He should make sure he considers learning Python or Ruby (if he's going to a chef shop). They're not that hard to figure out if he already mastered Perl, but he will have to learn more OO if he wants to work with those effectively.
If anything, it's probably a good thing he didn't try learning OO with perl. Perl OO is a terrible hack.
Actually, I have interviewed people with ten years of experience who are shit. It's nice to have, but usually the only thing it guarantees is that they want more money. Sometimes, that experience is worth the money. Sometimes, it isn't.
I recently interviewed a bunch of former government drones with years of experience. Except not so much. They were constrained by the roles that the government put them in, and they were spoiled by the rate that the government paid them to do as little as they did. They wanted a full-on senior salary, but they didn't want to do anything other than support their one interest area, with their few constrained toolsets. No thanks.
If this guy came to me and demonstrated that he had experience on real projects in the past and he was excited about using the newer stuff we were using AND came to the interview with enough of an aptitude to demonstrate that he's actually learned something using the whiteboard/laptop, I'd seriously consider hiring him, even if he had a relatively junior position.
Yes, if I got a senior person in for an interview who had both experience, skills, and versatility, this guy would lose out, but it's not always easy to find experienced people who want to join your team who have all that going for them.
Note: one major disadvantage. Where he would lose out is salary, at least initially. I won't pay someone like that a full-on senior salary if they are simply an older learner. However, I also wouldn't screw him either. I want people who feel they can stay with the group long term, I don't want to churn and burn team members. If only because I hate having to get reqs and interview people.
Hell, even if you *want* to manage, you should keep your skills up, or you'll end up as some shit line manager. You just need to understand how those skills are used in technical management, and they keep on helping you as a manager.
Agreed. Although I am a manager, I don't feel I need to be one. I could just as easily be a system administrator or coder, and I get pinged constantly for that sort of thing. And many people my age don't want to have anything to do with management, which I can completely understand.
Being a manager is not what happens to older technical people. Although I certainly appreciate fresh perspective, the older folks on my team get the jobs completed and are entirely reliable, which is golden when you have to be concerned with your team's ability to figure out if a requirement can be done in a promised time frame.
The secret is: if you, as a manager, don't insist on some sort of trendy implementation of an idea, you don't need to hire young coders to just be able to write the code. And the fact is, if you have a Java programmer, you have someone who can definitely pick up something like Node.js for instance, with minimum trouble.
I appreciate the energy of the younger people on the team, but there can be serious disadvantages with not keeping a diversity of experience.
Of course, an older coder can't live in the past. Perl is still used and useful, but much less so than in the past. And let's face it, it was never going to be a serious development language, even back in the day. It was a good stopgap at the time, and it got things done because you could be productive with it, but the tasks it was used for have now graduated into much more complicated projects. Perl made decent dynamic web pages server-side and was useful for sysadmin tasks, but now you have a lot of client side implementation. On the server-side Java and subsequent development took right off and beats the pants off of the performance of something written in Perl. Perl itself stalled with Perl6 development and has gone full HURD/Duke Nukem Forever. And like those, if they ever do finish it, it's probably going to be a mediocre disappointment released to a lot of people who can't quite remember using the old Perl (or who never have).
I agree with others that management would be a poor idea for this person. Management isn't being alpha-geek or Old Man. It's a different job entirely, albeit one where you do better when you understand what the team is doing and how they are doing it. You need to make business decisions based on your skills, instead of technical implementations based on your skills. And your skills are most frequently useful as bullshit detector or to provide another perspective to help your team. If you don't have a lot of team experience, you're at a serious disadvantage as a manager.
Still, I think he can jump start his career as a coder (if he really has skills). I'd do the following:
1. Learn something new. Node.js or some modern OO language. Java would be great, but he'd have to learn a lot about how to be productive with it in terms of IDEs and frameworks and such.
2. Simply put then new thing on his resume and look for jobs. Some places will interview him and he'll fail, but his goal is to learn what they are asking him to do in interviews. Then practice those things and learn those concepts.
