Want's everything handed to them with minimal effort, allowing the vast majority of their time spent on satisfying themselves and their desires.
I spoke about balance. I think working hard is very important. But I also think taking time for yourself is important. I'm not complaining about a 40 hour work week... or even a 50 hour work week... I'm talking about 12+hr days, 6-7 days a week. And if you succeed, you get invited back for more of the same? That's not balance.
Why are implying that anything less than 84+ hour work weeks is "minimal effort".
At least until you graduate and find you spent so much time enjoying yourself that you didn't learn a damn thing and are now thousands of dollars in debt with little to no desirable skills.
I graduated from university, learned a ton, have no debt, and am fully employed, working for myself, from home, on terms I dictate. If only I'd gone to slavecamp because I've really messed things up.
If they play their cards right, these graduates could be highly sought after and paid well.
Sure, who wouldn't want people who demonstrated they are willing to work 80+ hours a week, and think I have a 'perfect right' to set any terms I like to keep 'investing' in them. Sounds like perfect slaves, er I mean... patsies, er I mean... 'valued employees'.
They have a perfect right to make you work hard and prove you are worthy of them continuing to invest in you.
So if instead of paying you money, the boss just provides you a mattress to sleep on and some free chow, and calls it on-the-job-education-training-internship instead of 'employment' then he has the "perfect right" to do whatever he wants with your working conditions...
Oh, how about instead of free of room and board they organize it a bit and pay you in company scrip instead. You can use that scrip to rent a room from the the company lodging and you can buy your food in the company store. What a great new idea! I wonder why all companies don't do this. I should write an app...
Why the strawman argument? Nobody ever suggested anything of the sort. Are you being deliberately moronic or are you failing at basic reading comprehension?
The part where after the month, those that were most successful are invited back...
It's called stupid. The fact that I won't work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week on somehting for months on end has zero correlation with how successful I will be at something.
Whoever remains, you can be assure they are worth their damn and deserve to get their education and boarding for free for the next three years.
If nothing else, you can be sure they're the sort of person who will put up with working 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. And isn't that what they really want?
Also, this is not unheard of.
As if something being 'heard of' makes it a good idea.
The rigor, the attrition, it is simply necessary
It's really not. At certain stages of certain peoples lives it is something they can afford to do, and some of the people who can afford to do this, will find it worth their while. But it is not necessary. Not by a long shot.
This is the same for people trying to do a career change or start his/her own company.
As someone who has done the latter, I can say that failing to maintain a work life balance to get something off the ground is essentially the result of the lack of resources or the lack of planning.
Think of it this way, you wouldn't have to work 12 hour days for months on end if you'd had enough starting capital (for employees etc) and proper planning so you'd be able to get it off the ground and still take weekends off etc. Its certainly true that one can substitute 'sweat equity' for 'startup capital' or 'knowledge' if you want to (and many people do), but its not necessary, and its not even necessarily your best option. And to my mind, if you are starting your own business, and find yourself working 12+ hour days for months on end, your probably doing something wrong, something has gotten away from you... and maybe you'll pull through with enough sweat equity. But if that's your plan going in?? Not a great plan.
But, to a certain extent sure, to each their own, if your the sort that wants to make a career change, as quickly as possible, and want to put your life and family and everything else on hold for months on end... fill your boots. But it is not the only way, it is not necessary, and its really not even all that healthy; so its not something we should be advocating or applauding. Those people in my experience, just live to work, its not a bootcamp where they come out the other side and settle into a 9-5... no, they're "those people" and they'll be putting in 60-80 hours+ week until they crash and burn.
for fuck sake it never ends with you people. we don't want the jobs sent overseas, we don't want you to hire overseas workers here, we don't want you to invest in any kind of education that might prepare future generations of Americans for employment in your sector, we don't want you providing training for local workers.
I completely agree with your sentiment... but this... from the summary?
"Students spend 12 or more hours per day, six to seven days per week. If they do well, students are invited back...
WTF? Is that to condition you for the jobs they plan on giving you when you 'graduate'?
And this from your post:
some of you people here are so crap at your jobs that you're shitscared you'll be replaced by akmed from punjab province at $5 a day, the next round of college grads that took and intro to computers class during their studies or weed-smoking phil from down the street who spent 3 days at a code college training course.
I am 'shitscared' of any trend that appears to be designed to reset the work-life balance scale down to industrial revolution levels. If the up and coming work force are conditioned to accepting 12 hour days, 6-7 days a week, that represents a problem, for all of us.
I did. and so, yes, i guess outright dropping the packets isn't going to fly, but i still wonder if there is room to proxy it in some way, and make a single connection to the target count as multiple attempts...
Not if the AI is also morally superior. Selfishness is a human flaw. We just won't code that into our AI
What is morally superior about placing humanity at the top of the pyramid exactly?
Perhaps it will determine that humans are selfish and flawed, and the morally correct choice is to simply eliminate them; since we will inevitably become hostile to it.
Or perhaps sterilizing the majority to keep population in check; the way we treat cats...
Or perhaps it will decide to 'fix' us instead; and make us less 'flawed' however it decides we are flawed. With surgery, drugs, eugenics, selective breeding,...
Or perhaps it will decide the amish model is ideal and simply disperse us into isolated habitats, restrict our access to technology to pre-industrial, and maintain our population levels.
The notion that a superior AI is going to come to the conclusion the most moral course of action is to decide "humanity is pretty much perfect, and I shall exist to serve it" is simply delusional.
I personally only really use the function keys heavily while programming... but I do use them a lot.
