When you can get an entire operating system for under $200, I don't know what sort of reasoning one could use that would justify the ~$500 difference between PS Elements and normal Photoshop. The combination of features you get for $500 just doesn't seem to add up.
Besides, if you sold Photoshop for $150-200, I'd be really surprised if the profit difference could be even noticable to Adobe.
Ah well, just put me in the camp of people who have always thought that Adobe is overly greedy, and so overprices their software.
Re:If Marriage is a scam, then I'm a sucker for sc
on
Love in the Time of Pixels
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Except that marriage is a legal concept that has, in the last 100 years or so, been quickly transformed into a marketing transport which utilizes the idea of a centuries old tradition of marriage for love. When in actuality, the real reason for getting married is the gaining of legal priviledges and obligations. "living together forever" doesn't necessitate marriage, but living a fantasy implanted in our collective social matrix in order to sell any variety of goods and services is a brilliant idea.
My main beef, really, is against large, expensive, fantastical weddings. If people wanna elope, I'm all for it.
But never make the mistake of thinking that marriage is an institution based on love. It is, has been, and always will be steeped in laws and legality.
EVE has been steadily, sustainably growing in population. It also isn't very accessable to the PL kiddie. Personally, I like it that way and hope it continues along that path.
While I think your comments are (probably knowingly on your part) generalized a little too much, I think you've used some of the most interesting terminology (namely "logical" and "emotional" 'tone-deaf') to describe the difference between "geeks" and "normals" that I've ever heard. Bravo.
I'm not kidding - many people really think that the track names and CD picture is encoded on the CD!
Actually, in an increasing number of cases this is actually true. For example, the Offspring CDs I've bought can be read by proper (standalone) CD players to display the title track.
Furthermore, some are hybrid CDs that have video files on them with a flash and/or html front-end, so the title graphic could very well be on the CD.
This presumes she has no other way to get to nethack, or no other way to get a network connection for that matter.
She's not a child, nor is there a suggestion that she feels she is suffering from too much playing. The OP may feel left out, but that's not necessarily a problem with the Net-hack-like-game "addict" in question. He could very well be co-dependant for all we know. There is no indication that she as an individual is performing at-risk behaviors for herself. Suggesting that one cut off her network connection is pretty inappropriate when dealing with a fellow adult.
Plus, you should be flayed for using Dr Phil style pop-psychology with a serious tone.
Sure, but my feeling is that by and large that threshhold has already been met for a huge majority of the civilian, non-organized crime population. The actual bootleggers associated with organized crime have specialists and resources that place the bar much, much higher than that it is for Joe User. That user already doesn't really know how to rip/copy a DVD, etc, and won't be getting video "online" until someone packages it in a nice, non-technical, watered-down, user-friendly (and DRM'd) package.
In order to stop the real source of the problem (producers who make real-looking knockoffs that get sold on the street or the www), they're gonna have to be pretty near bulletproof.
I think, personally, it's more likely that eventually companies will realize that making a truely unbreakable DRM is impossible, and they'll "fall back" on making better product that people are willing to pay for.
Granted, I don't buy that people aren't buying still.
Maybe optimistic, but I think after media companies shoot themselves in the foot enough times, they'll come around.
Wrong. It's the admin's job to get me the tools I need to do my job within the bounds of security. No other factor is valid grounds for turning down privledges.
No, it's the admin's job to allow you access to tools you believe you need, within the boundaries of organizational policy. In an ideal world, you may be right, but in the real world, admins can only provide as much access as policy allows, and admins frequently have limited (if any) input into policy.
The admin's job is to fulfill the needs of developers.
No, the admins' jobs are to provide for stable, secure infrastructure that contributes towards the central mission of the organization. This organization may or may not consider their developers particularly important, or necessary, and as such, their requests carry widely varied levels of importance.
Around here, our admins have developer support. When a developer is having to doing the admin's job as well as his own, or worse, counteract bad actions on the part of the admin, then it's time to show that admin the door.
Sounds like this is the source of your overreaction. Understandable, but your ideas of what the job of an admin is are still skewed.
I just have little suffering for fools and even less tolerance for broken policies that hold the opinions of fools in high esteem.