2a. He might actually succeed at landing a job at that stage. In which case, he needs to learn the tools and languages rapidly and become productive. If he can, he's home free and has saved his career for the foreseeable future... assuming he doesn't fall into a rut again.
3. Get employed by someone who will attest to his skills, even a shit contractor job. Take a junior job, if he needs to, but try for mid-career jobs. Then he's back in the swing of things IF he applies himself to learning the new hotness, or at the very least, the popular lukewarm-ness.
4. A year or two later, if he needs to upgrade his salary, start looking for a new place and interview at his luxury and wait for a good opportunity.
You appear to be under the delusion that you do have any sort of absolute personal freedom of the kind you espouse. In minor matters, you do, as long as your actions affect no one else. In major matters, that is more difficult.
Personally, I feel that drug use is a minor matter, which is made into a major one by the War on Drugs.
However, there are certainly scenarios where that use can affect others. Lower prices or not, if you do happen to over-use to the point you have trouble maintaining a job, and your income is taxed by even the lower price of your particular legalized recreation, then someone is going to have to deal with the mess that is you. Whether it is welfare, or you becoming a shoplifter because you can't feed yourself and your habit at the same time.
Note, while I know the vast majority of people do not have such addictions, some definitely do, and those are the people who concern me and who we need to stand ready to help wean from their addiction.
You do have the right to make decisions where other people don't have to be concerned with you, usually by maintaining responsibility and consideration for other people's situation in regard to your own. I also feel that we shouldn't be looking for more and more ways to interfere in people's personal lives.
Nevertheless, until we are able to divorce ourselves from society and not incur social costs by our decisions, there are some scenarios where we should make sure that we're not causing problems beyond the tip of our own nose by the consequences of our decisions. If you want to call that permission, then so be it.
The thing is... he's right. Iraq did have WMDs of the chemical nature. And yes, the US Government sold them to Iraq. That's all 100% factual.
Whether they were still functional or whether any of them were actually there to be found 20 years later is a completely different story.
The real story of the war is why the war was fought over something that we knew that they had for decades. The fact that we didn't actually find much of anything is hilarious, but actually besides the point. We fought a war over something that we'd actually given them.
Well, that was the reasoning. The real reason we fought the war is because the administration believed we made a mistake leaving Saddam in power, and they wanted to correct that mistake. 9/11 got the ball rolling, and when it didn't seem like anyone was really taking the ALQ threat very seriously, they threw in the WMDs.
The funny part of all of this is that the US Government wasn't actually trying to pretend there were weapons there that there weren't, the hilarity was that the WMDs were supposed to be the "ringer" because Iraq really did have them. They were expecting Saddam to have maintained them and try to hide them in a semi operational capacity. Instead, he had let them all go to shit and had basically gotten rid of what was left.
To make myself clear, as you suspected, I don't think all people taking drugs need to go into rehab. I certainly don't need alcohol rehab for imbibing maybe a six pack a week or so.
However, there are a number of drugs where you quickly develop both tolerance to it and also a strong addiction. That's a combination that makes for someone who will start to quickly drain their available cash resources to maintain their habit. That's when drug use becomes pathological. Even if it doesn't kill you or melt your brain, it causes you serious problems with maintaining an everyday existence. That's when you get crime due to use of drugs even if the drugs themselves are legal. That's where rehab comes in.
If there were drugs out there that have no dangerous side effects and are non addictive in reasonable quantities, then by all means, go for it, if you can enjoy it responsibly. Just be aware that many drugs (or other substances) used to excess, or in place of dealing with problems that need to be solved, can cause problems far in excess of their actual physical effects. And with drugs legalized, we need to spend some of the money we take from locking people up, and instead use it to help people who need that help.
I am always struck by the fact that something in such widespread use as PuTTY is still downloaded from what looks like someone's public home directory.
On the other hand, it is such an anomaly that I instantly recognize the site when I see it as the correct download site.