In visual studio F5 start F10 - step over F11 - step into Shift-F11 step out Shift F5 - terminate session Ctrl-F9 toggle breakpoint
etc etc etc
In filemaker Pro advanced (script debugging)
Step over F5 Step into f6 Step out F7 Halt Shift-F8 Ctrl-F9 toggle breakpoint Ctrl-F10 edit script etc etc
As Filemaker Pro is x-platform (win+mac) these shortcuts all apply in OSX as well, although "Ctrl" becomes "Command".
And yeah, I absolutely *do* touch type all that stuff... and more. If I wanted to look where I was touching, I might as well use the ribbon/toolbars on the screen.
And this is a "pro" product? Once again, Apple does not seem to have any clue what a pro wants. To them, a pro user is just a richer dumb consumer who has more money to spend on a slightly faster version of the consumer product. Fuck you apple, if you want to make a more expensive macbook air for rich consumers fill your boots! but make pro products for pro users. The last perfect macbook pro I had was from 2009 -- it had Ethernet, DVDRW, etc. My 2015 unit; im fine lugging around a DVDRW as an external USB device as I rarely need it, but I wish the space had been used for cooling and battery; and I really hate the thunderbolt dongle for ethernet.
The 2017 model? Even thinner? (What pro user is asking for that?!!) And now we lose the tactile function keys to a touch ribbon bar? If they'd wanted to make the keys with oled displays in them that might have been a little neat... but this? Thanks for nothing.
We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.
Only if the AI is benevolent and enlightened and some how constrained to serve us. Or it might just decide we get in the way and tax resources it could use better elsewhere.
Through the process of evolution we rose above the other animals; but really what would have been the difference if our intellectual ascension had been carefully orchestrated by a lesser species? Would we likely treat them any better today?
What makes you think we would be served by a superior AI that we created in the long term?
Because the statement 'you cannot prove a negative' is just wrong. It's not nit-picking. Its just wrong.
You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.
We proved that a particular program that could do a particular thing did not exist, and could not exist. How is that NOT a proof of the non-existence of something?
Again: prove there is no Unicorn.
You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.
Suppose I started with a theorem... that "a distinct earthly species genetically related to a goat with a naturally occurring single horn on its forehead and cloven hooves, did not exist" and then I managed to prove it... have I proven the existence and truth of a theorem?
Or have I proven unicorns don't exist?
The two conclusions seem to be intractably related.
Your math examples make no sense, as "there are numbers", so the corresponding prove would be "show that there are no numbers". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your math examples is showing properties of those or certain numbers. That has nothing to do with "non existance" of something.
Allow me to rephrase...with unicorns. (and not intending to be offensive):
Your unicorn examples make no sense, as "there are animals", so the corresponding proof would be "show that there are no animals". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your unicorn example is showing properties of those or certain animals. That has nothing to do with the "non-existence" of something.
With my math and programming examples I am proving that numbers with certain properties don't exist, and programs with certain properties don't exist. With your unicorn example, you are simply asserting that animals with certain properties don't exist.
There really is no difference in the 'logical form' of these propositions. Some of them can be proven, others can't.
The reason the non-existence of unicorns can't proven is more subtle than "its a negative statement". It has to do with the fact that we don't currently understand or describe the universe as a formal system. If we ever solve that and find a grand unified theory of everything that covers every observation, we may suddenly be able to prove (at least assuming the GUT as true) that unicorns for (some precise definition of unicorn) cannot exist, or did not exist... or perhaps do exist somewhere in a universe described by that GUT.
A 'true negative statement' can absolutely be a 'it does not exist statement'.
No positive integral power of 2 ends with 0. That is a true statement that says something does not exist.
2^1 ends in 2... 2^4 ends in 6 2^5 ends in 2... 2^10 ends in 4... 2^16 end in 6...
For all 2^n there does not exist an n>0 such that the result ends in zero. That positive integer does not exist. It's provably true.
Its a true negative statement that says something doesn't exist.
Obviously. But when talking to laymen it is easier to take an example from the physical world. It is easier to understand.
But it leads to all kinds of logical faults. The reason we can't prove whether an arbitrary computer program has bugs, or will halt, etc is really not at all related to why you can't search the universe for unicorns.
Indeed the halting problem (or the correctness problem you mentioned) both have been proven to be true -- and they are also both negative statements of existence:
The halting problem for example can be stated that "There does not exist a program that can determine whether a program + input pair will halt for all program+inputs." And we've proved this is true. (using... a proof modeled on Cantor's diagnoal proof...)
The program correctness problem can be similiarly stated (and proven).
Proving a negative means: prove that there are no primes at all.
No. Proving a negative simply means to prove a statement "such and such is not true".
The point is: you can not enumerate all numbers and check every one
You don't have to.
Take a look a Cantor's diagonal proof. It proves a number is NOT in an infinite table of numbers. (A proof of a negative) And in the the process proves that real set of numbers is not countable. (A proof of another negative.)
In general, for finite search spaces you can use a proof by exhaustion. For countable (and even for some uncountable) infinite search spaces you can use an inductive proof or proof by contradiction.
Hence you could not prove that a certain number property does not exist,
"No positive integral powers of 2 end in 0"
It's a statement that a certain number property doesn't exist. (Thus a negative.) And you don't have to check every positive integer to prove the statement is true.
The Unicorn is the typical example. Because you can not check every point of the universe and make sure there is none, you can not prove Unicorns don't exist. Only the existence.
That only argues that you can't exhaustively search the universe.
Whether or not you need to search the universe to prove unicorns exists depends on your criteria for what a unicorn is. After all the Ringling brothers had one in their circus until the 80s.
If you are programmer you should have learned that in school or at the latest in university.
Quite so. However I think you must have misunderstood. Proving the existence of something is always possible using a direct proof by example. (Prove there exists a prime number greater than 5: ok... 7. done.) Proving the non-existence something is harder since you have use less direct proof techniques.