Aside from the awful time I had parsing that sentence, it sounds to me that you don't understand the idea of policies, or furthermore how to encourage your organization and/or group to re-examine policies that are no longer practical, or not flexible enough.
[/troll filter disengaged]
Furthermore, one doesn't need to be a "newbie" to have unrealistic or skewed views of how a business runs (or should be run). I know plenty of people with long resumes who don't "get it" either, on a variety of topics.
Yes, it's the admin's job to enable you to do yours. Within reason.
However, since they are the admins, and you're the "incoming", then it's good practice to understand why things are done the way they are, before deciding that the reason you're not getting your way is because the admins are power-mad BOFH's.
In spite of what Dilbert has so cleverly shown, it is not out of the realm of possibility (and commonplace) for there to be procedures in place for a reason. Furthermore, environments are so varied that what might be a "sure, we can do that" at one company, would be a "no way in hell, and here's why" at another.
Basically sounds to me like you're a developer-brat with a chip on his/her shoulder when it comes to admins that don't jump the very second you command it. Keep doin' that. Hopefully you'll run into a BOFH who actually has management support and get shown the door. Sadly, that'll probably have little effect on your personality problems, but I'd pay to see it, nonetheless.
I believe that the difficulty of joining the FBI has to do with their "lifestyle" background check. At least for FBI agents, you cannot ever have used illegal drugs.
This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the FBI application clearly asks particular questions about drug use, specifically because they recognize that not every suitable applicant never, ever smoked pot. I believe there are automatic disqualifiers for admitting to "hard" drug use, but that relies on you admitting to it voluntarily. Granted, they do a pretty extensive background check if you make it to the "long form" application, but the closet, occasional cocaine user who didn't imbibe with their normal friends and family probably aren't gonna be found out unless they let on to a close associate.
That's probably because learning HTML really isn't worth much anymore. I mean, you basically have to learn elementary HTML to post comments on slashdot.
Now granted, the M/P wage is a little low, but that depends on what they want for that pay. Is it 2 hours a week, appropriate for students looking to get exposure? Is it for a church or other non-profit that doesn't need/can't afford a full-time dev?
My undergrad was the same way. Even thought I eventually was an IST major (info systems and technology), when I started we had essentially the same first 2 years as the CS folks (granted, I did the first two years in the CS program, but it was fairly similar). We learned C/C++ in the general series as a way of learning and using data structures, algorthims, etc., learned assembly language (a fake one, but assembly nonetheless). I think it's sadly very rare for people to learn programming in this fashion anymore... or at least, rare amongst those who end up doing "business" programming.
Where in the constitution is stare decisis established?
While I know this is highly likely to be a troll, I'll quickly answer. Our entire legal system, and indeed the Constitution itself, is based on , and arguably a product of in one fashion or another, the British legal system. It is from that system where we derive stare decisis. The Constitution did not appear out of nowhere, but is an evolutionary document in the history of western civilization. If you don't understand that, I can't help you until you start to educate yourself on something other than pamphlets you get handed to you on the street.
The Constitution outlines the parameters of government in general, but as even a cursory browsing of constitutional law will reveal, it is only the beginning of the legal system in the US (and has been that way since the beginning).
Actually, many people think this, but they are mistaken because they're leaving out an important part of the legal system.
Judges need to pay attention not only to the constitution, but also need to carefully consider precendent. This is the part that most people don't realize, and why they get confused when rulings happen that seem contray to how they understand the Constitution or particular laws. The Constitution and the laws of the land are only the beginning of the US legal system, it's the judges that interpret the laws and establish precedents which, later, are followed by other judges in other interpretations and rulings down the road.
This is why Chief Justice Roberts, for example, says he personally doesn't think that abortion should be legal (or some variety on "Roe vs Wade was decided wrong), but considers it to be settled law, and he would need some sort of extraordinary circumstance to occur for him to vote to overturn RvW. It's the principle of "stare decisis", and you can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
There are, indeed, people who don't believe that stare decisis should be as predominant as it is, but they seem to be in the minority. Stare decisis isn't a new legal concept dreamt up in the last decade or two, though. It's been around a long time.
