To be blunt it's a neologism adopted by those in favor of U.S. intervention in the Middle East. It's been popularized by all of the hawkish "liberals" like Christopher Hitchens and "conservatives" in the current U.S. administration. It is used to evoke sentiments of World War II, since the U.S. is particularly obsessed with World War II.
As a side note: Please take Chritopher Hitchens back to the UK; we have enough of our own crazies to deal with without importing them. If you do, we promise not to let George W. Bush massage any future heads of state.
Thanksgiving isn't a big holiday in the U.S. from a gift perspective, it's simply that we market holidays well in advance because we market everything to the extreme in the U.S. Halloween advertisements begin in early September, October will have mixed Halloween/Thanksgiving decorations and then it's heavy turkey and pilgrim displays, and then in November people begin shopping for Christmas. I'm sure if there were no Thanksgiving, it would just mean people would start shopping for Christmas even earlier.
at eight in Commodore BASIC, I found the line numbering to be a nuisance because I would invariably mistype a number somewhere at least once due to the tedium. I eventually made myself be more careful as I became more comfortable writing programs, but when I learned Logo in school I lamented how annoying using Commodore BASIC and BASICA was. There may be some conceptual simplicity in the imperative procedural programming style that makes learning to program easier, but I do not think that line-oriented programming languages are especially valuable. Further while various versions of BASIC served me adequately on my personal computers until I was 12, I didn't program in BASIC because it was easy to use, I programmed in BASIC because it was all that I had at home. If I could have programmed in Python then I would have picked that over any BASIC derivative (I even hate reading BASIC derivatives now, even though I have to contend with VBA on a frequent-enough basis when dealing with certain work-people). I also would have loved a Smalltalk implementation, because not only would it have come with a real IDE and debugger, it would probably have come with the source code for any non-primitives that I could have inspected to see how things were implemented. That could have its downsides, though, in terms of complexity.
I suppose if there is any substantive barrier to entry it's the separation of the language and API from trivial programming in many popular languages today. You could create a full screen graphics context in a given resolution and color depth trivially, not have to contend with any system event loop, and draw various geometric primitives without tons of boilerplate. While there are libraries that simplify these sort of things, they aren't typically all collected together with a simple language and distributed with every computer into the bedrooms of children. You can't say that there's www.somewebsitethatwillprovideit.com and expect that small children will just find it and decide that they want to program. If it wasn't for an after-school program I wouldn't have even had anywhere near the time necessary to learn Logo in school, so it probably isn't realistic really expect to even just introduce this sort of thing in school and have it stick. Children need to be able to easily program from their own computers in their free time at home, or they'll be waiting until high school to pickup programming in any serious way.
Maybe you should question whether what you do is Computer Science. If someone obtains a degree in Physics and decides that he wants to be a computer programmer, does he have to post on Slashdot about how all of that mathematics he learned to obtain a degree in Physics isn't necessary for the CRUD software he develops. Yet here on Slashdot everyone whose jobs basically consists of writing CRUD software, spitting out webpages, or babysitting servers complains incessantly about how their college education was superfluous. Well if you choose to do something that's not related to what you studied then big surprise that it doesn't entail considerable mathematical expertise.
Two people hardly makes for a useful sample, and ethics know no gender or educational background. Since the overwhelming majority of such decisions are made by males, you might as well ask why so many companies have problems with men. Like HP's, for example, who had a male board member leaking information to the press. What's HP's problem with men?
My monitor will do 1600x1200@90Hz, and obviously higher at lower resolutions. It's a shame that the LCD market has cannibalized the professional CRT market, since you'll have little luck finding many new CRTs with that sort of bandwidth.
People turn off the features to simplify the visuals. Competitive players do this in CounterStrike for crying out loud, and it's not because they can't obtain 90fps with their computers.
