Maybe you guys watch too many TV ads or something, and have unrealistic expectations. If they were the cream of the crop and had shiny personalities they'd probably be in management or sales already, not sending you resumes.
PC support a tedious grunt job where one has to deal with frustrated users for hours on end and not have that rub off on them.
Entrepreneurship is the lifeblood of a capitalist country
While I agree the US economy depends on entrepreneurship, it's not for the reason many claim.
You don't need new ideas to create demand. Human demand is almost unlimited and there are plenty of existing products and services we want, if we had the money for it.
The reason that US depends on entrepreneurship is because anything that becomes predictable or a commodity is offshored (if not automated), and we cannot compete with 3rd-world factory workers without taking away many safeguards such as labor, safety, and pollution laws.
Thus, we have to invent new products and services that require new skills and knowledge to work with in order to stay ahead of the commodity offshore curve so that we can keep our status as a "top end" economy.
The problem is that the Internet made research and customization almost a commodity also, because experts from around the world can be rented as needed. This is largely why the "first world" has been stagnant: the Internet has partially leveled the playing field. Borders matter less to doing business, yet still matter per cost of living.
Large oligopolies lasting at least a decade have almost always:
1. Had crappy service 2. Stagnate the industry 3. Bribe law-makers via their deep pockets in their favor
It's especially true when they control multiple sectors, such as content/product creation and delivery, OS and applications, hardware and software, etc. because they create proprietary or unpredictable interface "standards" that lock out newcomers.
They argue they need economies-of-scale to be efficient, but that's largely BS, as Japan car co's and ARM chips have shown. The harm from lack of competition is far worse than the benefits of economies-of-scale, if any.
I vote to slice em up and/or divide byte transfer from content. And/or make last-mile a public utility, which creates far more competition because content providers and ISP's then don't have to lay boatloads of wires to compete; just create a hookup to router nodes. Perhaps the end-user could even select which provider they use on an as-needed basis rather than have to pick one.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down. How would that fly (no pun int.) in our courts, based on past cases?
Oh great, now we'll have biased bots who magnify their own preconceived notions and become paranoid about com-trails, clowns, gays, taxes, or foreigners; and go anarchy on us.
Careful not to automate the parts of humans that make them stupid.
There are room for specialists in programming languages in terms of their compromises and what feature combos organizations need and don't need. Sure, there are technical "compiler experts", but the human and staffing side are also key, and under-studied.
Let's face it, programming is mostly a dead-end career (for good or bad), as stats show, meaning programmers have to absorb languages and applications coded in them quickly, and then they move on to project management, QA, sales, outsource contract management, or something else eventually.
If you master something others find esoteric, it can cause staffing headaches for the org. In my experience orgs really hate that. Thus, the language has to more or less cater to the lowest common denominator.
Most of the staff-level problems are dealing with screwy frameworks and API's anyhow; the language itself is kind of a secondary concern.
I see a lot of wiggle-words in there. For example, while it asks that everyone have the law applied equally, it doesn't define what can be in the laws, and some laws can be nasty or subject to wide interpretation by judges.
To protect from radiation beyond that point, the ship needs 5-foot-thick walls full of food, water, fuel, and/or sewage. As the trip progressives, it becomes less food and more sewage.
It's a little scary flying through space surrounded by walls of shit. You have to have your shit together, both figuratively and literally.
[Not] any really ground-breaking science was done at the station. Yeah, little PR things like how cats cope with zero G, and how spiderwebs look in space, but basically nothing very useful.
A $100-billion cat video. That certainly beats a $500 military hammer.
One of the few important findings from the station is medical problems created by living without gravity, some permanent. A smaller station perhaps could have been used for that research, though.
Big co's may need that, but millions of companies don't need mass concurrency, and may rely on databases and web servers to get decent medium concurrency.
We don't need a B-52, just an F-16, and don't want to support a B-52.
That being said, because Oracle and MS cannot be trusted, the industry wants a strong-typed OSS language that more or less resembles Java and C-sharp. Google is welcome to try.
It obviously was not in her interest to have them made available.
There's a bit more speculative and pie-in-sky nature to them than her campaign speeches, which gives more room for pundits to play with her text.
For example, her comment about open borders and open trade for all of the Americas was likely a kind of Star-Trekkian dreaming rather than a policy plan. But pundits against her presented it as her policy.
If the South American countries had more mature economies and governments, an American version of the European Union may indeed make sense. But we are a long ways from there, such that making it a policy goal now makes no sense.
She was probably aware that such a style gives too much ammunition to her detractors to bend and shape interpretations. Politics is not forgiving.
Hold on, Tex. Often the threat alone can achieve the same goal as the attack, but with less lives and money. Read "Art of War". But, you have to know when to use what technique skillfully. "Always do X" is low-brow.
In this case the public doesn't have enough info to make a judgement about which technique is best.
For the most part, it's the same speeches she gives on the campaign trail. Her detractors comb through to find some interpretation that can be spun as sinister, and dance around the news cams with it like a kid who found his lost jaw breaker under the couch.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you guys watch too many TV ads or something, and have unrealistic expectations. If they were the cream of the crop and had shiny personalities they'd probably be in management or sales already, not sending you resumes.
PC support a tedious grunt job where one has to deal with frustrated users for hours on end and not have that rub off on them.
While I agree the US economy depends on entrepreneurship, it's not for the reason many claim.