I don't know. We did get rid of prohibition. Granted, alcohol was a vastly more accepted drug at the time, but I think what is required is simply what is happening now: people waking up to the issue of the War on Drugs and taking action to get things decriminalized.
I'm not a big fan of drugs. Far from it. Still, these people need to be getting treatment and not jail time.
Drugs should be legal, controlled, and taxed. That tax money should go towards helping to eradicate dependence on drugs and not go to the General Fund. It is amazing that we have taken this long to even start to come around, but I think it will happen.
You had thousands of years of stability where upper classes could form which would make use of those sorts of metals. Gold is too soft to use for most applications, and really has more decorative uses. Silver is somewhat more useful as a practical matter, but is still beat out by metals like iron.
If you have an apocalyptic scenario, you're going to have a premium on things that people can't get easily which they actually need for survival. Gold will be worthless until an upper class is re-established that likes shiny metal.
I will say this... gold and silver are worth what people think it is worth. If enough people think it has value, then it will. Which means that it would have many characteristics of a fiat currency.
However, survival will tend to override anything that isn't actually practical. If you have people unwilling to turn over food or materials for some shiny metal that they are not certain they can use to exchange for things they need, precious metals will be useless. And depending on the scenario, it could remain useless for decades, even centuries until a basis for value was restored.
Agreed, but I think that some people become confused with how they ended up in a place where they didn't want to be, and they wonder how they got there.
That's sometimes due to short term thinking when some long term planning would have shown them exactly where they were going.
Time is probably the most valuable resource available. You don't waste it if you use it in the manner that makes you happy, but you can totally use it in a way that makes you less happy in the long run. Sometimes, you have no choice because life just hits you with an external problem you had no control over. Other times, though, you were almost fully in charge of what happened to you and you squandered your opportunity.
I'd hope not, because as a raid leader I used to most definitely set goals in-game. And I'm glad I achieved them.
There is a certain bias towards going outside and all, and I do suggest it, but it all comes down with what you want to do with your life. If you want to have been #1 to beat all end game content on your server and that is your goal, go for it.
There will be people who judge you for doing that, but then, there are people who judge others for having shitloads of money, and you usually wouldn't consider people who have shitloads of money to be failures.
Could going outside be a waste of time? Yes it could. If your goal was to kill that one boss, and you prepared and did the grinding for all the shit so you could beat it, and you set up the raid and everything. And then, you decided to take a walk and blow your opportunity....
And then you still kicked yourself for not getting that boss done and you went through all of the same stuff again to get it.
The operative phrase being "kicked yourself". If you did all that and didn't care? Then no time was wasted. You did what you wanted to do. You determined it was more important for you to take a walk and be outside. Good for you.
Oh, and you're off raid status. Because you just wasted *my* time, asshole.:)
If you said, "I want to play WoW and have recreation time, and fuck everything else." then that could be true.
On the other hand, if you had goals for yourself that were impaired by the time or money spent on the game, and now you're wondering why you can't achieve those same goals, then you wasted your time.
You can play WoW in moderation and be fine. No question about it. And I am given to understand, it is much easier to be casual these days to boot.
However, if you look up many disorders, pathological behavior consists of actions done to such an extent or in such a manner as to interfere with the ability of someone to function normally in life, such as making a living, or even eating and sleeping properly. You certainly can play WoW too much, and you certainly can spend too much money on it, via paying for gold outside of the game.
If you're not measuring up to your own yardstick, you're wasting time, and not because someone else told you its wrong, but because you're objectively hurting yourself or preventing yourself from achieving your goals.
I used to be a guild and raid leader on endgame content. I remember more than one teen or college age student that was having problems and spent far too much time playing the game. Of course, I doubt the problem was solely the game, but they certainly used the time to do that, rather than addressing issues that they had.
As you'd expect, I used to play quite a bit myself, but eventually I realized that I simply didn't have enough time to play the game and still do what I wanted to do. It was time to quit. And looking back, I remember having a lot of fun. So, I don't regret it, but I also don't regret putting it down either.
