Yeah, I'm sure committing acts of vandalism to somebody's car that parks in your spot is a great way to handle the situation, considering that the people know where you live and you've just declared war. What I've done instead is to leave a note on the car saying it was a private spot, and not to park there again. The second time I said it was a last warning, and that the car would be towed. They never parked there again.
Start by acting reasonable, and then escalate, always giving a warning. It works wonders.
Your point is a subtle one based on familiarity with the books. Myself, I had read the books as a child and forgotten most of the details and background. Something like the elves showing up didn't bother me in the least, and I suspect that's true for a lot of movie goers that only had a passing familiarity with Tolkien.
What did bother me was stuff like "dwarf tossing" (was that in the book?), silly Hollywood action sequences like Gandalf and Strider riding out of the keep and casting aside hordes of enemies, and the incredibly over-extended ending after the ring is destroyed.
What I liked were the visuals, scenery, and great character casting (except for Agent Smith as Elrond).
After watching King Kong suffer many of the same problems, I'd actually prefer a different director for The Hobbit.
I've been reading your posts with some amusement. You really have to figure some stuff out for yourself. Can you honestly not tell when an interview is going good or bad? Can you answer their questions competently? Are your communication skills so bad that you come off poorly? Are you seriously saying you can't figure out what is going wrong in your interviews?
I suspsect you know. I believe you said you had Asperger's. I'm not sure how bad your communication skills or social graces are, but if they're so bad that you can't get the job you're looking for, then you should seek therapy.
You also need to accept the real world is not a mathematical formula. Fumble around, look for feedback. The clues are there. Look at how successful people act. Practice, practice, practice. I'm sure you've heard the same interview questions over and over. Prepare a fluid answer in advance.
Seek out a head-hunter, they can give you advice as to what people are looking for. You also might try lowering your expectations. If you're looking for a developer job, try for QA instead. Worst comes to worst, take a menial job that doesn't require good communication skills. Or try specializing and becoming an expert in a niche field. Whatever. You've got to find your way in the world.
You may have lost the job because you failed to ask what kind of code the manager wanted, not because you failed to read his mind or guess his intent.
Interviewing is often a matter of mind-reading, especially when the interviewer isn't willing to let you in on his expectations. If the interviewer wants detailed error-handling, then he should say so. It's an interview, not a real-world scenario with an actual customer. Some interviewers get annoyed when you don't figure stuff out on your own and make educated guesses. Some expect you to ask for detailed requirements. All non-sense. Be straightforward, make it clear what your expecations are, and see if the candidate can meet them.
I'd be inclined to talk loud, and often. And you just try and fire me for doing so thank you very much
Go ahead, get fired. Most states are employee-at-will. That means they can fire you for any reason, without cause, except for stuff like age, sex, race, etc. There is no "basic right and freedom" to a job or to say whatever you want in that job.
There is a great hunger out there for video games that really look great on our modern home theater systems, and Sony and Microsoft are both in competition for capturing this market.
It's still going to take many years before HDTV is a dominant force. Can the PS3 survive that long? The vast majority of households still have standard definition televisions, and the Wii has captured the early buzz. With the 360 and PS3 battling over the small HDTV market, it doesn't look good for Sony. 2007 will be a tough year for them. You'll see in March, when the PS3 will be available everywhere but the Wii will still be sold out.
While I'm not interested in the PS3 at the moment, once they deliver MGS:4 and WipeOut for PS3 I may pick one up.
I've seen a lot of posts like this amid all the Sony bashing. Sony is in trouble. There's a massive backlash against the PS3, and even the ones who aren't actively hostile are often just lukewarm. In addition to "I'm waiting for game X/Y/Z", I've seen many comments stating that they hope poor sales cause a quick price drop. The problem is that Sony can't afford it -- they're already losing hundreds of dollars on each console.
People really don't want to pay $500/$600 for a game console. Sony gambled on the Blu-ray and their PlayStation brand and lost. Nintendo comes out looking brilliant with their focus on innovation instead of bleeding-edge technology. The funniest thing about all of this is that the PS2 is still outselling the 360, though unfortunately for Sony that won't make up for the Blu-ray/PS3 investment.
You were probably modded troll because of this statement:
I know that Stallman champions zero-price software, and only tangentially open source software. So? I prefer the open source to the zero price.
Personally I think you're just horribly mistaken, not a troll. You might try reading the the link the post that you replied to provided.