Ultima's "name" had been established since the dawn of PC gaming, and was amongst the most popular names in computer RPGs when it first launched. I don't think it gets any more "established" than that.
If you consider MMO characters to be an "investment" of any sort, quite frankly I have to sort you into my "dumb" bin. They are games that sometimes have a social aspect to them. To expect some sort of "break even" at any time financially with a character is foolish. (Yeah, sometimes people can manage it, but most don't bother)
Most private companies don't have that luxury- they have to answer to their stockholders every three months, and would have to explain that all over again to the stockholders- most of whom will NOT understand the long view.
You mean public companies. While private companies (if incorporated in certain ways) often have stockholders, it isn't the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, if you sold Photoshop for $150-200, I'd be really surprised if the profit difference could be even noticable to Adobe.
Ah well, just put me in the camp of people who have always thought that Adobe is overly greedy, and so overprices their software.
My main beef, really, is against large, expensive, fantastical weddings. If people wanna elope, I'm all for it.
But never make the mistake of thinking that marriage is an institution based on love. It is, has been, and always will be steeped in laws and legality.
EVE has been steadily, sustainably growing in population. It also isn't very accessable to the PL kiddie. Personally, I like it that way and hope it continues along that path.
While I think your comments are (probably knowingly on your part) generalized a little too much, I think you've used some of the most interesting terminology (namely "logical" and "emotional" 'tone-deaf') to describe the difference between "geeks" and "normals" that I've ever heard. Bravo.
Actually, in an increasing number of cases this is actually true. For example, the Offspring CDs I've bought can be read by proper (standalone) CD players to display the title track.
Furthermore, some are hybrid CDs that have video files on them with a flash and/or html front-end, so the title graphic could very well be on the CD.
The Hellmouth in Sunnydale is closed.
there's one in Cleveland, though...
well, she could be ssh/telnetting to a box that has nethack on it for all we know
She's not a child, nor is there a suggestion that she feels she is suffering from too much playing. The OP may feel left out, but that's not necessarily a problem with the Net-hack-like-game "addict" in question. He could very well be co-dependant for all we know. There is no indication that she as an individual is performing at-risk behaviors for herself. Suggesting that one cut off her network connection is pretty inappropriate when dealing with a fellow adult.
Plus, you should be flayed for using Dr Phil style pop-psychology with a serious tone.
Shallow Earth Orbit?
In order to stop the real source of the problem (producers who make real-looking knockoffs that get sold on the street or the www), they're gonna have to be pretty near bulletproof.
Granted, I don't buy that people aren't buying still.
Maybe optimistic, but I think after media companies shoot themselves in the foot enough times, they'll come around.
Where'd you get that idea?
Wrong. It's the admin's job to get me the tools I need to do my job within the bounds of security. No other factor is valid grounds for turning down privledges.
No, it's the admin's job to allow you access to tools you believe you need, within the boundaries of organizational policy. In an ideal world, you may be right, but in the real world, admins can only provide as much access as policy allows, and admins frequently have limited (if any) input into policy.
The admin's job is to fulfill the needs of developers.
No, the admins' jobs are to provide for stable, secure infrastructure that contributes towards the central mission of the organization. This organization may or may not consider their developers particularly important, or necessary, and as such, their requests carry widely varied levels of importance.
Around here, our admins have developer support. When a developer is having to doing the admin's job as well as his own, or worse, counteract bad actions on the part of the admin, then it's time to show that admin the door.
Sounds like this is the source of your overreaction. Understandable, but your ideas of what the job of an admin is are still skewed.
I just have little suffering for fools and even less tolerance for broken policies that hold the opinions of fools in high esteem.
Aside from the awful time I had parsing that sentence, it sounds to me that you don't understand the idea of policies, or furthermore how to encourage your organization and/or group to re-examine policies that are no longer practical, or not flexible enough.
[/troll filter disengaged]
Furthermore, one doesn't need to be a "newbie" to have unrealistic or skewed views of how a business runs (or should be run). I know plenty of people with long resumes who don't "get it" either, on a variety of topics.
