Not to ruin a perfectly good rant, but if you take a look at that (such as it is) you see that Facebook is mentioned as being close behind Google in terms of overall salaries (not just engineering ).
Which means it will be another Hyundai (as they started in the US, not as they are now), another Kia, etc. Decent new cars that are affordable but not standout in any way. Over time as they gain in reputation (if they do) their prices will increase, and someone else will step in to fill the role.
TL;DR - someone coming to fill the low end new car market, as Hyundai and Kia have grown up a bit and no longer serve it.
Not sure why people would think telling a *firefighting team not a demolitions team* to "pull it" would mean that the *firefighting team* should somehow collapse the building. The offered explanation is rather more logical, isn't it?
And based on the documentation from the site, the building was on shaky foundation to start with. Which means a number of factors could have caused it to collapse.
But alright. It was a conspiracy, I'm sure you can argue until I walk away in frustration, fine. But to what end? Cui bono? And ultimately, what difference does it make? If you're right, some dude conspired to get his building destroyed in the mayhem - one which he wanted destroyed anyway. His empty, evacuated building. So I'm really not getting it. What's the point? Who benefits and what does this have to do with anything else that occurred on 9/11? Maybe this is all perfectly clear to the folks who publish that web site, but to those of us looking for information, there's a distinct lack of it.
Wow. Can't believe that google will change your default language setting based on an URL you follow. That's awesome - haven't seen a site do that since mid 2000s.
Linux developers are not trying to "force" anybody to do anything. Nvidia is trying to force the linux community to accept their unacceptable "super secret" blob into the kernel agains the linux community's development and participatation standards.
As far as I can tell, completely incorrect. Nvidia is trying to use the documented kernel interface inside of their super-secret blob, and are being told that they can't because kernel developers can't see inside their blob (eg, it's not GPL). I don't see any indication that they're trying to force the blob to be included as part of the kernel distribution itself.
I can't believe that this actually got modded up, but I'm glad to see it did.
This is priceless. NVIDIA is trying to keep their graphics drivers up-to-date on the linux platform and are basically told to fuck off. Everybody wins here, right?
And we stand around and talk about how patents are blocking progress?
Book from Packt Publishing? Check. Book irrelevant to most slashdotter's needs or interests? Check. Rating of 8/10? Check. Review content consists of synopsis with no real criticism? Check. (Seriously? It's "main flaw" was that it didn't address Windows users?)
Hmm, could it be...
Michael J Ross wrote this one? Why yes! Yes indeed!
Nope, I love what I do. I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption based on the tone of my comment. I'm glad that you enjoy your occupation as well, and thanks for taking the time to answer.
Seems like an exercise in mental masturbation to me. Does it get frustrating teaching a subject that can hold no meaningful answers? For some subset of the population, technology abuse X is unethical. For another subset, technology use X is innovative and empowering, even life-changing. For the rest of the population, it's not given much thought at all.
I learned that the urge to boast of questionable accomplishments - such as spoofing the Novell login sequence to capture passwords - leads to one getting caught. Therefore the most important lesson was that real hackers don't talk - they just do.
I really do agree with you, but it's also not as simple as that.
When it's a matter of assault - sure, no problem. Few people die of broken noses (unless it's broken just right...) But I've got to say - when my plane crashes and everyone on it is dead, it's not going to bring us all back if the perpetrator gets imprisoned. I'd much rather take simple preventative measures that serve to prevent most people from taking the action in the first place. *
When you shoot someone with a gun, you're doing it - in all likelihood - to kill them. When you paint an airplane or helicopter with a laser you're doing it because you want to see if you can, or because you read about it, or because you think it's cool, or whatever. The fact that the tiny pinpoint of light expands significantly doesn't occur to the person doing this - it's not a deliberate act of malice with intent to end a life. For this reason, some very loose licensing requirements can put a slight barrier in the way. A barrier that most people won't bother finding away around, because owning a cool laser isn't worth actual hassle. And those that *do* go to the trouble are more likely to be aware of risks/dangers.
Note that I didn't advocate "following that logic to its end" - applying any such rule as a generality is foolhardy for exactly the reason you gave.
* disclaimer: I don't know if this is a realistic scenario given that it hasn't happened so far...
Fuck you both. The last thing this country needs is people actively suggesting ways to strip more freedoms away from the people.
So perhaps you have another means of making sure people use their freedom responsibly, and in a way that doesn't endanger others? Because so far, just letting them do what they want isn't cutting it.
Assuming those numbers are accurate = 4 hours + 2 + 1 = 7 hours. For 1600 miles - 24 miles of uninterrupted driving assuming no traffic and no gas stops. I'd still call that a bargain.
I hate the experience of flying, but when it comes to getting to the other side of the country quickly... there aren't any better options. If I had a couple of spare weeks to make the round trip, I'd drive it - but I seldom have that luxury.
Slashdot Mirror
Big deal.
I perfectly of that.
am capable doing too .
Not to ruin a perfectly good rant, but if you take a look at that (such as it is) you see that Facebook is mentioned as being close behind Google in terms of overall salaries (not just engineering ).
Which means it will be another Hyundai (as they started in the US, not as they are now), another Kia, etc. Decent new cars that are affordable but not standout in any way. Over time as they gain in reputation (if they do) their prices will increase, and someone else will step in to fill the role.
TL;DR - someone coming to fill the low end new car market, as Hyundai and Kia have grown up a bit and no longer serve it.
And four Facebook accounts is somehow a "simple" solution? It's not even a reasonable solution, never mind a simple one.
In fairness, I never claimed that my opinion was worth listening to. I only expressed it.
