I have to wonder how many stockholders actually read the prospectus before buying. I'd bet many of the large institutional investors did, but I'll bet many individuals just joined the frenzy and said "buy me some GOOG", without reading first
"Controlled democracy" is to democracy what military justice is to justice.
Singapore is a very interesting country because it is a very successful country in a lot of respects *despite* not being a democracy. If Singapore would be a democracy, it would be just another western country.
Science is bullshit, the only thing that passes on from generation to generation is culture.
Oh, yeah, and of course that other thing called genes that TFA was all about. Didn't you get the memo?
The concept of race will not go away just because science disproves of it.
Probably true, as with most kinds of superstitions. That doesn't make it real any more than feng shui, crystals or healing is real. Somehow I'm not sure you understand the difference between something existing and the concept of that something haning on.
Race will always exist
No, this is patently false. See above.
Religiously, race will exist, just like capitalism will always exist.
Is this even supposed to mean anythig or is it just rambling?
Cultural conservativism is the answer.
What is the question? In science it is customary (actually, it's mandatory) to start with the question. However, since you don't believe in science, I can see why you would want to skip that part.
The point is, this is our culture, it will not go away, it's in our genetic code to be this way
What exactly do you mean by "this way"? Are you suggesting that society today has the same sets of mores and values we had 200 years ago? What about five thousand years ago? (Oh, I forgot. 5000 years ago was before we were created, so obviously we didn't have any values then. Silly me...)
Frankly I get annoyed by all the off-the-cuff proclamations here by people who don't seem to have children.
Frankly, the rest of us get annoyed by Mr-know-it-all fools. To each his own, I guess.
Your entire perspective on life changes when you have children.
This only happens if you had an incorrect perspective beforehand. Those of us who were rational and intelligent before we had children usually found that we pretty much stayed the same. (Yes, I'm obviously just teasing you, but I hope this shows you the ridiculousness of your argument. Unfortunately, somehow I doubt that...)
For me things like playing sports and other 'real' activities are where I want my childrens focus to be. I will do anything to discourage them to become a software engineer.
Good choice! Being a software engineer tends to require a good grasp of syntax and semantics. Since you seem to be in somewhat short supply of that, chanses are your children are too. I would recommend boxing for your kids. No ridding or righting required there, man!
If a parent doesn't want to expose their children to violent videogames that is their perogative and should be respected.
Really? What a controversial point of view! Have you *ever* met *anyone* who disagrees with you there?
That's why the subject comes up repeatedly, and why it will continue to do so.
No. The reason it comes up repeatedly is that if it would indeed be true, it would be great, because we all would know how to solve a major problem in society.
Unfortunately it isn't true at all, for exactly the same reasons that it wasn't true about jazz music, rock n'roll, comics, video violence etc.
200 years, just before the Industrial Revolution, life may have been harder, but more relaxed.
I hardly think so. 200 years ago, people died from starvation with alarming frequency. What has changed is that most people back then somehow believed more in "fate" or "destiny" or whatever and accepted cruel outcomes such as starvation and oppression to an extent that is unimaginable to people in the western world today.
If people would somehow start being content with starvation, a life expectansy of under 50 years and random oppression, everything would be "fine". Somehow, it seems to me that if that is a solution, we have to redefine the problem...
Maybe, but the burden of proof is surely on them, then. It's pretty obvious that things have improved in every way conceivable during at least the last 700 years. While these improvements may not have been linear throughout history, they have been steadily incrementing.
That is obviously no proof that this will continue indefinitely, but it does shift the burden of proof. And whining, as in TFA, isn't proof.
Yes, exactly. While progress isn't automatic, it's a great deal more probable than decline.
The fall of the roman empire is the only example I can think of where it is reasonable to say that the world as a whole dropped in "level of civilization" in a 100 year span. There may be other, but they are quite infrequent. I see no indication that today is one of those instances.
This to me sounds exactly like what people said about assembly lines in the 1920's. People then thought that they were "approaching a limit in this increased productivity race" as well.
