Ah, I think you I see your problem. You are supposed to use chicken, not lamb. You will find your virgin requirement significantly reduced with the correct input fauna.
That and they do not want a joint US/SK military force on their direct boarder. If NK collapses many of the outcomes would result in having to deal with that again.
And that gets to the heart of the issue.. countries with nukes have a lot less to fear from the 1st world then countries without them. While not quite MAD, it changes the whole political equation. I know if I was running a nation that was on America's shit list, getting a viable nuclear weapon would be pretty high in my priority queue. If you can not actually hurt the US, US foreign policy is pretty nasty... even when international rules should curtail the US's behavior, we usually ignore them unless they other country has some kind of bargaining chip or power to push back.
Which is why the US is so adimiment about countries it doesn't like not having nukes.. not because there is any belief that rouge nations will go around attacking people, but because (naturally) we want to be in as strong of a position as possible and others as weak as possible, so anything that means we can not unilaterally push them around is something we want to prevent.
I am not sure reunification would be the only path the could take. I could see NK taking a page or two out of China and Russia's playbook by privatizing industries internally then opening up trade. NK has a slave workforce that makes china look enlighted, thus thus could probably get a lot of initial captial through being able to undercut labor costs right off the bat.
Such systems work for some people, and not for others. For the same reason we still have voice phones, SMS, email, IM, and forums, simply replacing the whole interaction with forums looses a lot of communication patterns. Real time communication with feedback and immediate adjustment of the material has its advantages.
Now, it could be argued that one could add a real time component to a message board, but at that point you have just reimplemented the lecture using a more complex and costlier solution.
*nods* to build off that, if the people doing the teaching are not seeing how some new widget will get them better results, there is a good chance the problem is the widget and the lack of understanding of its designer rather then the teacher simply being stubborn. Many in industry (esp sales people) seem to have very low opinions of anyone who teaches, and that low opinion is often very clear in the sales pitch and the pressure that comes down from administrators who listen to vendors more then their staff, so they end up with some tool that fills a salesman's image of what 'looser' professors need that is then pushed by administrators who only kinda understand the problems.. which even if the tool has merit pretty much taints it.
Interaction? Unless the class size was ~200, I can not recall having any professors who were unwilling to stop and answer questions or expand on points that the students seem to be having trouble with.
I suspect it is less that they are uncomfortable, and more that the are unimpressed. Though if they are not even willing to do basic stuff like posting documents online that is a bit odd.. though thinking back, not all that surprising either. Last time I got to play with one of those 'professors, get your stuff online!' packages that are peddled to universities, the barrier to learning it and getting it to do anything useful were pretty high, esp since the most people generally wanted out of it was 'act like a damn ftp site'.
Talk to your advisor. Unless your school has a crummy program with limited options there is probably a lot you can learn in a CS degree. To put it bluntly, if you don't understand how a CS degree applies to web development, then you probably need a CS degree.
If all you are focusing on is which technologies they teach, you are wasting an opportunity and may run in to problems further down your career when ad-hoc design with no fundamentals just isn't good enough.
Developer community and 3rd party library support tend to trump things like speed or capability. A language and its VM can be fantastic, but if you have trouble hiring people or finding packaged libraries to include, then its utility is restricted.
*sigh* people are constantly trying to 'reinvent discussion for the modern age', they have been doing this for decades now... and the bulk of the time all we end up with is a repeat of 80s BBSes with some new trendy technology under the hood and little actual advancement...... resulting in decades of half-baked improvements. People keep focusing on the technology and what other technologies it interacts with because, well, geeks like playing with technology.. but the underlying discussion tools just keep reverting back to 'we dont know any better, so lets start from scratch' and forget lessons learned.
I actually had the same problem with Mechwarrior 3. Its physics engine did crazy things if the computer was too fast.... I suspect the problem of games that behave oddly or unplayably on hardware far faster then their developer had access too will be an ongoing on.
Depending on how big of a sheep buffer we get, it is possible they will try to go the 'break the internet' route. As long as the new methods are difficult to use (or require personal vouching) and thus only small groups of people can utilize them, they will not care too much. If the new methods have a low barrier to entry then I would not put it above them to start pushing for 'net breaking changes.
If it were a law you could challenge it.. but no, this is their own system so that content providers will not keep harassing them (or, in some cases, because of mergers).. and because there are no viable alternatives, not much we can do.
Unfortunately, you are about right. If one looks at the various enforcement systems like youtube, the system is wired for who can harass who. Complaints against known entities will be deleted, while ones against small producers or individuals from companies are handled without question.
You only gets much justice as you can threaten problems for whoever is handling it.
I am not sure I completely agree at this point. The cases where you get significantly better performance out of other languages are very task specific. Sometimes thing like manual control over memory allocation can make a huge difference, but most of the time it comes out pretty even.. and no language really escapes big O, which when your sets get large enough, the differences between languages can quickly become trivial.
Which actually makes a lot of sense. When choosing a language, often the biggest issues are not ones of language features but of community and familiarity.
Yeah, that produces a bit of a barrier. Once one has a good feel for what works everywhere and what does not it can make a good tool (I develop wxPython apps for Linux/Windows/OSX) but the 'oh wait, that doesn't work here' traps can be discouraging. Their documentation has improved significantly in that regard though.
Though thinking back to 'what first language should I learn in order to XYZ', people get just as religious about that type of question as they do about single language support.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a good example of 'just because it is in the contract does not make it legal' ^_^
Ah, I think you I see your problem. You are supposed to use chicken, not lamb. You will find your virgin requirement significantly reduced with the correct input fauna.
That and they do not want a joint US/SK military force on their direct boarder. If NK collapses many of the outcomes would result in having to deal with that again.