Stallman is all about "free as in freedom", not free as in zero price/"free beer". He believes all software should allow you the freedom to copy, edit, and distribute. He is completely against proprietary software -- he considers it evil!
"Open source" shares the same goals of promoting software that lets you freely copy, edit, and distribute, but they have a different public relations approach. From History of the OSI:
"We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with."
So you see, they really promote the same ideas, but Stallman has a hippie, anti-business image that many felt were hurting the movement, so they started their own. Your comment about zero-price vs. open source was completely off the mark, so it was perceived as a troll.
You need to get out more often! When you walk into a store today, the $500-$700 price range is filled with 30-inch HDTV LCDs. Accounting for inflation, that's less then what my family paid for our 27-inch CRT in 1990.
You need at least a 33" wide screen (16/9) TV to match the size of a 27" standard definition (4/3). By size I mean how big something like a person would appear on the TV. The wider screen gives you more stuff to see at the sides (assuming wide-screen content), but it doesn't make the objects bigger. (Except if you are viewing widescreen content on a 4/3 television with horizontal bars.)
Someone with business background ( mine came from banking and healthcare ), that can understand the concepts of programming in a logical progression to get from point A to point B can be trained in a given language like COBOL or TCL in a matter of a few months, possibly less, and can then function confidently in a business transaction production environment.
I see you learned how to spell the language you defended in your first post. I can't imagine somebody not knowing how to spell a language that they are familiar with (for that matter, I can't imagine somebody mispelling something that was in the article headline).
Did you ever actually use COBOL to do real work? I see you also mention Tcl. Have you ever seriously used it? It's an awful language and exactly the opposite of a straightforward language. Everything is a damn string macro, even the most basic language constructs. Try writing a serious application in it and I think your Delphi mind will run screaming for the hills.
Your argument basically comes down to "COBOL is old and not fancy". However, it ignores the reason why we get fancy language features: To solve problems where simple isn't good enough. Fancy abstractions are used to eliminate code redundancy, to solve problems concisely and clearly, to break down problems into modules. What really matters is how long it takes you to develop new features and fix bugs. Point A to point B is fine for small applications. Big, complex applications require tools that let us get more done faster. Languages have evolved beyond assembly, FORTRAN, and COBOL.
Try watching Al-Jazeera to confirm what I'm saying. They actually show the bloody battles and what the after-effects are.
Do they show the bloody mess caused by suicide bombers in Israel as well? Children blown to bits and all that? Maybe they do, and if so, good for them, but I'm guessing they don't.
It's not just calories. You'll get fatter eating a bunch of sugary, empty calories instead of wholesome food that satisfies your nutritional needs and fills you up without putting you on a sugar rollercoaster. The twin epidemics of diabetes and obesity is no coincidence.
If you use Apple you will have to wait for Leopard to get GC.
Umm, if I'm using a language that claims to be garbage collected then it damn well better work everywhere the language is implemented. This alone is enough reason for a language like D to exist.
Government should function on open standards, not proprietary ones. At the very least an open alternative should be made available. Government is for the people, remember?
LGPL requires dynamic linking for different licenses
No it doesn't.
From section 5: "However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables."
From section 6: "As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice"
It goes on to say that to do this, you must give the user some way to change the LGPL'd library and create a new executable, but that doesn't require giving out your source code.
The Coalition forces are currently backing 2 sides of this conflict, the Shi'te and Kurdish milita.
I think the US is backing the people who are working with them, and not actively against them. For example, Sadr is Shi'ite, and has fought with Coalition forces. So this does not support your statement: "There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States." The US is trying to install a stable, pro-Western, democratic government in Iraq, not incite a civil war. If the Sunnis would accept their new minority status, then their would be no civil war. Instead, they want to destabilize Iraq so they can regain power -- and are doing so by killing indiscriminately. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the US has sponsored the civil war.
The conflict would abate if the Coalition forces left simply because there would be fewer people fighting in the country.
Then again it just might leave a power vacuum and cause a further escalation in violence. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.
it's likely that most of Islamists would leave as they are in Iraq mostly to fight the Coalition forces.
What makes you so sure? Don't you think they'd like to install their own brand of Islam-based government?
There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate.
Not that we life-long Red Sox fans are cynical or anything.
