No, I don't hire a lunatic to clean up a mess. The Tea Party (as I see them separate from the Republican Party) carries a lot of weight for what has happened in our recent political environment. The RNC would be best served by forcing a split or not recognizing members that associate with the Tea Party. Let them attempt to stand outside the power structure the RNC has built.
As to the Democratic response, it has always been the case that the Democratic party was more fractious, less prone to lock step voting then the republican party members. When the Democrats held power, it was Blue Dog Democrats that stopped the ability of the DP to fully implement their programs. Single payer may have made it through, but for southern dixiecrats that would not support such a bill. Such is democratic politics.
Still, I'd rather a party who attempts to represent their people, then one who primarily represents their backers and cannot have independent voting on issues. At times I was close to supporting some republicans (John McCain in 2000 for example). Later I am glad I listened to my gut for he, like most of his colleagues were blowing smoke to hid their true nature...opportunists.
Clearly we will differ, but your view is one that leads to chaos. Time and time again, when the actions of the gentry act against a long term great good they, and the soceity they rule fail. Perhaps one day humanity will figure it out, but with people like you promoting a destructive approach to business, I doubt it.
So Amazon has a broad market, that does not mean they have to carry everything. A Christian book store does not carry books on the occult, is that censorship or a store setting a policy on what they choose to sell.
As I said, we need to stop getting hyper about what censorship really is about. A store, even a large e-commerce store not selling fringe erotica literature is not censorship. It is a policy that does not effect one's ability to but they same material somewhere else. To reach the level of censorship, it has to be so broad that access to content is so broad that there is no ability to not just access, but express interest.
Bottom line, if you can buy it, read it, talk about without fear of reprisal, it is not censorship. Amazon, overbearing as it may be at times, did not censor erotica, they said "We're not going to sell this for you. Have a nice day".
This is not about shareholder profits except for the few greedy fucks that gain from the mergers. In one point I will agree, this is American Corporate Capitalism and it is a mentality that will eventually take down this country more so they any terrorist. Mergers rarely help the greater social good and in the long run, that actually can run counter to shareholders (unless you are referring to micro-traders).
They are restricting. I think we are starting to abuse the core of what is censorship. I did a quick google search and found a variation on the word. One for example
Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good.
I would not take Amazon's (by inclusion B&N) actions to reflect that type of censorship no more then a store restricting access (No shoes, no shirt, no business). Is that censorship or restriction.
WHat about this one
The term "censorship" comes from The Latin, censere "to give as one's opinion, to assess." The Roman censors were magistrates who took the census count and served as assessors and inspectors of morals and conduct.
In contrast to that straightforward definition from Roman times, contemporary usage offers no agreed-upon definition of the term or when to use it. Indeed, even whether the word itself applies to a given controversy in the arts is often vigorously contested.
Then from the same article
Censorship 1. The denial of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. 2. The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security. --Oran's Dictionary of Law
In each example (and others in this article there is nothing that strongly portrays Amazon's actions as censorship. Amazon is not denying the public access to material, they are just not going to sell it. Amazon is not petitioning the State to ban these types of books, they are enforcing a policy which the submitting authors knew, just circumvented.
When a State states that such and so material is not allowed to be publicly (or privately) displayed or read, enforcing it by confiscation... that is censorship whether it occurs at a school, local, state, or federal level. When a book stores says it will not sell x type of literature, and pulls any book found from the shelves and dumps them on the street...that is not censorship, that is business (good or bad). Do not dilute the definition of censorship least it get abused.
Example #4: Also read the well written BBC article as well.
Sure, I got sucked into the thought that this was about censorship. Then I did the opposite of/., I read the articles and discovered that instead of this being Bad Amazon, Bad B&N, it was more along the lines of Bad Authors who snuck their works in under the self-publishing loop hole.
Had a smut author walked in the front door of Amazon or B&N and said "hey, will you sell my... works... centered around incest, rape, and pedophilia" they would be handed a copy of those store's book offering policy and shown the door. Instead, the authors use the self-publishing (and not well policed) approach to get into Amazon's store.
