If consciousness is mere illusion, who is the illusion fooling?
While you shouldn't necessary pick a major based on the hottest job, you definitely need to pick something in consideration with how you will use it. And you sure as heck should go to college to learn and make yourself better--not just to receive a piece of paper. Racking up 5 or 6 figures of debt without learning anything of value is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, we haven't given students the tools or perspectives to understand the consequences of the decisions they are making. Everyone is always warning athletes coming into college "the chances of you making it as a pro are extremely rare". And yet, the chances of someone making it as a tenured history professor at a major university are probably just as rare. At least the athletes aren't going into massive debt.
Add onto the fact that we have massively watered down many majors to the point of uselessness. The reason liberal arts majors get a bad rap isn't that it is a useless subject. If people came out as hard working critical thinkers they would be valuable contributors. Unfortunately, it is filled with people who just want a piece of papers and do the minimum to get by. This is a generalization, of course, but I believe is backed up by stats on plagiarism http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...). And the courses are watered down to be worthless. For example you can graduate from Yale with an English without having a Shakespeare course (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/04/23/skipping-shakespeare-yes-english-majors-can-often-bypass-the-bard/). So in 4 years of education in English, you don't have to actually take a course in the most influential English writer in history. But, you know, he is challenging to read and understand. As an alternative you can take a course in Literature for Young People http://english.yale.edu/course... which includes J. K. Rowling and Dr. Seuss.
At least with Engineering/Math/Hard Science you have to demonstrate via projects and tests that you have actually learned something.
It's not an investment platform, it's a begging platform with door prizes. Investors get ownership for their money and can demand accountability *during* the life of the project.
And startup investors invest a large sum of money for that ownership. You aren't going to get ownership for 5-100 bucks.
"ÃGame cultureÃ(TM) as we know it is kind of embarrassing -"
"ItÃ(TM)s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. "
"petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction"
"infantilized cultural desert of shitty behavior"
"You know, young white dudes with disposable income"
"atrocities committed by young white teen boys in hypercapitalist America"
"ItÃ(TM)s probably intense, painful stuff for some young kids, some older men."
"Gamers are over. ThatÃ(TM)s why theyÃ(TM)re so mad. "
"These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers"
This sounds like the mad rantings of a Freshman Gender Studies student who have never touched a video game, not the news director of a gaming website! It is nothing more than sexist, ageist, name-calling. It sounds like she not only hates her job but also hates the industry she is covering. No wonder Intel pulled their support, I can't imagine any corporation would want to be associated with this.
The problem is that government is being used to choke out the competition, especially at a local level: http://www.wired.com/2013/07/w...
Comcast uses government regulation as a shield to block competition. So yes, the libertarian solution would be to remove these blocks and open up the options.
And you are naive to think that anyone in government, especially Democrats, will regulate Comcast. Obama has been in bed with Comcast for a while http://thehill.com/policy/tech.... And Comcast owns NBC, which owns MSNBC--the Fox News of the Democrat party.
Sorry to bust your Government/Democrats good Republicans/libertarians bad bubble.
You can't teach critical thinking in schools. The Texas state Republican party platform is explicitly opposed to it.
I piss off bigots
Your sig is ironic since your opinion is quite bigoted. There is a great deal of pseudoscience belief on both sides of the isle. The left has irrational beliefs on nuclear power, GMO foods, etc. There was an article in the Washington Post about Democrats believing in horoscope and astrology more than Republicans/Independents: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The entire pro-choice movement is based on the concept of "My Body My Choice". You start forcing people to accept injections of anything into their bodies and you lose the moral basis for that argument. How do you "force" people to accept vaccines? Strap them down and inject them? Could anything be more frightening than the government forcing chemicals into someone's veins? That will make people even more anti-vaccine than ever.
