College doesn't just teach a given profession or skill sets at the associates and BS levels; it also helps broaden the view(s) of the student. Some college is good because it helps round out not just general knowledge but personality as well. I went to college after the military and it really did change the way I look at things for the better. I also stumbled across topics that I never thought I would be interested in but now I like to track (physics being one of them) as a hobby. Additionally just socializing with people far out of the circles I was used to helped me out a lot when I communicate with peers and others where I work. I have met some so called wunderkinds who skipped out on college and went straight to work programming or doing administration. For the most part, their communication skills were horrible, their social views myopic (or ethno/socio-centric) and a basic understanding of how to take another perspective outside of their wise ass know it all view lacking. Of course that is not always the case, but I have been doing this since 1989 and it does seem to be the majority. I also know, for a fact, at some places the door will not open unless you have a degree. Period. So it is good just to have it. Hiring people who are in school of some sort works out well too I have noticed even if it is just part time. They are growing in many ways at school and have the opportunity to take all of those skills, socializing, improved communications, their core degree - and really nurture them on two fronts.
I'm not a huge fan of Ubuntu because of its kitchen sink installations (which I know I can change or I could just track debian...).
I'm a huge fan of Ubuntu for others... because of its kitchen sink installations:)
That said, one thing I will give Canonical is at every technology turn they take a real crack at it.
My story and a very close friend of mine story is opposite. We were working for a research arm of Proctor and Gamble as contractors on their Linux High Performance Computing Cluster. Someone in upper management at P&G decided a managed contract would be a better way to do business, what they did not realize (and they did not care) was that we would have to leave because of non compete law. In fact, our users (primarily PhDs) wanted us to stay and maintain the current systems because we delivered great service. We had to leave and that is that. Sure, my friend and I are fine (I mean with that on our resume, it is kind of hard not to be) but we really enjoyed our work and did not want to leave. We tried to stay, we tried to find a way to even work for the new managed services company but it just could not happen.
Actually that depends on the kids age. Mine is 13, so no, letting her watch certain episodes does not bother me (33 is a good example of that) because it _makes her think_ and I am in attendance if she has questions. But are there ones I would not allow to her watch yet?- certainly. Generally speaking (unless it is obvious one way or the other) I screen shows and movies that I think are questionable before allowing my child to see them - even at 13 - and am always watching them with her in case she has questions.
The problem that arises here is similar to star wars (although the prequels were a trainwreck); people have a memory associated with the original and now that memory was tarnished. Ron Moore was not looking to really even re-imagine, he was looking for a place to allegory real world situations and try to make viewers think; it did not always work so well because there were obvious agendas in some of them; but for the most part it worked. What does it mean to be human? What do people really do in war? If your about to become extinct and are aware of it - how would you react to a given situation? The old show was created at a time when things like just were not possible on cable and it was never intended to be a think piece series; it was and always will be a religulous view of star wars - and there is nothing wrong with that - you just shouldn't hold it against the new series because that is not what it is about. Star Trek DS9 was another good example of this departure; Moore expressly got involved in DS9 because with Gene passed away the "it always has to have a happy ending" hand cuffs were taken off. Again, many fans were angry at DS9's darkness (which compared to new BSG is lightweight) but the point was not to do yet another trek, it was to try and make people think about what war is like, what are humans really like (both the good and the bad).
In the end though, I still look at this as completely separate and not even a re-imaging. I still watch the old series on retro TV and I do not feel any sort of loss.
I do suggest for kids though try out Eureka; you might need to screen Eureka (depending on the children's age) but for the most part it is light hearted fun.
The real answer here is "it depends" - for instance a few years ago someone who worked for Internet.com was astroturfing LinuxToday (and probably other Internet.com sites); in that instance the individual was held responsible: granted internet.com was less than pleased about it, however, the evidence that a sole individual was responsible led to that person being dismissed. If, however, Internet.com management overall instructed employees to astroturf it would have been difficult to punish each and every person - hence the organization itself would be punished.
the problem with that of course is it the basis for many a scifi movie; direct genetic manipulation resulting in a number of box office scenarios:
- mass death (pick one...)
- zombies (Resident Evil - the t-cell accident; was supposed to be a cure)
- intentional mutation (Xmen 2 - the guy that made wolverine)
- super soldiers (Super Soldier - the movies part 1 and 2, captain america)
- Battlestar galactica (skin jobs and pro-creation attempts)
- mutegenics wars - lots of super soldiers (Star Trek - not to be confused with Khan who is a eugenic offspring)
- replicants (Blade Runner - note the replicants learned how to do this themselves...)
