I agree that we have excess, and am glad you're pro tech. We don't need disposable novelty singing rubber fish or bottled water. It's just an illustration of the level of production we've made possible. And yes, it'd be nice if we all boycotted these things and considered the hidden costs of such tripe.
I just see it as democracy, in a sense. People apparently enjoy all this crap. To deny it is authoritarian, though. I wish we had some benevolent dictatorship running things, but that's another argument.
Ultimately, I see the current state of affairs as a natural offshoot of the processes that lead to canned food, antibiotics, and utilities. Gotta take the bad with the good.
And go nuclear power! Best option that the same people who often claim to defend the planet deride. We need to pick the best of the evils we require.
Mostly, I don't see utility in being an idealist. I understand its purity, but anticipate its futility.
Self indulgence. We turned paradise into shit? I disagree. What we've done is natural and beneficial. We addressed our needs. Food, shelter, disease remedies, mental stimulation. You'd rather starve or die of an infected molar? Freeze to death? Elitist romanticism.
Yes, we're still primitive. We'll never have Star Trek, but we'll hopefully have more control over our lives than we've historically managed. What's so bad about that?
My thoughts too. Once any form has taken root, it monopolizes this route. It took all the low hanging fruit that spurred the process to begin with, The environment isn't the same as it once was.
It seems as though, since no one asked the question "how crazy are you?", he's simply steered all of his responses into answering it anyway. It also seems like half of what he does is only valuable to him if he can tell other people about it. Why does he care? It reminds me of a 12 year old bragging about the time he stole a car or slept with a teacher. They probably didn't happen, and even if they did, it's childish to broadcast it. And this guy's 67? Agh.
I'll still buy a console anyway. I just won't play any games that I'm not truly interested in (ones I'd buy used). My favorite games I bought new, and my Internet connection is up 99% of the time. Now, if their system for enforcement is glitchy, I'm gonna be pissed. It's got to be perfect. No "validation servers" down issues.
Also, I think this could work if they lowered the price of games. Instead of $60 for a new title, discount them the amount they calculate new enforcement will save the publishers in lost revenue. Maybe $40 a game now, since everyone buys their own copy. It'd be a gesture of goodwill to balance the stranglehold they'd be introducing.
I agree with this for games, but I think it's because you're actually controlling it instead of merely viewing it. It's satisfying to have more immediate feedback to your inputs. Watching a mouse cursor move at 24fps (say, in an instructional screen captured video) isn't as frustrating as operating a cursor at that rate. Feedback is always better when it's faster.
Why tolerate bugs? It's just a video game. It's not a surgery or airplane. It's all make believe. The fun and enjoyment derived outweighs (or doesn't) the irritation. I enjoyed the new game, despite the numerous bugs. Hell, I've enjoyed the Xbox, despite having 2 of them die.
I guess it's about the games. We love certain stories and franchises, and there are only 1 or 2 paths to them. Sure, I could play a less buggy game, but I want to play a particular one.
Now, if I'm paying for an online course and it's buggy, I'll make some noise.
Engineers seem to have emotional difficulties - a poverty of emotion at times and excess emotions at other times. They also aren't great communicators, so the feelings they do have aren't expressed clearly, or at all. This leads to frustration and isolation. When you present a flat personality most of the time, people disregard you as an emotional being. When you then develop strong feelings about something, you don't have the usual outlets for them, as you haven't cultured any. You can only stew about it and resent the people who "don't understand you." Without others to help mirror and redefine your feelings, they can only be chewed over and warped within.
A terrorist act (or suicide, murder) is an exertion of those warped emotions, and a way to communicate. It's done for an audience, as a statement. It forces people to "feel your pain" and appreciate/validate your emotions.
PepsiCo as an organization is not interested in any layman's definition of "nutrition."
So what? It's a democracy. People vote with their dollars. If people cared out nutrition, they'd educate themselves, as you have. Would the world be better without snacks?
This is a company designed to maximize profit by exploiting the still-ingrained hunter-gatherer instincts in us all
Yup. They wouldn't exist if they didn't. And what about using sex to sell? Damn our primitive urges!
You're right in that no one has explicitly stated how they "naturally" got to the mission statement, you're just supposed to know that it's an obvious bit of text to check against this hashing algorithm, and then shout "stupid" at people like you.
Exactly. My brother, who works for a Dow 30 company, said that during a company seminar on HR, the speaker made an analogy regarding an individual's role in the organization. He asked them to think of putting their hand in a bucket of water, and then withdrawing it, then asked "how fast does the water replace your hand when you take it out?" Instantly. "That's how quickly you can be replaced."
They don't care if you're exceptional, only that you're adequate, because it's a lot of work to identify exceptional workers and there aren't many of them. Unless you're the CEO or a VP, you're not setting policies, you're only following them, so followers are needed.