Hardware doesn't make you competitive in multiplayer games. People that play multiplayer games competitively turn off all of the features that they can to make the visuals simpler and easier to compete in. To spend $500/y on hardware you'd have to be buying a brand new video card every year or making some pretty poor hardware choices. Either way you can count the sale of one-year old computer hardware toward your new purchases. Video cards don't depreciate so rapidly that it's a total loss, and that's the most significant piece of hardware in modern games.
They aren't going to turn away low-level workers due to their credit history, they're going to control promotion and higher-level jobs in the organization with credit information. There would be more incentive in some areas to preclude employment by those with poor credit in areas where they are exposed to valuables that are easy to walk off with, but in organizations where there does not exist the temptation it would be of nominal importance. It is in the interest of those that hold skilled positions that their wages are not decreased. If businesses operated wholly to minimize costs, including those of labor, it would not be beneficial to the business itself to inflate the wages of the workers, but like labor unions, areas of businesses are dominated by people that seek to cover their own asses. That is to say that businesses do not typically operate so as to maximize their own efficiency, especially as they grow in size where Management Science focuses on operations in manufacturing and other labor-intensive areas and only refocuses to performing other analysis when deciding layoffs because earnings are down. For me this doesn't matter, and I suppose it only serves to benefit my employment prospects, but for people that have incurred debts that they have not paid completely on time this will simply become one of the ad hoc rationalizations used to toss their resumes into the bin or to keep them in the lower pay-grade positions.
What it is an example of an additional hoop to jump through in order to obtain jobs that don't entail menial labor. As more people obtain the higher levels of education that were previously the prerequisites for higher-paying jobs, there needs to be a growth of the number of those jobs, or the wages will necessarily decrease. You can prevent the depreciation of your job by means of increasing the barrier of entry so as to reduce the number of potential applicants again. Credit is actually a pretty effective tool at reducing the number of applicants, because in the U.S. many people are heavily in debt for a wide-range of reasons, including obtaining higher levels of education, a gold rush in real estate, unexpected health care costs, and of course just plain overindulgence.
The secret to escaping accountability in government and business is largely the same: avoiding public awareness of your crimes. Provided that you can do that then the government will take a lazy hand on business criminals and the public will take a lazy hand with elected criminals.
Traficant went to jail. Bill Clinton was minorly punished for committing perjury beyond his multi-year humiliation. Newt Gingrich was eventually forced to resign. Jim McGreevey was forced to resign, but more for being a homosexual than over the allegations of legal improprieties. I don't know if George W. Bush could get elected outside of Texas now, though it certainly took a lot of ineptitude before his poll numbers tanked. Joe Lieberman might be looking for a new job after receiving the Kiss of Death. Duke Cunningham is completely done. I'd like to think that Tom DeLay is headed to jail to join the ol' Dukester.
And here I was thinking that two terrible writers and a baseball player I've never heard of (which says nothing of his fame, I just only recognize the first two people) have suddenly decided that they have what it takes to compete in absurdly-competitive video game industry because they're famous. I thoroughly enjoyed Todd McFarlane's artwork when I was 13, but it wasn't revolutionary and he was an incredibly poor writer. Salvatore has six or seven thousand pulp fantasy books, like his endless Drow books, but the quality of that work is certainly not "phenomonal." By the standards of video game writing he might be a comparative genius, but that says more about the secondary role storytelling serves in the majority of video games.
Creating video games requires teams of talented people, not a handful of famous people. It consists of arduous amounts of work, and frankly no amount of fame can short-circuit that. Especially in the case of the baseball player, it seems a lot like a group of teenage males getting together and talking about how great it would be to create video games. Or probably more likely, a group of rich males getting together to create what they expect to be a profitable business venture relying largely on their fame to enter into the MMORPG market. Any group of actors looking to make an investment into the gaming industry would offer much of what this trio does (fame, money) and still face the same challenges (having to create entire teams of talent). They probably should have just bought an existing studio that already has experience producing games together.
You have MacVision. Things that are not inferior appear inferior because they are not sold by Apple Computer. Dell uses the same panels in its displays that Apple does in its Cinema Displays of the same dimensions. There are differences in terms of casing, other features, and back-lighting but the panels themselves are the same.