Yes, it's the admin's job to enable you to do yours. Within reason.
However, since they are the admins, and you're the "incoming", then it's good practice to understand why things are done the way they are, before deciding that the reason you're not getting your way is because the admins are power-mad BOFH's.
In spite of what Dilbert has so cleverly shown, it is not out of the realm of possibility (and commonplace) for there to be procedures in place for a reason. Furthermore, environments are so varied that what might be a "sure, we can do that" at one company, would be a "no way in hell, and here's why" at another.
Basically sounds to me like you're a developer-brat with a chip on his/her shoulder when it comes to admins that don't jump the very second you command it. Keep doin' that. Hopefully you'll run into a BOFH who actually has management support and get shown the door. Sadly, that'll probably have little effect on your personality problems, but I'd pay to see it, nonetheless.
I should clarify that those are requirements for Special Agents. The requirements for support staff seem to be more lax.
This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the FBI application clearly asks particular questions about drug use, specifically because they recognize that not every suitable applicant never, ever smoked pot. I believe there are automatic disqualifiers for admitting to "hard" drug use, but that relies on you admitting to it voluntarily. Granted, they do a pretty extensive background check if you make it to the "long form" application, but the closet, occasional cocaine user who didn't imbibe with their normal friends and family probably aren't gonna be found out unless they let on to a close associate.
Now granted, the M/P wage is a little low, but that depends on what they want for that pay. Is it 2 hours a week, appropriate for students looking to get exposure? Is it for a church or other non-profit that doesn't need/can't afford a full-time dev?
Yeah, in the last 6 months or so the job market has been slowly but surely picking up in Denver. 'Bout time, too.
My undergrad was the same way. Even thought I eventually was an IST major (info systems and technology), when I started we had essentially the same first 2 years as the CS folks (granted, I did the first two years in the CS program, but it was fairly similar). We learned C/C++ in the general series as a way of learning and using data structures, algorthims, etc., learned assembly language (a fake one, but assembly nonetheless). I think it's sadly very rare for people to learn programming in this fashion anymore... or at least, rare amongst those who end up doing "business" programming.
While I know this is highly likely to be a troll, I'll quickly answer. Our entire legal system, and indeed the Constitution itself, is based on , and arguably a product of in one fashion or another, the British legal system. It is from that system where we derive stare decisis. The Constitution did not appear out of nowhere, but is an evolutionary document in the history of western civilization. If you don't understand that, I can't help you until you start to educate yourself on something other than pamphlets you get handed to you on the street.
The Constitution outlines the parameters of government in general, but as even a cursory browsing of constitutional law will reveal, it is only the beginning of the legal system in the US (and has been that way since the beginning).
Actually, many people think this, but they are mistaken because they're leaving out an important part of the legal system.
Judges need to pay attention not only to the constitution, but also need to carefully consider precendent. This is the part that most people don't realize, and why they get confused when rulings happen that seem contray to how they understand the Constitution or particular laws. The Constitution and the laws of the land are only the beginning of the US legal system, it's the judges that interpret the laws and establish precedents which, later, are followed by other judges in other interpretations and rulings down the road.
This is why Chief Justice Roberts, for example, says he personally doesn't think that abortion should be legal (or some variety on "Roe vs Wade was decided wrong), but considers it to be settled law, and he would need some sort of extraordinary circumstance to occur for him to vote to overturn RvW. It's the principle of "stare decisis", and you can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
There are, indeed, people who don't believe that stare decisis should be as predominant as it is, but they seem to be in the minority. Stare decisis isn't a new legal concept dreamt up in the last decade or two, though. It's been around a long time.
Ultima's "name" had been established since the dawn of PC gaming, and was amongst the most popular names in computer RPGs when it first launched. I don't think it gets any more "established" than that.
If you consider MMO characters to be an "investment" of any sort, quite frankly I have to sort you into my "dumb" bin. They are games that sometimes have a social aspect to them. To expect some sort of "break even" at any time financially with a character is foolish. (Yeah, sometimes people can manage it, but most don't bother)
Fair enough.
You mean public companies. While private companies (if incorporated in certain ways) often have stockholders, it isn't the same thing.