In the end I did not see this a censorship. Amazon and B&N are not pulling an ebook from a reader, they are removing content that violates their business model. That is their right. As others stated, authors can find other means to promote and sell their work other then through Amazon. I am sure one can still go out there and find such literary works like "I raped my drunk little girl", download them to their Kindle/Nook and... "enjoy them?" That is not censorship. Now if a Government makes broad sweep removals requirement for all businesses...then we can debate censorship.
my comment is way off topic, but just want to complement you on your post. I am glad you got modded up to the top for everyone needs to read this, not just for the well stated points, but that it is what/. posts can be. You said what I thought (which is why I didn't post on topic) and said it well. Sadly I fear your recipient is quite the mind-numbed Fox viewer; his (or her) ilk are creating a vast drag on this countries ability to succeed.
I'll check out the site. I think your views on gamification match mine. Way back when I taught programming I used gaming at the end of a class to help review material and maybe let people remember something from the class. Was it gamification? maybe, but I know it was popular and it worked.
As to line breaks, check your account/profile settings for posting messages. You may have it set to display as "HTML" instead of plain old text. When in html mode you have to provide your own line breaks using the br tag. In plain old text you can still use simbple html tags like bold or italic, but you don't have to worry about line breaks.
" In my opinion the most important role of a manager is to enable communication between his team and for him to communicate current information to people himself. This current information is not alway easy to communicate in a large group. "
I've worked in the corporate/business world for over 30 years and in all that time, I've found that what you described above to be the exception, not the norm. I'll openly admit I am somewhat jaded after all this time working for companies and management that fail to see the talent they have, the piss poor way the manage that talent, and the indiscriminate way talented people are discarded, because they don't fit some "model" of approach to work. (oaky, maybe really jaded).
Still, you got me to look at this a little more and I come back with a less then comfortable view of gamification. I found this one definition from gamification.com
Gamification is a business strategy which applies game design techniques to non-game experiences to drive user behavior.
I consider myself a rather intelligent person and that sentence makes little sense other then the the last phrase, "drive user behavior". No warm fussy from that. So I look a little more and find this viewpoint "and thousands more are using gamification to drive key business metrics." and then there is this "The aggregated data on the performance of each player will make promotions, bonuses and layoffs more transparent and fair. This will have the effect to undermine the power of a manager."
Having just finished reading an fascinating story called "Manna" I could not help but see parallels in the application of this new paradigm. Now my performance is monitored on a constant basis (what happens when I have a bad day?) and I wind up in an open competition with fellow employees for resources or raises. I'm not against competition, I compete in Eventing, but it is a style of competition that suits me much more then other type of score keeping activities. What i see in gamification is openly pitting employees against each other. As this is about work, not fun and games it becomes much more serious.
Personally I do not see something like gamification as a good thing for employees, but it is one for top level executives and owners. Sure, I can (and did) go to a place where my talents are appreciated without the micro-management normally found. My concern would be, what happens when those places become less and less. Somehow, when big business thinks something like this si really good, it does not bode well for the rest of the working population. (but again, I'm jaded and at this point in my life I'd rather work/own an equestrian center then program).
Because when you attach something to worker performance, calling it a game or not makes no differences for it really is just another way for management to use it against workers.
"Bob, I see your not moving up in the standings, why is that?"
"Well, I've been trying to actually help people and have not had time to play. Beside, I'm not into gaming that much"
"I see, well unless you move up in standings I may have to give Jane that raise, she's really been playing hard, and if you don't play, there's no pay"
This is a world where we all have to start acting like Winston, on the outside a perfect comrade, on the inside dreaming of something better. We play the game, but I doubt most intelligent people see it for what it is, another method of controlling people.
Which is to say that these Organizations are not focused first on news, but on entertainment. Some drum louder then others, but I do agree with your point. Just as some say Nixon would not be accepted in the republican party today, Cronkite or Morrow would be shown the door for not "coloring" the news.
