Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Adblock = INFERIOR to hosts files... apk (Score 1) 403

by Raenex (#47565921) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy ->

I read through the thread on RequestPolicy, and you were pretty thick when it came to recognizing some key points:

1) RequestPolicy blocks all external sites by default, which means you don't need a "bad" list that needs to be constantly maintained, so it's actually the simpler and more effective solution.

2) The reason to block YouTube from 3rd party sites is to avoid tracking by Google (they own YouTube). With RequestPolicy, I can still watch YouTube videos and avoid the tracking. But that's just one example. RequestPolicy blocks all such requests, so I don't have to worry about YouTube, Amazon, or any other site that probably isn't in the "bad" list from getting tracking info from 3rd party sites by doing something as simple as embedding a link.

3) You mention speed, but give no hard numbers. If, for example, RequestPolicy does its job in less than 1ms, then it doesn't matter if a hosts file is twice as fast or even ten times as fast, because either way the difference is imperceptible. I don't have any speed problems using RequstPolicy, at all.

I'll throw in another point: RequestPolicy is open source, meaning I don't have to trust a binary from "apk" being run as an admin to manage my hosts file. RequestPolicy is also cross-platform.

You can have the last word, as engaging in discussion with you is pointlessly annoying. I'm just leaving this response so that people who are rational can make an informed judgment.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47519079) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

I am honestly very confused about what your point is. In response to another poster,

That poster would be me. Maybe if you read my original post the context would be clear.

Coryoth rebutted that the college was supposed to be about education, not vocational training. You incorrectly assumed that s/he was arguing that college was about creating well-rounded people.

That's the modern reason, where "education" is often synonymous with "well-rounded". I assumed his point was the modern defense, because the vast majority don't go to college anymore just for an "education" with the expectation to remain in Academia. They go there with an expectation of earning a higher-paying job. It's a checkbox on the resume.

The only reason I replied was to point out that the well-rounded person argument isn't one that anyone with a clue seriously makes.

Why? You yourself just said, "requiring students to take classes outside of their major was perhaps a historical anachronism". It's kept around on the "well-rounded" argument, which is essentially what is expressed by many of the people in the article you quoted.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47513767) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

I often see it as a justification for requiring non-major classes, but I have never seen anyone claim that this is the primary goal.

I never said it was the primary goal. What I've been arguing is what I emphasized above. People today go to college expecting to get a higher-paying job, and that's been why I've been questioning the value of being forced to take courses that will most likely not be used in that endeavor. That was the start and context of the argument when you jumped in.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47511381) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

When was the goal of higher education ever to produce well-rounded people?

When being an academic meant you specialized in one field, both in research and teaching. When people stopped going to college to become academics. The only reason it makes sense now to require diverse study is for the well-rounded argument, and it's the argument given whenever I've raised this subject (except with you).

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47496463) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

Let's walk this back. You said:

It isn't even about creating well-rounded people, and never really was [..] the curriculum and organization of institutions of higher education---particularly research universities---is still geared toward that Enlightenment ideal of academia.

The bold is what I responded to, in particular the word never. Goals have changed in 400 years.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47488223) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

Because you are a 20 years old know-nothing you arrogant bratand maybe there is more than one thing in the entire wolrd that could be of interest for you ?

Maybe if you weren't an arrogant asshole posting as anonymous coward you wouldn't make such statements. I've been to college and have long-since graduated. Most people go to college because it's a checkbox for higher-paying jobs and a chance to party on their parent's dime and government loans.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47488189) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

The goal of college is NOT to train you like a puppy to do real work.

That's nice and all, but the vast majority of people go to college to get a well-paying job afterwards. That's what the point of the "major" is for.

You want to be trained ? go to a craft school or whatever you call them in your country.

College is a checkbox to get into higher paying jobs, so your suggestion of going to a "craft" school doesn't help.


Err, no, you don't when your major is something like computer science and they force you into heavy calculus courses. That's the topic under discussion. Try to pay attention.

2 years into the job I have greater mastery of pretty much any aspect of the project we are working on, and my skill-set is improving exponentially, while they almost never learn anything beyond what they know because they lack the methods to learn.

Yeah, that's a lot of bullshit. It's impossible to become a programmer without learning. What your one-sided anecdote says is that many workers do just enough to get by, not that they couldn't improve their skills if they applied themselves.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 1) 241

by Raenex (#47487167) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

Yes, I've heard the "well rounded" person argument. I can even accommodate it, to a certain extent, but it would stop at being exposed to ideas versus having to become competent at doing calculus problems in order to pass a course. I personally am not interested in doing calculus and haven't made use of it in over 20 years of programming.

Comment: Re: Your Results Will Vary (Score 0) 241

by Raenex (#47486931) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

I want you to know/pass calculus because by the time you've worked that hard at that level of proofs, you've mastered *variable control*.

This is silly. You don't need incidental math to learn skills essential to programming. College education wastes countless hours teaching academic stuff that a great majority of programmers will not use on the job, while neglecting critical skills that could be immediately useful in a large .

If you want to teach "variable control", whatever you mean by that, then teach that in respect to programming, not high-level math that will only be used by a tiny percentage.

Comment: Re:The cycle begins again (Score 3, Insightful) 383

by Raenex (#47477603) Attached to: Microsoft CEO To Slash 18,000 Jobs, 12,500 From Nokia To Go

Just remember that companies like Valve were founded by ex-Microsoft software engineers.

Many of the early employees of Microsoft became millionaires due to stock options, so they could afford to jump ship and do their own thing. I doubt that's true of the people being laid off.

Comment: Re:Too Little, Too Late (Score 1) 238

by Raenex (#47473169) Attached to: Pseudonyms Now Allowed On Google+

I mean, google + didn't become the next facebook simply because it didn't become the next facebook to enough people. Lets not complicate it, people simply didn't switch. It wasn't some bullshit about real names, or youtube integration, or features facebook didn't have. Facebook just kept critical mass.

Google obviously had an uphill battle trying to steal Facebook's thunder. It was stupid, then, to adopt a Real Name policy and enforce it like dicks instead of trying to differentiate themselves from Facebook.

This ties into YouTube, too. Instead of trying to hamfist their existing userbase into real names and Google+, they could have softselled an automatic, no hassle Google+ account linked to your YouTube account, as is. Instead they antagonized their YouTube base, too. Corporate fuckhead thinking.

Would it have mattered in the end? Who knows, but it was a stupid policy that only put up barriers, instead of trying to go after users who weren't interested in Facebook because of their focus on real names.

Life is difficult because it is non-linear.