tech how?

It's not, but Friday night is #GamerGate and MRAs night on Slashdot, when 8chan empties out and all the manbabies meet here to cry about how the feminazis are taking away their games and comics and action figures.

Look back a few months. It happens every Friday. There is a story about gender or sexual orientation or something that can be construed as violating the natural order of the primacy of white men. Then, the tears start to flow and it all ends in the gators and the MRAs in one big group hug.

It's harmless, really. If it keeps them off the streets, I'm all for them having their own neckbeard hugbox.

What, no clever comeback to the actual facts, Fox Newser?

Damned near every terrorist attack in the US has been end-times or anti-government christian cultists of one sort or another. Or racist cults. Or anti-tax cults. And we don't have anyone assigned to keep track of them. I blame Obama for caving in to the Republicans on this one. Doctor killers, Dominionists, Sovereign Citizens, this-land-is-ours loonies pointing guns at sherriffs from high ground WHILE ON LIVE ON CAMERA, and nothing happens and no one gets arrested, because everyone is afraid of them and their supporters. We don't even report on them.

But if a guy with a beard does it, on the news forever. Hell, the HS guys claiming someone was GOING TO join ISIS because reasons is national news for days. Every damned day it seems.

Reposted because downvoted by Fox News enthusiasts. And, I was right again, Cudahy.

Those warehouse workers work for employment contractors, not for Amazon. Our employment law is so destroyed that Amazon, indeed, any corporation, can treat you both as an employee of theirs and an employee of someone else. They aren't even pretending anymore - they do what they like.

I would include all of those, except UTA, in the "and so on".

It's a bit disingenuous to list out the Ivys while only implying the public schools, considering that the point you were trying to make was that going to a good CS school is expensive and the schools you selectively omitted disprove it.

Georgia Tech has 8 tracks. Pretty much the only hirable ones are the "Devices" and "Systems & Architecture" track. If you too CS4210 and CS4220 as electives on the "Theory" track, you might also do OK. I typically don't mention it because of the low percentage of people who opt for these tracks, compared to the other tracks at this school, so you have to be picky.

I went to Georgia Tech just long enough ago that my degree plan predated the "threads" curriculum. However, I think you're being excessively narrow in your opinion of which ones are worthwhile. Specifically, 5 of the 8 threads (all except "People," "Media," and "Intelligence" require CS2200, which is a computer architecture course that uses C for the assignments and teaches not only memory management, but threaded programming too. "Intelligence" requires CS2110, which sounds from the course catalog description like it's a less-rigorous version of the same. "Media" requires CS 2261, which is also a low-level systems programming course, but is more focused on graphics and sound.

Most of those threads also have 3000- or 4000-level classes (other than 4210 and 4220) that reinforce low-level programming skills: CS3451 (Computer Graphics) uses C and OpenGL, many of the "Modeling and Simulation" classes (e.g. CS4225) surely focus on low-level stuff since that thread is really about high-performance computing, "Information-internetworks" people are probably going to take either CS4420 (database implementation) or CS4251 (computer networking 2) which are very likely low-level, and I'm sure almost everybody in the "Intelligence" thread is going to take some kind of robotics or computer vision class.

In fact, the only "thread" where people could escape without learning C is the "People" thread, and considering that you have to complete two threads to get a degree, you're going to have to learn C to graduate no matter what you do.

I'm not saying that you should hire somebody who picked the "Intelligence" and "People" threads and took the least-rigorous classes possible (and thus got a glorified psychology degree) to do embedded device programming, but I am saying that even that guy should be competent enough to understand pointers and therefore be employable by the vast majority of Silicon Valley companies that aren't actually writing OS kernel or firmware-level code.

I'm 30 and also consider myself to be among the oldest "millennials." I could have had a 5-digit UID, but lurked for a few years before joining.

(Back then, I was skeptical about joining web forums for some of the same reasons people don't like Facebook now. <hipster>I was a privacy nut before it was cool</hipster>)

I have 0.78 cents in lifes savings.

You should get a job at Verizon; you'd fit right in!

Sadly, You can no longer take a C++ class at most universities in the United States. You can take a "Databases using C++", and be expected to learn C++ on your own, but of course, that's much more likely to be "Databases using Java" these days.

If you're trying to learn pointers and memory management in a databases class, you're doing it wrong. An operating systems class is the right place to cover that topic.

Currently, ABET accreditation is "Outcome Based", a criterion which has been abandoned as hopelessly flawed in primary education for both math and reading:

General Criterion 3. Student Outcomes" ...

No where does it require proficiency in a programming language or other language, and in fact, it goes so far as to limit the requirement to reading about them - "exposure" - in section II:

Program Criteria for Computer Science and Simililarly Named Computing Programs ...
Student Outcomes ...
Curriculum

Students must have the following amounts of course work or equivalent educational experience:

a. Computer science: One and one-third years that must include: ...
2. An exposure to a variety of programming languages and systems. [CS]

WTF? The very next requirement after your quote says "3. Proficiency in at least one higher-level language. [CS] ."

The bad news is that there's only a handful of places that have these programs, such as Brown, Rice, Stanford, MIT, CMU, and so on.

The good news is that if you attend one of these handful of universities, AND you opt into the degree program that actually forces you to learn to use the tools, and use a computer as a tool, in more than a theoretical, abstract way, AND you do well, you are practically guaranteed a job at a top tier company, like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.. The bad news is that these places tend to be a heck of a lot more expensive than a community college.