I'm guessing you didn't pay attention to the news prior to 9/11/2001. Or at least that's the only information I was able to obtain from the content of your post.
The switch to the x86 removes a distinguishing hardware difference that afforded neglible to negative gains except in specialized contexts where AltiVec was most effective. By becoming another PC vendor Apple can sell the ability to more-efficiently run Windows in conjunction with OS X, while also assuring performance-parity, processor availability, and the speed of the Intel development cycle. Apple can continue to differentiate itself in hardware by targeting various niches rather than directly competing in all classes with Dell on margins. The Mini for example is less expensive than AOpen's miniPC Duo, with other hardware vendors mostly concentrating on providing the least-expensive tower-centric options. Apple's AIO iMac also differentiates itself with its design and (for a while) its use of lower-power mobile hardware in comparison to most vendors targeting a tower at that price point. The magnetic power adapter offers another slight distinction. Apple is still selling a platform, even if there is little technical difference in the underlying hardware. They are doing respectably financially, so the reason they are not selling their operating system for use on other PCs is simple-enough: they want control of what their brand is associated with, and to continue making money off of the sale of their hardware. Apple's goal is to make money, not usurp Windows' role of "favored bitch."
Re:I don't care for these commercials
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Apple's advertisements serve a number of roles: reassuring their customers of the superiority of their platform choice (thus encouraging continued purchases), obtaining as much recognition for their brand as possible, and appealing to the vanity of potential new customers. I think they're fairly pretentious, but their success will be measured by how much brand-awareness and revenue they generate. They will turn some people off and appeal to others, but there's little doubt that they will succeed in increasing brand awareness. It's not unlike the Switch campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
To be blunt it's a neologism adopted by those in favor of U.S. intervention in the Middle East. It's been popularized by all of the hawkish "liberals" like Christopher Hitchens and "conservatives" in the current U.S. administration. It is used to evoke sentiments of World War II, since the U.S. is particularly obsessed with World War II. As a side note: Please take Chritopher Hitchens back to the UK; we have enough of our own crazies to deal with without importing them. If you do, we promise not to let George W. Bush massage any future heads of state.
Thanksgiving isn't a big holiday in the U.S. from a gift perspective, it's simply that we market holidays well in advance because we market everything to the extreme in the U.S. Halloween advertisements begin in early September, October will have mixed Halloween/Thanksgiving decorations and then it's heavy turkey and pilgrim displays, and then in November people begin shopping for Christmas. I'm sure if there were no Thanksgiving, it would just mean people would start shopping for Christmas even earlier.
at eight in Commodore BASIC, I found the line numbering to be a nuisance because I would invariably mistype a number somewhere at least once due to the tedium. I eventually made myself be more careful as I became more comfortable writing programs, but when I learned Logo in school I lamented how annoying using Commodore BASIC and BASICA was. There may be some conceptual simplicity in the imperative procedural programming style that makes learning to program easier, but I do not think that line-oriented programming languages are especially valuable. Further while various versions of BASIC served me adequately on my personal computers until I was 12, I didn't program in BASIC because it was easy to use, I programmed in BASIC because it was all that I had at home. If I could have programmed in Python then I would have picked that over any BASIC derivative (I even hate reading BASIC derivatives now, even though I have to contend with VBA on a frequent-enough basis when dealing with certain work-people). I also would have loved a Smalltalk implementation, because not only would it have come with a real IDE and debugger, it would probably have come with the source code for any non-primitives that I could have inspected to see how things were implemented. That could have its downsides, though, in terms of complexity. I suppose if there is any substantive barrier to entry it's the separation of the language and API from trivial programming in many popular languages today. You could create a full screen graphics context in a given resolution and color depth trivially, not have to contend with any system event loop, and draw various geometric primitives without tons of boilerplate. While there are libraries that simplify these sort of things, they aren't typically all collected together with a simple language and distributed with every computer into the bedrooms of children. You can't say that there's www.somewebsitethatwillprovideit.com and expect that small children will just find it and decide that they want to program. If it wasn't for an after-school program I wouldn't have even had anywhere near the time necessary to learn Logo in school, so it probably isn't realistic really expect to even just introduce this sort of thing in school and have it stick. Children need to be able to easily program from their own computers in their free time at home, or they'll be waiting until high school to pickup programming in any serious way.