" but you can easily get good paying jobs with age in the IT market, you just have to be willing to move, change and get with the trend."
This is what makes our system fragile, or weak, or something not quite right. What you say carries weight. I don't deny that. I'd done my share of moving around, I realize the general notion of a longer (not lifetime) job is less viable, but....
Roots matter. Being matters. I do not live to work, I work to live or at least that is how I perceive life and living. Changing paradigms every few years, when forced means I build a life on shifting sands. Expanding our horizons, seeing and experiencing other things adds great depth to our lives, but having roots connects us to more then the moment. It should not be I who swirls around, disconnected, but life swirls around me....at least in theory.
At the end of the day the only thing constant is change. This I can accept. What is undesirable is when that change is forced upon me by others for their betterment alone. I wax philosophical, but I cannot just roll over and agree that what we have today is good. It just looks like a better version of subsistence.
Wait, where do you live? First, not everyone lives in larger urban areas that have a large enough pool of people to help build a network that allows for job transition. Next, one either walks into a position with the intent to leave it for the next or hopefully work at said job for a long time. In the former networking makes sense, but in the latter the focus is more on producing, not networking. In the natural order of things people may come and go, but more people who leave may not be inclined to open a door at their new company,
Also consider that in a smaller market, even the networking wont help and one is forced to look in a new region. 6 degrees will be pretty rare in a situation of having to look in different states. I do agree that contracting is an option as is working with recruiting firms. Not all are great, but my experience is that you get to know the good ones and can go back to them when needed. They sometimes have the special knock to get you in the door.
Don't throw this guy so quick under the bus until you are starting to count the years to retirement and hope you can keep a job. At 53, even with the very strong background I have, even with a reasonable network, my age can be the factor that closes, not opens doors. This society does not look favorably on age or experience. A sorry reflection of what we've become.
Do tell, what have you done that is better. I'll start, taking a horse around a cross country course with the feeling of being completely in sync with his movements, knowing his concerns, and finishing clear. However, I'll admit a hot pretzel on a crisp winder day in NYC has its joys as well.
Good point and funny you say that. Most of my career has been working "behind the curtain" on software not meant for the general public. Recently I moved into web development and it really was an eye opening experience.
Your point on the NSA is noted, but the ACA software was also not grown in week or (one would hope) in a vacuum. The thought of serving millions of people at once had to cross someone's mind ("um boss, what happens on day one when we open to the public? Millions of people public?"). Would it be lack of funding, focus, or direct sabotage that effected its roll out or just plain poor workmanship. If the latter, a sad state to what quality means in this country today.
So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that there are smart people who set this up and even they could not anticipate the initial load factor. So the republicans tried everything in their power to make people afraid of the ACA and the result was overloaded systems. Perhaps that says something about the population as a whole. IT is easy to pull something down when you think you're not effected, but when you need it,real bad, then it becomes the most important thing to have.
Anyway, the DBAs and Admins will figure this all out, the process will continue and within a week this will fade as the debt limit looms next.
1 - the fixed column for comments is horrible. Like most everyone else I read on a wide screen. For crying out loud the right sidebar is just as big as the comments.
2 - At times I could not reply to posts ('coming soon? wtf!)
3 - Collapsible comments.
4 - I am not a fan of the picture on picture for the story summaries. Looking at a summary with a picture I see two other summaries within the first. What does that mean? It is just confusing, not helpful.
5 - Putting large pictures.images in the summary eats up way to much space and bandwidth. Why? I barely read the summary and now you want me to look at a picture? Is it even relevant to the story. My god, next thing you will et people post links to youtube where the video is embedded in the comment (I'm looking at you Slate)
To same something nice....ummmm...the main page does have a fresh, snappy new look. Real hipster, Appleish, web 3.0 look...If you love white space, this site is da bomb.
The law was written so the President can set "essential" branches or programs that cannot be shut down. For example, the ACA program cannot be shutdown. Given the President's current track record, most secret agencies will be going strong tomorrow morning (though we wont know about it till they knock on the door).
