It also benefits employment, which was the main argument for the 35 hour week in France (unfortunately it was very poorly implemented). In sectors where you need a certain number of man-hours to get something done (not programming, think, manufacturing), if you need 840 man-hours a week, and that you can make your workers work 40 hours, then you'll have 21 workers. But if you can only make your workers work 35 hours, you'll need to hire 3 more workers because you need 24 of them now.
This being said, that's one of those things that improve everybody's quality of life too, finishing work one hour earlier every evening is pretty nice, gives you more time to do whatever you have/want to do, and thus reduces stress. Besides I'm pretty sure that by reducing your work by 1/8th your productivity drop would be less than 1/8th. At least in cubicle jobs where people get bored and spend two hours on facebook and playing flash games.
Duh, it's a drama (doctors don't actually break into people's home), and then, while he gets stuff wrong all the time, it's assumed that anyone else would get it much more wronger. The idea is that doctors get things wrong but you don't get to see it cause most of the time you go see them for trivial stuff, and that House only picks the trickiest stuff that anyone would get wrong, cause he loves his little life threatening puzzles.
ITT : Idle speculation on shit that's never gonna happen, or at least not anytime soon.
Now, let's talk about the societal consequences that having flying cars and jetpacks will have! I for one think that with the advent and democratisation of flying cars that can effectively go from one point to another an order of magnitude faster, it will give rise to people commuting equally longer distances, which I think means it won't be uncommon for one to cross a couple of state lines to go to work everyday. I think it will potentially make the world yet smaller, in the same way that modern means of telecommunications did for interpersonal communication by allowing you to keep in touch in real time with relatives overseas. I also think it will be the death knell for airplane commuter routes, and that the future of commercial passenger airlines will be confined to transoceanic travel. And unlike the way airplanes made the world smaller by reducing long distance travelling time, flying cars will make the world smaller on a much smaller and local scale, by effectively providing very fast transportation for very short distances, something that was only marginally improved since the advent of automobiles. The decongestion of city streets will also mean decreased noise and atmospheric pollution, increased safety and overall an improvement of urban life conditions.
That's more about letting a soldier carry around and fire a M2 Browning machine gun.
And besides, you're a fucktard. No one's putting military use before anything else, except maybe for the fact that there's more bucks available for military research.
He said software engineer, not code monkey. I can spend two hours tweaking 20 lines of code cause that's where all the logic takes place. If thinking up your code is anywhere near as fast as typing it, you must be a code monkey. As for the rest, my leet vim skills matter a lot more than my two-finger 80 wpm typing.
For a software engineer typing speed matters about as much as car/bicycle aerodynamics for a mailman.
Oh yeah, well, 80-90 wpm (peaks) with two fingers, and I didn't start typing until I was 12. My point is, what's so great about touch-typing and the home keys and all that?
Also, I'm not sure kids need to learn to start typing, unless I'm mistaken after years of personal usage they all become sufficiently proficient so that they don't need to be taught at any point. Now what they could use would be knowing how to write, using a computer. A great and useful lesson of my later high school years were learning how to write a formal letter using a word processor, complete with all the proper and necessary content and layout. That's a skill anyone could use, if only for knowing how to write e-mails that are not meant for just your friends or family.
Well, that tells you something about their behaviour! And it's quite amazing how docile this one is. I had pet hamsters who were nowhere near as friendly (some who'd try to eat the flesh out of your fingers given any chance).
Wait a second, are you saying that you quit your day job to work on this for two years, without any plan as to how you're going to make money out of this, and only now that you're out of money you're worrying about this?
Might be obvious, but all that matters is that you find a new techie job right now. THEN look for someone to buy/pick up what you've done (and good luck with that).
Parent's thought process: "OK, so what do I know about Ireland... leprechauns, four-leaf clovers, beer, whiskey... potatoes... mmmh... giant space potato?? No... well.. that leaves leprechauns! LEPRECHAUNS DID IT! hahaha.. haaa.."
Scramjet tech is worthless. It's not a very good weapon - a scramjet is going to have one heck of a heat signature and probably can't be very stealthy. Not just from the exhaust...at Mach 6 the entire aircraft/missile is going to be glowing red from heat. Also, air to air missiles (like the Patriot) that use rockets already go that fast.