Maybe you should question whether what you do is Computer Science. If someone obtains a degree in Physics and decides that he wants to be a computer programmer, does he have to post on Slashdot about how all of that mathematics he learned to obtain a degree in Physics isn't necessary for the CRUD software he develops. Yet here on Slashdot everyone whose jobs basically consists of writing CRUD software, spitting out webpages, or babysitting servers complains incessantly about how their college education was superfluous. Well if you choose to do something that's not related to what you studied then big surprise that it doesn't entail considerable mathematical expertise.
Two people hardly makes for a useful sample, and ethics know no gender or educational background. Since the overwhelming majority of such decisions are made by males, you might as well ask why so many companies have problems with men. Like HP's, for example, who had a male board member leaking information to the press. What's HP's problem with men?
Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Thank you, that is all.
My monitor will do 1600x1200@90Hz, and obviously higher at lower resolutions. It's a shame that the LCD market has cannibalized the professional CRT market, since you'll have little luck finding many new CRTs with that sort of bandwidth.
People turn off the features to simplify the visuals. Competitive players do this in CounterStrike for crying out loud, and it's not because they can't obtain 90fps with their computers.
Hardware doesn't make you competitive in multiplayer games. People that play multiplayer games competitively turn off all of the features that they can to make the visuals simpler and easier to compete in. To spend $500/y on hardware you'd have to be buying a brand new video card every year or making some pretty poor hardware choices. Either way you can count the sale of one-year old computer hardware toward your new purchases. Video cards don't depreciate so rapidly that it's a total loss, and that's the most significant piece of hardware in modern games.
They aren't going to turn away low-level workers due to their credit history, they're going to control promotion and higher-level jobs in the organization with credit information. There would be more incentive in some areas to preclude employment by those with poor credit in areas where they are exposed to valuables that are easy to walk off with, but in organizations where there does not exist the temptation it would be of nominal importance. It is in the interest of those that hold skilled positions that their wages are not decreased. If businesses operated wholly to minimize costs, including those of labor, it would not be beneficial to the business itself to inflate the wages of the workers, but like labor unions, areas of businesses are dominated by people that seek to cover their own asses. That is to say that businesses do not typically operate so as to maximize their own efficiency, especially as they grow in size where Management Science focuses on operations in manufacturing and other labor-intensive areas and only refocuses to performing other analysis when deciding layoffs because earnings are down. For me this doesn't matter, and I suppose it only serves to benefit my employment prospects, but for people that have incurred debts that they have not paid completely on time this will simply become one of the ad hoc rationalizations used to toss their resumes into the bin or to keep them in the lower pay-grade positions.
What it is an example of an additional hoop to jump through in order to obtain jobs that don't entail menial labor. As more people obtain the higher levels of education that were previously the prerequisites for higher-paying jobs, there needs to be a growth of the number of those jobs, or the wages will necessarily decrease. You can prevent the depreciation of your job by means of increasing the barrier of entry so as to reduce the number of potential applicants again. Credit is actually a pretty effective tool at reducing the number of applicants, because in the U.S. many people are heavily in debt for a wide-range of reasons, including obtaining higher levels of education, a gold rush in real estate, unexpected health care costs, and of course just plain overindulgence.
Such are the pearls of wisdom one learns when one pulls statistics out of his rectum.
We are all sorry to hear that you are not good at math, but that is an entirely different matter than the one under discussion.
The secret to escaping accountability in government and business is largely the same: avoiding public awareness of your crimes. Provided that you can do that then the government will take a lazy hand on business criminals and the public will take a lazy hand with elected criminals.