But in general, there are many true negative statements that absolutely are provable. And there are many true positive statements that are not provable.
Further, when you start to talk about programming and formal logic, the word 'proof' itself generally is reserved for pure mathematics and logic not the physical world. In the physical world, we really only have theories and evidence, not proofs of anything, positive or negative.
And there are other techniques one can use to prove other negatives. "Or: prove unicorns don't exist, in case you are religious and God is a hot topic for you."
Define 'not exist' and clarify the properties of unicorns. I'm reasonably confident that unless you make some rather extravagant claims of bizarre properties that I should have no real difficulty proving there are no unicorns in my living room right now.
Granted that's not nearly as strong as proving they don't exist anywhere at all for all time. But nevertheless I've still proven a negative.
Rotten Tomatoes shows that the average rating was in fact 4.1 out of 10; which matches metacritic's pretty well.
While the 29% just means that 70% of critics "didn't like it".
I'm not sure that represents a problem with the methodology; since they give both numbers, and both numbers mean something useful.
I suppose you could question which number means "more", given they make one number much bigger than the other. But if they are including a lot of critic reviews which are simply yay or nay then maybe assigning a score to those on a scale of 1 to 10 would be less honest.
The parent post does not know the difference between Marvel & DC Comics
Misread the summary as saying there was a bias against marvel universe movies, instead of DC universe movies. I've corrected that error in a follow up post.
and claims the movie is "certified fresh" at 73%, when it is actually 32% (rotten).
And then you misread my post. I was repsonding to a post about ghostbusters' rating, so my post starts by looking at the ghostbusters (2016) rating, which is 73% by critics and 58% by audiences.
Yes, Suicide Squad is currently at 31%. And since it hasn't been released yet, there is no audience rating yet.
Yeah, I misread the original summary, and made a follow up post to look at DC titles.
" I will say Batman vs Superman was a lot better than critics gave it credit for."
Rotten tomatoes tends to agree with you. There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%. However, I think the critics are "right" in the sense that if you try to look at that movie with a critical eye that it's as dumb as a bag of hammers. But it's a 'fan service' movie. So the audiences that went to see, by and large, got what they wanted and were happy with it.
Yeah, I mis-read it. And posted a follow up to try and rectify the mistake.
But the notion that there is industry wide bias against DC movies vs Marvel movies among movie reviewers is kind of ridiculous.
While I do know the difference -- I promise -- you'll note I only mentioned Marvel titles in my OP:) let me keep my nerd card! Nevertheless, the sibling post suggesting I didn't know the difference still makes an excellent argument, with respect to "to most reviewers" its just going to be a "comic book movie".
I realized afterwards the complaint was about DC movies... not marvel... and yeah... that's a harder list.
Green Lantern crities panned it (25%) but the audience didn't like it much better (45%); and I think the rating is fair.
Watchmen did ok... 65% and 71% and although I liked it, for what it was, the movie really was only ok; but it had pacing issues in the directors cut, and didn't make enough sense in the theatrical release.
I haven't seen the Losers or Jonah Hex, so won't comment on them; except to note that both were rated dismally by critics AND audiences alike.
V for Vendetta picked up 73% and 90%; and I quite liked it.
As for Batman or Superman films. (The Batman Reboot ("Dark Knight") obviously did very well with critics; and Superman did well if not as well. The constant re-re-booting of the franchise with new casting isn't doing it any favors... and the public at large still holds a special place in their hearts for Reeve's superman.
Superman v Batman; where the critics gave it 27% and the audience gives it 65% is really the only disconnect between critics and audiences... and that makes sense. Its as stupid as a bag of hammers. Anyone looking at the movie critically has to accept that its just that dumb. And then it took itself way too seriously for how stupid a concept it was. But it does a lot of fan service too so I can see why the audience was more accepting of it. (especially since the audience is self-selecting people who WANT to go see batman v superman...)
So again... no I don't think there is a bias against the DC extended universe. They just need to make better movies.
Its 'certified fresh' at 73%, with an average rating of 6.4/10, with an audience rating of 58%. Seems pretty fair to me, and suggests it is a fair but nothing special movie.
For comparison, the Daredevil TV series is 86% fresh, with 95% audience approval; Deadpool is 84% with 91%. Jessica Jones TV series got 93% and 90%. Antman got 81% and 86%. Gaurdians of the Galaxy got 91% and 92%.
I've seen all of these and they were all pretty good. I think the ratings are pretty fair.
So NO, I don't think there is a bias against Marvel's extended universe at all. I think Suicide Squad is likely to be a pretty weak movie.
"I wouldn't do #3, when it comes to UI I usually let the user handle that. My 2 cents."
I find the start menu much more pleasant without any tiles on it. You are right of course that its down to user preference; and some may like some tiles but turning off the default live tiles should be considered part of de-crappifying windows; since most of them literally just display crap. (celebrity gossip on the news tiles, ads for crap on some of the others, etc).
But even the more benign like the photos one which displays photos from your photo folder... who wants that? Who opens the start menu to find something and thinks to themselves this would be a good time be distracted by a random photo? It just doesn't make a lick of sense from a UX perspective.
Perhaps the weather and calendar make sense to leave on. Down to user preference...
"Just not opting in and turning off web searches will do a local search"
Is that post anniversary update? I haven't done the update yet; so haven't seen the new settings exactly. I wasn't sure you could turn off web searches in the update. If you can then I'd do as you suggest... simply turn off the cortana listening to the mic; opt out of a microsoft account; and turn off web search.
If it is one of those low-end machines with only 32GB of onboard storage for the C: drive (and hidden system partitions), then a large capacity (at least 64GB), fast (Class 10) (micro)SD card should be used for anything that can be put there such as files and apps (think that is an option for installing new apps?).