So? Iron as a source of phytoplankton blooms, and phytoplankton as a carbon sink isn't news. The "news" is that whales are doing this, and in uselessly small numbers. Tell me what I missed.
"They've well and truly bypassed being carbon neutral. They've actually gone one step further,"
What? They did? Fuck me. What is the point of this article? The whales don't know anything about this, they're just taking a shit. Maybe this supports seeding the ocean with iron, but I bet the same authors would blanch at that idea. This is just useless, idealistic drivel. Jesus Christ, slashdot.
Isn't it odd? It's been around forever, works on many platforms, and supports just about any feature you might need. I started using it a few years ago for a scientific simulation project, and I haven't looked back. I think the main hindrance, in a circular argument manner, is that is hasn't been as popular as MySQL, so there're a smaller community. It wasn't as easy to find a good PL/pgSQL book as it was to find material for all the others.
My only other complaint would be the relative immaturity of the pgAdmin software. It works fine, but does some odd things like doubly importing data if you don't know not to click the OK button after completion, and not refreshing views after actions.
This strikes a chord with me. I program training software - modest stuff - and recently have gotten into more detailed user tracking. Every click a user makes is a web service call whose return value is required for the program to continue (without notifying the user). Previously, I would say our audience was used to software without an Internet component. They watched material and took a test. The PDF printout was the proof of use.
We get calls saying "the computer ate my homework." This can only be true for one transaction, but varying claims are made which don't agree with reality. I'm asked to inveigh in some circumstances, and it's hard to say "they're lying." Can I unequivically state (and logically convey) that they're wrong? Do I know every possible path of the program? I feel that I do, but I've had genuine glitches in the past.
This reminds me of welfare. Back in the 30s, through the WPA, the government essentially operated a welfare for work system with their many public works projects. People dug ditches or cleared land or built things. What if we required current welfare participants (within their ability) to pedal a generator for a few hours a day? It would eliminate the argument that they get something for nothing, cut down on abuse, get people in shape, require no skills, and partially offset the system costs by producing something of value.
Of course, it would be easy to paint this idea as slavery or abuse, so it would never survive the political test. Maybe China could implement it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is.
I agree that we have excess, and am glad you're pro tech. We don't need disposable novelty singing rubber fish or bottled water. It's just an illustration of the level of production we've made possible. And yes, it'd be nice if we all boycotted these things and considered the hidden costs of such tripe.
I just see it as democracy, in a sense. People apparently enjoy all this crap. To deny it is authoritarian, though. I wish we had some benevolent dictatorship running things, but that's another argument.
Ultimately, I see the current state of affairs as a natural offshoot of the processes that lead to canned food, antibiotics, and utilities. Gotta take the bad with the good.
And go nuclear power! Best option that the same people who often claim to defend the planet deride. We need to pick the best of the evils we require.
Mostly, I don't see utility in being an idealist. I understand its purity, but anticipate its futility.
Self indulgence. We turned paradise into shit? I disagree. What we've done is natural and beneficial. We addressed our needs. Food, shelter, disease remedies, mental stimulation. You'd rather starve or die of an infected molar? Freeze to death? Elitist romanticism.
Yes, we're still primitive. We'll never have Star Trek, but we'll hopefully have more control over our lives than we've historically managed. What's so bad about that?
Because no one would believe it if he were 9
My thoughts too. Once any form has taken root, it monopolizes this route. It took all the low hanging fruit that spurred the process to begin with, The environment isn't the same as it once was.
What constitutes the lot? From my limited vantage, I see only Linux, OSX, and Windows. Of course, this just shows my myopia.
It does seem to be profitable venture.
This is about as likely to happen as North Korea landing a man on the moon.
I'll volunteer to be the first man to arm wrestle an alien.
It seems as though, since no one asked the question "how crazy are you?", he's simply steered all of his responses into answering it anyway. It also seems like half of what he does is only valuable to him if he can tell other people about it. Why does he care? It reminds me of a 12 year old bragging about the time he stole a car or slept with a teacher. They probably didn't happen, and even if they did, it's childish to broadcast it. And this guy's 67? Agh.
I think the real solution to the problem is to start generating massive amounts of meaningless data until the spooks run out of storage.
We're doing it right now!
If use it boom
I'll still buy a console anyway. I just won't play any games that I'm not truly interested in (ones I'd buy used). My favorite games I bought new, and my Internet connection is up 99% of the time. Now, if their system for enforcement is glitchy, I'm gonna be pissed. It's got to be perfect. No "validation servers" down issues.
Also, I think this could work if they lowered the price of games. Instead of $60 for a new title, discount them the amount they calculate new enforcement will save the publishers in lost revenue. Maybe $40 a game now, since everyone buys their own copy. It'd be a gesture of goodwill to balance the stranglehold they'd be introducing.