I'm am very pro-vaccine. From childhood illnesses to flu to hpv, I want them all for myself and kids. And I have gotten into arguments with ignorant anti-vaccine people. What I have found is that they simply have lost all faith in "authority" because they have been lied to time and time again. WMD in Iraq! You can keep your insurance! Eat the food pyramid because you need to eat twice as much bread as you do veggies (not kidding, look it up). Leaders lie and lie and lie again to get what they want. Is it any wonder why people don't believe anything. In fact, it seems like the more forceful the denial the more likely the lie. You try and make vaccines mandatory you WILL make a bigger anti-vaccine movement.
Congratulations, your hateful vitriol against people who believe differently than you does more to justify the need for this legislation than any argument supporters could make....
Tolerance comes in both directions. If you can't see the difference between refusing to serve someone based on skin color and refusing to go to and participate in a ceremony that your religion disagrees with, I genuinely feel sorry for your blind hatred.
I'm surprised that so many of the comments for IDEs are restricted to things like autocomplete. IDEs do far more than that. Things like smart refactoring (beyond GREP/Replace), code searches and navigation (find references, go up and down the object hierarchy, find impls), and debugging (attach to remote process, breakpoints, etc).
Not really. It sounds like a position that should have been filled from the beginning is just now getting filled.
The mythical man month does not directly cover the case of being under-manned until a month after release, then bringing staffing up to where it should be. And certainly if that is the entirety of your contribution, I have to assume you mean the most recognized portions of the concept.
Under-manned because they hired one more person? I haven't seen any evidence they were understaffed or under-manned. And someone I'm skeptical that a CEO guy with a BS in Political Science and no Software Engineering background is the key to turning this around.
And since they are treated differently than people in the other 14 states that do have exchanges, you can bet an Equal Protection lawsuit will be quick in coming.
Here is the Equal Protection Clause:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that the boundary of the clause is the State. Different states have different laws all the time. Massachusetts has had statewide healthcare for a long time, and Vermont passed a single-payer healthcare. Oregon has vote-by-mail. Minnesota abolished the death penalty while it remains in the majority of states. Some states have legalized marijuana, while in Pennsylvania you can only buy wine and spirits from state owned shops. Taxes are different, environmental laws are different, etc.
Statehood wouldn't mean much if states weren't allowed to have different laws.
The thing missing with many of the current AI techniques is they lack human "imagination" or the ability to simulate complex situations in your mind. Understanding goes beyond mere language. Statistical models and second-order logic just can't match a quick simulation. When a person thinks about "Could a crocodile run a steeplechase?" they don't put a bunch of logical statements together. They very quickly picture a crocodile and a steeplechase in a mental simulation based on prior experience. From this picture, a person can quickly visualize what that would look like (very silly). Same with "Should baseball players be allowed to glue small wings onto their caps?". You visualize this, realize how silly it sounds, and dismiss it. People can even run the simulation in their heads as to what would happen (people would laugh, they would be fragile and fall off, etc).
Not as cute as finding out one of the 4-digit ID's is On Lawn?
From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy. We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
Europeans are sure sanctimonious about their "morally superior" culture considering that two World Wars have originated there the past 100 hundred years and it was the site of the Holocaust. And if you think that is ancient history, let me point out the Bosnian War.
The large amount of gun murders is the direct result of the failed drug policy of the US and mostly involves criminal-on-criminal murders that would not be affected by stricter gun laws. As proof, many of the cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence. In general, the US's total crime rate is lower than many European countries: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims
please, fox just lies, saying other news networks are somehow as bad is ridiculous.
Saying "I hate Fox News, they are biased" doesn't scream out "I just want honest, balanced coverage". It screams out "I am a biased left-winger". Take one obvious example, NBC/MSNBC have had a rash of "selectively editing" videos recently. There was the 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case, the bogus sandy hook "heckling", and taking a Romney speech completely out of context.
The news gathering in the US is atrocious. Anyone who is not completely biased can see Fox is right-wing, MSNBC is left-wing, and the rest are center-left (although CNN seems to push more to the MSNBC side these days). They are all a bad combination of sensationalist ratings driven garbage combined with a huge agenda that rarely has the viewers' best interests in mind. If you don't view the news with a filter that considers the source, you are being deceived."