- serenity (reavers were gene mutated - with the best of intentions of course)
- I am Legend (someone else mentioned it already)
I am sure the list goes on.
Proctor and Gamble did not just move manufacturing over. They completely outsourced their IT (allegedly 100% of it) and demanded that at least 60% of IT work should be cheaper offshore support. Ironically the last I checked this was going incredibly well for them. Not so great for the people who were canned over the years of course.
This is also alluded to in the video games that follow (at some point) after ep6. In Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, the main charachter comes to terms with using allegedly dark and light powers to eventually come to a equilibrium within himself. In Jedi Knight: Jedi Acadamy, the main charachter from OutCast (Kyle Katarn) accopmanies the main charachter at some point and tells them that "it is not what you know, it is how you use it."
This is also alluded to in the Ep3 book. Some dialogue that got whacked from the movie. Initially Ben thought each should take one of the children. Yoda disagrees saying something to the effect that people can learn discipline without training. Yoda is also told by Qui Gon, who apparently (at least in the book) is at that point in time the most powerful Jedi ever, that the Jedi were too stale and stuck, which is why they were blinded and got their ass beaten.
Finally, the events after ep6 where Jedi are not taken as children, are allowed to marry etc. pretty much puts it in stone that the balance has to do with personae more than method. For example, only a "Sith would drain the life of others for power" but a Jedi from Luke's order would certainly do the same to end a fight quicker (and possibly with less bloodshed).
The true definition of Sith is actually somewhat fuzzy, in the pre-prequel games all Sith Lords and their "soliders" had funked up eyes. I think this had something to do with the Sith race and line which is effectively wiped out after Vader dies.
Slashdot Mirror
"Alex I'll the-rapists for 1000 dollars..."
College doesn't just teach a given profession or skill sets at the associates and BS levels; it also helps broaden the view(s) of the student. Some college is good because it helps round out not just general knowledge but personality as well. I went to college after the military and it really did change the way I look at things for the better. I also stumbled across topics that I never thought I would be interested in but now I like to track (physics being one of them) as a hobby. Additionally just socializing with people far out of the circles I was used to helped me out a lot when I communicate with peers and others where I work. I have met some so called wunderkinds who skipped out on college and went straight to work programming or doing administration. For the most part, their communication skills were horrible, their social views myopic (or ethno/socio-centric) and a basic understanding of how to take another perspective outside of their wise ass know it all view lacking. Of course that is not always the case, but I have been doing this since 1989 and it does seem to be the majority. I also know, for a fact, at some places the door will not open unless you have a degree. Period. So it is good just to have it. Hiring people who are in school of some sort works out well too I have noticed even if it is just part time. They are growing in many ways at school and have the opportunity to take all of those skills, socializing, improved communications, their core degree - and really nurture them on two fronts.
As others mentioned Make is a good one and 2600 also has a lot more computer/network oriented material lately.
I'm not a huge fan of Ubuntu because of its kitchen sink installations (which I know I can change or I could just track debian...). I'm a huge fan of Ubuntu for others ... because of its kitchen sink installations :)
That said, one thing I will give Canonical is at every technology turn they take a real crack at it.
They work remotely from Elbonia....
My story and a very close friend of mine story is opposite. We were working for a research arm of Proctor and Gamble as contractors on their Linux High Performance Computing Cluster. Someone in upper management at P&G decided a managed contract would be a better way to do business, what they did not realize (and they did not care) was that we would have to leave because of non compete law. In fact, our users (primarily PhDs) wanted us to stay and maintain the current systems because we delivered great service. We had to leave and that is that. Sure, my friend and I are fine (I mean with that on our resume, it is kind of hard not to be) but we really enjoyed our work and did not want to leave. We tried to stay, we tried to find a way to even work for the new managed services company but it just could not happen.
The first rule of being an old BSG fan is... we don't talk about BSG 1980...
Actually that depends on the kids age. Mine is 13, so no, letting her watch certain episodes does not bother me (33 is a good example of that) because it _makes her think_ and I am in attendance if she has questions. But are there ones I would not allow to her watch yet?- certainly. Generally speaking (unless it is obvious one way or the other) I screen shows and movies that I think are questionable before allowing my child to see them - even at 13 - and am always watching them with her in case she has questions.