Traficant went to jail. Bill Clinton was minorly punished for committing perjury beyond his multi-year humiliation. Newt Gingrich was eventually forced to resign. Jim McGreevey was forced to resign, but more for being a homosexual than over the allegations of legal improprieties. I don't know if George W. Bush could get elected outside of Texas now, though it certainly took a lot of ineptitude before his poll numbers tanked. Joe Lieberman might be looking for a new job after receiving the Kiss of Death. Duke Cunningham is completely done. I'd like to think that Tom DeLay is headed to jail to join the ol' Dukester.
I shall not purchase a license for it out of spite. Good day to you, sir. -Journalist
Dr. Venture wants his unfunny joke back.
And here I was thinking that two terrible writers and a baseball player I've never heard of (which says nothing of his fame, I just only recognize the first two people) have suddenly decided that they have what it takes to compete in absurdly-competitive video game industry because they're famous. I thoroughly enjoyed Todd McFarlane's artwork when I was 13, but it wasn't revolutionary and he was an incredibly poor writer. Salvatore has six or seven thousand pulp fantasy books, like his endless Drow books, but the quality of that work is certainly not "phenomonal." By the standards of video game writing he might be a comparative genius, but that says more about the secondary role storytelling serves in the majority of video games. Creating video games requires teams of talented people, not a handful of famous people. It consists of arduous amounts of work, and frankly no amount of fame can short-circuit that. Especially in the case of the baseball player, it seems a lot like a group of teenage males getting together and talking about how great it would be to create video games. Or probably more likely, a group of rich males getting together to create what they expect to be a profitable business venture relying largely on their fame to enter into the MMORPG market. Any group of actors looking to make an investment into the gaming industry would offer much of what this trio does (fame, money) and still face the same challenges (having to create entire teams of talent). They probably should have just bought an existing studio that already has experience producing games together.
And I have absolutely no interest in sports of any kind and I have. That's life for you.
You have MacVision. Things that are not inferior appear inferior because they are not sold by Apple Computer. Dell uses the same panels in its displays that Apple does in its Cinema Displays of the same dimensions. There are differences in terms of casing, other features, and back-lighting but the panels themselves are the same.
Having read this post I have determined that you will make a fine addition to the History Wikibook team.
I'm guessing you didn't pay attention to the news prior to 9/11/2001. Or at least that's the only information I was able to obtain from the content of your post.
So you hit on your ugly manager, and she still shot you down? Ouch.
to watch this eagerly-anticipated film. I predict that its revenues will dwarf those of Gone with the Wind after accounting for inflation.
The switch to the x86 removes a distinguishing hardware difference that afforded neglible to negative gains except in specialized contexts where AltiVec was most effective. By becoming another PC vendor Apple can sell the ability to more-efficiently run Windows in conjunction with OS X, while also assuring performance-parity, processor availability, and the speed of the Intel development cycle. Apple can continue to differentiate itself in hardware by targeting various niches rather than directly competing in all classes with Dell on margins. The Mini for example is less expensive than AOpen's miniPC Duo, with other hardware vendors mostly concentrating on providing the least-expensive tower-centric options. Apple's AIO iMac also differentiates itself with its design and (for a while) its use of lower-power mobile hardware in comparison to most vendors targeting a tower at that price point. The magnetic power adapter offers another slight distinction. Apple is still selling a platform, even if there is little technical difference in the underlying hardware. They are doing respectably financially, so the reason they are not selling their operating system for use on other PCs is simple-enough: they want control of what their brand is associated with, and to continue making money off of the sale of their hardware. Apple's goal is to make money, not usurp Windows' role of "favored bitch."
Apple's advertisements serve a number of roles: reassuring their customers of the superiority of their platform choice (thus encouraging continued purchases), obtaining as much recognition for their brand as possible, and appealing to the vanity of potential new customers. I think they're fairly pretentious, but their success will be measured by how much brand-awareness and revenue they generate. They will turn some people off and appeal to others, but there's little doubt that they will succeed in increasing brand awareness. It's not unlike the Switch campaign.