He wasn't removing any blame from the "ones in power" - it's just that this is their only known operating procedure, and as such, they aren't reasonably expected to stop it. The point being that, the opposition party was the only hope, and now they have sold us up the creek as well, with their presidential candidate basically saying "I don't like this law, but I'm going to support it anyway, and trust me, if I get elected, I won't abuse the powers that I'm helping to give myself". If they really meant any of the things they say about this law, they would all support a filibuster.
Maybe the Chinese didn't contribute to your project because they were offended by your poor grammar - shouldn't it be called SpeakChineseWell? Maybe it's supposed to be irony...
Since you seem to understand the use of quotes in order to use a word sarcastically that you seemingly believe to be wrongly defined in a certain context, let's talk about the "war" on terror shall we?
Nobody doubts that different rules apply in a war, what we doubt is that the anti-terrorism measures we are currently partaking do or should constitute a "war". Terrorism is one of many things that harm our citizens, and which we must deal with as a country. Just because it is perhaps scarier and harder to deal with than other threats, does not legitimize the current farce of an ongoing and indefinitely long "war". Wars have ends. Terrorism is more akin to crime crime - very scary crime, but crime nonetheless.
Re:Phoronix will pay to fix X
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I find this viewpoint incomprehensible but intriguing. Tell me what the anti-antithesis of integrity is in this system. What motivates people in your ideal world? What if instead of working for money, people are simply working for food, as they did way back when all humans had to directly work for the food they ate, either by farming or hunting. In your view, was that work also the antithesis of integrity? If not, why is working for money fundamentally different? When was integrity lost? Was it the first time someone gave something valuable they worked for and received something valuable someone else worked for? Was it when certain things became valuable to many people and thus began to be accepted as the basis of many trades? Was it when that system was formalized into those valuable things being universally accepted as money? Was it when money lost any inherent value and became nothing but a universally accepted abstraction?
I'm not trolling, I'm really interested to know where, in your view, we lost our integrity with regard to trading our ability to work for our ability to eat.
Ok I'll bite. I'm considering the source of your post, which is you. You, that is, a person who has been employed in the industry he claims is "done" for a, not embarrassingly long, but fortunately long, 28 years. What am I missing? It's hard to find employment in one field for nearly three decades. How does this demonstrate that the field is dying? Just because people with an agenda say something doesn't make it untrue (or true). You have to look around and see for yourself, and when I do that I see a whole bunch of very well-employed persons (though lots of them seem to be whiners for some reason I don't yet understand) in a field that is very much not dying.
Once computers start to automatically program themselves, there will be very little time remaining for our species in which to worry about job security.
You've changed the subject. Now wages for experienced people is the issue? I thought the issue was the difficulty of finding jobs when unexperienced...
I don't know anything about the wages paid to experienced software developers, but I do know that it's very possible to find jobs that don't require much experience and that they're wages are *incredibly* competitive with any other entry-level wages in the entire economy.
Now, if your complaint is really that experienced people in software are underpaid, then I'm all ears, being myself somewhat worried about this, but complaining that it's hard to find good software jobs straight out of university is just whiny.
What's wrong with this? I'd say those of us in the industry are terribly fortunate that there are still "a lot of places" that require a decade of experience or an advanced degree. It means there is room for growth in your job. If any position could be held by someone straight out of school, the experience you gain over your years of work would be useless and you would have nowhere to go. There are also "a lot of places" that *don't* require much or any experience or an advanced degree. Gain the experience at those places, then put it to use at the other places. You need both. This is how it's supposed to work.
Well, I agree and disagree with you. There are some "dogmatic douchebags" (nice word choice) and there are some people who genuinely prefer non-Windows tools. Though the former are usually the screamers and the latter are usually the quiet ones who go about their business with a "to each his own" attitude.
Perhaps a useful exercise for a Java data structures class would be the requirement to build one's own classpath for a project. For instance, you say "implement a program with the following requirements... This will require implementation of the following api classes and methods..." They learn Java, they learn about the API, they learn how to implement data structures, and if you want to make it real tough, you don't even give them System and they learn how to use JNI/CNI. Any data structures professors out there reading this?
Ha, Ok, that's a pretty good and real funny analogy. But it still doesn't mean that Visual Studio developers are inherently worse programmers. Even if it's inexplicable to you and I, some people actually prefer working with Microsoft and their tools and are good with them. If the tables were turned and they worked UNIX jobs because there weren't as many Windows jobs, they would be the ones selling out because they weren't good enough to get the Windows jobs. You can never prove that one type of programming is "better" than the other. They are just different.