Well, if they have "players" who have a financial interest in breaking the rules, I don't see a problem with a tax on them.
I remember playing, and honestly, when it was fun, it was pretty fun. When it got to be a real grind, I quit, I didn't pay someone else even more money to keep playing a game that I didn't actually want to actually play any more. And I do suspect gold dealers do affect the game balance decisions somewhat, which means they are actually are affecting the people who don't want to pay.
Of course, there are people out there who will pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to pimp out a character in WoW or some of those terrible pay to win games, so there's no way that aspect of the economy is going away, unfortunately.
Then seriously have the phone locked up at the front office or something. What they should be doing is making the ability to store the phone during school hours more equal, rather than just giving in and allowing them to be carried during the day.
Older than dirt is the idea of school uniforms. Which would effectively reduce the perception of inequality in a school.
You know, I don't think I would have minded a school uniform in my public school, if it was reasonably comfortable and didn't look heinous.
I don't think we should ban things due to "inequality", but being harassed about what you wear is something you get in places with a high degree of immaturity, such as high school and LA. And honestly, from the other side, there is envy from the have-nots for the people who have things. Due to social development of children and teens, it can be overly pronounced and highly distracting.
Of course, I am not sure how unbanning cell phones helps with "inequality". I'd think that telling Richie Rich with his iPhone 6 supersized to leave it at home would actually improve perceived equality, because the poor are less likely to have a phone, and much less likely to have a *good* one.
Confirmed. There are Parametric 3D CAD programs for OSX. There seems to be schematic capture as well. Didn't bother with Googling others.
Unclear if they are of the professional level needed to design actual commercial products, but I think we will call this myth: "Busted."
Amusing aside, I recall doing digital design in college... on a Mac (pre-OSX). It worked, although that fucking program crashed at least once a session. Forget what it was called.
It may be smaller, but is it that much faster? C compilers have some pretty darn good optimizations these days.
I think its a cool project though. It's nice to see people coding tightly in a general atmosphere of prevalent bloatware. If only to show it can be done, and to demonstrate the advantages.
The old Chinese Civil service used to be based on a meritocracy of people who used to take standardized exams to qualify for their civil service jobs.
Of course, those exams were on memorization of Confucian and other authoritative texts and things like calligraphy.
I understand that you want "good" software, but I'd point out that there is often a varied definition of such. Some people find one thing or another to their particular needs or tastes.
Of course no one wants meritocracy to be based on sales, but one should point out that you don't sell as much as MS did without having *something* to their software. Ultimately, for the people who bought it, it was "good enough". For others, they supported Apple or other businesses/groups who have other ideas.
The problem you run into when talking about merit is that merit is based on value and value varies based on who assigns the value. Clearly, you have a certain idea for what constitutes value, but those very same sales people and marketeers might well disagree with you.
Despite the bad rep, sales people and marketing people are often very interested in the field that they are in and want to support a product that has value. I can't tell you how often I have to do things for Sales with the goal of making them able to "believe" in the product. Many sales people are no more interested in selling crap than you are in using it. They're sometimes more personally invested because their commissions are based on selling that product, over and over.
Ultimately, money is where the rubber meets the road. If you can consistently sell a product over a course of years, there has to be something there. MS had to convince not only OEMs, but also a massive amount of developers to use their platform. While their size certainly made them the 800lbs gorilla in the room, they couldn't sell a product that doesn't do what most of their customers wanted.
So, I'd say perhaps you aren't looking for merit, you're looking for a government or market run by the "inspired". You can very easily attain merit in common work-a-day things that don't require you to do things "better".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's particularly odd.
Try operating a private military and see how long you get away with that.
Spying and hacking is basically the same: considered to be weaponized and therefore the state monopoly of force applies.
Note, I am not passing a judgement on whether the state monopoly on force is a good thing, only that it is generally accepted.
I LOLed.
I do have mod points, but I already commented in this thread. Alas.
