GP hopefully meant: Consistent:2. Reliable; steady: demonstrated a consistent ability to impress the critics.
Meaning that laws should be the same for everybody (applied consistently).
Much as I'd like to say this is a fine idea, I've been watching TV for free for most of my life. I don't want that to change now, or ever. I'm used to commercial breaks, and I'm not prepared to pay for something I can watch on network TV, for free -- it'd be different if I paid to watch NBC, but I don't. The sponsors pay for it, and the deal is that I get to watch for free in return for a few ads, which I can walk away from.
When I first read that I would be able to watch TV online without paying, I thought it was a great idea. Two things stop me having the warm-fuzzies by the end of the article. 1) 7 days isn't long enough. I want to be able to record it, the same way I would with a VHS tape. Download, watch later. I'll even leave the commercials in. 2) FREE is what matters. I'm unwilling to pay for essentially free content. So while the system is free, I'll take advantage of it. As soon as it requires money, I'll be on the do-not-watch list, and back on BitTorrent, where I can get the whole show, edited to be without commercials, for a price I like.
Both the summary and the article point out something that most of the/. community seem to be missing.
The manager is not trying to do the parenting. He is not refusing to sell games to kids based on his own estimation of how they're doing in school. What he's done is very simple. If a school-aged child wants to buy a game, they have to bring their parents in to vouch for their grades.
Therefore, if a parent knows that no matter how hard their child works in a particular area they will never get better than a C, they can say their child has acceptable grades. A different child who could earn an A, but is earning a C, could be told by their parents they are not getting acceptable grades.
This guy was FORCING parents to be involved and to make decisions on 'good grades.' He wasn't doing ANY of the work for them, he was just insisting they vouchsafe the child's behavior.
Reading the article indicates a 4000-6000 liter capacity before swapping filters. How does that compare to the existing products? And how does it fit in with your reflexive scorn of anything new?
Why is a university education not a free option for everybody? When my parents were young, sending children to University didn't bankrupt families. In Scotland all Scottish students can go to any university for free. All costs covered. Housing, books, lab fees, and other aspects of college life are expensive are all expensive -- don't just cover tuition. Cover everything required to go to university. Each year (or every few years), university gets more expensive, making it harder for middle class and poor families to afford.
In a country that (purportedly) aspires to be a meritocracy, the playing field should be leveled for everybody -- meaning equal access to education, among other things. If it can't/won't level it, then the claims of getting ahead based on merit are so much hot air.
When I was at Uni, I knew hundreds of students who thought the way I do. Equality was the watchword of the 60s and 70s. Where is that equality now that the young adults of the 60s and 70s are running the country? Where have their convictions gone?
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Joel On Software's coverage of this from July 2005. He has the best explanation for why a company that wants to have great software can't settle for good developers.
"So, why isn't there room in the software industry for a low cost provider, someone who uses the cheapest programmers available? (Remind me to ask Quark how that whole fire-everybody-and-hire-low-cost-replacements plan is working.)
Here's why: duplication of software is free. That means that the cost of programmers is spread out over all the copies of the software you sell. With software, you can improve quality without adding to the incremental cost of each unit sold.
Essentially, design adds value faster than it adds cost.
Or, roughly speaking, if you try to skimp on programmers, you'll make crappy software, and you won't even save that much money."
...
"The real trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce.
Five Antonio Salieris won't produce Mozart's Requiem. Ever. Not if they work for 100 years.
Five Jim Davis's -- creator of that unfunny cartoon cat, where 20% of the jokes are about how Monday sucks and the rest are about how much the cat likes lasagna (and those are the punchlines!)... five Jim Davis's could spend the rest of their lives writing comedy and never, ever produce the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld."
Slashdot Mirror
GP hopefully meant:
Consistent: 2. Reliable; steady: demonstrated a consistent ability to impress the critics. Meaning that laws should be the same for everybody (applied consistently).
Much as I'd like to say this is a fine idea, I've been watching TV for free for most of my life. I don't want that to change now, or ever. I'm used to commercial breaks, and I'm not prepared to pay for something I can watch on network TV, for free -- it'd be different if I paid to watch NBC, but I don't. The sponsors pay for it, and the deal is that I get to watch for free in return for a few ads, which I can walk away from. When I first read that I would be able to watch TV online without paying, I thought it was a great idea. Two things stop me having the warm-fuzzies by the end of the article. 1) 7 days isn't long enough. I want to be able to record it, the same way I would with a VHS tape. Download, watch later. I'll even leave the commercials in. 2) FREE is what matters. I'm unwilling to pay for essentially free content. So while the system is free, I'll take advantage of it. As soon as it requires money, I'll be on the do-not-watch list, and back on BitTorrent, where I can get the whole show, edited to be without commercials, for a price I like.
Both the summary and the article point out something that most of the /. community seem to be missing.
The manager is not trying to do the parenting. He is not refusing to sell games to kids based on his own estimation of how they're doing in school. What he's done is very simple. If a school-aged child wants to buy a game, they have to bring their parents in to vouch for their grades.
Therefore, if a parent knows that no matter how hard their child works in a particular area they will never get better than a C, they can say their child has acceptable grades. A different child who could earn an A, but is earning a C, could be told by their parents they are not getting acceptable grades.
This guy was FORCING parents to be involved and to make decisions on 'good grades.' He wasn't doing ANY of the work for them, he was just insisting they vouchsafe the child's behavior.
Reading the article indicates a 4000-6000 liter capacity before swapping filters.
How does that compare to the existing products? And how does it fit in with your reflexive scorn of anything new?
Why is a university education not a free option for everybody? When my parents were young, sending children to University didn't bankrupt families. In Scotland all Scottish students can go to any university for free. All costs covered. Housing, books, lab fees, and other aspects of college life are expensive are all expensive -- don't just cover tuition. Cover everything required to go to university. Each year (or every few years), university gets more expensive, making it harder for middle class and poor families to afford. In a country that (purportedly) aspires to be a meritocracy, the playing field should be leveled for everybody -- meaning equal access to education, among other things. If it can't/won't level it, then the claims of getting ahead based on merit are so much hot air. When I was at Uni, I knew hundreds of students who thought the way I do. Equality was the watchword of the 60s and 70s. Where is that equality now that the young adults of the 60s and 70s are running the country? Where have their convictions gone?
"So, why isn't there room in the software industry for a low cost provider, someone who uses the cheapest programmers available? (Remind me to ask Quark how that whole fire-everybody-and-hire-low-cost-replacements plan is working.)
Here's why: duplication of software is free. That means that the cost of programmers is spread out over all the copies of the software you sell. With software, you can improve quality without adding to the incremental cost of each unit sold.
Essentially, design adds value faster than it adds cost.
Or, roughly speaking, if you try to skimp on programmers, you'll make crappy software, and you won't even save that much money."
"The real trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce.
Five Antonio Salieris won't produce Mozart's Requiem. Ever. Not if they work for 100 years.
Five Jim Davis's -- creator of that unfunny cartoon cat, where 20% of the jokes are about how Monday sucks and the rest are about how much the cat likes lasagna (and those are the punchlines!) ... five Jim Davis's could spend the rest of their lives writing comedy and never, ever produce the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld."
Take a look at this: http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a /rspa20071880.pdf
The contributions of the sun to earth's warmth has been decreasing since 1985. The sun does not account for the current (incredibly rapid) increase in global temperatures.
"Jack Johnson should have been a blowjob."