I agree with this for games, but I think it's because you're actually controlling it instead of merely viewing it. It's satisfying to have more immediate feedback to your inputs. Watching a mouse cursor move at 24fps (say, in an instructional screen captured video) isn't as frustrating as operating a cursor at that rate. Feedback is always better when it's faster.
Why tolerate bugs? It's just a video game. It's not a surgery or airplane. It's all make believe. The fun and enjoyment derived outweighs (or doesn't) the irritation. I enjoyed the new game, despite the numerous bugs. Hell, I've enjoyed the Xbox, despite having 2 of them die.
I guess it's about the games. We love certain stories and franchises, and there are only 1 or 2 paths to them. Sure, I could play a less buggy game, but I want to play a particular one.
Now, if I'm paying for an online course and it's buggy, I'll make some noise.
Not absurd, just not economical. Systems are born in a finite community.
Engineers seem to have emotional difficulties - a poverty of emotion at times and excess emotions at other times. They also aren't great communicators, so the feelings they do have aren't expressed clearly, or at all. This leads to frustration and isolation. When you present a flat personality most of the time, people disregard you as an emotional being. When you then develop strong feelings about something, you don't have the usual outlets for them, as you haven't cultured any. You can only stew about it and resent the people who "don't understand you." Without others to help mirror and redefine your feelings, they can only be chewed over and warped within.
A terrorist act (or suicide, murder) is an exertion of those warped emotions, and a way to communicate. It's done for an audience, as a statement. It forces people to "feel your pain" and appreciate/validate your emotions.
So what? It's a democracy. People vote with their dollars. If people cared out nutrition, they'd educate themselves, as you have. Would the world be better without snacks?
Yup. They wouldn't exist if they didn't. And what about using sex to sell? Damn our primitive urges!
You're right in that no one has explicitly stated how they "naturally" got to the mission statement, you're just supposed to know that it's an obvious bit of text to check against this hashing algorithm, and then shout "stupid" at people like you.
Exactly. My brother, who works for a Dow 30 company, said that during a company seminar on HR, the speaker made an analogy regarding an individual's role in the organization. He asked them to think of putting their hand in a bucket of water, and then withdrawing it, then asked "how fast does the water replace your hand when you take it out?" Instantly. "That's how quickly you can be replaced."
They don't care if you're exceptional, only that you're adequate, because it's a lot of work to identify exceptional workers and there aren't many of them. Unless you're the CEO or a VP, you're not setting policies, you're only following them, so followers are needed.
So? Iron as a source of phytoplankton blooms, and phytoplankton as a carbon sink isn't news. The "news" is that whales are doing this, and in uselessly small numbers. Tell me what I missed.
"They've well and truly bypassed being carbon neutral. They've actually gone one step further,"
What? They did? Fuck me. What is the point of this article? The whales don't know anything about this, they're just taking a shit. Maybe this supports seeding the ocean with iron, but I bet the same authors would blanch at that idea. This is just useless, idealistic drivel. Jesus Christ, slashdot.
Isn't it odd? It's been around forever, works on many platforms, and supports just about any feature you might need. I started using it a few years ago for a scientific simulation project, and I haven't looked back. I think the main hindrance, in a circular argument manner, is that is hasn't been as popular as MySQL, so there're a smaller community. It wasn't as easy to find a good PL/pgSQL book as it was to find material for all the others.
My only other complaint would be the relative immaturity of the pgAdmin software. It works fine, but does some odd things like doubly importing data if you don't know not to click the OK button after completion, and not refreshing views after actions.
This strikes a chord with me. I program training software - modest stuff - and recently have gotten into more detailed user tracking. Every click a user makes is a web service call whose return value is required for the program to continue (without notifying the user). Previously, I would say our audience was used to software without an Internet component. They watched material and took a test. The PDF printout was the proof of use.
We get calls saying "the computer ate my homework." This can only be true for one transaction, but varying claims are made which don't agree with reality. I'm asked to inveigh in some circumstances, and it's hard to say "they're lying." Can I unequivically state (and logically convey) that they're wrong? Do I know every possible path of the program? I feel that I do, but I've had genuine glitches in the past.
This reminds me of welfare. Back in the 30s, through the WPA, the government essentially operated a welfare for work system with their many public works projects. People dug ditches or cleared land or built things. What if we required current welfare participants (within their ability) to pedal a generator for a few hours a day? It would eliminate the argument that they get something for nothing, cut down on abuse, get people in shape, require no skills, and partially offset the system costs by producing something of value.
Of course, it would be easy to paint this idea as slavery or abuse, so it would never survive the political test. Maybe China could implement it.
just don't buy the bed with the huge parabolic headboard.