But a skilled trade is exactly what programming is. Nothing wrong with calling it that. Show me a developer that's more a scientist or theorist than a tradesman, and I'll show you someone who should be kept clear of production.
And hey, if they want to pay too little... they'll get burned because demand for competence far outstrips the supply. And as far as I can tell this is true for nearly all engineering disciplines - but especially programming.
Long after, when some of my older relatives got, well, older, and I saw them in their dying days... morphine and dehydration. Or even cessation of care without any discussion or consent. The elderly are "allowed to die", or "helped along", or even "killed from deliberate and calculated neglect of necessary care" all the time. All. The. Time.
But for Scott's contrary experience, I wouldn't consider this topic worth discussion other than to point out that just sometimes, people don't want their elderly relatives euthanized.
The problem is, there are a lot of candidates out there now. A LOT. So we get real specific with what we want, because we still end up getting between five to ten applicants that have those things and thirty to forty who have almost all of them. If we were vague, we would receive probably between 100 and 200 applicants per job. And we're in an area that is NOT tech haveny. We're in the middle of the deep south.
I remember a friend from google telling me they receive , on the average year, around 195,000 candidates, 30% of which make it to an interview phase. That number doubles every year and a half. By being way more specific , they are slicing that number in half. Or more. Instead of ALL the google employees having to interview 50000 (which doesn't count second or third or onsites that also occur), they're trying to do far less.
Employers are facing a glut of software engineers/IT/etc. We're just knocking the numbers down to reasonable levels with these extra requirements. It'd probably be in your interest to go ahead and apply if you're close to all.. but rest assured, if you see an advert for a job that contains a lot of requirements, they will probably get 5 - 10 applicants that meet those around here.. and 300 - 400 in a more tech heavy area like the bay area.
I don't know where you're trying to hire but I'm pretty sure you're nowhere near New England.
Maybe California, huh. Fuck California.
If they can do it, how hard can it be?
The GOP by and large isnt bothered if your costs get lower (though, in reality, it is not actually possible for the majority's costs to get lower when we are now covering higher risk people); the concern is that we are going down a path of surrendering every area of life to government control. The idea that the government has the right to tell you to buy X product in order to live in this country is problematic; and its problematic that the government is OK with saying "it doesnt matter what bad choices you make in life, we (that is America at large) has your back".
Theres a term called "enablement" when dealing with someone who has an addiction / other problem; it refers to feeding their bad choices by taking away all consequences. What do you suppose happens when everyone is paying into insurance to cover the terrible choices others make? Or, I suppose, we could fix that by legislating exactly how people can live everyday life, but Im not seeing that as much better.
Because everyone knows that if someone gets sick, it's always caused by their own bad choices (like being born) and should be either denied care, or financially punished into bankruptcy.
And I agree totally. High risk people shouldn't be covered at all if they're not rich. Don't "enable" them - they're all just evil, godless liberals sponging off the hard-working REAL Americans. Fuck 'em.
Not only will that get the whole market going, that may be the only thing that will do it.
You do NOT make a machine-consumable standard "human-readable" or "human-writable". You do NOT combine machine-consumable and human-consumable standards. Human-consumable standards must compile to machine-consumable standards. Human-consumable standards must be associated with products, varied, and market-driven.
The web is easily 10 years behind where we could have been. Let's stop trying to keep shoving a square peg into a round hole. Let's stop trying to make everything HTML.
Any signal disruption from interference would cause blindness.
... which would be awesome because then you could have LaForge moments! And say shit like "My visor just cut out, I'm getting wide spectrum EM interference!" and 'blindly' grope your date.
They're going to shut down "web services"? Who cares?
I'll be using 2.73 for another decade. Listening to all the music I downloaded using Napster.
Now get off my lawn.
"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force." is the relevant flaw in this section- you're using your influence, not force.
The idea "force applied indirectly is still force" (not to mention the rest of what I quoted) can bear a lot of interesting fruit through debate; all of it deserves more than simple semantic dismissal.
Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
[to Carmen] Jean Rasczak: You.
Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
Jean Rasczak: Correct. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence doesn't solve anything, is wishful thinking at its worst; people who forget that always die.
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student] Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
My first reaction was, might-makes-right is obviously wrong... but I found these ideas very interesting and surprisingly difficult to refute. The movie didn't go on to deepen the discussion beyond showing the ugliness (or not, depending on who you are) of the consequences of such a mentality; yet to this day these quotes still make me think - and that alone is enough to make me consider Starship Troopers a good movie.
That critics didn't hear these two very provocative assertions and see them as big-ass red flags to social commentary... until now?... I don't know what to say about that.
Despite continuing gains in performance, current graphics cards remain woefully underpowered for truly photo-realistic rendering.