It's a moot point. You can't intercept something that fast, even if it's easy to see. It's hard enough to intercept a missile that doesn't go that fast..
By the way, isn't a scramjet basically just about dumping fuel in the wind and igniting it? I doubt you get the issues that rockets get with that, like the pogo effect.
Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs
Yep, standard issue American hysteria.
Hey guys, look at my new Ford Explorer, it's awsum. "Breaking news, SUVs are destroying the climate". OMG, we're all gonna die! Quick, let's torch all SUVs and hang their owners high!! It's the only way we can survive! OMGOMGOMG!!!
Yep. I thought some more about it. You could be an officer in the military (i.e. you'd be in charge of a group of men), and depending on what'd you'd do you could rank higher, which means you'd also get more important assignments i.e. more men and more responsibilities in the war, until you'd become something like a General McArthur or Patton. Alternatively if you do mediocrely you wouldn't be in charge of much more people, and if you fuck up you could even suffer the consequences (martial court or lose ranking).
So if you do OK you still get to see some action and determine the outcome of small battles, if you're doing very good your actions can greatly influence the outcome of the war. Also, you'd be in a world, not discreet maps, so if you want you can take your men and run 30 miles away to kick some enemy ass in an unexpected way. If you die, you get to incarnate another military of a slightly lower ranking than you achieved. Ah also, you'd still get to study maps and what not, but you'd still get to be on your horse/jeep/tank on the battlefield and kick some arse and even coordinate stuff there as it was done in reality.
So you could start from the same premise everytime but obtain something pretty different if you choose to play differently. That would be a full war simulator of sorts. Would be pretty cool.
You know what's the biggest obstacle to my immersion in games such as Call of Duty or GTA? The way it's all scripted. It's a bit too much like a movie, the game designers want too much control over what I see. As a result, I know the story is waiting for me, no matter if shit is hitting the fan all around me and that NPCs are yelling that I have to hurry up. I know that if I die it's a minor convenience, I just have to do again exactly what I did for the last 40 seconds or so (at most, except for GTA, where every time you fail you have to do the same fucking thing, seeing the same cutscenes, for minutes all over again) and try again until I succeed.
These game fail me at immersion because they're just the sophisticated equivalent to turning the pages of a book. The story will unfold as scripted no matter what you do, even if it might need repeats (funny thing about failing, failing is always mostly non-canon. That too ruins the immersion.). I was really excited the first time I played GTA III, because I was really into it, until I failed a mission. I wondered a bit scared what would happen next, and to my relief I could try it again. Then I felt less immersed, because I can kill my boss, I can kill myself, I can fuck up everything, but the story will have to unfold, even I suck really hard.
Such games may be geographically open, in that you can go anywhere, but everything that matters is on rails. Well actually that's something that Battlefield 1942 got right. You could get defeated, it was canon, you didn't *have* to win, the war unfolded as you were making it happen. Well the idea wasn't pushed very far in that your failures didn't affect the rest of what would happen.
TL;DR : The problem with games is that they're full of very carefully created content; places and storylines, to the point that the designers make sure that you get to see all of their content. They wouldn't design a whole map if odds were you'd fail to get there. I think that instead of designing maps, they should design worlds, and instead of designing carefully crafted stories they should make great AIs so that their interactions with you result in a story (i.e. in a war game, have strategic AIs, which decide of where to take the war next as to try to defeat the other strategic AI. In other words, AIs would play a RTS, while you'd play one of their units).
Yeah, thanks for the pedantic comment. That's like saying, it's not because you have a TV that you ever watch it, when in practice it's completely irrelevant because it's so rare it's insignificant.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if there were more people with TVs who never watched than file sharers who only ever download copyright-free material.
Slashdot Mirror
It also benefits employment, which was the main argument for the 35 hour week in France (unfortunately it was very poorly implemented). In sectors where you need a certain number of man-hours to get something done (not programming, think, manufacturing), if you need 840 man-hours a week, and that you can make your workers work 40 hours, then you'll have 21 workers. But if you can only make your workers work 35 hours, you'll need to hire 3 more workers because you need 24 of them now.
