We saw it in vastly different lights, then. Democrats had "won," and wouldn't budge; republicans were trying to satisfy tea party types and wouldn't budge... and the news painted the republicans as the obstructionists (as they typically do, except for Fox and their ilk).
In the last department I was in the development team had exactly ONE CS graduate... me. The lead developer is a former math teacher; the secondary a biologist... they gravitated to programming because they enjoyed it and are now pretty successful at it. I moved to a different department to do graphics work (which I enjoy a lot more), but I don't think any of the people in that division were CS graduates.
Why? Because the vast majority of CS graduates are exactly what you guys are describing - they went into CS because it was the new engineering (what they were telling people in the 60s and 70s to get into); they didn't like it, they weren't particularly good at it, but they managed to pass their classes. Now I know more CS graduates who don't work in IT - one's a golf "pro" instructor at a golf club, one parks cars as a valet Las Vegas (both make more money than me, BTW).
Well, seeing as an unemployment rate of 3% or less is considered "full employment", this story is just another bullshit blown-out-of-proportion negative hit piece.
The published unemployment rates are a blatant lie, and I don't know how anyone is stupid enough to believe them any more. It's been well-established that they are a dirty lie. Why do we (by which I mean you) keep using them in arguments like they mean something?
Because he's responding to the arguments presented in TFA?
Agreed - he said he wanted to work with the other side, but then whenever they met he was like "hey, I won, get over it!" and wouldn't compromise at all. Now not compromising might be a good thing under some circumstances (too many chefs spoil the meal - you don't want to see good legislation watered down by compromise), but the republicans can say the same thing. I'm neither democrat nor republican, but looking at how democrats and republicans act, the confirmation bias for "their side" is absolutely astounding, and you can't point it out to them - they go nuts.
You forgot the word "fortunately." I don't see how it's "fortunate" (in the post you're responding to) that most of Europe is not allowed to defend themselves from home invaders.
Bullshit.... everything on their desk is a product, from the books to the pens, pencils, and scissors. What you're suggesting is they shouldn't even use computers at all then, because they are "products." Do you even stop to think about what you're writing before press "submit"?
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "not exclusively." They should be learning a variety of different products, and that you point to one in particular and suggest that's what they should be learning only shows your bias. If they learn on a variety of products, then they don't fall into the UI trap that was discussed several days ago on Slashdot - they learn to look around the menus and find what they want instead of rote memorization of one product.
They don't need to. I'm not a fan of MS, but the school system would be doing their students a disservice if they didn't teach them to use MS products. I'm not saying exclusively, but learning anything else would be completely useless for the vast majority of the students who will end up using MS products anyway. I know, I know - it could change in the future, and I hope it does, but it's the reality of today.
You're being pedantic about it; if Harry Shearer is bringing enough value to Fox for him to paid $300k an episode, then he "deserves" it the same way a star athlete, who generates millions of dollars for his team's franchise, "deserves" the exorbitant salaries they make.
"Deserves" is really otherwise a very subjective term - and just because you don't think someone "deserves" something doesn't mean they don't, so it's pointless to argue about it.
I don't understand why people keep repeating this... so what? My dad is 85 and still runs his own accounting business. Some people are perfectly capable at that age, some aren't; Shearer obviously is.
Then why didn't he walk away? He ended up coming back and taking the same deal they were offering (him and everyone else). I get he has his talk show which, I would presume in his mind, is actually worthwhile compared to doing the Simpsons, so if he just wants to keep busy and have a positive impact, he'd have quit the Simpsons and just done his show. For the record, at 20 episodes, you're talking about the difference between 6 and 9 million (he accepted the $300k an episode, down from $450k). Unless you're a billionaire, you don't walk away from $6M/year for a few weeks worth of voice work.
It's not about the quantity of voices, it's about how much air time each voice gets. All of those characters are secondary, and all of them combined usually do not amount to what Homer or Bart says in any given episode. Dan Castellaneta does just as many voices, including Homer, and took the $300k deal, because no matter how much money you have or make, you don't walk away from $300k for a day or two of voice work times 22 (or so) episodes a year.
He finally accepted the same contract as everyone else. When he realized Fox would do the show without him, suddenly $300k an episode for a few hours of voice work seemed worth not losing.
I gave my parents a Tivo, and they gave it back because it was too complicated. Now they've got the DVR that comes with Comcast... and I just have to laugh, because otherwise I'd shoot myself.
So, Microsoft changed the UI of Office because otherwise people would have stopped using it and started using OpenOffice or something else?
Yes and no... in reality, people would have kept right on using MS Office, but perception is reality - software companies, like MS, think they have to keep "innovating" in order to stay ahead. If they sit still, someone will pass them by... it's not true in this case, but that's the perception. It IS true w.r.t. the OS, but that doesn't mean the GUI needs to drastically change.
Now you have to worry about televisions becoming too complicated to use. Set top box user interfaces are pretty lousy too. Smartphones are portable containers of horrible interfaces so that you can be frustrated and annoyed anywhere you go. So if you give up on the computer altogether, soon you find yourself giving up on lots of things.
