Ron Hubbard (anything from the Mission Earth series) or anything by Danielle Steele. That should take some of the sting out of the sacrilege.
'd like to have an explanation as to why, despite the fact that it hasn't been in active development for ~4.5 years, people are still finding vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer 6 on a regular basis.
HTAs, VBScript, ActiveX, and other proprietary features that make intranet app development seem easy, but should never be allowed within 20 hops of the Internet.
On artifical benchmarks, java can be as fast as C++
On artificial benchmarks, java can be as fast as an unladen swallow (African). In my experience, Java performance tends to suck. Why yes, I *am* a C++ programmer.
I don't hate Java, I use it occasionally as a portable and syntactically superior replacement for Visual Basic.
The lack of optional lighting seems odd; if they can combine it with front-lighting like the lightwedge I already used (www.lightwedge.net) , it would be just about perfect.
Can't you combine their ebook with a clip-on book light?
No, feel free to comment your code (random gibberish works fine). But whatever you do, do not *read* comments in code and expect them to have any bearing on reality. Even if the comments accurately describe what a program was written to do (rare), someone will have changed the code and not the comments, or the comments and not the code. Save yourself a lot of time and asprin; if you want to know what the code does, read the code.
Yes. Even if a better language comes along in the next few years, it will take more than three years (probably more than fifteen years) for C++ to stop being common.
TCP/IP is a fault-tolerant communications protocol, designed by DARPA to provide robust, highly reliable communications between disparate computing platforms. One of the requirements of the protocol was always that the network should be resilient enough to automatically route around failed nodes (think: server down).
The fault-tolerance of TCP/IP probably wouldn't help in the case where a trunk power line was down. If a single line feeds a neighborhood or town, and that line goes down, then 100% of the BPL to that area is gone. TCP/IP will only help if you have mesh, rather than star, topology. Inside a city, the mesh idea might work, unless the company wants a star topology for power supply reasons.
Ask government. You know, that coercive agency which granted them the artificial monopoly in the first place, and holds the final word on things like setting prices?
If it weren't for that bad ol' gubmint, and its oh-so-terrible 'Rural Electrification Project', half of the people in the red states still wouldn't have electricity. It wasn't profitable for corporations to install all of that infrastructure, so they weren't doing it. The government decided that this would benefit the people and the country as a whole. So any redneck who doesn't want to go off the grid should probably shut up.
A story about the pain that developers and organizations are going to go through to switch to a new toolset might also be interesting. Whenever possible, choose OpenSource tools; then no one can take your platform away.
And like syphilis: vi has been around for a very long time, is very 'successful' at developing a wide user base, and has the potential to drive you crazy. That being said, it's still my favorite editor!
Can the cynical attitude. The river is public property. There are already studies indicating that dumping mercury in water harms people or the environment. I'm pretty sure there is a law prohibiting the dumping of mercury into bodies of water
You must be of a different ilk than the Libertarians that we have around these parts (inluding aforementioned candidate). The Libertarians I haved talked with are absolutely opposed to the idea of "public property" (as in 'the river'). They want every square foot of land (wet and dry) to be owned by individuals. Only those individuals, not some imaginary government, would be allowed to sue polluters. And yes, I've had this pollution conversation with several of those Libertarians, and they have argued that the law against dumping mercury in rivers should be repealed. They are in favor only of civil penalties, and only after the dumping has been proved to hurt the individuals who own the parts of the river downstream. Interestingly, 'the candidate' did change his mind about air pollution after he had a kid. He decided that it was too difficult to prove where smog came from (hence don't know who to sue), so we need some preventative measures against air pollution.
Basically what I am saying is that preventative laws do not actually prevent a crime from happening
Statistics do not bear you out. As a small example: in jurisdictions where mandatory seat belt laws have been passed, seat belt use has gone up, and deaths have gone down. The seat belt usage rate is much higher (google for stats) in jurisdictions that have seat belt laws. A preventative law will usually (of course not always) change peoples' behavior.