For a highschool or university student? Loss, theft, or breakage is going to be the larger issue; I'd proably just use onedrive or dropbox or something for documents. You really don't need that much space for essays and powerpoint etc and even the odd video project.
lso, the card would be good for using for installing Portable Apps from portableapps.com to minimize updates needing the admin account usage I believe
Probably needs none of those. I'd give the kid the admin password and let them do updates. If they foul the thing up, its a learning experience.
and to stick with free software to help her student software budget (keeping at zero $$ such as using OpenOffice to see if she can use that instead of paying to subscribe to Office365?).
My daughter's (public) high school has free office 365 educational edition for the students. And a web portal for her to submit written assignments to, download class notes and assignments etc. Most of its in Office formats. She's not expected to buy any software.
If you are expected to purchase office, then sure consider investigating openoffice etc but I think you are over thinking it.
So far my daughter hasn't luanched Excel. She's done some stuff in powerpoint and in word. Her powerpoint stuff was a group project so everyone using the same software, and being able to collaborate was the larger concern. Using OO would have been counter productive.
Definitely expose the kid to other office suites. But don't let your biases and principles get in the way of them using the tools that make the most sense; especially when the school is providing them and expecting them to be used.
I would especially like to avoid forcing her to create / use a Microsoft Account just to use the bloody computer (that part feels Big Brother creepy).
Trivial. Just don't create one.
Windows 8.1 was kind of sneaky... at the sign in screen it prompts you for a microsoft account; and either you sign in with a microsoft account, or you create new account. You had to click "Create New Account" on the sign in (which you RIGHTFULLY think is taking you to create a new microsoft account that you don't want, but at the bottom of that screen was the option to sign in without a microsoft account after all.) So it was there, but it was a bit sneaky.
Windows 10...there is a "Skip this step" option at the bottom of the sign in with a microsoft account screen. This is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
As for de-crapifying... 1) Select customize settings during install, and turn pretty much everything to 'off'.
2) When its finished installing, go into the privacy settings, (just type privacy on the start menu, and "Location Privacy Settings") Go through that.
3) Turn off all live tiles and unpin them from your start menu. (Some people advocate using a classic shell etc... I wouldn't do that, the wi10 start menu is really pretty solid in my opinion.)
4) Change default app settings (again just type 'default ' into the start menu. Odds are you'll need to install a few programs first... e.g. download Firefox or Chrome before changing the default browser from Edge.
5) Cortana -- up until now, I've just turned it off. With the anniversary edtion that's no longer an option. I'm not 100% sure what will need to be done going forward. As long as I can can prevent it from querying bing when i do searches I'll probably just leave it on, because i generally only want local results. (I use a web browser when i want to search the web). If I can't ill just set it so its not listening and remove it from the task bar, and install a 3rd party search tool. I'm sure this will sort itself out over the next few days.
6) Telemetry... I use Spybot Anti-Beacon. There are other tools that do this as well.
While I don't like the telemetry and cortana; I find win 10 perfectly serviceable, and an upgrade to 7 in most ways.
If you haven't used 10 before, note that you can right-click on the start menu to get to a lot of useful shortcuts. (Programs and Features, System, Device Manager, Event Viewer, etc, etc... very nice)
I am not a linux expert to the same level that I am with windows, but I'm no newbie either. I have 2 debian servers in my home office running things like owncloud, and so forth. I've setup and managed centos and debian, and ubuntu servers in production environments, virtualized, and on bare metal. I am comfortable with linux, and I like it.
But I've got a bunch of Acer Aspire X1900 and similar units that I tried installing Mint; and still haven't been able to get Mint to even install. I tried a couple weekends ago... don't recall the errors offhand. I thought i might just have a bad system, but it wouldn't go onto any of them.
I also had to chase down some firmware files for the ethernet during the installer, which was pretty unintuitive, and would have been WAY over the head of most 'first time users'.
And then, like I said, the install still failed to complete.
I'll try again when i've got some more free time.
everything I needed for productivity was already installed, including an open office suite.
It must be nice that your needs are THAT vanilla.
Compare that to a typical Windows install.
In order to prove what? My average windows install goes smoother than my average Linux one. There are horror stories for both, but on average, windows goes in easier in my experience.
I suppose Wndows lacks open/libreoffice out of the box... but so what? That isn't terribly useful to me anyway, because I work with other people who use excel.. and not just simple excel... macros, VBA, OLAP etc.
Could that workflow be recreated in open office? Most of it yes... although linking quickbooks to libreoffice won't work (quickbooks uses Excel automation to generate its excel exports so it HAS to have excel to export a spreadsheet).
Of course, that's moot on linux since quickbooks on linux doesn't really fly either.
But I wasn't trying to replace my main desktop computer, I knew that Linux wasn't going to meet my needs for that. I was just fooling around with Mint to see how it would go as an HTPC... Kodi, Netflix, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
Typical millennial.
My kids are millennials.
Want's everything handed to them with minimal effort, allowing the vast majority of their time spent on satisfying themselves and their desires.
I spoke about balance. I think working hard is very important. But I also think taking time for yourself is important. I'm not complaining about a 40 hour work week... or even a 50 hour work week... I'm talking about 12+hr days, 6-7 days a week. And if you succeed, you get invited back for more of the same? That's not balance.
Why are implying that anything less than 84+ hour work weeks is "minimal effort".
At least until you graduate and find you spent so much time enjoying yourself that you didn't learn a damn thing and are now thousands of dollars in debt with little to no desirable skills.
I graduated from university, learned a ton, have no debt, and am fully employed, working for myself, from home, on terms I dictate. If only I'd gone to slavecamp because I've really messed things up.