Interesting observation. I work in the television industry, and our studio TVs (the ones the hosts of the show watch) don't have obvious buttons anymore, they are hidden in the back, tiny black buttons on a black case with tiny black raised lettering as an indication to what they do... even in a well lit room you need a flash light and magnifying glass to be able to use them. Why? Because now they expect you to just use the remote... and every remote control is different. On top of that (and what I think you were actually referring to), the menu systems on TVs are all different... even often on different models by the same manufacturer and, as we're pointing out, every new model seems to have a different one.
Of course, it's not just those - my home TV isn't much better, but the ones in the studio are the "latest and greatest."
Even ordering food at restaurants is hard now. Oganic, vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, paleo, low carb, high carb, free range home schooled beef, etc. There's a place my friends go to where you fill out a form for the type of burger you want; it's not always clear what's going on, like what side is included and which cost extra. Dammit, just give me my burger already and don't make me choose which type of ketchup it has.
An interesting episode of "Brain Games" discussed this - we're actually much more comfortable with a limited number of choices despite the fact our brains tell us that more choice is good.
I sometimes ask these UI wizards what they think would happen if I moved the keys on their keyboards around with every software release, in response to the latest theories on typing speed and accuracy, and perhaps added and/or subtracted a few just, well, just because I thought it would be a good idea. If one is, say, ten years old and just learning to touch-type, perhaps the new keyboard layout indeed would be better. However, the installed base of zillions of users that are used to, and expected to see, the old keyboard arrangement would be totally hosed, and would need to retrain themselves just to get back to the productivity levels they had before I "helped" them.
And when they complain, you can blame them for being archaic and wanting to stifle progress, that it's for their own good, and ultimately tell them "you're engineers, if you don't like it then build your own keyboards!" Because, of course, nobody is actually trying to do their work or anything.
Easier - include an elevated chair so that the desk does not have to be adjusted. I read recently (within past six months) that walking for five minutes undoes the damage of an hour of sitting. I probably read it here, in fact. If we just take a five minute walk break every hour, it wouldn't be so bad. Personally, I gave up snacking while working (yes, another fat computer programmer, reformed) and drink water instead... which makes me have to go to the bathroom a lot, which gets me moving a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
We saw it in vastly different lights, then. Democrats had "won," and wouldn't budge; republicans were trying to satisfy tea party types and wouldn't budge... and the news painted the republicans as the obstructionists (as they typically do, except for Fox and their ilk).
In the last department I was in the development team had exactly ONE CS graduate... me. The lead developer is a former math teacher; the secondary a biologist... they gravitated to programming because they enjoyed it and are now pretty successful at it. I moved to a different department to do graphics work (which I enjoy a lot more), but I don't think any of the people in that division were CS graduates.
Why? Because the vast majority of CS graduates are exactly what you guys are describing - they went into CS because it was the new engineering (what they were telling people in the 60s and 70s to get into); they didn't like it, they weren't particularly good at it, but they managed to pass their classes. Now I know more CS graduates who don't work in IT - one's a golf "pro" instructor at a golf club, one parks cars as a valet Las Vegas (both make more money than me, BTW).
Well, seeing as an unemployment rate of 3% or less is considered "full employment", this story is just another bullshit blown-out-of-proportion negative hit piece.
The published unemployment rates are a blatant lie, and I don't know how anyone is stupid enough to believe them any more. It's been well-established that they are a dirty lie. Why do we (by which I mean you) keep using them in arguments like they mean something?
Because he's responding to the arguments presented in TFA?
Agreed - he said he wanted to work with the other side, but then whenever they met he was like "hey, I won, get over it!" and wouldn't compromise at all. Now not compromising might be a good thing under some circumstances (too many chefs spoil the meal - you don't want to see good legislation watered down by compromise), but the republicans can say the same thing. I'm neither democrat nor republican, but looking at how democrats and republicans act, the confirmation bias for "their side" is absolutely astounding, and you can't point it out to them - they go nuts.
You forgot the word "fortunately." I don't see how it's "fortunate" (in the post you're responding to) that most of Europe is not allowed to defend themselves from home invaders.
So? That has nothing to do with it. You think it's less creepy for nerds to spy on a 17 or 18 year old with a drone?
If fast acceleration is necessary for some reason, then it's not unnecessary. I'm not sure I see the problem you have with it.
IMO, it's not even that, it's the "I'm Rich" iPod app for cars.
They actually do name it correctly, at least in some states, "Unnecessary show of acceleration."
Bullshit.... everything on their desk is a product, from the books to the pens, pencils, and scissors. What you're suggesting is they shouldn't even use computers at all then, because they are "products." Do you even stop to think about what you're writing before press "submit"?
Perhaps you missed the part where I said "not exclusively." They should be learning a variety of different products, and that you point to one in particular and suggest that's what they should be learning only shows your bias. If they learn on a variety of products, then they don't fall into the UI trap that was discussed several days ago on Slashdot - they learn to look around the menus and find what they want instead of rote memorization of one product.
How is making a favorable business arrangement "cheating?" Did they commit fraud somehow?