It also reminds me of what people said when computers came into regular use on every desktop 10-15 years ago.
It also reminds me of what people will say in 20 years about (technology x, not yet invented).
it doesn't matter how import any development project is, the phrase "The Comm.'s room is flooding from the ground up, burning from the top down and some berk fell over the wires pulling all the cables out the middle." will always, always get immediate priority.
True, but does this happen often? If so, the fact that you get disturbed shouldn't be your biggest concern. In the environment I work, stuff like that (i.e. stuff that *really* *needs* *immediate* attention, not actual floodings, of course) happens roughly once a week. And that is only because we are a terribly badly run organisation, from an IT point of view. Ideally it should never happen. IRL, it shouldn't happen more than once quarterly, max.
I just fail to believe that stuff like this happens with any frequency at most places. If you really do work at one of those places, get out before the company goes bankrupt...
To me it says that the increase at productivity has come at the cost of some measures of quality of life. When will we wake up and realize that there's more to life than per capita GDP?
When will we stop trying to keep up with the Jones'es? The answer to that is simply: never. Trying to keep up with/outdo others is a very, very fundamental human drive and defiitely a defining characteristic for humankind.
Usually, that is a Good Thing(TM), but, is TFA and parent points out, there are drawbacks. Sometimes it's easy to just focus on those negatives and forget that removing them would remove all of the positives we take for granted as well.
Nothing stirs me as much as pundits proclaiming that youths today are upset/depressed/disillusioned because "they will be the first generation that will not have a higher standard of living than their parents". That is ridiculous on so many levels. Not only will every generation be significantly better of materially than the generation before, they will also have to work less. Don't believe me? Stop for one moment and consider the life of a factory worker 100 years ago.
Really? Does someone actually have a boss who even understands what a "framework" is?
No, but that wasn't the question. Surely I'm not the only one to have had a boss decide on what framework to use without knowing what a framework actually is?
I had one boss who insisted that the code libraries we had developed for easy reuse when developing web sites with ASP was to be referred to as our "platform" and not our "framework". To this day I wonder what he thought was meant be either of the terms...
(That said, I have had far more bosses who, correctly IMNSHO, left the decision to me.)
Good point. I shouldn't have said "every MS product", I should have said "every major MS product", where "major" is basically the Office Suite, SQL Server and most development tools.
There are some atrocities out there (some of the games, in particular, comes to mind) but overall, the GUI quality is by far the best in the business. That says morte about the rest of the business, unfortunately...
Establishing GUI guidlines, communicating them clearly and *sticking to them*.
Yes, they basically stole most of the GUI components from Apple who stole it from... who stole it from... We all know that story. Nothing revolutionary about that.
But what they *did* do was making pretty darn sure every MS product stuck to the guidlines. This was in very sharp contrast to products from Borland, Oracle and Lotus, to name a few competitors who have created god-awful GUIs through the years. (In fact, I developed Oracle Forms stuff ten years ago. Their *only* GUI recommendation was to not do things the way Microsoft recommended it.)
What MS did before 1995 was strangely successful but generally evil enough for them to get the reputation they have in the/. crowd today. Too few people here realise that since then they have done a bunch of things extremely well. Other posters mentioned Excel. I maintain that it is the best piece of desktop software ever written.
And, finally: yeah, I know, they have done a bunch a crappy things as well. IE. The stability of Win'95 and subsequent OS'es. Security loopholes. We all know that. But if the open source community could see the strengths as well as the weaknesses and emulate them, they could possibly get somewhere.
The White House are hard at work on this. So far, they report complete success on the subjects of scientific method and rational thought. Freedom of choice, can do attitude, self confidence and pragmatic thought have been redefined to better suit the purposes of the government. All world class facilities will be bombed in the next decade.
This leaves only pareto of risk. There is a bit of a disagreement on this. Cheney and Rumsfield both think it sounds vaguely arabic. Rove thinks it's an invetion of the liberal media. Bush thinks it's a small animal he used to hunt on his farm when he was a kid.