Students do this and the worst they get is a "Oh behave" and the ipad taken away at the end of the day. I do that with a work computer and I get a nice pink slip. Why do we keep trying to "protect the children" when it seems they are getting pretty good and protecting themselves.
Nailed it. Actually, in the end I did pass Calculus I (barely), was moving onto Calc II and dropped it.
The Calc I professor saw me struggling and had me come over to this room filled with keyboards and TV screens. We sat down in front of the screen and she began to type away. As she type the screen asked her questions, she would respond and in a moment a graph appeared. "Holy Crap" I thought. She did this again, trying to explain differential equations or some other mathy thing, I didn't care for I was mesmerized by what was happening in front of me. Finally I asked, what is that pointing to the screen. She tells me something like "The area under a curved surface". I replied, "No, not that, what made that happen?" I had never seen an actual computer before. This was Nov 1978 and Moravian College and just converted from an IBM Mainframe to a PDP 11/45. I was hooked. The rest of my first semester I would go into the "terminal room" and play, trying to make things happen. I think this is why I passed Calc, because the only thing I knew how to run was the Calc program. Next semester I signed up for CompSci 101 and the rest is history; I never looked back.
Ratfor, C, Z80, Pascal were the foundations. After college it was necessity (economics) that moved me into business with COBOL, RPGII, FORTRAN, then 4 GLs like Transact (HP). To be there when HTML 1.0 came out was exciting. To be there when web coding took its first steps (ASP in my case). To live before Java, vilify it then learn to code it (never love). To be at the start of the PC age and help carry it into the business world (VB then.net then C# as I was MS based). Today its watching the mobile explosion and being somewhat a part of it with AJAX. Wow!!
That Calc Professor never knew how much she helped a young man find a path in life. Thank goodness I sucked in Calculus (lol).
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't hire a lunatic to clean up a mess. The Tea Party (as I see them separate from the Republican Party) carries a lot of weight for what has happened in our recent political environment. The RNC would be best served by forcing a split or not recognizing members that associate with the Tea Party. Let them attempt to stand outside the power structure the RNC has built.
As to the Democratic response, it has always been the case that the Democratic party was more fractious, less prone to lock step voting then the republican party members. When the Democrats held power, it was Blue Dog Democrats that stopped the ability of the DP to fully implement their programs. Single payer may have made it through, but for southern dixiecrats that would not support such a bill. Such is democratic politics.
Still, I'd rather a party who attempts to represent their people, then one who primarily represents their backers and cannot have independent voting on issues. At times I was close to supporting some republicans (John McCain in 2000 for example). Later I am glad I listened to my gut for he, like most of his colleagues were blowing smoke to hid their true nature...opportunists.
Clearly we will differ, but your view is one that leads to chaos. Time and time again, when the actions of the gentry act against a long term great good they, and the soceity they rule fail. Perhaps one day humanity will figure it out, but with people like you promoting a destructive approach to business, I doubt it.
Fine..define it. Tell me your position on censorship. There is a huge difference between commence and government.
So Amazon has a broad market, that does not mean they have to carry everything. A Christian book store does not carry books on the occult, is that censorship or a store setting a policy on what they choose to sell.
As I said, we need to stop getting hyper about what censorship really is about. A store, even a large e-commerce store not selling fringe erotica literature is not censorship. It is a policy that does not effect one's ability to but they same material somewhere else. To reach the level of censorship, it has to be so broad that access to content is so broad that there is no ability to not just access, but express interest.
Bottom line, if you can buy it, read it, talk about without fear of reprisal, it is not censorship. Amazon, overbearing as it may be at times, did not censor erotica, they said "We're not going to sell this for you. Have a nice day".
Bullshit...
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders
This is not about shareholder profits except for the few greedy fucks that gain from the mergers. In one point I will agree, this is American Corporate Capitalism and it is a mentality that will eventually take down this country more so they any terrorist. Mergers rarely help the greater social good and in the long run, that actually can run counter to shareholders (unless you are referring to micro-traders).
They are restricting. I think we are starting to abuse the core of what is censorship. I did a quick google search and found a variation on the word. One for example
Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good.