Hahaha. I'd mod you funny if I had points. Best I can do is reply. Nope, not Canadian - American in fact. Being all riled up on us-versus-them nonsense is not actually a prerequisite for citizenship contrary to popular opinion.
I guess I hadn't really considered whether it was part of a winning argument or not, I just thought bloated blow-hole was very apt and nice-sounding. I have no problem with specialization, I myself am a UNIX programming specialist and would be totally lost using Visual Studios, just as a general practitioner would be totally lost doing spinal surgery. The difference is that the General Practitioner would never proudly exclaim "I have absolutely no experience with spinal surgery whatsoever and thereby proclaim that anyone who does it is inferior to myself!" Or I don't know, maybe they do, but if so, nobody takes them seriously. It's not necessarily ignorance I disdain. Our field (and medicine as well, to continue your imperfect analogy) is too dense and varied for comprehensive knowledge to be possible. What I find highly objectionable is people who proudly and simultaneously proclaim ignorance of and disdain for something. Anything.
By the way, I totally agree with you that being good enough to only work on those things you enjoy is a really good goal to have, and in fact I think software engineering allows us that ability more than nearly any field, but that's certainly not what GGP was saying. Along with all the rest of the crud he spewed he did say something similar, but incomplete - that if it happens to be UNIX programming that you want to do then you are good enough to do UNIX programming (which is what you want to do). Elitist *and* circular. Bravo.
Ignorance is never something to pride yourself on my friend. What confuses me is how someone as interested in technology as you seem to be could allow themselves to wall off a massive sector of the tech world. You can have no opinion worth espousing or being listened to without familiarity with the subject of that opinion. So unless this is a discussion about early-90's era Visual Studios development (which, wait, didn't even exist!) then you should kindly shut your bloated blow-hole.
You two are arguing like smarmy children from different neighboring towns who meet and think their town is oh-so-much better. The U.S., the U.K. and France (along with many others) are part of a largely shared scientific, philosophical and cultural legacy with it's roots in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Comparing philosophers is silly, subjective and completely irrelevant. Some people from every country partake in this childish Ra-Ra-We're-the-best mentality. Always have, always will. They are generally called patriots and they are those scoundrels who have exhausted all other refuge. I doubt that either of you two are really that type of person, so why don't you both just admit that both countries have both problems and cultural richness, just like every other country/region/community, and play nice and get along?
Yeah. That's why the satire is so good. The fact that so many people fall for it and think that those articles are serious is a testament to its power. The comments section enhances the satire like no other similar satire can (Colbert does the same thing, but his format does not lend itself to comments and also doesn't fool as many people). Reading the comments on every article on that site is one of my favorite exercises. 49% "shelley you're so right!" 49% "oh my god this is horrible how could you say this crap?!" and 2% "this is *satire*" - it's funny to see that the split on Slashdot is about the same.
Shelleytherepublican is *satire* people. Out of the 10 or 11 passionate replies in this thread, only one person seems to have noticed that. Everyone else, consider yourselves trolled.
Wrong! Wrong Wrong Wrong. Reading-as-homework ruins reading. Reading ignites the imagination, takes you places you could never otherwise go, teaches you things you would never otherwise know. Reading is *fun* - being forced to read is *not fun*. Brave New World, 1984; these exciting, jarring, exhilarating works are transformed into stuffy, boring, and mundane additions to the ever-growing list of what a kid *has* to do to get through the system, rather than the incredible escape from that system that good literature affords. Books do not come alive until you've read them for your own reasons.
There is actually a short-term course taught about HP at my University, through the philosophy department. The course is really an introductory philosophy course, with many of the readings that would suggest, but with relations to and commentary about the Harry Potter series made throughout. Of course it is widely derided, but I found it to be interesting and perceptive under the skilled direction of a talented Professor. I think there is little doubt that the series will eventually become prized even amongst the snottiest of literature snobs.
I'm confused...how do you know it won't make you think if you haven't read it? Books written for children are consistently, imaginative, perceptive, and thought-provoking, and it is a sad, pitiful arrogance that leads adults like you to scorn them ignorantly. No opinion held about a book unread is remotely worthwhile. There are many great books to read, and perhaps your list is too long to get around to this series, but why peddle an uninformed opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't removing any blame from the "ones in power" - it's just that this is their only known operating procedure, and as such, they aren't reasonably expected to stop it. The point being that, the opposition party was the only hope, and now they have sold us up the creek as well, with their presidential candidate basically saying "I don't like this law, but I'm going to support it anyway, and trust me, if I get elected, I won't abuse the powers that I'm helping to give myself". If they really meant any of the things they say about this law, they would all support a filibuster.