Bullshit. While there are some expensive good CS undergrad programs, there are also good (relatively) cheap ones at public state universities such as University of California - Berkeley, University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor and University of Texas - Austin (and those are just schools in the top 10 -- ranked above the Brown and Rice you mentioned!).

Ridiculous. Actually, part of the problem is that due to wealth transfers (Welfare and tax credits), government handouts to unions (especially federal union jobs), etc, have made it so that engineering take home pay gets held down through taxes, and some other jobs get paid more than they should.

Yes, I agree that wealth transfers (corporate tax credits, reducing the highest marginal tax rate from 84% (in 1950) to 40% (today), having a very low capital gains tax rate) have made it so that all salaried job take home pay gets held down through taxes, while owners make much more profit than they should.

The anti-driverless car always love to bring up the situation

The pro-driverless car crowd always love to ignore the fact that the autonomous car wont be driverless for decades. A human will still be required to oversee and in case of a failure, take control of the vehicle.

The big problem with this is that people will be taking manual control because the autonomous car will abide by the rules that human drivers like to ignore like keeping a safe distance, not driving in the passing lane, keeping to the speed limit and slowing down in potentially hazardous areas (I.E. roads frequently entered by pedestrians).

Human nature wont change overnight because a pro-tech crowd wills it.

This.

You also dont have to be driving a crazy high performance car to get good braking. Just get some performance pads, rotors, good tyres and maybe some braided brake lines and you can make a Toyota Corolla stop like a sports car. Your 0-100 time will still be crap but 100-0 will be amazing. You dont even need to fit six piston callipers.

You've got to understand your car. Sadly this is something most people never learn. They get in it every day but dont understand where the edge of the envelope is. When I get a new car, I take it to an empty car park and test it out. Most of this testing is about 1/2 an hour of practising parking to make sure I get it right, but I also test braking, turning and accelerating to get used to how the car behaves. I know it sound very yobbish, but it's actually rather sedate with very little tyre smoke. I normally only do one emergency brake test from about 40 KPH (~25 MPH).

Also the first thing I usually upgrade is the brakes. I've currently got Project Mu pads, DBA rotors and APP brake lines on my S15, I did these before getting a bigger turbo. I've thought about getting the 6 piston callipers off of a Skyline (they'll easily fit on my Silvia) but its not really worth it unless you're turning into a hardcore track car.

So, disregarding how the self-driving car decided who it is best to kill in any given situation

This old chestnut needs to die.

Rules for this already exist, it's just that human drivers dont follow them. An autonomous car will be programmed to take the course that causes the least damage and is the most legal. So they would choose a rear end crash over a right angle crash because a rear ender presents the lowest risk of casualties. If you think that veering out of your lane to avoid a rear end crash is a good idea, you completely fail at driving (first in failing to keep a safe distance, secondly in not having the time to check if it's safe to change lanes).

This is already sorted. They dont care that the person to the left is a meth addict and the person in front is a Nobel laureate, they'll take the path that presents the least risk. Beyond this, if the car is already in this situation the programming has failed.

If Google wants to sell autonomous cars, Google should be liable for anything the damned thing does.

So Colt and Armalite should be made responsible for mass shootings because they make guns?

I think firearm restrictions are sensible, but even I have to admit that the problem isn't the people who sell guns, it's the people who use them.

So once again, this is a legal problem that is already sorted. We already have extensive rules to determine who is at fault in an accident and they dont need to be changed for autonomous cars. When it comes down to it, if the driver cant be identified the onus comes back to the vehicles owner.

If you crash your car into a house and do a runner, you cant claim you weren't the driver because you weren't found at the scene. Unless you can nominate another driver who admits responsibility, it will be considered your fault (so be aware who you lend your car to). It will be the same with autonomous cars. For decades after their introduction you will still be required to pay attention to the roads, even though the car is choosing the actions you are still responsible for ensuring the car is doing its job properly and ready to take over if it fails. If it crashes whilst you were managing it, you will have failed your duty of care.

Its the same in Australia.

Truckers are a very powerful union and a lot of them are owner/drivers. This is changing of course, but it's going to be a slow and laborious process. However it will be a very long time before we have fully autonomous trucks.

The perception that Lexus is an American brand is because that's how it started.

Toyota created the Lexus brand to get around the whole "jap-crap" sentiment in America in the 80's and it worked. The reason Lexus hasn't enjoyed the same rise in Europe and Asia is because people there had no issues accepting that Toyota's were quality. You should see the Toyota's you get in Japan like the Mark X, as good as a Lexus but missing the badge.

Its the same with Infiniti and Acura.

The agenda against him comes from BBC's new director of television, Danny Cohen.

Allow me to preface this with the fact I think anyone using the term "leftist" as an insult is a blithering idiot and distrust conservatives as a general rule but if applies to one person, it's Cohen. He's been on a concerted campaign to get rid of people like Clarkson from the BBC and doesn't seem to care what gets harmed in the process. He's implemented a policy at the BBC saying that all panel shows "must" have at least one female presenter and something tells me a token female presenter on Top Gear wouldn't go down too well with him.

However like you said, there are two sides to this and I think there will be fallout from this for months to come. Clarkson will shortly have no reason not to slag off the BBC and reveal the internal machinations and Clarkson isn't exactly the kind of person to keep his opinions to himself.