He should make sure he considers learning Python or Ruby (if he's going to a chef shop). They're not that hard to figure out if he already mastered Perl, but he will have to learn more OO if he wants to work with those effectively.
If anything, it's probably a good thing he didn't try learning OO with perl. Perl OO is a terrible hack.
Actually, I have interviewed people with ten years of experience who are shit. It's nice to have, but usually the only thing it guarantees is that they want more money. Sometimes, that experience is worth the money. Sometimes, it isn't.
I recently interviewed a bunch of former government drones with years of experience. Except not so much. They were constrained by the roles that the government put them in, and they were spoiled by the rate that the government paid them to do as little as they did. They wanted a full-on senior salary, but they didn't want to do anything other than support their one interest area, with their few constrained toolsets. No thanks.
If this guy came to me and demonstrated that he had experience on real projects in the past and he was excited about using the newer stuff we were using AND came to the interview with enough of an aptitude to demonstrate that he's actually learned something using the whiteboard/laptop, I'd seriously consider hiring him, even if he had a relatively junior position.
Yes, if I got a senior person in for an interview who had both experience, skills, and versatility, this guy would lose out, but it's not always easy to find experienced people who want to join your team who have all that going for them.
Note: one major disadvantage. Where he would lose out is salary, at least initially. I won't pay someone like that a full-on senior salary if they are simply an older learner. However, I also wouldn't screw him either. I want people who feel they can stay with the group long term, I don't want to churn and burn team members. If only because I hate having to get reqs and interview people.
Hell, even if you *want* to manage, you should keep your skills up, or you'll end up as some shit line manager. You just need to understand how those skills are used in technical management, and they keep on helping you as a manager.
Agreed. Although I am a manager, I don't feel I need to be one. I could just as easily be a system administrator or coder, and I get pinged constantly for that sort of thing. And many people my age don't want to have anything to do with management, which I can completely understand.
Being a manager is not what happens to older technical people. Although I certainly appreciate fresh perspective, the older folks on my team get the jobs completed and are entirely reliable, which is golden when you have to be concerned with your team's ability to figure out if a requirement can be done in a promised time frame.
The secret is: if you, as a manager, don't insist on some sort of trendy implementation of an idea, you don't need to hire young coders to just be able to write the code. And the fact is, if you have a Java programmer, you have someone who can definitely pick up something like Node.js for instance, with minimum trouble.
I appreciate the energy of the younger people on the team, but there can be serious disadvantages with not keeping a diversity of experience.
Of course, an older coder can't live in the past. Perl is still used and useful, but much less so than in the past. And let's face it, it was never going to be a serious development language, even back in the day. It was a good stopgap at the time, and it got things done because you could be productive with it, but the tasks it was used for have now graduated into much more complicated projects. Perl made decent dynamic web pages server-side and was useful for sysadmin tasks, but now you have a lot of client side implementation. On the server-side Java and subsequent development took right off and beats the pants off of the performance of something written in Perl. Perl itself stalled with Perl6 development and has gone full HURD/Duke Nukem Forever. And like those, if they ever do finish it, it's probably going to be a mediocre disappointment released to a lot of people who can't quite remember using the old Perl (or who never have).
I agree with others that management would be a poor idea for this person. Management isn't being alpha-geek or Old Man. It's a different job entirely, albeit one where you do better when you understand what the team is doing and how they are doing it. You need to make business decisions based on your skills, instead of technical implementations based on your skills. And your skills are most frequently useful as bullshit detector or to provide another perspective to help your team. If you don't have a lot of team experience, you're at a serious disadvantage as a manager.
Still, I think he can jump start his career as a coder (if he really has skills). I'd do the following:
1. Learn something new. Node.js or some modern OO language. Java would be great, but he'd have to learn a lot about how to be productive with it in terms of IDEs and frameworks and such.
2. Simply put then new thing on his resume and look for jobs. Some places will interview him and he'll fail, but his goal is to learn what they are asking him to do in interviews. Then practice those things and learn those concepts.