I would not take Amazon's (by inclusion B&N) actions to reflect that type of censorship no more then a store restricting access (No shoes, no shirt, no business). Is that censorship or restriction.
WHat about this one
The term "censorship" comes from The Latin, censere "to give as one's opinion, to assess." The Roman censors were magistrates who took the census count and served as assessors and inspectors of morals and conduct.
In contrast to that straightforward definition from Roman times, contemporary usage offers no agreed-upon definition of the term or when to use it. Indeed, even whether the word itself applies to a given controversy in the arts is often vigorously contested.
Then from the same article
Censorship
1. The denial of freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
2. The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security.
--Oran's Dictionary of Law
In each example (and others in this article there is nothing that strongly portrays Amazon's actions as censorship. Amazon is not denying the public access to material, they are just not going to sell it. Amazon is not petitioning the State to ban these types of books, they are enforcing a policy which the submitting authors knew, just circumvented.
When a State states that such and so material is not allowed to be publicly (or privately) displayed or read, enforcing it by confiscation... that is censorship whether it occurs at a school, local, state, or federal level. When a book stores says it will not sell x type of literature, and pulls any book found from the shelves and dumps them on the street...that is not censorship, that is business (good or bad). Do not dilute the definition of censorship least it get abused.
Example #4: Also read the well written BBC article as well.
Sure, I got sucked into the thought that this was about censorship. Then I did the opposite of /., I read the articles and discovered that instead of this being Bad Amazon, Bad B&N, it was more along the lines of Bad Authors who snuck their works in under the self-publishing loop hole.
Had a smut author walked in the front door of Amazon or B&N and said "hey, will you sell my ... works ... centered around incest, rape, and pedophilia" they would be handed a copy of those store's book offering policy and shown the door. Instead, the authors use the self-publishing (and not well policed) approach to get into Amazon's store.
In the end I did not see this a censorship. Amazon and B&N are not pulling an ebook from a reader, they are removing content that violates their business model. That is their right. As others stated, authors can find other means to promote and sell their work other then through Amazon. I am sure one can still go out there and find such literary works like "I raped my drunk little girl", download them to their Kindle/Nook and ... "enjoy them?" That is not censorship. Now if a Government makes broad sweep removals requirement for all businesses...then we can debate censorship.
Sir,
my comment is way off topic, but just want to complement you on your post. I am glad you got modded up to the top for everyone needs to read this, not just for the well stated points, but that it is what /. posts can be. You said what I thought (which is why I didn't post on topic) and said it well. Sadly I fear your recipient is quite the mind-numbed Fox viewer; his (or her) ilk are creating a vast drag on this countries ability to succeed.
I'll check out the site. I think your views on gamification match mine. Way back when I taught programming I used gaming at the end of a class to help review material and maybe let people remember something from the class. Was it gamification? maybe, but I know it was popular and it worked.
As to line breaks, check your account/profile settings for posting messages. You may have it set to display as "HTML" instead of plain old text. When in html mode you have to provide your own line breaks using the br tag. In plain old text you can still use simbple html tags like bold or italic, but you don't have to worry about line breaks.
can we see that in 3D for it otherwise looks like the strangest flight path I've seen. Is the sharp turn a boost moment?
Good thoughts.
" In my opinion the most important role of a manager is to enable communication between his team and for him to communicate current information to people himself. This current information is not alway easy to communicate in a large group. "
I've worked in the corporate/business world for over 30 years and in all that time, I've found that what you described above to be the exception, not the norm. I'll openly admit I am somewhat jaded after all this time working for companies and management that fail to see the talent they have, the piss poor way the manage that talent, and the indiscriminate way talented people are discarded, because they don't fit some "model" of approach to work. (oaky, maybe really jaded).
Still, you got me to look at this a little more and I come back with a less then comfortable view of gamification. I found this one definition from gamification.com
Gamification is a business strategy which applies game design techniques to non-game experiences to drive user behavior.