The problem that arises here is similar to star wars (although the prequels were a trainwreck); people have a memory associated with the original and now that memory was tarnished. Ron Moore was not looking to really even re-imagine, he was looking for a place to allegory real world situations and try to make viewers think; it did not always work so well because there were obvious agendas in some of them; but for the most part it worked. What does it mean to be human? What do people really do in war? If your about to become extinct and are aware of it - how would you react to a given situation? The old show was created at a time when things like just were not possible on cable and it was never intended to be a think piece series; it was and always will be a religulous view of star wars - and there is nothing wrong with that - you just shouldn't hold it against the new series because that is not what it is about. Star Trek DS9 was another good example of this departure; Moore expressly got involved in DS9 because with Gene passed away the "it always has to have a happy ending" hand cuffs were taken off. Again, many fans were angry at DS9's darkness (which compared to new BSG is lightweight) but the point was not to do yet another trek, it was to try and make people think about what war is like, what are humans really like (both the good and the bad). In the end though, I still look at this as completely separate and not even a re-imaging. I still watch the old series on retro TV and I do not feel any sort of loss. I do suggest for kids though try out Eureka; you might need to screen Eureka (depending on the children's age) but for the most part it is light hearted fun.
The real answer here is "it depends" - for instance a few years ago someone who worked for Internet.com was astroturfing LinuxToday (and probably other Internet.com sites); in that instance the individual was held responsible: granted internet.com was less than pleased about it, however, the evidence that a sole individual was responsible led to that person being dismissed. If, however, Internet.com management overall instructed employees to astroturf it would have been difficult to punish each and every person - hence the organization itself would be punished.
the problem with that of course is it the basis for many a scifi movie; direct genetic manipulation resulting in a number of box office scenarios: - mass death (pick one...) - zombies (Resident Evil - the t-cell accident; was supposed to be a cure) - intentional mutation (Xmen 2 - the guy that made wolverine) - super soldiers (Super Soldier - the movies part 1 and 2, captain america) - Battlestar galactica (skin jobs and pro-creation attempts) - mutegenics wars - lots of super soldiers (Star Trek - not to be confused with Khan who is a eugenic offspring) - replicants (Blade Runner - note the replicants learned how to do this themselves...) - serenity (reavers were gene mutated - with the best of intentions of course) - I am Legend (someone else mentioned it already) I am sure the list goes on.
Proctor and Gamble did not just move manufacturing over. They completely outsourced their IT (allegedly 100% of it) and demanded that at least 60% of IT work should be cheaper offshore support. Ironically the last I checked this was going incredibly well for them. Not so great for the people who were canned over the years of course.
Screw you guys .. I'm .. going home.
My rogue dhcpd servers ... muhahahaha! thank you ISC...
of stupid (comic-like) video game ghetto material on the big screen ... oh wait ...
when someone tasted cornhole.com
... the midget who operates the switch will be out of a job.
Might as well put that one to rest too; Toshiba - sucks; sounds like shit and tofu collided.
... toothpaste.
I keep mine in my pocket and use a blue tooth... aw shit...
keys on the left side are sticky and im typg w/on hand
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BionicOffice.html
This is also alluded to in the video games that follow (at some point) after ep6. In Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, the main charachter comes to terms with using allegedly dark and light powers to eventually come to a equilibrium within himself. In Jedi Knight: Jedi Acadamy, the main charachter from OutCast (Kyle Katarn) accopmanies the main charachter at some point and tells them that "it is not what you know, it is how you use it." This is also alluded to in the Ep3 book. Some dialogue that got whacked from the movie. Initially Ben thought each should take one of the children. Yoda disagrees saying something to the effect that people can learn discipline without training. Yoda is also told by Qui Gon, who apparently (at least in the book) is at that point in time the most powerful Jedi ever, that the Jedi were too stale and stuck, which is why they were blinded and got their ass beaten. Finally, the events after ep6 where Jedi are not taken as children, are allowed to marry etc. pretty much puts it in stone that the balance has to do with personae more than method. For example, only a "Sith would drain the life of others for power" but a Jedi from Luke's order would certainly do the same to end a fight quicker (and possibly with less bloodshed). The true definition of Sith is actually somewhat fuzzy, in the pre-prequel games all Sith Lords and their "soliders" had funked up eyes. I think this had something to do with the Sith race and line which is effectively wiped out after Vader dies.