If they play their cards right, these graduates could be highly sought after and paid well.
Sure, who wouldn't want people who demonstrated they are willing to work 80+ hours a week, and think I have a 'perfect right' to set any terms I like to keep 'investing' in them. Sounds like perfect slaves, er I mean... patsies, er I mean... 'valued employees'.
They have a perfect right to make you work hard and prove you are worthy of them continuing to invest in you.
So if instead of paying you money, the boss just provides you a mattress to sleep on and some free chow, and calls it on-the-job-education-training-internship instead of 'employment' then he has the "perfect right" to do whatever he wants with your working conditions...
Oh, how about instead of free of room and board they organize it a bit and pay you in company scrip instead. You can use that scrip to rent a room from the the company lodging and you can buy your food in the company store. What a great new idea! I wonder why all companies don't do this. I should write an app...
Why the strawman argument? Nobody ever suggested anything of the sort. Are you being deliberately moronic or are you failing at basic reading comprehension?
The part where after the month, those that were most successful are invited back...
It's called attrition.
It's called stupid. The fact that I won't work 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week on somehting for months on end has zero correlation with how successful I will be at something.
Whoever remains, you can be assure they are worth their damn and deserve to get their education and boarding for free for the next three years.
If nothing else, you can be sure they're the sort of person who will put up with working 12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. And isn't that what they really want?
Also, this is not unheard of.
As if something being 'heard of' makes it a good idea.
The rigor, the attrition, it is simply necessary
It's really not. At certain stages of certain peoples lives it is something they can afford to do, and some of the people who can afford to do this, will find it worth their while. But it is not necessary. Not by a long shot.
This is the same for people trying to do a career change or start his/her own company.
As someone who has done the latter, I can say that failing to maintain a work life balance to get something off the ground is essentially the result of the lack of resources or the lack of planning.
Think of it this way, you wouldn't have to work 12 hour days for months on end if you'd had enough starting capital (for employees etc) and proper planning so you'd be able to get it off the ground and still take weekends off etc. Its certainly true that one can substitute 'sweat equity' for 'startup capital' or 'knowledge' if you want to (and many people do), but its not necessary, and its not even necessarily your best option. And to my mind, if you are starting your own business, and find yourself working 12+ hour days for months on end, your probably doing something wrong, something has gotten away from you ... and maybe you'll pull through with enough sweat equity. But if that's your plan going in?? Not a great plan.
But, to a certain extent sure, to each their own, if your the sort that wants to make a career change, as quickly as possible, and want to put your life and family and everything else on hold for months on end... fill your boots. But it is not the only way, it is not necessary, and its really not even all that healthy; so its not something we should be advocating or applauding. Those people in my experience, just live to work, its not a bootcamp where they come out the other side and settle into a 9-5... no, they're "those people" and they'll be putting in 60-80 hours+ week until they crash and burn.
for fuck sake it never ends with you people. we don't want the jobs sent overseas, we don't want you to hire overseas workers here, we don't want you to invest in any kind of education that might prepare future generations of Americans for employment in your sector, we don't want you providing training for local workers.
I completely agree with your sentiment... but this... from the summary?
"Students spend 12 or more hours per day, six to seven days per week. If they do well, students are invited back...
WTF? Is that to condition you for the jobs they plan on giving you when you 'graduate'?
And this from your post:
some of you people here are so crap at your jobs that you're shitscared you'll be replaced by akmed from punjab province at $5 a day, the next round of college grads that took and intro to computers class during their studies or weed-smoking phil from down the street who spent 3 days at a code college training course.
I am 'shitscared' of any trend that appears to be designed to reset the work-life balance scale down to industrial revolution levels. If the up and coming work force are conditioned to accepting 12 hour days, 6-7 days a week, that represents a problem, for all of us.
I did. and so, yes, i guess outright dropping the packets isn't going to fly, but i still wonder if there is room to proxy it in some way, and make a single connection to the target count as multiple attempts...
Is it spoofable?
Can I simply drop the ddos packets at my outgoing firewall, but still show as having contributed, and having 'done the work' ?
Or setup a target virtual machine on the IP address, configure my router to point at that, and then ddos the shite out of it ?
Not if the AI is also morally superior. Selfishness is a human flaw. We just won't code that into our AI
What is morally superior about placing humanity at the top of the pyramid exactly?
Perhaps it will determine that humans are selfish and flawed, and the morally correct choice is to simply eliminate them; since we will inevitably become hostile to it.
Or perhaps sterilizing the majority to keep population in check; the way we treat cats...
Or perhaps it will decide to 'fix' us instead; and make us less 'flawed' however it decides we are flawed. With surgery, drugs, eugenics, selective breeding, ...
Or perhaps it will decide the amish model is ideal and simply disperse us into isolated habitats, restrict our access to technology to pre-industrial, and maintain our population levels.
The notion that a superior AI is going to come to the conclusion the most moral course of action is to decide "humanity is pretty much perfect, and I shall exist to serve it" is simply delusional.
I personally only really use the function keys heavily while programming... but I do use them a lot.
In visual studio
F5 start
F10 - step over
F11 - step into
Shift-F11 step out
Shift F5 - terminate session
Ctrl-F9 toggle breakpoint
etc etc etc
In filemaker Pro advanced (script debugging)
Step over F5
Step into f6
Step out F7
Halt Shift-F8
Ctrl-F9 toggle breakpoint
Ctrl-F10 edit script
etc etc
As Filemaker Pro is x-platform (win+mac) these shortcuts all apply in OSX as well, although "Ctrl" becomes "Command".
And yeah, I absolutely *do* touch type all that stuff... and more.