I consider myself a rather intelligent person and that sentence makes little sense other then the the last phrase, "drive user behavior". No warm fussy from that. So I look a little more and find this viewpoint "and thousands more are using gamification to drive key business metrics." and then there is this "The aggregated data on the performance of each player will make promotions, bonuses and layoffs more transparent and fair. This will have the effect to undermine the power of a manager."
Having just finished reading an fascinating story called "Manna" I could not help but see parallels in the application of this new paradigm. Now my performance is monitored on a constant basis (what happens when I have a bad day?) and I wind up in an open competition with fellow employees for resources or raises. I'm not against competition, I compete in Eventing, but it is a style of competition that suits me much more then other type of score keeping activities. What i see in gamification is openly pitting employees against each other. As this is about work, not fun and games it becomes much more serious.
Personally I do not see something like gamification as a good thing for employees, but it is one for top level executives and owners. Sure, I can (and did) go to a place where my talents are appreciated without the micro-management normally found. My concern would be, what happens when those places become less and less. Somehow, when big business thinks something like this si really good, it does not bode well for the rest of the working population. (but again, I'm jaded and at this point in my life I'd rather work/own an equestrian center then program).
Because when you attach something to worker performance, calling it a game or not makes no differences for it really is just another way for management to use it against workers.
"Bob, I see your not moving up in the standings, why is that?"
"Well, I've been trying to actually help people and have not had time to play. Beside, I'm not into gaming that much"
"I see, well unless you move up in standings I may have to give Jane that raise, she's really been playing hard, and if you don't play, there's no pay"
This is a world where we all have to start acting like Winston, on the outside a perfect comrade, on the inside dreaming of something better. We play the game, but I doubt most intelligent people see it for what it is, another method of controlling people.
I feel the Peter Principle is strong in this one.
Which is to say that these Organizations are not focused first on news, but on entertainment. Some drum louder then others, but I do agree with your point. Just as some say Nixon would not be accepted in the republican party today, Cronkite or Morrow would be shown the door for not "coloring" the news.
" but you can easily get good paying jobs with age in the IT market, you just have to be willing to move, change and get with the trend."
This is what makes our system fragile, or weak, or something not quite right. What you say carries weight. I don't deny that. I'd done my share of moving around, I realize the general notion of a longer (not lifetime) job is less viable, but....
Roots matter. Being matters. I do not live to work, I work to live or at least that is how I perceive life and living. Changing paradigms every few years, when forced means I build a life on shifting sands. Expanding our horizons, seeing and experiencing other things adds great depth to our lives, but having roots connects us to more then the moment. It should not be I who swirls around, disconnected, but life swirls around me....at least in theory.
At the end of the day the only thing constant is change. This I can accept. What is undesirable is when that change is forced upon me by others for their betterment alone. I wax philosophical, but I cannot just roll over and agree that what we have today is good. It just looks like a better version of subsistence.
Wait, where do you live? First, not everyone lives in larger urban areas that have a large enough pool of people to help build a network that allows for job transition. Next, one either walks into a position with the intent to leave it for the next or hopefully work at said job for a long time. In the former networking makes sense, but in the latter the focus is more on producing, not networking. In the natural order of things people may come and go, but more people who leave may not be inclined to open a door at their new company,
Also consider that in a smaller market, even the networking wont help and one is forced to look in a new region. 6 degrees will be pretty rare in a situation of having to look in different states. I do agree that contracting is an option as is working with recruiting firms. Not all are great, but my experience is that you get to know the good ones and can go back to them when needed. They sometimes have the special knock to get you in the door.
Don't throw this guy so quick under the bus until you are starting to count the years to retirement and hope you can keep a job. At 53, even with the very strong background I have, even with a reasonable network, my age can be the factor that closes, not opens doors. This society does not look favorably on age or experience. A sorry reflection of what we've become.
Do tell, what have you done that is better. I'll start, taking a horse around a cross country course with the feeling of being completely in sync with his movements, knowing his concerns, and finishing clear. However, I'll admit a hot pretzel on a crisp winder day in NYC has its joys as well.
and we wonder why they are so pissed off?