The command line is not for writing documents, it is for issuing commands, one of which might be "word".
Well, duh.
Next time, please try reading the thread before jumping right in and you may actually contribute to the discussion. GP asked if there was anything that command lines were not suited to do, not the opposite.
If you were unemployed, disenfranchised, and everyone else was too... I think that is a breeding ground for religious extremism. Its not Islam... It could be any religion. If these people had educations and a job to go to and a western quality of living (you know... TVs, internet, washing machines, and all the other things Americans take for granted), I doubt they'd find so many people to follow these lines.
I sort of wish that was true, because then the solution would be obvious. But I'm afraid it isn't. Osama bin Laden comes from a rich family. And, to move away from the infected discussion about islam, the Baader Meinhof terrorists were not poor either. Neither were typically IRA members.
I have no idea what causes people to go nuts like that, but I'm quite sure it's more complicated than just poverty.
How about "actual work"? You know, the stuff people typically do in Excel or Word.
Yes, Word sucks, but it sure beats writing a typical document from the command line. And Excel doesn't suck. In fact, it's by far and away the best piece of software ever written. I know I'll be flamed for saying that, but I kindly ask you all: Is there any other software out there that is in general use, that actually works, that is easily usable for novices and skilled users alike and that is as versatile?
The biggest problem with Excel is that almost all other software have serious flaws. Thus, people use Excel for purposes it is definitely not suited for, primarily "databases" (I use that term loosely here).
It's like if someone developed a 2005 VW Golf in 1920. All the other cars and trucks would be terrible by comparison, and everyone and his mother would use the Golf for all kinds of purposes. And it would take two minutes to complain that too little cargo will fit, even though the actual problem is a lack of a proper truck.
Sometimes I think I'm overpaid. There should be zillions of people with my general skill set who should be able to do general office tasks as well as me or even better.
Then I read stuff like this, and I realize that's actually not the case. A huge majority of people today simply can't write coherently. They can't be bothered to care about spelling. They can't be bothered to explain things properly to people who don't share their background. It certainly doesn't make them stupid by any means, but it does make them unprofessional, assuming once standards are high.
I don't think that language is going to hell in a hand basket. I think that the skill level is actually higher than at any time in history. Far higher, in fact. But the problem is that while skills are higher, demands are just through the roof. Almost everyone today needs better writing skills in their everyday jobs than anyone except the top 10%-20% needed a century ago.
The parent is a perfect example. Chances are, 200 years ago he'd have been a farmer. He may have been a good or even great farmer. His reading and writing skills would probably be way higher than his peers. But in today's office environment, people who can actually be bothered to present their arguments better than him will surpass him. He will consider this greatly unjust, but, alas, he will be wrong.
All this despite parent's "independently thinking"...
Slashdot Mirror
This differs from any other IPO how, exactly?
All of them. The question is: How many of them disclose their holdings properly?
"Controlled democracy" is to democracy what military justice is to justice.
Singapore is a very interesting country because it is a very successful country in a lot of respects *despite* not being a democracy. If Singapore would be a democracy, it would be just another western country.
Correct. They are undemocratic because they don't have free speach.
I suppose so, but that has no preictive value at all, and for that reason isn't really science.
Oh, yeah, and of course that other thing called genes that TFA was all about. Didn't you get the memo?
The concept of race will not go away just because science disproves of it.
Probably true, as with most kinds of superstitions. That doesn't make it real any more than feng shui, crystals or healing is real. Somehow I'm not sure you understand the difference between something existing and the concept of that something haning on.
Race will always exist
No, this is patently false. See above.
Religiously, race will exist, just like capitalism will always exist.
Is this even supposed to mean anythig or is it just rambling?
Cultural conservativism is the answer.
What is the question? In science it is customary (actually, it's mandatory) to start with the question. However, since you don't believe in science, I can see why you would want to skip that part.
The point is, this is our culture, it will not go away, it's in our genetic code to be this way
What exactly do you mean by "this way"? Are you suggesting that society today has the same sets of mores and values we had 200 years ago? What about five thousand years ago? (Oh, I forgot. 5000 years ago was before we were created, so obviously we didn't have any values then. Silly me...)