2a. He might actually succeed at landing a job at that stage. In which case, he needs to learn the tools and languages rapidly and become productive. If he can, he's home free and has saved his career for the foreseeable future... assuming he doesn't fall into a rut again.
3. Get employed by someone who will attest to his skills, even a shit contractor job. Take a junior job, if he needs to, but try for mid-career jobs. Then he's back in the swing of things IF he applies himself to learning the new hotness, or at the very least, the popular lukewarm-ness.
4. A year or two later, if he needs to upgrade his salary, start looking for a new place and interview at his luxury and wait for a good opportunity.
You appear to be under the delusion that you do have any sort of absolute personal freedom of the kind you espouse. In minor matters, you do, as long as your actions affect no one else. In major matters, that is more difficult.
Personally, I feel that drug use is a minor matter, which is made into a major one by the War on Drugs.
However, there are certainly scenarios where that use can affect others. Lower prices or not, if you do happen to over-use to the point you have trouble maintaining a job, and your income is taxed by even the lower price of your particular legalized recreation, then someone is going to have to deal with the mess that is you. Whether it is welfare, or you becoming a shoplifter because you can't feed yourself and your habit at the same time.
Note, while I know the vast majority of people do not have such addictions, some definitely do, and those are the people who concern me and who we need to stand ready to help wean from their addiction.
You do have the right to make decisions where other people don't have to be concerned with you, usually by maintaining responsibility and consideration for other people's situation in regard to your own. I also feel that we shouldn't be looking for more and more ways to interfere in people's personal lives.
Nevertheless, until we are able to divorce ourselves from society and not incur social costs by our decisions, there are some scenarios where we should make sure that we're not causing problems beyond the tip of our own nose by the consequences of our decisions. If you want to call that permission, then so be it.
The thing is... he's right. Iraq did have WMDs of the chemical nature. And yes, the US Government sold them to Iraq. That's all 100% factual.
Whether they were still functional or whether any of them were actually there to be found 20 years later is a completely different story.
The real story of the war is why the war was fought over something that we knew that they had for decades. The fact that we didn't actually find much of anything is hilarious, but actually besides the point. We fought a war over something that we'd actually given them.
Well, that was the reasoning. The real reason we fought the war is because the administration believed we made a mistake leaving Saddam in power, and they wanted to correct that mistake. 9/11 got the ball rolling, and when it didn't seem like anyone was really taking the ALQ threat very seriously, they threw in the WMDs.
The funny part of all of this is that the US Government wasn't actually trying to pretend there were weapons there that there weren't, the hilarity was that the WMDs were supposed to be the "ringer" because Iraq really did have them. They were expecting Saddam to have maintained them and try to hide them in a semi operational capacity. Instead, he had let them all go to shit and had basically gotten rid of what was left.
To make myself clear, as you suspected, I don't think all people taking drugs need to go into rehab. I certainly don't need alcohol rehab for imbibing maybe a six pack a week or so.
However, there are a number of drugs where you quickly develop both tolerance to it and also a strong addiction. That's a combination that makes for someone who will start to quickly drain their available cash resources to maintain their habit. That's when drug use becomes pathological. Even if it doesn't kill you or melt your brain, it causes you serious problems with maintaining an everyday existence. That's when you get crime due to use of drugs even if the drugs themselves are legal. That's where rehab comes in.
If there were drugs out there that have no dangerous side effects and are non addictive in reasonable quantities, then by all means, go for it, if you can enjoy it responsibly. Just be aware that many drugs (or other substances) used to excess, or in place of dealing with problems that need to be solved, can cause problems far in excess of their actual physical effects. And with drugs legalized, we need to spend some of the money we take from locking people up, and instead use it to help people who need that help.
I am always struck by the fact that something in such widespread use as PuTTY is still downloaded from what looks like someone's public home directory.
On the other hand, it is such an anomaly that I instantly recognize the site when I see it as the correct download site.
I don't know. We did get rid of prohibition. Granted, alcohol was a vastly more accepted drug at the time, but I think what is required is simply what is happening now: people waking up to the issue of the War on Drugs and taking action to get things decriminalized.