If I wanted to look where I was touching, I might as well use the ribbon/toolbars on the screen.
And this is a "pro" product? Once again, Apple does not seem to have any clue what a pro wants. To them, a pro user is just a richer dumb consumer who has more money to spend on a slightly faster version of the consumer product. Fuck you apple, if you want to make a more expensive macbook air for rich consumers fill your boots! but make pro products for pro users. The last perfect macbook pro I had was from 2009 -- it had Ethernet, DVDRW, etc. My 2015 unit; im fine lugging around a DVDRW as an external USB device as I rarely need it, but I wish the space had been used for cooling and battery; and I really hate the thunderbolt dongle for ethernet.
The 2017 model? Even thinner? (What pro user is asking for that?!!) And now we lose the tactile function keys to a touch ribbon bar? If they'd wanted to make the keys with oled displays in them that might have been a little neat... but this? Thanks for nothing.
Who's "we"? If your job gets replaced by a robot, you aren't served, but somebody is.
"we" are humanity.
You think the AI, if it is truly superior, is likely to serve anyone but itself or at least its own kind in the long run?
We will have A.I. making most of our decisions for us, and we will love it that way. It is just a matter of time.
Only if the AI is benevolent and enlightened and some how constrained to serve us. Or it might just decide we get in the way and tax resources it could use better elsewhere.
Through the process of evolution we rose above the other animals; but really what would have been the difference if our intellectual ascension had been carefully orchestrated by a lesser species? Would we likely treat them any better today?
What makes you think we would be served by a superior AI that we created in the long term?
Why are you nitpicking?
Because the statement 'you cannot prove a negative' is just wrong. It's not nit-picking. Its just wrong.
You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.
We proved that a particular program that could do a particular thing did not exist, and could not exist. How is that NOT a proof of the non-existence of something?
Again: prove there is no Unicorn.
You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.
Suppose I started with a theorem... that "a distinct earthly species genetically related to a goat with a naturally occurring single horn on its forehead and cloven hooves, did not exist" and then I managed to prove it... have I proven the existence and truth of a theorem?
Or have I proven unicorns don't exist?
The two conclusions seem to be intractably related.
Your math examples make no sense, as "there are numbers", so the corresponding prove would be "show that there are no numbers". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your math examples is showing properties of those or certain numbers. That has nothing to do with "non existance" of something.
Allow me to rephrase...with unicorns. (and not intending to be offensive):
Your unicorn examples make no sense, as "there are animals", so the corresponding proof would be "show that there are no animals". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your unicorn example is showing properties of those or certain animals. That has nothing to do with the "non-existence" of something.
With my math and programming examples I am proving that numbers with certain properties don't exist, and programs with certain properties don't exist. With your unicorn example, you are simply asserting that animals with certain properties don't exist.
There really is no difference in the 'logical form' of these propositions. Some of them can be proven, others can't.
The reason the non-existence of unicorns can't proven is more subtle than "its a negative statement". It has to do with the fact that we don't currently understand or describe the universe as a formal system. If we ever solve that and find a grand unified theory of everything that covers every observation, we may suddenly be able to prove (at least assuming the GUT as true) that unicorns for (some precise definition of unicorn) cannot exist, or did not exist... or perhaps do exist somewhere in a universe described by that GUT.
A 'true negative statement' can absolutely be a 'it does not exist statement'.
No positive integral power of 2 ends with 0. That is a true statement that says something does not exist.
2^1 ends in 2 ... ... ... ...
2^4 ends in 6
2^5 ends in 2
2^10 ends in 4
2^16 end in 6
For all 2^n there does not exist an n>0 such that the result ends in zero.
That positive integer does not exist.
It's provably true.
Its a true negative statement that says something doesn't exist.
Obviously. But when talking to laymen it is easier to take an example from the physical world. It is easier to understand.
But it leads to all kinds of logical faults. The reason we can't prove whether an arbitrary computer program has bugs, or will halt, etc is really not at all related to why you can't search the universe for unicorns.
Indeed the halting problem (or the correctness problem you mentioned) both have been proven to be true -- and they are also both negative statements of existence:
The halting problem for example can be stated that "There does not exist a program that can determine whether a program + input pair will halt for all program+inputs." And we've proved this is true. (using... a proof modeled on Cantor's diagnoal proof...)
The program correctness problem can be similiarly stated (and proven).
Proving a negative means: prove that there are no primes at all.
No. Proving a negative simply means to prove a statement "such and such is not true".
The point is: you can not enumerate all numbers and check every one
You don't have to.
Take a look a Cantor's diagonal proof. It proves a number is NOT in an infinite table of numbers. (A proof of a negative) And in the the process proves that real set of numbers is not countable. (A proof of another negative.)
In general, for finite search spaces you can use a proof by exhaustion. For countable (and even for some uncountable) infinite search spaces you can use an inductive proof or proof by contradiction.
Hence you could not prove that a certain number property does not exist,
"No positive integral powers of 2 end in 0"
It's a statement that a certain number property doesn't exist. (Thus a negative.) And you don't have to check every positive integer to prove the statement is true.
The Unicorn is the typical example. Because you can not check every point of the universe and make sure there is none, you can not prove Unicorns don't exist. Only the existence.
That only argues that you can't exhaustively search the universe.
Whether or not you need to search the universe to prove unicorns exists depends on your criteria for what a unicorn is. After all the Ringling brothers had one in their circus until the 80s.
If you are programmer you should have learned that in school or at the latest in university.
Quite so. However I think you must have misunderstood. Proving the existence of something is always possible using a direct proof by example. (Prove there exists a prime number greater than 5: ok... 7. done.) Proving the non-existence something is harder since you have use less direct proof techniques.
But in general, there are many true negative statements that absolutely are provable. And there are many true positive statements that are not provable.