Oh come on, they recently won a World Series, in an awesome 4 game comeback against the Yankees. You'd think that would cut back on the doom and gloom for a decade or so. Plus nearly every year they are in the playoff hunt.
I think everyone is getting hung up because they're assuming all members of the class of Blogger_Laptop are somehow adhering to the code of a NY Times Journalist - except they're not working for the NY Times.
Popular bloggers are in a position of trust. People read their blogs expecting an honest opinion. The fact that Microsoft bothered to send them these freebies means that they have enough influence where things like journalistic integrity matter.
I love the guy's cheesy argument in the story link. "Remember bloggers are given a choice which includes giving the machine back when they're done with it. Keeping the unit is a decision made solely by the bloggers receiving the computers."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm sure committing acts of vandalism to somebody's car that parks in your spot is a great way to handle the situation, considering that the people know where you live and you've just declared war. What I've done instead is to leave a note on the car saying it was a private spot, and not to park there again. The second time I said it was a last warning, and that the car would be towed. They never parked there again.
Start by acting reasonable, and then escalate, always giving a warning. It works wonders.
My 2 cents:
Your point is a subtle one based on familiarity with the books. Myself, I had read the books as a child and forgotten most of the details and background. Something like the elves showing up didn't bother me in the least, and I suspect that's true for a lot of movie goers that only had a passing familiarity with Tolkien.
What did bother me was stuff like "dwarf tossing" (was that in the book?), silly Hollywood action sequences like Gandalf and Strider riding out of the keep and casting aside hordes of enemies, and the incredibly over-extended ending after the ring is destroyed.
What I liked were the visuals, scenery, and great character casting (except for Agent Smith as Elrond).
After watching King Kong suffer many of the same problems, I'd actually prefer a different director for The Hobbit.
I've been reading your posts with some amusement. You really have to figure some stuff out for yourself. Can you honestly not tell when an interview is going good or bad? Can you answer their questions competently? Are your communication skills so bad that you come off poorly? Are you seriously saying you can't figure out what is going wrong in your interviews?
I suspsect you know. I believe you said you had Asperger's. I'm not sure how bad your communication skills or social graces are, but if they're so bad that you can't get the job you're looking for, then you should seek therapy.
You also need to accept the real world is not a mathematical formula. Fumble around, look for feedback. The clues are there. Look at how successful people act. Practice, practice, practice. I'm sure you've heard the same interview questions over and over. Prepare a fluid answer in advance.
Seek out a head-hunter, they can give you advice as to what people are looking for. You also might try lowering your expectations. If you're looking for a developer job, try for QA instead. Worst comes to worst, take a menial job that doesn't require good communication skills. Or try specializing and becoming an expert in a niche field. Whatever. You've got to find your way in the world.
Interviewing is often a matter of mind-reading, especially when the interviewer isn't willing to let you in on his expectations. If the interviewer wants detailed error-handling, then he should say so. It's an interview, not a real-world scenario with an actual customer. Some interviewers get annoyed when you don't figure stuff out on your own and make educated guesses. Some expect you to ask for detailed requirements. All non-sense. Be straightforward, make it clear what your expecations are, and see if the candidate can meet them.
It's still going to take many years before HDTV is a dominant force. Can the PS3 survive that long? The vast majority of households still have standard definition televisions, and the Wii has captured the early buzz. With the 360 and PS3 battling over the small HDTV market, it doesn't look good for Sony. 2007 will be a tough year for them. You'll see in March, when the PS3 will be available everywhere but the Wii will still be sold out.
I've seen a lot of posts like this amid all the Sony bashing. Sony is in trouble. There's a massive backlash against the PS3, and even the ones who aren't actively hostile are often just lukewarm. In addition to "I'm waiting for game X/Y/Z", I've seen many comments stating that they hope poor sales cause a quick price drop. The problem is that Sony can't afford it -- they're already losing hundreds of dollars on each console.
People really don't want to pay $500/$600 for a game console. Sony gambled on the Blu-ray and their PlayStation brand and lost. Nintendo comes out looking brilliant with their focus on innovation instead of bleeding-edge technology. The funniest thing about all of this is that the PS2 is still outselling the 360, though unfortunately for Sony that won't make up for the Blu-ray/PS3 investment.
You were probably modded troll because of this statement:
Personally I think you're just horribly mistaken, not a troll. You might try reading the the link the post that you replied to provided.