So in following with that belief, we should immediately detain all undesirables to "work camps" as a preventative measure against crime.
Ah, so that's why seat belt laws are evil.
With a car I could drive over dozens of pedestrians. Walking down the street after stores have closed, I could break into one and steal things. Owning a photocopier I could make counterfeit money
You focus on owning things that could be abused (as though any group were trying to take away cars). Why can't we have a law that says that it is illegal to dump mercury in a river? Why should we have to tolerate that action (not potential action) until such time as we can prove that a certain person was harmed to a certain extent by a certain act of dumping?
Where I live, if you own a swimming pool, you are required by law to have a 4' high child-fence around it. All children (under 16?) who ride a bicycle are required by law to wear a helmet (only on streets and public land, I think). The phrase 'gun control' doesn't mean banning guns. The phrase includes such measures as: requiring a safety course, requiring a criminal background check, limiting the types of weapons (machine guns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc) that can be owned, and requiring tracability so that if your weapon is used in an assault then the police will know who to talk to first.
Unfortunately, airport security like we have in the US and invading iraq aren't really going to help much.
Regardless, vote third party. Vote Green, Libertarian, Independence, Reform... any of them. America will never belong to the people until we break the duopoly that favors Corporate America.
I beleive that there is another way. If a large majority of the American people are willing to vote for whichever of the two mainstream candidates has sold-out least to corporate interests, after five or six election cycles, the political advisors will tell their candidates that the only way to get (re-)elected is to serve the people rather than the corporations. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? Is it really so hard to see, from our 2005 vantage point, that there was a difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush? (May Ralph Nader burn for his lies.)
You know, you could have educated yourself and find out why the person has those positions rather than blindly bashing them for no reason.
Actually, we have discussed his reasoning behind his opinions. Did I "bash" him? I said that his opinions "seem kind of extreme". Then I re-iterated his opinions. If it looks like a bash, it is because quoting his own statements make him look bad to most readers.
But I guess being ignorant is far more productive than actually getting informed.
I defer to your superior experience in this matter.
no public education? simple, the current system DOES NOT WORK
The system seems to work very well in Italy and Germany (I have personal experience with these), and I think that most of Western Europe has developed public educational institutions that work well. (This is no slam on Eastern Europe; I just don't know).
pollution was on the decline until the courts reversed position and allowed companies to pollute without punishment.
The fact that the EPA regulates pollutants, does not mean that you can't sue in civil court if you can prove that you have been harmed by pollutants from a certain source. The existence of the EPA did not make it harder to 'punish' polluters. Of course, proving that you were harmed by the mercury that was dumped by company X, is very hard when there are ten companies dumping into the same river. Under the Libertarian system, your only redress would be to prove that harm, and from a certain source.
It's not a false dilemma, it is one of the recurring problems with Libertarianism. There is a strong bias toward solutions that stress corrective (usually civil) action after a problem, and a real hostility toward solutions that seek to prevent problems from occurring. This holds for pollution, gun control, seat belt laws, etc. The LP answer always seems to be "I demand the right to do anything I want, until you can prove that I have harmed an actual person. No one is allowed to estimate the likelyhood that I will harm an actual person (or million persons) and prevent me from doing what I want."
I can name a crazy Libertarian or two also. That doesn't mean you can demonize all members of that party.
This was not a random Libertarian who happens to be a nutcase. This is the man who was chosen by the LP to represent our district in the State Legislature. If the party is going to run nutcases, then they can't claim to be a sane party that's plagued by a few nutcase members.