I'm not a big fan of drugs. Far from it. Still, these people need to be getting treatment and not jail time.
Drugs should be legal, controlled, and taxed. That tax money should go towards helping to eradicate dependence on drugs and not go to the General Fund. It is amazing that we have taken this long to even start to come around, but I think it will happen.
You had thousands of years of stability where upper classes could form which would make use of those sorts of metals. Gold is too soft to use for most applications, and really has more decorative uses. Silver is somewhat more useful as a practical matter, but is still beat out by metals like iron.
If you have an apocalyptic scenario, you're going to have a premium on things that people can't get easily which they actually need for survival. Gold will be worthless until an upper class is re-established that likes shiny metal.
I will say this... gold and silver are worth what people think it is worth. If enough people think it has value, then it will. Which means that it would have many characteristics of a fiat currency.
However, survival will tend to override anything that isn't actually practical. If you have people unwilling to turn over food or materials for some shiny metal that they are not certain they can use to exchange for things they need, precious metals will be useless. And depending on the scenario, it could remain useless for decades, even centuries until a basis for value was restored.
Well, Rambo "2" was actually "Rambo: First Blood, Part II", so there was a "2" in there, but it went through an odd title morph.
And to make it even more confusing, there was a Rambo IV, that was just "Rambo".
Agreed, but I think that some people become confused with how they ended up in a place where they didn't want to be, and they wonder how they got there.
That's sometimes due to short term thinking when some long term planning would have shown them exactly where they were going.
Time is probably the most valuable resource available. You don't waste it if you use it in the manner that makes you happy, but you can totally use it in a way that makes you less happy in the long run. Sometimes, you have no choice because life just hits you with an external problem you had no control over. Other times, though, you were almost fully in charge of what happened to you and you squandered your opportunity.
I'd hope not, because as a raid leader I used to most definitely set goals in-game. And I'm glad I achieved them.
There is a certain bias towards going outside and all, and I do suggest it, but it all comes down with what you want to do with your life. If you want to have been #1 to beat all end game content on your server and that is your goal, go for it.
There will be people who judge you for doing that, but then, there are people who judge others for having shitloads of money, and you usually wouldn't consider people who have shitloads of money to be failures.
Could going outside be a waste of time? Yes it could. If your goal was to kill that one boss, and you prepared and did the grinding for all the shit so you could beat it, and you set up the raid and everything. And then, you decided to take a walk and blow your opportunity....
And then you still kicked yourself for not getting that boss done and you went through all of the same stuff again to get it.
The operative phrase being "kicked yourself". If you did all that and didn't care? Then no time was wasted. You did what you wanted to do. You determined it was more important for you to take a walk and be outside. Good for you.
Oh, and you're off raid status. Because you just wasted *my* time, asshole. :)
That depends on what your actual goals are.
If you said, "I want to play WoW and have recreation time, and fuck everything else." then that could be true.
On the other hand, if you had goals for yourself that were impaired by the time or money spent on the game, and now you're wondering why you can't achieve those same goals, then you wasted your time.
You can play WoW in moderation and be fine. No question about it. And I am given to understand, it is much easier to be casual these days to boot.
However, if you look up many disorders, pathological behavior consists of actions done to such an extent or in such a manner as to interfere with the ability of someone to function normally in life, such as making a living, or even eating and sleeping properly. You certainly can play WoW too much, and you certainly can spend too much money on it, via paying for gold outside of the game.
If you're not measuring up to your own yardstick, you're wasting time, and not because someone else told you its wrong, but because you're objectively hurting yourself or preventing yourself from achieving your goals.
I used to be a guild and raid leader on endgame content. I remember more than one teen or college age student that was having problems and spent far too much time playing the game. Of course, I doubt the problem was solely the game, but they certainly used the time to do that, rather than addressing issues that they had.