This being said, that's one of those things that improve everybody's quality of life too, finishing work one hour earlier every evening is pretty nice, gives you more time to do whatever you have/want to do, and thus reduces stress. Besides I'm pretty sure that by reducing your work by 1/8th your productivity drop would be less than 1/8th. At least in cubicle jobs where people get bored and spend two hours on facebook and playing flash games.
Exactly, because something is fictitious it means it couldn't possibly be real. Fiction and reality never overlap.
Duh, it's a drama (doctors don't actually break into people's home), and then, while he gets stuff wrong all the time, it's assumed that anyone else would get it much more wronger. The idea is that doctors get things wrong but you don't get to see it cause most of the time you go see them for trivial stuff, and that House only picks the trickiest stuff that anyone would get wrong, cause he loves his little life threatening puzzles.
No. Think Dr. House.
ITT : Idle speculation on shit that's never gonna happen, or at least not anytime soon.
Now, let's talk about the societal consequences that having flying cars and jetpacks will have! I for one think that with the advent and democratisation of flying cars that can effectively go from one point to another an order of magnitude faster, it will give rise to people commuting equally longer distances, which I think means it won't be uncommon for one to cross a couple of state lines to go to work everyday. I think it will potentially make the world yet smaller, in the same way that modern means of telecommunications did for interpersonal communication by allowing you to keep in touch in real time with relatives overseas. I also think it will be the death knell for airplane commuter routes, and that the future of commercial passenger airlines will be confined to transoceanic travel. And unlike the way airplanes made the world smaller by reducing long distance travelling time, flying cars will make the world smaller on a much smaller and local scale, by effectively providing very fast transportation for very short distances, something that was only marginally improved since the advent of automobiles. The decongestion of city streets will also mean decreased noise and atmospheric pollution, increased safety and overall an improvement of urban life conditions.
That's more about letting a soldier carry around and fire a M2 Browning machine gun.
And besides, you're a fucktard. No one's putting military use before anything else, except maybe for the fact that there's more bucks available for military research.
Things that look like men, though... we've got lots of genes specially made for being scared of them.
If you follow that logic then make them look like man-sized spiders.
China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.
No. We are Willie Wonka. China is the Oompa Loompas.
Good, so we agree that his claim that "I easily type 120wpm and it is still far too slow for me, whether it's coding" was bullshit then?
He said software engineer, not code monkey. I can spend two hours tweaking 20 lines of code cause that's where all the logic takes place. If thinking up your code is anywhere near as fast as typing it, you must be a code monkey. As for the rest, my leet vim skills matter a lot more than my two-finger 80 wpm typing.
For a software engineer typing speed matters about as much as car/bicycle aerodynamics for a mailman.
Oh yeah, well, 80-90 wpm (peaks) with two fingers, and I didn't start typing until I was 12. My point is, what's so great about touch-typing and the home keys and all that?
Also, I'm not sure kids need to learn to start typing, unless I'm mistaken after years of personal usage they all become sufficiently proficient so that they don't need to be taught at any point. Now what they could use would be knowing how to write, using a computer. A great and useful lesson of my later high school years were learning how to write a formal letter using a word processor, complete with all the proper and necessary content and layout. That's a skill anyone could use, if only for knowing how to write e-mails that are not meant for just your friends or family.
Well, that tells you something about their behaviour! And it's quite amazing how docile this one is. I had pet hamsters who were nowhere near as friendly (some who'd try to eat the flesh out of your fingers given any chance).
Wait a second, are you saying that you quit your day job to work on this for two years, without any plan as to how you're going to make money out of this, and only now that you're out of money you're worrying about this?
Might be obvious, but all that matters is that you find a new techie job right now. THEN look for someone to buy/pick up what you've done (and good luck with that).
Parent's thought process: "OK, so what do I know about Ireland... leprechauns, four-leaf clovers, beer, whiskey... potatoes... mmmh... giant space potato?? No... well.. that leaves leprechauns! LEPRECHAUNS DID IT! hahaha.. haaa.."
Haha, nice one!
Poor argument. People don't care only for their paycheck
WHOOOOOSH
lol... Yeah, I'm not really into those games in which I'm likely to be eaten by a grue.