Frankly, the rest of us get annoyed by Mr-know-it-all fools. To each his own, I guess.
Your entire perspective on life changes when you have children.
This only happens if you had an incorrect perspective beforehand. Those of us who were rational and intelligent before we had children usually found that we pretty much stayed the same. (Yes, I'm obviously just teasing you, but I hope this shows you the ridiculousness of your argument. Unfortunately, somehow I doubt that...)
For me things like playing sports and other 'real' activities are where I want my childrens focus to be. I will do anything to discourage them to become a software engineer.
Good choice! Being a software engineer tends to require a good grasp of syntax and semantics. Since you seem to be in somewhat short supply of that, chanses are your children are too. I would recommend boxing for your kids. No ridding or righting required there, man!
If a parent doesn't want to expose their children to violent videogames that is their perogative and should be respected.
Really? What a controversial point of view! Have you *ever* met *anyone* who disagrees with you there?
No. The reason it comes up repeatedly is that if it would indeed be true, it would be great, because we all would know how to solve a major problem in society.
Unfortunately it isn't true at all, for exactly the same reasons that it wasn't true about jazz music, rock n'roll, comics, video violence etc.
I hardly think so. 200 years ago, people died from starvation with alarming frequency. What has changed is that most people back then somehow believed more in "fate" or "destiny" or whatever and accepted cruel outcomes such as starvation and oppression to an extent that is unimaginable to people in the western world today.
If people would somehow start being content with starvation, a life expectansy of under 50 years and random oppression, everything would be "fine". Somehow, it seems to me that if that is a solution, we have to redefine the problem...
Sorry, guilty as charged. My only excuse is that English is not my mother tongue. (Yes, I know that's a weak one...)
Won't happen again...
That is obviously no proof that this will continue indefinitely, but it does shift the burden of proof. And whining, as in TFA, isn't proof.
The fall of the roman empire is the only example I can think of where it is reasonable to say that the world as a whole dropped in "level of civilization" in a 100 year span. There may be other, but they are quite infrequent. I see no indication that today is one of those instances.
It also reminds me of what people said when computers came into regular use on every desktop 10-15 years ago.
It also reminds me of what people will say in 20 years about (technology x, not yet invented).
True, but does this happen often? If so, the fact that you get disturbed shouldn't be your biggest concern. In the environment I work, stuff like that (i.e. stuff that *really* *needs* *immediate* attention, not actual floodings, of course) happens roughly once a week. And that is only because we are a terribly badly run organisation, from an IT point of view. Ideally it should never happen. IRL, it shouldn't happen more than once quarterly, max.
I just fail to believe that stuff like this happens with any frequency at most places. If you really do work at one of those places, get out before the company goes bankrupt...
To me it says that the increase at productivity has come at the cost of some measures of quality of life. When will we wake up and realize that there's more to life than per capita GDP?
When will we stop trying to keep up with the Jones'es? The answer to that is simply: never. Trying to keep up with/outdo others is a very, very fundamental human drive and defiitely a defining characteristic for humankind.
Usually, that is a Good Thing(TM), but, is TFA and parent points out, there are drawbacks. Sometimes it's easy to just focus on those negatives and forget that removing them would remove all of the positives we take for granted as well.
Nothing stirs me as much as pundits proclaiming that youths today are upset/depressed/disillusioned because "they will be the first generation that will not have a higher standard of living than their parents". That is ridiculous on so many levels. Not only will every generation be significantly better of materially than the generation before, they will also have to work less. Don't believe me? Stop for one moment and consider the life of a factory worker 100 years ago.
No, but that wasn't the question. Surely I'm not the only one to have had a boss decide on what framework to use without knowing what a framework actually is?
I had one boss who insisted that the code libraries we had developed for easy reuse when developing web sites with ASP was to be referred to as our "platform" and not our "framework". To this day I wonder what he thought was meant be either of the terms...