The people who crashed a plane into the towers were MURDERERS
And George Washington was a MURDERER. By England declaring our 'freedom fighters' to be 'enemy combatants', not governed by the rules for real POWs, Washington would have been a MURDERER, not a General or a soldier.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a form of inequity shown in your post. Whether it is direct racism, or just a huge economic disparity (which might be the result of racism), can't be proven without research. But the problem is this: if your state is 20% black, and your ITT classes are 35% black, then I betting that a whole lot of white kids got sent to a 'real' university, and most of the black kids got shunted to ITT. If you really care about what you are doing, you can get a good education anywhere. But don't delude yourself; ITT is seen as a third-rate institution. Sending a million white kids to state and private universities, and sending a million black kids to ITT, is not proof against racism in education.
BTW, fair or not, the view that ITT is inferior will impact your job opportunities until you have about ten years of professional experience on your resume (at which point nobody much cares where you went to school).
OMG, you're right! The law that bans TV capture cards to "plug the analog hole" should also outlaw paper books. Only by forcing all content to be protected by DRM can we protect the artists!
i mean, i don't have that kind of free time, and i see it as sacrilege to harm a book
Read an L. Ron Hubbard (anything from the Mission Earth series) or anything by Danielle Steele. That should take some of the sting out of the sacrilege.
HTAs, VBScript, ActiveX, and other proprietary features that make intranet app development seem easy, but should never be allowed within 20 hops of the Internet.
What, you thought dupes were only for articles? Welcome to 2006, the year of the comment-dupe.
On artificial benchmarks, java can be as fast as an unladen swallow (African). In my experience, Java performance tends to suck. Why yes, I *am* a C++ programmer.
I don't hate Java, I use it occasionally as a portable and syntactically superior replacement for Visual Basic.
Karl Rove? I hear that he prefers strangling puppies, but he could stoop to mice in a pinch.
Not after these guys get through with them.
Can't you combine their ebook with a clip-on book light?
And Stallman is an insufferable, pretentious, genius. No wonder they can't get along.
No, feel free to comment your code (random gibberish works fine). But whatever you do, do not *read* comments in code and expect them to have any bearing on reality. Even if the comments accurately describe what a program was written to do (rare), someone will have changed the code and not the comments, or the comments and not the code. Save yourself a lot of time and asprin; if you want to know what the code does, read the code.
That isn't 'ridiculously overboard', it's the minimum GPU requirement for Vista's new window manager.
Yes. Even if a better language comes along in the next few years, it will take more than three years (probably more than fifteen years) for C++ to stop being common.
The fault-tolerance of TCP/IP probably wouldn't help in the case where a trunk power line was down. If a single line feeds a neighborhood or town, and that line goes down, then 100% of the BPL to that area is gone. TCP/IP will only help if you have mesh, rather than star, topology. Inside a city, the mesh idea might work, unless the company wants a star topology for power supply reasons.
If it weren't for that bad ol' gubmint, and its oh-so-terrible 'Rural Electrification Project', half of the people in the red states still wouldn't have electricity. It wasn't profitable for corporations to install all of that infrastructure, so they weren't doing it. The government decided that this would benefit the people and the country as a whole. So any redneck who doesn't want to go off the grid should probably shut up.
Pssst, if you take a Sharpie and drawn a circle around the edge of your pupil, the DRM doesn't work.
A story about the pain that developers and organizations are going to go through to switch to a new toolset might also be interesting. Whenever possible, choose OpenSource tools; then no one can take your platform away.
And like syphilis: vi has been around for a very long time, is very 'successful' at developing a wide user base, and has the potential to drive you crazy. That being said, it's still my favorite editor!
You must be of a different ilk than the Libertarians that we have around these parts (inluding aforementioned candidate). The Libertarians I haved talked with are absolutely opposed to the idea of "public property" (as in 'the river'). They want every square foot of land (wet and dry) to be owned by individuals. Only those individuals, not some imaginary government, would be allowed to sue polluters. And yes, I've had this pollution conversation with several of those Libertarians, and they have argued that the law against dumping mercury in rivers should be repealed. They are in favor only of civil penalties, and only after the dumping has been proved to hurt the individuals who own the parts of the river downstream. Interestingly, 'the candidate' did change his mind about air pollution after he had a kid. He decided that it was too difficult to prove where smog came from (hence don't know who to sue), so we need some preventative measures against air pollution.