Further, when you start to talk about programming and formal logic, the word 'proof' itself generally is reserved for pure mathematics and logic not the physical world. In the physical world, we really only have theories and evidence, not proofs of anything, positive or negative.
Hence: you can not prove a negative.
Of course you can prove a negative.
Prove that there are no prime integers between 23 and 29:
24 - 3x8
25 - 5x5
26 - 2x13
27 - 3x9
28 - 4x7
QED
Prove that that the set of real numbers is not countable... see Cantor's Diagonal proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And there are other techniques one can use to prove other negatives.
"Or: prove unicorns don't exist, in case you are religious and God is a hot topic for you."
Define 'not exist' and clarify the properties of unicorns. I'm reasonably confident that unless you make some rather extravagant claims of bizarre properties that I should have no real difficulty proving there are no unicorns in my living room right now.
Granted that's not nearly as strong as proving they don't exist anywhere at all for all time. But nevertheless I've still proven a negative.
Rotten Tomatoes shows that the average rating was in fact 4.1 out of 10; which matches metacritic's pretty well.
While the 29% just means that 70% of critics "didn't like it".
I'm not sure that represents a problem with the methodology; since they give both numbers, and both numbers mean something useful.
I suppose you could question which number means "more", given they make one number much bigger than the other. But if they are including a lot of critic reviews which are simply yay or nay then maybe assigning a score to those on a scale of 1 to 10 would be less honest.
The parent post does not know the difference between Marvel & DC Comics
Misread the summary as saying there was a bias against marvel universe movies, instead of DC universe movies. I've corrected that error in a follow up post.
and claims the movie is "certified fresh" at 73%, when it is actually 32% (rotten).
And then you misread my post. I was repsonding to a post about ghostbusters' rating, so my post starts by looking at the ghostbusters (2016) rating, which is 73% by critics and 58% by audiences.
Yes, Suicide Squad is currently at 31%. And since it hasn't been released yet, there is no audience rating yet.
Jeez, informative??? More like a subtle Troll..
Your too quick to jump to conclusions.
Yeah, I misread the original summary, and made a follow up post to look at DC titles.
" I will say Batman vs Superman was a lot better than critics gave it credit for."
Rotten tomatoes tends to agree with you. There is a big disconnect between critics and audiences on that one... 27% to 65%. However, I think the critics are "right" in the sense that if you try to look at that movie with a critical eye that it's as dumb as a bag of hammers. But it's a 'fan service' movie. So the audiences that went to see, by and large, got what they wanted and were happy with it.
Yeah, I mis-read it. And posted a follow up to try and rectify the mistake.
But the notion that there is industry wide bias against DC movies vs Marvel movies among movie reviewers is kind of ridiculous.
While I do know the difference -- I promise -- you'll note I only mentioned Marvel titles in my OP :) let me keep my nerd card! Nevertheless, the sibling post suggesting I didn't know the difference still makes an excellent argument, with respect to "to most reviewers" its just going to be a "comic book movie".
I realized afterwards the complaint was about DC movies... not marvel... and yeah... that's a harder list.
Green Lantern crities panned it (25%) but the audience didn't like it much better (45%); and I think the rating is fair.
Watchmen did ok... 65% and 71% and although I liked it, for what it was, the movie really was only ok; but it had pacing issues in the directors cut, and didn't make enough sense in the theatrical release.
I haven't seen the Losers or Jonah Hex, so won't comment on them; except to note that both were rated dismally by critics AND audiences alike.
V for Vendetta picked up 73% and 90%; and I quite liked it.
As for Batman or Superman films. (The Batman Reboot ("Dark Knight") obviously did very well with critics; and Superman did well if not as well. The constant re-re-booting of the franchise with new casting isn't doing it any favors... and the public at large still holds a special place in their hearts for Reeve's superman.
Superman v Batman; where the critics gave it 27% and the audience gives it 65% is really the only disconnect between critics and audiences... and that makes sense. Its as stupid as a bag of hammers. Anyone looking at the movie critically has to accept that its just that dumb. And then it took itself way too seriously for how stupid a concept it was. But it does a lot of fan service too so I can see why the audience was more accepting of it. (especially since the audience is self-selecting people who WANT to go see batman v superman...)
So again... no I don't think there is a bias against the DC extended universe. They just need to make better movies.
Its 'certified fresh' at 73%, with an average rating of 6.4/10, with an audience rating of 58%. Seems pretty fair to me, and suggests it is a fair but nothing special movie.
For comparison, the Daredevil TV series is 86% fresh, with 95% audience approval; Deadpool is 84% with 91%. Jessica Jones TV series got 93% and 90%. Antman got 81% and 86%. Gaurdians of the Galaxy got 91% and 92%.
I've seen all of these and they were all pretty good. I think the ratings are pretty fair.
So NO, I don't think there is a bias against Marvel's extended universe at all. I think Suicide Squad is likely to be a pretty weak movie.
"I wouldn't do #3, when it comes to UI I usually let the user handle that. My 2 cents."
I find the start menu much more pleasant without any tiles on it. You are right of course that its down to user preference; and some may like some tiles but turning off the default live tiles should be considered part of de-crappifying windows; since most of them literally just display crap. (celebrity gossip on the news tiles, ads for crap on some of the others, etc).
But even the more benign like the photos one which displays photos from your photo folder... who wants that? Who opens the start menu to find something and thinks to themselves this would be a good time be distracted by a random photo? It just doesn't make a lick of sense from a UX perspective.
Perhaps the weather and calendar make sense to leave on. Down to user preference...