(That said, I have had far more bosses who, correctly IMNSHO, left the decision to me.)
There are some atrocities out there (some of the games, in particular, comes to mind) but overall, the GUI quality is by far the best in the business. That says morte about the rest of the business, unfortunately...
Establishing GUI guidlines, communicating them clearly and *sticking to them*.
Yes, they basically stole most of the GUI components from Apple who stole it from ... who stole it from ... We all know that story. Nothing revolutionary about that.
But what they *did* do was making pretty darn sure every MS product stuck to the guidlines. This was in very sharp contrast to products from Borland, Oracle and Lotus, to name a few competitors who have created god-awful GUIs through the years. (In fact, I developed Oracle Forms stuff ten years ago. Their *only* GUI recommendation was to not do things the way Microsoft recommended it.)
What MS did before 1995 was strangely successful but generally evil enough for them to get the reputation they have in the /. crowd today. Too few people here realise that since then they have done a bunch of things extremely well. Other posters mentioned Excel. I maintain that it is the best piece of desktop software ever written.
And, finally: yeah, I know, they have done a bunch a crappy things as well. IE. The stability of Win'95 and subsequent OS'es. Security loopholes. We all know that. But if the open source community could see the strengths as well as the weaknesses and emulate them, they could possibly get somewhere.
This leaves only pareto of risk. There is a bit of a disagreement on this. Cheney and Rumsfield both think it sounds vaguely arabic. Rove thinks it's an invetion of the liberal media. Bush thinks it's a small animal he used to hunt on his farm when he was a kid.
Well, duh.
Next time, please try reading the thread before jumping right in and you may actually contribute to the discussion. GP asked if there was anything that command lines were not suited to do, not the opposite.
I sort of wish that was true, because then the solution would be obvious. But I'm afraid it isn't. Osama bin Laden comes from a rich family. And, to move away from the infected discussion about islam, the Baader Meinhof terrorists were not poor either. Neither were typically IRA members.
I have no idea what causes people to go nuts like that, but I'm quite sure it's more complicated than just poverty.
Yes, Word sucks, but it sure beats writing a typical document from the command line. And Excel doesn't suck. In fact, it's by far and away the best piece of software ever written. I know I'll be flamed for saying that, but I kindly ask you all: Is there any other software out there that is in general use, that actually works, that is easily usable for novices and skilled users alike and that is as versatile?
The biggest problem with Excel is that almost all other software have serious flaws. Thus, people use Excel for purposes it is definitely not suited for, primarily "databases" (I use that term loosely here).
It's like if someone developed a 2005 VW Golf in 1920. All the other cars and trucks would be terrible by comparison, and everyone and his mother would use the Golf for all kinds of purposes. And it would take two minutes to complain that too little cargo will fit, even though the actual problem is a lack of a proper truck.
Sometimes I think I'm overpaid. There should be zillions of people with my general skill set who should be able to do general office tasks as well as me or even better.
Then I read stuff like this, and I realize that's actually not the case. A huge majority of people today simply can't write coherently. They can't be bothered to care about spelling. They can't be bothered to explain things properly to people who don't share their background. It certainly doesn't make them stupid by any means, but it does make them unprofessional, assuming once standards are high.
I don't think that language is going to hell in a hand basket. I think that the skill level is actually higher than at any time in history. Far higher, in fact. But the problem is that while skills are higher, demands are just through the roof. Almost everyone today needs better writing skills in their everyday jobs than anyone except the top 10%-20% needed a century ago.
The parent is a perfect example. Chances are, 200 years ago he'd have been a farmer. He may have been a good or even great farmer. His reading and writing skills would probably be way higher than his peers. But in today's office environment, people who can actually be bothered to present their arguments better than him will surpass him. He will consider this greatly unjust, but, alas, he will be wrong.
All this despite parent's "independently thinking"...
Not coincidentally, today's much maligned 1337 speaking h4xor is today's discussion forum nazi.
Yes. Sometimes two daughters will do. That's why it's so important to ask these fee questions up front.