As you'd expect, I used to play quite a bit myself, but eventually I realized that I simply didn't have enough time to play the game and still do what I wanted to do. It was time to quit. And looking back, I remember having a lot of fun. So, I don't regret it, but I also don't regret putting it down either.
Well, if they have "players" who have a financial interest in breaking the rules, I don't see a problem with a tax on them.
I remember playing, and honestly, when it was fun, it was pretty fun. When it got to be a real grind, I quit, I didn't pay someone else even more money to keep playing a game that I didn't actually want to actually play any more. And I do suspect gold dealers do affect the game balance decisions somewhat, which means they are actually are affecting the people who don't want to pay.
Of course, there are people out there who will pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to pimp out a character in WoW or some of those terrible pay to win games, so there's no way that aspect of the economy is going away, unfortunately.
Electronics beep and buzz at you. I'd say that probably turning them off, and leaving them off is the best of all possible worlds in that regard.
Then seriously have the phone locked up at the front office or something. What they should be doing is making the ability to store the phone during school hours more equal, rather than just giving in and allowing them to be carried during the day.
Older than dirt is the idea of school uniforms. Which would effectively reduce the perception of inequality in a school.
You know, I don't think I would have minded a school uniform in my public school, if it was reasonably comfortable and didn't look heinous.
I don't think we should ban things due to "inequality", but being harassed about what you wear is something you get in places with a high degree of immaturity, such as high school and LA. And honestly, from the other side, there is envy from the have-nots for the people who have things. Due to social development of children and teens, it can be overly pronounced and highly distracting.
Of course, I am not sure how unbanning cell phones helps with "inequality". I'd think that telling Richie Rich with his iPhone 6 supersized to leave it at home would actually improve perceived equality, because the poor are less likely to have a phone, and much less likely to have a *good* one.
Confirmed. There are Parametric 3D CAD programs for OSX. There seems to be schematic capture as well. Didn't bother with Googling others.
Unclear if they are of the professional level needed to design actual commercial products, but I think we will call this myth: "Busted."
Amusing aside, I recall doing digital design in college... on a Mac (pre-OSX). It worked, although that fucking program crashed at least once a session. Forget what it was called.
Welcome to Decision 2016.
It may be smaller, but is it that much faster? C compilers have some pretty darn good optimizations these days.
I think its a cool project though. It's nice to see people coding tightly in a general atmosphere of prevalent bloatware. If only to show it can be done, and to demonstrate the advantages.
I'm curious. Did C or C++ have a release party? Or is that a value added feature of Rust?
The old Chinese Civil service used to be based on a meritocracy of people who used to take standardized exams to qualify for their civil service jobs.
Of course, those exams were on memorization of Confucian and other authoritative texts and things like calligraphy.
I understand that you want "good" software, but I'd point out that there is often a varied definition of such. Some people find one thing or another to their particular needs or tastes.
Of course no one wants meritocracy to be based on sales, but one should point out that you don't sell as much as MS did without having *something* to their software. Ultimately, for the people who bought it, it was "good enough". For others, they supported Apple or other businesses/groups who have other ideas.
The problem you run into when talking about merit is that merit is based on value and value varies based on who assigns the value. Clearly, you have a certain idea for what constitutes value, but those very same sales people and marketeers might well disagree with you.
Despite the bad rep, sales people and marketing people are often very interested in the field that they are in and want to support a product that has value. I can't tell you how often I have to do things for Sales with the goal of making them able to "believe" in the product. Many sales people are no more interested in selling crap than you are in using it. They're sometimes more personally invested because their commissions are based on selling that product, over and over.
Ultimately, money is where the rubber meets the road. If you can consistently sell a product over a course of years, there has to be something there. MS had to convince not only OEMs, but also a massive amount of developers to use their platform. While their size certainly made them the 800lbs gorilla in the room, they couldn't sell a product that doesn't do what most of their customers wanted.
So, I'd say perhaps you aren't looking for merit, you're looking for a government or market run by the "inspired". You can very easily attain merit in common work-a-day things that don't require you to do things "better".