Good point and funny you say that. Most of my career has been working "behind the curtain" on software not meant for the general public. Recently I moved into web development and it really was an eye opening experience.
Your point on the NSA is noted, but the ACA software was also not grown in week or (one would hope) in a vacuum. The thought of serving millions of people at once had to cross someone's mind ("um boss, what happens on day one when we open to the public? Millions of people public?"). Would it be lack of funding, focus, or direct sabotage that effected its roll out or just plain poor workmanship. If the latter, a sad state to what quality means in this country today.
So the Government can send a few billion on a server farm in Utah for the NSA, but heaven help they send money on servers to handle 3 million people trying to log in at once.
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that there are smart people who set this up and even they could not anticipate the initial load factor. So the republicans tried everything in their power to make people afraid of the ACA and the result was overloaded systems. Perhaps that says something about the population as a whole. IT is easy to pull something down when you think you're not effected, but when you need it,real bad, then it becomes the most important thing to have.
Anyway, the DBAs and Admins will figure this all out, the process will continue and within a week this will fade as the debt limit looms next.
To be kind...it sucks. To provide more clarity:
1 - the fixed column for comments is horrible. Like most everyone else I read on a wide screen. For crying out loud the right sidebar is just as big as the comments.
2 - At times I could not reply to posts ('coming soon? wtf!)
3 - Collapsible comments.
4 - I am not a fan of the picture on picture for the story summaries. Looking at a summary with a picture I see two other summaries within the first. What does that mean? It is just confusing, not helpful.
5 - Putting large pictures.images in the summary eats up way to much space and bandwidth. Why? I barely read the summary and now you want me to look at a picture? Is it even relevant to the story. My god, next thing you will et people post links to youtube where the video is embedded in the comment (I'm looking at you Slate)
To same something nice....ummmm...the main page does have a fresh, snappy new look. Real hipster, Appleish, web 3.0 look...If you love white space, this site is da bomb.
The law was written so the President can set "essential" branches or programs that cannot be shut down. For example, the ACA program cannot be shutdown. Given the President's current track record, most secret agencies will be going strong tomorrow morning (though we wont know about it till they knock on the door).
Students do this and the worst they get is a "Oh behave" and the ipad taken away at the end of the day. I do that with a work computer and I get a nice pink slip. Why do we keep trying to "protect the children" when it seems they are getting pretty good and protecting themselves.
I love that.
Nailed it. Actually, in the end I did pass Calculus I (barely), was moving onto Calc II and dropped it.
The Calc I professor saw me struggling and had me come over to this room filled with keyboards and TV screens. We sat down in front of the screen and she began to type away. As she type the screen asked her questions, she would respond and in a moment a graph appeared. "Holy Crap" I thought. She did this again, trying to explain differential equations or some other mathy thing, I didn't care for I was mesmerized by what was happening in front of me. Finally I asked, what is that pointing to the screen. She tells me something like "The area under a curved surface". I replied, "No, not that, what made that happen?" I had never seen an actual computer before. This was Nov 1978 and Moravian College and just converted from an IBM Mainframe to a PDP 11/45. I was hooked. The rest of my first semester I would go into the "terminal room" and play, trying to make things happen. I think this is why I passed Calc, because the only thing I knew how to run was the Calc program. Next semester I signed up for CompSci 101 and the rest is history; I never looked back.
Ratfor, C, Z80, Pascal were the foundations. After college it was necessity (economics) that moved me into business with COBOL, RPGII, FORTRAN, then 4 GLs like Transact (HP). To be there when HTML 1.0 came out was exciting. To be there when web coding took its first steps (ASP in my case). To live before Java, vilify it then learn to code it (never love). To be at the start of the PC age and help carry it into the business world (VB then .net then C# as I was MS based). Today its watching the mobile explosion and being somewhat a part of it with AJAX. Wow!!
That Calc Professor never knew how much she helped a young man find a path in life. Thank goodness I sucked in Calculus (lol).