And that gets to the heart of the issue.. countries with nukes have a lot less to fear from the 1st world then countries without them. While not quite MAD, it changes the whole political equation. I know if I was running a nation that was on America's shit list, getting a viable nuclear weapon would be pretty high in my priority queue. If you can not actually hurt the US, US foreign policy is pretty nasty... even when international rules should curtail the US's behavior, we usually ignore them unless they other country has some kind of bargaining chip or power to push back.
Which is why the US is so adimiment about countries it doesn't like not having nukes.. not because there is any belief that rouge nations will go around attacking people, but because (naturally) we want to be in as strong of a position as possible and others as weak as possible, so anything that means we can not unilaterally push them around is something we want to prevent.
I am not sure reunification would be the only path the could take. I could see NK taking a page or two out of China and Russia's playbook by privatizing industries internally then opening up trade. NK has a slave workforce that makes china look enlighted, thus thus could probably get a lot of initial captial through being able to undercut labor costs right off the bat.
Viable yes, but 'much better'? No.
Such systems work for some people, and not for others. For the same reason we still have voice phones, SMS, email, IM, and forums, simply replacing the whole interaction with forums looses a lot of communication patterns. Real time communication with feedback and immediate adjustment of the material has its advantages.
Now, it could be argued that one could add a real time component to a message board, but at that point you have just reimplemented the lecture using a more complex and costlier solution.
*nods* to build off that, if the people doing the teaching are not seeing how some new widget will get them better results, there is a good chance the problem is the widget and the lack of understanding of its designer rather then the teacher simply being stubborn. Many in industry (esp sales people) seem to have very low opinions of anyone who teaches, and that low opinion is often very clear in the sales pitch and the pressure that comes down from administrators who listen to vendors more then their staff, so they end up with some tool that fills a salesman's image of what 'looser' professors need that is then pushed by administrators who only kinda understand the problems.. which even if the tool has merit pretty much taints it.
I think it would be more accurate to say the old college system is not cut out for the needs of today's vendor commission expectations.
Interaction? Unless the class size was ~200, I can not recall having any professors who were unwilling to stop and answer questions or expand on points that the students seem to be having trouble with.
I suspect it is less that they are uncomfortable, and more that the are unimpressed. Though if they are not even willing to do basic stuff like posting documents online that is a bit odd.. though thinking back, not all that surprising either. Last time I got to play with one of those 'professors, get your stuff online!' packages that are peddled to universities, the barrier to learning it and getting it to do anything useful were pretty high, esp since the most people generally wanted out of it was 'act like a damn ftp site'.
Talk to your advisor. Unless your school has a crummy program with limited options there is probably a lot you can learn in a CS degree. To put it bluntly, if you don't understand how a CS degree applies to web development, then you probably need a CS degree.
If all you are focusing on is which technologies they teach, you are wasting an opportunity and may run in to problems further down your career when ad-hoc design with no fundamentals just isn't good enough.
I doubt any one change would do the trick. The farm lobby is generally just very powerful, both in terms of lobby and social status.
Developer community and 3rd party library support tend to trump things like speed or capability. A language and its VM can be fantastic, but if you have trouble hiring people or finding packaged libraries to include, then its utility is restricted.
*sigh* people are constantly trying to 'reinvent discussion for the modern age', they have been doing this for decades now... and the bulk of the time all we end up with is a repeat of 80s BBSes with some new trendy technology under the hood and little actual advancement...... resulting in decades of half-baked improvements. People keep focusing on the technology and what other technologies it interacts with because, well, geeks like playing with technology.. but the underlying discussion tools just keep reverting back to 'we dont know any better, so lets start from scratch' and forget lessons learned.
I actually had the same problem with Mechwarrior 3. Its physics engine did crazy things if the computer was too fast.... I suspect the problem of games that behave oddly or unplayably on hardware far faster then their developer had access too will be an ongoing on.
There is not much we CAN do about it. This is not a new law, it is a deal worked out between private entities.
Depending on how big of a sheep buffer we get, it is possible they will try to go the 'break the internet' route. As long as the new methods are difficult to use (or require personal vouching) and thus only small groups of people can utilize them, they will not care too much. If the new methods have a low barrier to entry then I would not put it above them to start pushing for 'net breaking changes.
If it were a law you could challenge it.. but no, this is their own system so that content providers will not keep harassing them (or, in some cases, because of mergers).. and because there are no viable alternatives, not much we can do.
Ah, then I will use my power as a consumer to patronize a provider who's behavior is more inline with my expectations.
Oh.. wait... that would require competition....
Unfortunately, you are about right. If one looks at the various enforcement systems like youtube, the system is wired for who can harass who. Complaints against known entities will be deleted, while ones against small producers or individuals from companies are handled without question.
You only gets much justice as you can threaten problems for whoever is handling it.
I am not sure I completely agree at this point. The cases where you get significantly better performance out of other languages are very task specific. Sometimes thing like manual control over memory allocation can make a huge difference, but most of the time it comes out pretty even.. and no language really escapes big O, which when your sets get large enough, the differences between languages can quickly become trivial.
Which actually makes a lot of sense. When choosing a language, often the biggest issues are not ones of language features but of community and familiarity.
Yeah, that produces a bit of a barrier. Once one has a good feel for what works everywhere and what does not it can make a good tool (I develop wxPython apps for Linux/Windows/OSX) but the 'oh wait, that doesn't work here' traps can be discouraging. Their documentation has improved significantly in that regard though.
Python has also made some good advances for those criteria, esp if you couple it with something like wxPython.
Damn, and I am out of mod points.
Though thinking back to 'what first language should I learn in order to XYZ', people get just as religious about that type of question as they do about single language support.