Stallman is all about "free as in freedom", not free as in zero price/"free beer". He believes all software should allow you the freedom to copy, edit, and distribute. He is completely against proprietary software -- he considers it evil!
"Open source" shares the same goals of promoting software that lets you freely copy, edit, and distribute, but they have a different public relations approach. From History of the OSI:
"We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with."
So you see, they really promote the same ideas, but Stallman has a hippie, anti-business image that many felt were hurting the movement, so they started their own. Your comment about zero-price vs. open source was completely off the mark, so it was perceived as a troll.
You need at least a 33" wide screen (16/9) TV to match the size of a 27" standard definition (4/3). By size I mean how big something like a person would appear on the TV. The wider screen gives you more stuff to see at the sides (assuming wide-screen content), but it doesn't make the objects bigger. (Except if you are viewing widescreen content on a 4/3 television with horizontal bars.)
TV aspect-ratio converter
Nice strawman argument.
Play any demo game you can download without a DVD in the drive. No jet engines. It isn't the fans, it's the DVD.
I see you learned how to spell the language you defended in your first post. I can't imagine somebody not knowing how to spell a language that they are familiar with (for that matter, I can't imagine somebody mispelling something that was in the article headline).
Did you ever actually use COBOL to do real work? I see you also mention Tcl. Have you ever seriously used it? It's an awful language and exactly the opposite of a straightforward language. Everything is a damn string macro, even the most basic language constructs. Try writing a serious application in it and I think your Delphi mind will run screaming for the hills.
Your argument basically comes down to "COBOL is old and not fancy". However, it ignores the reason why we get fancy language features: To solve problems where simple isn't good enough. Fancy abstractions are used to eliminate code redundancy, to solve problems concisely and clearly, to break down problems into modules. What really matters is how long it takes you to develop new features and fix bugs. Point A to point B is fine for small applications. Big, complex applications require tools that let us get more done faster. Languages have evolved beyond assembly, FORTRAN, and COBOL.
Do they show the bloody mess caused by suicide bombers in Israel as well? Children blown to bits and all that? Maybe they do, and if so, good for them, but I'm guessing they don't.
Why is the DoD involved in sponsoring research for help in crime-scene forensics? A much more likely scenario is a deadly biological weapon.
It's not just calories. You'll get fatter eating a bunch of sugary, empty calories instead of wholesome food that satisfies your nutritional needs and fills you up without putting you on a sugar rollercoaster. The twin epidemics of diabetes and obesity is no coincidence.
Umm, if I'm using a language that claims to be garbage collected then it damn well better work everywhere the language is implemented. This alone is enough reason for a language like D to exist.
Government should function on open standards, not proprietary ones. At the very least an open alternative should be made available. Government is for the people, remember?
No it doesn't.
From section 5: "However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables. "
From section 6: "As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice"
It goes on to say that to do this, you must give the user some way to change the LGPL'd library and create a new executable, but that doesn't require giving out your source code.
I think the US is backing the people who are working with them, and not actively against them. For example, Sadr is Shi'ite, and has fought with Coalition forces. So this does not support your statement: "There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States." The US is trying to install a stable, pro-Western, democratic government in Iraq, not incite a civil war. If the Sunnis would accept their new minority status, then their would be no civil war. Instead, they want to destabilize Iraq so they can regain power -- and are doing so by killing indiscriminately. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the US has sponsored the civil war.
Then again it just might leave a power vacuum and cause a further escalation in violence. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.
What makes you so sure? Don't you think they'd like to install their own brand of Islam-based government?
What's the evidence for this?
SEDs are the Duke Nukem and Phantom of HDTVs. Just wait another year or two! Promise!
Lots of stores have darkened areas for the HDTVs. Certainly the Best Buy near me does.
Oh come on, they recently won a World Series, in an awesome 4 game comeback against the Yankees. You'd think that would cut back on the doom and gloom for a decade or so. Plus nearly every year they are in the playoff hunt.
Popular bloggers are in a position of trust. People read their blogs expecting an honest opinion. The fact that Microsoft bothered to send them these freebies means that they have enough influence where things like journalistic integrity matter.
I love the guy's cheesy argument in the story link. "Remember bloggers are given a choice which includes giving the machine back when they're done with it. Keeping the unit is a decision made solely by the bloggers receiving the computers."
Examples? I read the blog post that was linked to in the article summary and he was very concrete in what needed to change.