Can we find the algorithm of this calculator anywhere and Streisand Effect it?
Scramjet tech is worthless. It's not a very good weapon - a scramjet is going to have one heck of a heat signature and probably can't be very stealthy. Not just from the exhaust...at Mach 6 the entire aircraft/missile is going to be glowing red from heat. Also, air to air missiles (like the Patriot) that use rockets already go that fast.
It's a moot point. You can't intercept something that fast, even if it's easy to see. It's hard enough to intercept a missile that doesn't go that fast..
By the way, isn't a scramjet basically just about dumping fuel in the wind and igniting it? I doubt you get the issues that rockets get with that, like the pogo effect.
Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs
Yep, standard issue American hysteria.
Hey guys, look at my new Ford Explorer, it's awsum. "Breaking news, SUVs are destroying the climate". OMG, we're all gonna die! Quick, let's torch all SUVs and hang their owners high!! It's the only way we can survive! OMGOMGOMG!!!
Yep. I thought some more about it. You could be an officer in the military (i.e. you'd be in charge of a group of men), and depending on what'd you'd do you could rank higher, which means you'd also get more important assignments i.e. more men and more responsibilities in the war, until you'd become something like a General McArthur or Patton. Alternatively if you do mediocrely you wouldn't be in charge of much more people, and if you fuck up you could even suffer the consequences (martial court or lose ranking).
So if you do OK you still get to see some action and determine the outcome of small battles, if you're doing very good your actions can greatly influence the outcome of the war. Also, you'd be in a world, not discreet maps, so if you want you can take your men and run 30 miles away to kick some enemy ass in an unexpected way. If you die, you get to incarnate another military of a slightly lower ranking than you achieved. Ah also, you'd still get to study maps and what not, but you'd still get to be on your horse/jeep/tank on the battlefield and kick some arse and even coordinate stuff there as it was done in reality.
So you could start from the same premise everytime but obtain something pretty different if you choose to play differently. That would be a full war simulator of sorts. Would be pretty cool.
Ah yeah, good point.
What about it? (Never played it so I have no idea what you mean)
You know what's the biggest obstacle to my immersion in games such as Call of Duty or GTA? The way it's all scripted. It's a bit too much like a movie, the game designers want too much control over what I see. As a result, I know the story is waiting for me, no matter if shit is hitting the fan all around me and that NPCs are yelling that I have to hurry up. I know that if I die it's a minor convenience, I just have to do again exactly what I did for the last 40 seconds or so (at most, except for GTA, where every time you fail you have to do the same fucking thing, seeing the same cutscenes, for minutes all over again) and try again until I succeed.
These game fail me at immersion because they're just the sophisticated equivalent to turning the pages of a book. The story will unfold as scripted no matter what you do, even if it might need repeats (funny thing about failing, failing is always mostly non-canon. That too ruins the immersion.). I was really excited the first time I played GTA III, because I was really into it, until I failed a mission. I wondered a bit scared what would happen next, and to my relief I could try it again. Then I felt less immersed, because I can kill my boss, I can kill myself, I can fuck up everything, but the story will have to unfold, even I suck really hard.
Such games may be geographically open, in that you can go anywhere, but everything that matters is on rails. Well actually that's something that Battlefield 1942 got right. You could get defeated, it was canon, you didn't *have* to win, the war unfolded as you were making it happen. Well the idea wasn't pushed very far in that your failures didn't affect the rest of what would happen.
TL;DR : The problem with games is that they're full of very carefully created content; places and storylines, to the point that the designers make sure that you get to see all of their content. They wouldn't design a whole map if odds were you'd fail to get there. I think that instead of designing maps, they should design worlds, and instead of designing carefully crafted stories they should make great AIs so that their interactions with you result in a story (i.e. in a war game, have strategic AIs, which decide of where to take the war next as to try to defeat the other strategic AI. In other words, AIs would play a RTS, while you'd play one of their units).
Yeah, thanks for the pedantic comment. That's like saying, it's not because you have a TV that you ever watch it, when in practice it's completely irrelevant because it's so rare it's insignificant.
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if there were more people with TVs who never watched than file sharers who only ever download copyright-free material.