And it strikes me as not a giant load of hogwash. Hooray for completely untested, unvalidated, and anecdotal beliefs!
Maybe the Chinese didn't contribute to your project because they were offended by your poor grammar - shouldn't it be called SpeakChineseWell? Maybe it's supposed to be irony...
Since you seem to understand the use of quotes in order to use a word sarcastically that you seemingly believe to be wrongly defined in a certain context, let's talk about the "war" on terror shall we?
Nobody doubts that different rules apply in a war, what we doubt is that the anti-terrorism measures we are currently partaking do or should constitute a "war". Terrorism is one of many things that harm our citizens, and which we must deal with as a country. Just because it is perhaps scarier and harder to deal with than other threats, does not legitimize the current farce of an ongoing and indefinitely long "war". Wars have ends. Terrorism is more akin to crime crime - very scary crime, but crime nonetheless.
Or up...I guess we'll see.
I find this viewpoint incomprehensible but intriguing. Tell me what the anti-antithesis of integrity is in this system. What motivates people in your ideal world? What if instead of working for money, people are simply working for food, as they did way back when all humans had to directly work for the food they ate, either by farming or hunting. In your view, was that work also the antithesis of integrity? If not, why is working for money fundamentally different? When was integrity lost? Was it the first time someone gave something valuable they worked for and received something valuable someone else worked for? Was it when certain things became valuable to many people and thus began to be accepted as the basis of many trades? Was it when that system was formalized into those valuable things being universally accepted as money? Was it when money lost any inherent value and became nothing but a universally accepted abstraction?
I'm not trolling, I'm really interested to know where, in your view, we lost our integrity with regard to trading our ability to work for our ability to eat.
Ok I'll bite. I'm considering the source of your post, which is you. You, that is, a person who has been employed in the industry he claims is "done" for a, not embarrassingly long, but fortunately long, 28 years. What am I missing? It's hard to find employment in one field for nearly three decades. How does this demonstrate that the field is dying? Just because people with an agenda say something doesn't make it untrue (or true). You have to look around and see for yourself, and when I do that I see a whole bunch of very well-employed persons (though lots of them seem to be whiners for some reason I don't yet understand) in a field that is very much not dying.
Once computers start to automatically program themselves, there will be very little time remaining for our species in which to worry about job security.
You've changed the subject. Now wages for experienced people is the issue? I thought the issue was the difficulty of finding jobs when unexperienced...
I don't know anything about the wages paid to experienced software developers, but I do know that it's very possible to find jobs that don't require much experience and that they're wages are *incredibly* competitive with any other entry-level wages in the entire economy.
Now, if your complaint is really that experienced people in software are underpaid, then I'm all ears, being myself somewhat worried about this, but complaining that it's hard to find good software jobs straight out of university is just whiny.
What's wrong with this? I'd say those of us in the industry are terribly fortunate that there are still "a lot of places" that require a decade of experience or an advanced degree. It means there is room for growth in your job. If any position could be held by someone straight out of school, the experience you gain over your years of work would be useless and you would have nowhere to go. There are also "a lot of places" that *don't* require much or any experience or an advanced degree. Gain the experience at those places, then put it to use at the other places. You need both. This is how it's supposed to work.
Help Help! You're being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Or maybe its utilization?
Well, I agree and disagree with you. There are some "dogmatic douchebags" (nice word choice) and there are some people who genuinely prefer non-Windows tools. Though the former are usually the screamers and the latter are usually the quiet ones who go about their business with a "to each his own" attitude.
Perhaps a useful exercise for a Java data structures class would be the requirement to build one's own classpath for a project. For instance, you say "implement a program with the following requirements... This will require implementation of the following api classes and methods..." They learn Java, they learn about the API, they learn how to implement data structures, and if you want to make it real tough, you don't even give them System and they learn how to use JNI/CNI. Any data structures professors out there reading this?
Ha, Ok, that's a pretty good and real funny analogy. But it still doesn't mean that Visual Studio developers are inherently worse programmers. Even if it's inexplicable to you and I, some people actually prefer working with Microsoft and their tools and are good with them. If the tables were turned and they worked UNIX jobs because there weren't as many Windows jobs, they would be the ones selling out because they weren't good enough to get the Windows jobs. You can never prove that one type of programming is "better" than the other. They are just different.