They don't need to. I'm not a fan of MS, but the school system would be doing their students a disservice if they didn't teach them to use MS products. I'm not saying exclusively, but learning anything else would be completely useless for the vast majority of the students who will end up using MS products anyway. I know, I know - it could change in the future, and I hope it does, but it's the reality of today.
You're being pedantic about it; if Harry Shearer is bringing enough value to Fox for him to paid $300k an episode, then he "deserves" it the same way a star athlete, who generates millions of dollars for his team's franchise, "deserves" the exorbitant salaries they make.
"Deserves" is really otherwise a very subjective term - and just because you don't think someone "deserves" something doesn't mean they don't, so it's pointless to argue about it.
I don't understand why people keep repeating this... so what? My dad is 85 and still runs his own accounting business. Some people are perfectly capable at that age, some aren't; Shearer obviously is.
Then why didn't he walk away? He ended up coming back and taking the same deal they were offering (him and everyone else). I get he has his talk show which, I would presume in his mind, is actually worthwhile compared to doing the Simpsons, so if he just wants to keep busy and have a positive impact, he'd have quit the Simpsons and just done his show. For the record, at 20 episodes, you're talking about the difference between 6 and 9 million (he accepted the $300k an episode, down from $450k). Unless you're a billionaire, you don't walk away from $6M/year for a few weeks worth of voice work.
It's not about the quantity of voices, it's about how much air time each voice gets. All of those characters are secondary, and all of them combined usually do not amount to what Homer or Bart says in any given episode. Dan Castellaneta does just as many voices, including Homer, and took the $300k deal, because no matter how much money you have or make, you don't walk away from $300k for a day or two of voice work times 22 (or so) episodes a year.
He finally accepted the same contract as everyone else. When he realized Fox would do the show without him, suddenly $300k an episode for a few hours of voice work seemed worth not losing.
Give it up - anyone that won't accept a market based explanation of why people get the salaries they get is hopeless.
I gave my parents a Tivo, and they gave it back because it was too complicated. Now they've got the DVR that comes with Comcast... and I just have to laugh, because otherwise I'd shoot myself.
So, Microsoft changed the UI of Office because otherwise people would have stopped using it and started using OpenOffice or something else?
Yes and no... in reality, people would have kept right on using MS Office, but perception is reality - software companies, like MS, think they have to keep "innovating" in order to stay ahead. If they sit still, someone will pass them by... it's not true in this case, but that's the perception. It IS true w.r.t. the OS, but that doesn't mean the GUI needs to drastically change.
Now you have to worry about televisions becoming too complicated to use. Set top box user interfaces are pretty lousy too. Smartphones are portable containers of horrible interfaces so that you can be frustrated and annoyed anywhere you go. So if you give up on the computer altogether, soon you find yourself giving up on lots of things.
Interesting observation. I work in the television industry, and our studio TVs (the ones the hosts of the show watch) don't have obvious buttons anymore, they are hidden in the back, tiny black buttons on a black case with tiny black raised lettering as an indication to what they do... even in a well lit room you need a flash light and magnifying glass to be able to use them. Why? Because now they expect you to just use the remote... and every remote control is different. On top of that (and what I think you were actually referring to), the menu systems on TVs are all different... even often on different models by the same manufacturer and, as we're pointing out, every new model seems to have a different one.
Of course, it's not just those - my home TV isn't much better, but the ones in the studio are the "latest and greatest."
Even ordering food at restaurants is hard now. Oganic, vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, paleo, low carb, high carb, free range home schooled beef, etc. There's a place my friends go to where you fill out a form for the type of burger you want; it's not always clear what's going on, like what side is included and which cost extra. Dammit, just give me my burger already and don't make me choose which type of ketchup it has.
An interesting episode of "Brain Games" discussed this - we're actually much more comfortable with a limited number of choices despite the fact our brains tell us that more choice is good.
Touché! I wonder how many older folks using slashdot gave up on it because of the change.
I sometimes ask these UI wizards what they think would happen if I moved the keys on their keyboards around with every software release, in response to the latest theories on typing speed and accuracy, and perhaps added and/or subtracted a few just, well, just because I thought it would be a good idea. If one is, say, ten years old and just learning to touch-type, perhaps the new keyboard layout indeed would be better. However, the installed base of zillions of users that are used to, and expected to see, the old keyboard arrangement would be totally hosed, and would need to retrain themselves just to get back to the productivity levels they had before I "helped" them.
And when they complain, you can blame them for being archaic and wanting to stifle progress, that it's for their own good, and ultimately tell them "you're engineers, if you don't like it then build your own keyboards!" Because, of course, nobody is actually trying to do their work or anything.
Easier - include an elevated chair so that the desk does not have to be adjusted. I read recently (within past six months) that walking for five minutes undoes the damage of an hour of sitting. I probably read it here, in fact. If we just take a five minute walk break every hour, it wouldn't be so bad. Personally, I gave up snacking while working (yes, another fat computer programmer, reformed) and drink water instead... which makes me have to go to the bathroom a lot, which gets me moving a lot.