"Just not opting in and turning off web searches will do a local search"
Is that post anniversary update? I haven't done the update yet; so haven't seen the new settings exactly. I wasn't sure you could turn off web searches in the update. If you can then I'd do as you suggest... simply turn off the cortana listening to the mic; opt out of a microsoft account; and turn off web search.
As a regular user I think this is sufficient.
As a paranoid user... boot Tails off a DVD.
One more time: cloud sync is not a backup service.
You are right. Its not. But for a high school kid its probably sufficient, and the price is right.
Dropbox for example has file versioning, and the ability to actually restore deleted files. (via the web interface).
It also protects the user from theft/loss/breakage of the laptop.
2 local accounts should be created.
That just generally good advice.
If it is one of those low-end machines with only 32GB of onboard storage for the C: drive (and hidden system partitions), then a large capacity (at least 64GB), fast (Class 10) (micro)SD card should be used for anything that can be put there such as files and apps (think that is an option for installing new apps?).
For a highschool or university student? Loss, theft, or breakage is going to be the larger issue; I'd proably just use onedrive or dropbox or something for documents. You really don't need that much space for essays and powerpoint etc and even the odd video project.
lso, the card would be good for using for installing Portable Apps from portableapps.com to minimize updates needing the admin account usage I believe
Probably needs none of those. I'd give the kid the admin password and let them do updates. If they foul the thing up, its a learning experience.
and to stick with free software to help her student software budget (keeping at zero $$ such as using OpenOffice to see if she can use that instead of paying to subscribe to Office365?).
My daughter's (public) high school has free office 365 educational edition for the students. And a web portal for her to submit written assignments to, download class notes and assignments etc. Most of its in Office formats. She's not expected to buy any software.
If you are expected to purchase office, then sure consider investigating openoffice etc but I think you are over thinking it.
So far my daughter hasn't luanched Excel. She's done some stuff in powerpoint and in word. Her powerpoint stuff was a group project so everyone using the same software, and being able to collaborate was the larger concern. Using OO would have been counter productive.
Definitely expose the kid to other office suites. But don't let your biases and principles get in the way of them using the tools that make the most sense; especially when the school is providing them and expecting them to be used.
I would especially like to avoid forcing her to create / use a Microsoft Account just to use the bloody computer (that part feels Big Brother creepy).
Trivial. Just don't create one.
Windows 8.1 was kind of sneaky... at the sign in screen it prompts you for a microsoft account; and either you sign in with a microsoft account, or you create new account. You had to click "Create New Account" on the sign in (which you RIGHTFULLY think is taking you to create a new microsoft account that you don't want, but at the bottom of that screen was the option to sign in without a microsoft account after all.) So it was there, but it was a bit sneaky.
Windows 10...there is a "Skip this step" option at the bottom of the sign in with a microsoft account screen. This is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
As for de-crapifying...
1) Select customize settings during install, and turn pretty much everything to 'off'.
2) When its finished installing, go into the privacy settings, (just type privacy on the start menu, and "Location Privacy Settings") Go through that.
3) Turn off all live tiles and unpin them from your start menu. (Some people advocate using a classic shell etc... I wouldn't do that, the wi10 start menu is really pretty solid in my opinion.)
4) Change default app settings (again just type 'default ' into the start menu. Odds are you'll need to install a few programs first... e.g. download Firefox or Chrome before changing the default browser from Edge.
5) Cortana -- up until now, I've just turned it off. With the anniversary edtion that's no longer an option. I'm not 100% sure what will need to be done going forward. As long as I can can prevent it from querying bing when i do searches I'll probably just leave it on, because i generally only want local results. (I use a web browser when i want to search the web). If I can't ill just set it so its not listening and remove it from the task bar, and install a 3rd party search tool. I'm sure this will sort itself out over the next few days.
6) Telemetry ... I use Spybot Anti-Beacon. There are other tools that do this as well.
While I don't like the telemetry and cortana; I find win 10 perfectly serviceable, and an upgrade to 7 in most ways.
If you haven't used 10 before, note that you can right-click on the start menu to get to a lot of useful shortcuts. (Programs and Features, System, Device Manager, Event Viewer, etc, etc... very nice)
I am not a linux expert to the same level that I am with windows, but I'm no newbie either. I have 2 debian servers in my home office running things like owncloud, and so forth. I've setup and managed centos and debian, and ubuntu servers in production environments, virtualized, and on bare metal. I am comfortable with linux, and I like it.
But I've got a bunch of Acer Aspire X1900 and similar units that I tried installing Mint; and still haven't been able to get Mint to even install. I tried a couple weekends ago... don't recall the errors offhand. I thought i might just have a bad system, but it wouldn't go onto any of them.
I also had to chase down some firmware files for the ethernet during the installer, which was pretty unintuitive, and would have been WAY over the head of most 'first time users'.
And then, like I said, the install still failed to complete.
I'll try again when i've got some more free time.
everything I needed for productivity was already installed, including an open office suite.
It must be nice that your needs are THAT vanilla.
Compare that to a typical Windows install.
In order to prove what? My average windows install goes smoother than my average Linux one. There are horror stories for both, but on average, windows goes in easier in my experience.
I suppose Wndows lacks open/libreoffice out of the box... but so what? That isn't terribly useful to me anyway, because I work with other people who use excel.. and not just simple excel... macros, VBA, OLAP etc.
Could that workflow be recreated in open office? Most of it yes... although linking quickbooks to libreoffice won't work (quickbooks uses Excel automation to generate its excel exports so it HAS to have excel to export a spreadsheet).
Of course, that's moot on linux since quickbooks on linux doesn't really fly either.
But I wasn't trying to replace my main desktop computer, I knew that Linux wasn't going to meet my needs for that. I was just fooling around with Mint to see how it would go as an HTPC... Kodi, Netflix, etc...