Hahaha. I'd mod you funny if I had points. Best I can do is reply. Nope, not Canadian - American in fact. Being all riled up on us-versus-them nonsense is not actually a prerequisite for citizenship contrary to popular opinion.
I guess I hadn't really considered whether it was part of a winning argument or not, I just thought bloated blow-hole was very apt and nice-sounding. I have no problem with specialization, I myself am a UNIX programming specialist and would be totally lost using Visual Studios, just as a general practitioner would be totally lost doing spinal surgery. The difference is that the General Practitioner would never proudly exclaim "I have absolutely no experience with spinal surgery whatsoever and thereby proclaim that anyone who does it is inferior to myself!" Or I don't know, maybe they do, but if so, nobody takes them seriously. It's not necessarily ignorance I disdain. Our field (and medicine as well, to continue your imperfect analogy) is too dense and varied for comprehensive knowledge to be possible. What I find highly objectionable is people who proudly and simultaneously proclaim ignorance of and disdain for something. Anything. By the way, I totally agree with you that being good enough to only work on those things you enjoy is a really good goal to have, and in fact I think software engineering allows us that ability more than nearly any field, but that's certainly not what GGP was saying. Along with all the rest of the crud he spewed he did say something similar, but incomplete - that if it happens to be UNIX programming that you want to do then you are good enough to do UNIX programming (which is what you want to do). Elitist *and* circular. Bravo.
Ignorance is never something to pride yourself on my friend. What confuses me is how someone as interested in technology as you seem to be could allow themselves to wall off a massive sector of the tech world. You can have no opinion worth espousing or being listened to without familiarity with the subject of that opinion. So unless this is a discussion about early-90's era Visual Studios development (which, wait, didn't even exist!) then you should kindly shut your bloated blow-hole.
You two are arguing like smarmy children from different neighboring towns who meet and think their town is oh-so-much better. The U.S., the U.K. and France (along with many others) are part of a largely shared scientific, philosophical and cultural legacy with it's roots in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Comparing philosophers is silly, subjective and completely irrelevant. Some people from every country partake in this childish Ra-Ra-We're-the-best mentality. Always have, always will. They are generally called patriots and they are those scoundrels who have exhausted all other refuge. I doubt that either of you two are really that type of person, so why don't you both just admit that both countries have both problems and cultural richness, just like every other country/region/community, and play nice and get along?
Yeah. That's why the satire is so good. The fact that so many people fall for it and think that those articles are serious is a testament to its power. The comments section enhances the satire like no other similar satire can (Colbert does the same thing, but his format does not lend itself to comments and also doesn't fool as many people). Reading the comments on every article on that site is one of my favorite exercises. 49% "shelley you're so right!" 49% "oh my god this is horrible how could you say this crap?!" and 2% "this is *satire*" - it's funny to see that the split on Slashdot is about the same.
Shelleytherepublican is *satire* people. Out of the 10 or 11 passionate replies in this thread, only one person seems to have noticed that. Everyone else, consider yourselves trolled.
Wrong! Wrong Wrong Wrong. Reading-as-homework ruins reading. Reading ignites the imagination, takes you places you could never otherwise go, teaches you things you would never otherwise know. Reading is *fun* - being forced to read is *not fun*. Brave New World, 1984; these exciting, jarring, exhilarating works are transformed into stuffy, boring, and mundane additions to the ever-growing list of what a kid *has* to do to get through the system, rather than the incredible escape from that system that good literature affords. Books do not come alive until you've read them for your own reasons.
There is actually a short-term course taught about HP at my University, through the philosophy department. The course is really an introductory philosophy course, with many of the readings that would suggest, but with relations to and commentary about the Harry Potter series made throughout. Of course it is widely derided, but I found it to be interesting and perceptive under the skilled direction of a talented Professor. I think there is little doubt that the series will eventually become prized even amongst the snottiest of literature snobs.
I'm confused...how do you know it won't make you think if you haven't read it? Books written for children are consistently, imaginative, perceptive, and thought-provoking, and it is a sad, pitiful arrogance that leads adults like you to scorn them ignorantly. No opinion held about a book unread is remotely worthwhile. There are many great books to read, and perhaps your list is too long to get around to this series, but why peddle an uninformed opinion?
True enough, and thanks for the compliment.