You don't need new ideas to create demand. Human demand is almost unlimited and there are plenty of existing products and services we want, if we had the money for it.
The reason that US depends on entrepreneurship is because anything that becomes predictable or a commodity is offshored (if not automated), and we cannot compete with 3rd-world factory workers without taking away many safeguards such as labor, safety, and pollution laws.
Thus, we have to invent new products and services that require new skills and knowledge to work with in order to stay ahead of the commodity offshore curve so that we can keep our status as a "top end" economy.
The problem is that the Internet made research and customization almost a commodity also, because experts from around the world can be rented as needed. This is largely why the "first world" has been stagnant: the Internet has partially leveled the playing field. Borders matter less to doing business, yet still matter per cost of living.
Since they bribed lawmakers and judge selectors to give them "freedom".
They are people now: Giant people with deep pockets and lots of lawyers.
Large oligopolies lasting at least a decade have almost always:
1. Had crappy service
2. Stagnate the industry
3. Bribe law-makers via their deep pockets in their favor
It's especially true when they control multiple sectors, such as content/product creation and delivery, OS and applications, hardware and software, etc. because they create proprietary or unpredictable interface "standards" that lock out newcomers.
They argue they need economies-of-scale to be efficient, but that's largely BS, as Japan car co's and ARM chips have shown. The harm from lack of competition is far worse than the benefits of economies-of-scale, if any.
I vote to slice em up and/or divide byte transfer from content. And/or make last-mile a public utility, which creates far more competition because content providers and ISP's then don't have to lay boatloads of wires to compete; just create a hookup to router nodes. Perhaps the end-user could even select which provider they use on an as-needed basis rather than have to pick one.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down. How would that fly (no pun int.) in our courts, based on past cases?
I give Google a bit more credit than that. Perhaps a project of SCO and/or Larry Ellison?
Oh great, now we'll have biased bots who magnify their own preconceived notions and become paranoid about com-trails, clowns, gays, taxes, or foreigners; and go anarchy on us.
Careful not to automate the parts of humans that make them stupid.
I have to disagree. It depends on the culture and environment of a group. When given more food, some make condoms, others make babies.
Grammar correction: "There is room for specialists..."
Modnays.
There are room for specialists in programming languages in terms of their compromises and what feature combos organizations need and don't need. Sure, there are technical "compiler experts", but the human and staffing side are also key, and under-studied.
Let's face it, programming is mostly a dead-end career (for good or bad), as stats show, meaning programmers have to absorb languages and applications coded in them quickly, and then they move on to project management, QA, sales, outsource contract management, or something else eventually.
If you master something others find esoteric, it can cause staffing headaches for the org. In my experience orgs really hate that. Thus, the language has to more or less cater to the lowest common denominator.
Most of the staff-level problems are dealing with screwy frameworks and API's anyhow; the language itself is kind of a secondary concern.
Hillary is playing a violin so small that Trump accidentally sniffed it up his nose.
I see a lot of wiggle-words in there. For example, while it asks that everyone have the law applied equally, it doesn't define what can be in the laws, and some laws can be nasty or subject to wide interpretation by judges.
Why not allow a discount under non-English-speaking drivers? As long as it's disclosed. Don't outright ban it: let the customer decide.
If you don't want chit-chat, and can get a non-English discount, it's a good deal for a customer.
To protect from radiation beyond that point, the ship needs 5-foot-thick walls full of food, water, fuel, and/or sewage. As the trip progressives, it becomes less food and more sewage.
It's a little scary flying through space surrounded by walls of shit. You have to have your shit together, both figuratively and literally.
Representative government?
A $100-billion cat video. That certainly beats a $500 military hammer.
One of the few important findings from the station is medical problems created by living without gravity, some permanent. A smaller station perhaps could have been used for that research, though.
Each country defines "human rights" differently.
Big co's may need that, but millions of companies don't need mass concurrency, and may rely on databases and web servers to get decent medium concurrency.
We don't need a B-52, just an F-16, and don't want to support a B-52.
That being said, because Oracle and MS cannot be trusted, the industry wants a strong-typed OSS language that more or less resembles Java and C-sharp. Google is welcome to try.
There's a bit more speculative and pie-in-sky nature to them than her campaign speeches, which gives more room for pundits to play with her text.
For example, her comment about open borders and open trade for all of the Americas was likely a kind of Star-Trekkian dreaming rather than a policy plan. But pundits against her presented it as her policy.
If the South American countries had more mature economies and governments, an American version of the European Union may indeed make sense. But we are a long ways from there, such that making it a policy goal now makes no sense.
She was probably aware that such a style gives too much ammunition to her detractors to bend and shape interpretations. Politics is not forgiving.
Hold on, Tex. Often the threat alone can achieve the same goal as the attack, but with less lives and money. Read "Art of War". But, you have to know when to use what technique skillfully. "Always do X" is low-brow.
In this case the public doesn't have enough info to make a judgement about which technique is best.
They are also competing against members of their own species.
...doing it, you know it's a bubble.
For the most part, it's the same speeches she gives on the campaign trail. Her detractors comb through to find some interpretation that can be spun as sinister, and dance around the news cams with it like a kid who found his lost jaw breaker under the couch.
Or what usually happens: we grow more humans.
Why didn't natural selection already "discover" this? Perhaps there's a big trade-off that hasn't been discovered yet.