Infoweek blog crap. Everyone has opinions; most aren't worth listening to. Especially true at infoweek, pcworld, and others.
Alright, I looked.
Not sure why people would think telling a *firefighting team not a demolitions team* to "pull it" would mean that the *firefighting team* should somehow collapse the building. The offered explanation is rather more logical, isn't it?
And based on the documentation from the site, the building was on shaky foundation to start with. Which means a number of factors could have caused it to collapse.
But alright. It was a conspiracy, I'm sure you can argue until I walk away in frustration, fine. But to what end? Cui bono? And ultimately, what difference does it make? If you're right, some dude conspired to get his building destroyed in the mayhem - one which he wanted destroyed anyway. His empty, evacuated building. So I'm really not getting it. What's the point? Who benefits and what does this have to do with anything else that occurred on 9/11? Maybe this is all perfectly clear to the folks who publish that web site, but to those of us looking for information, there's a distinct lack of it.
Wow. Can't believe that google will change your default language setting based on an URL you follow. That's awesome - haven't seen a site do that since mid 2000s.
Yes - we, the relatively few who read Bloomberg (or slashdot) are discussing it.
What about the rest of the population who might be buying this?
What about the next product, when Bloomberg or other private company doesn't discover what's happening?
Linux developers are not trying to "force" anybody to do anything. Nvidia is trying to force the linux community to accept their unacceptable "super secret" blob into the kernel agains the linux community's development and participatation standards.
As far as I can tell, completely incorrect. Nvidia is trying to use the documented kernel interface inside of their super-secret blob, and are being told that they can't because kernel developers can't see inside their blob (eg, it's not GPL). I don't see any indication that they're trying to force the blob to be included as part of the kernel distribution itself.
I can't believe that this actually got modded up, but I'm glad to see it did.
This is priceless. NVIDIA is trying to keep their graphics drivers up-to-date on the linux platform and are basically told to fuck off. Everybody wins here, right?
And we stand around and talk about how patents are blocking progress?
Book from Packt Publishing? Check.
Book irrelevant to most slashdotter's needs or interests? Check.
Rating of 8/10? Check.
Review content consists of synopsis with no real criticism? Check. (Seriously? It's "main flaw" was that it didn't address Windows users?)
Hmm, could it be...
Michael J Ross wrote this one?
Why yes! Yes indeed!
Indeed. I'd say if this is what he likes doing, perhaps he should get a blog and spare the rest of us.
I *think* he was going for something along the lines of this tautology: "if all guns are outlawed, only criminals will own guns".
Nope, I love what I do. I'm not sure why you'd make that assumption based on the tone of my comment. I'm glad that you enjoy your occupation as well, and thanks for taking the time to answer.
Seems like an exercise in mental masturbation to me. Does it get frustrating teaching a subject that can hold no meaningful answers? For some subset of the population, technology abuse X is unethical. For another subset, technology use X is innovative and empowering, even life-changing. For the rest of the population, it's not given much thought at all.
I always wanted to put one of those in a Geo Metro. Just because.
Tesla this, Tesla that.
When will we have some recognition for the world's greatest inventor, Thomas Edison?
As I recall, from US school grades 4-8. Didn't hear about Tesla until much, much later.
Whoosh.
Nope. Just chose to answer it anyway.
Maybe as individual programmers we should hire apprentices.
They could fetch coffee, make copies, and clean up compiler warnings behind us.
I learned that the urge to boast of questionable accomplishments - such as spoofing the Novell login sequence to capture passwords - leads to one getting caught. Therefore the most important lesson was that real hackers don't talk - they just do.
Tesla this, Tesla that.
When will we have some recognition for the world's greatest inventor, Thomas Edison?
As I recall, from US school grades 4-8. Didn't hear about Tesla until much, much later.
I really do agree with you, but it's also not as simple as that.
When it's a matter of assault - sure, no problem. Few people die of broken noses (unless it's broken just right...) But I've got to say - when my plane crashes and everyone on it is dead, it's not going to bring us all back if the perpetrator gets imprisoned. I'd much rather take simple preventative measures that serve to prevent most people from taking the action in the first place. *
When you shoot someone with a gun, you're doing it - in all likelihood - to kill them. When you paint an airplane or helicopter with a laser you're doing it because you want to see if you can, or because you read about it, or because you think it's cool, or whatever. The fact that the tiny pinpoint of light expands significantly doesn't occur to the person doing this - it's not a deliberate act of malice with intent to end a life. For this reason, some very loose licensing requirements can put a slight barrier in the way. A barrier that most people won't bother finding away around, because owning a cool laser isn't worth actual hassle. And those that *do* go to the trouble are more likely to be aware of risks/dangers.
Note that I didn't advocate "following that logic to its end" - applying any such rule as a generality is foolhardy for exactly the reason you gave.
* disclaimer: I don't know if this is a realistic scenario given that it hasn't happened so far...
then handheld lasers need to be outright banned
Perhaps licensing.
Fuck you both. The last thing this country needs is people actively suggesting ways to strip more freedoms away from the people.
So perhaps you have another means of making sure people use their freedom responsibly, and in a way that doesn't endanger others? Because so far, just letting them do what they want isn't cutting it.
Phew, that was simple. Thanks for solving that for us!
- the FAA.
Assuming those numbers are accurate = 4 hours + 2 + 1 = 7 hours. For 1600 miles - 24 miles of uninterrupted driving assuming no traffic and no gas stops. I'd still call that a bargain.
I hate the experience of flying, but when it comes to getting to the other side of the country quickly... there aren't any better options. If I had a couple of spare weeks to make the round trip, I'd drive it - but I seldom have that luxury.