Basically what I am saying is that preventative laws do not actually prevent a crime from happening
Statistics do not bear you out. As a small example: in jurisdictions where mandatory seat belt laws have been passed, seat belt use has gone up, and deaths have gone down. The seat belt usage rate is much higher (google for stats) in jurisdictions that have seat belt laws. A preventative law will usually (of course not always) change peoples' behavior.
Ah, so that's why seat belt laws are evil.
With a car I could drive over dozens of pedestrians. Walking down the street after stores have closed, I could break into one and steal things. Owning a photocopier I could make counterfeit money
You focus on owning things that could be abused (as though any group were trying to take away cars). Why can't we have a law that says that it is illegal to dump mercury in a river? Why should we have to tolerate that action (not potential action) until such time as we can prove that a certain person was harmed to a certain extent by a certain act of dumping?
Where I live, if you own a swimming pool, you are required by law to have a 4' high child-fence around it. All children (under 16?) who ride a bicycle are required by law to wear a helmet (only on streets and public land, I think). The phrase 'gun control' doesn't mean banning guns. The phrase includes such measures as: requiring a safety course, requiring a criminal background check, limiting the types of weapons (machine guns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, etc) that can be owned, and requiring tracability so that if your weapon is used in an assault then the police will know who to talk to first.
Unfortunately, airport security like we have in the US and invading iraq aren't really going to help much.
Agreed.
I beleive that there is another way. If a large majority of the American people are willing to vote for whichever of the two mainstream candidates has sold-out least to corporate interests, after five or six election cycles, the political advisors will tell their candidates that the only way to get (re-)elected is to serve the people rather than the corporations. Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? Is it really so hard to see, from our 2005 vantage point, that there was a difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush? (May Ralph Nader burn for his lies.)
Actually, we have discussed his reasoning behind his opinions. Did I "bash" him? I said that his opinions "seem kind of extreme". Then I re-iterated his opinions. If it looks like a bash, it is because quoting his own statements make him look bad to most readers.
But I guess being ignorant is far more productive than actually getting informed.
I defer to your superior experience in this matter.
no public education? simple, the current system DOES NOT WORK
The system seems to work very well in Italy and Germany (I have personal experience with these), and I think that most of Western Europe has developed public educational institutions that work well. (This is no slam on Eastern Europe; I just don't know).
pollution was on the decline until the courts reversed position and allowed companies to pollute without punishment.
The fact that the EPA regulates pollutants, does not mean that you can't sue in civil court if you can prove that you have been harmed by pollutants from a certain source. The existence of the EPA did not make it harder to 'punish' polluters. Of course, proving that you were harmed by the mercury that was dumped by company X, is very hard when there are ten companies dumping into the same river. Under the Libertarian system, your only redress would be to prove that harm, and from a certain source.
It's not a false dilemma, it is one of the recurring problems with Libertarianism. There is a strong bias toward solutions that stress corrective (usually civil) action after a problem, and a real hostility toward solutions that seek to prevent problems from occurring. This holds for pollution, gun control, seat belt laws, etc. The LP answer always seems to be "I demand the right to do anything I want, until you can prove that I have harmed an actual person. No one is allowed to estimate the likelyhood that I will harm an actual person (or million persons) and prevent me from doing what I want." I can name a crazy Libertarian or two also. That doesn't mean you can demonize all members of that party.
This was not a random Libertarian who happens to be a nutcase. This is the man who was chosen by the LP to represent our district in the State Legislature. If the party is going to run nutcases, then they can't claim to be a sane party that's plagued by a few nutcase members.
How can we prove you guilty if we don't have recordings of your phonecalls? Duh!
And George Washington was a MURDERER. By England declaring our 'freedom fighters' to be 'enemy combatants', not governed by the rules for real POWs, Washington would have been a MURDERER, not a General or a soldier.