goggles99

Is it??? A guaranteed prerequisite to next advancement in web tech is certainly that it does not come out of one of those 'evil corporations'...

Women typically don't want to be founders. The ones that do generally lack the physical and emotional stamina, intuition, instincts, persistence, are too emotional in their decision making, lack natural leadership skills ETC. If all this somehow changes, any year could be the tipping point. Good luck ladies.

Women in general, I think your best bet would be to try to rid the world of all the no talent entertainers (such as Miley Cyrus, Beyonce singers actresses ETC). All these women do is shake their butt or breasts all over and try to sell sex. Speaking of selling sex, get rid of all hookers, strippers, porn stars, nude models, start dressing your teenagers and yourselves modestly (cover up), stop sleeping around, no more one night stands, having 4 kids from 3 daddies, stop stripping down in movies too, doing half naked fashion shows or miss X contests, ETC. You do nothing but lose respect when you do all of this. You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest, yet women doing all of the things I mentioned are why men think like this (a vicious cycle I know).

Do this and I guarantee that you will have a tipping point that is unprecedented. Men will take you seriously and the amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.

I am not saying that this would guarantee or put you on equal footing as a founder because the skills and desire that is necessary are not common in women. But it would sure help you be taken seriously, and there is not much that is more important than that.

There is really three simple reasons that we have this 'problem' today.

1. People who cannot afford it are choosing very expensive universities.

2. The government is giving money away like candy, there is a definite bubble here because this money will be defaulted on. I know a professor at an art school who says his students easily get $150k to go study art. Many won't even get a degree with that money. Getting a degree or being on a path to get a degree in x years is not a requirement of getting the money. He says that these students will graduate and be lucky to go on to make $25-30k a year. That is pretty rough. This also drives tuition way up because schools know they can just charge more and the thanks to the govt. students and money will still funnel in by the truckload.

3. Students with student loan money live like rock stars. These are teenagers here. They suddenly have a bunch of money. do you thing that they are carefully considering that every dollar they spend will have to be paid back with interest? Teenagers... I have seen this over and over again personally. Luxury apartments, nice cars, buying, spending... "A part time job? are you kidding? who has time for that, I've got to focus on my party life.. Errrr studies".

* $400,000 in student loans. “If the money weren’t a problem I would live on my own,” says Rong. “My debt is hanging over my mind. I’m taking that all on myself.”*

How typical, someone complaining that education is so expensive and yet they are going to the most expensive school. This is ridiculous. This is like complaining that your Mercedes was too expensive when you could have bought a more reliable and efficient car for less money.

The article states that the average year at college today costs $18,497, yet this guy is going to rack up $400k in dept over 6 years? by my math that is $111k. This guy is spending 4 times the average and crying foul.

I personally know a dentist who worked part time all through school, he went to community college, state university, private grad/dental university and has the same diploma that this guy will have on his wall... The difference - the guy I know only had $40k in debt upon exiting school. He paid it off in two years (by the time he was 26). I'd say he did things the right way.

Nonsense. People want to send their kids to the best schools because the best schools are the gatekeepers to the upper class. Someone who graduates from an Ivy League school gets to build a network with affluent alumni and has a high chance of landing a job that pays six-figures right off the bat. Someone who goes to a merely good state school though? There is a very good chance they won't even find a job after graduation.

If this is the case then these people need to quit whining. It's their choice - this is like saying that you need to mortgage your house to join a yacht or country club so you can make connections. Some people just have to work harder than others to make it, life isn't fair cry me a river. Many people from cheaper institutions are better at making connections because they excel in the personality and charm dept (thus they have the advantage). Is that fair? Many poorer people make it big because they are smarter or luckier... Is that fair? Your argument just shows how blatantly ridiculous this is.

People are complaining that education is so expensive and yet they are going to the most expensive school is ridiculous. This is like complaining that your Mercedes was too expensive when you could have bought a more reliable and efficient car for less money.

TL,DR... Do not close.

How an unlikely group of high-tech wizards revived Obama's troubled HealthCare.gov website

How? With another 14 million dollars... that is how. You can do a lot of things with 14 million dollars, this is not especially true when you are talking about the govt spending this kind of money, but still - it is not pocket change to the average company.

http://www.nextgov.com/cloud-computing/2014/02/cost-obamacar...

Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? Backwards compatibility and platform stability are GOOD THINGS that we need more, not less of. Lest we perpetually build content for doomed platforms, and leave no mark, no history on the world.

the better course is evolution, not revolution.

Candles oil lamps, and torches were pretty good at providing light at night in the 18th century, then there came electricity and the light bulb, everyone slowly threw away their candles for something better. Many people tried to design better candles instead of switching over. Candles that would burn brighter and longer, candles that would not blow out as easily and did not put off as much smoke, but you know what? These were was mere evolutionary changes and could not "hold a candle" to the revolutionary benefits of the light bulb.

Sure it took a lot of work for people to take their oil lamps and candle fixtures off of the walls and ceilings. It was a lot of work to run wiring and put up new electric fixtures. But the time spent was an investment. Eventually it led to a lot better solution and a lot less effort in total.

You are one of these guys who was using and evolving candles and oil lamps. You just can't see the bigger picture.

These HNers who are not happy with still being forced to use candles are the real innovators... The technologists. You who are happy with the candle are merely paint and canvas artists.

Paint and canvas artists in the 80s and 90s started to scoff when computer art and graphics began to gain prominence. These artists lacked the skills to do art with new technology, and lacked the ambition and any passion which was required to learn something new that would have diversified their artistic talents. They had their tools and they didn't want new ones. Their opposition actually was a result of a fear of being displaced, they wanted to stay in their stagnated comfort zone.

Many web designers today are much the same. You want to make art with your old tools and are not really technologists at all, perhaps with new brushing techniques (JS libraries) in some instances, but never with any major evolutionary change.

This stagnates innovation, even worse you are actively supporting the suppression of choice because you are afraid that you may become obsolete in your complacence with the technology behind your art.

Well how political...

Simple, because they have personally experienced better. They are tired of libraries, CSS/JavaScript compilers and hacks to try to drag old clunky technology into new paradigms.

If XAML some open source project made by some hippie group of developers, HTML/JAVASCRIPT/CSS would be in the toilet today. It is miles ahead of the barely moving technologies held back by the standards committees.

Of course Ruby and Python are influenced by Java (there is hardly a maintained language that has not been). Not the initial release perhaps, but don't you think that Ruby has evolved over the 19 years since Java was released? This release alone has been influenced by Java (Generational garbage collection enhancing performance by as much as 100% in some cases)

A question for you is why do you care? If a Java programmer tries to rib you saying that Java is better because x feature was influenced or 'stolen' from Java, just laugh at them and tell them then C++ must be 'better' than Java huh?

What 60hr/week worker is asking for a badge of honor? Do you really think that a Badge of Honor and pride is why they are working all these hours? I have never seen this in all the startups that I have worked at.

In my personal observations there are three reasons that people work long hours. Money, self advancement (skill wise or other) and a loyal commitment to finish a large task within a time span.

While I was seeing my episode of The Good Wife falter at what appeared to be 1.9 Mbps, I was able to measure connection speeds of 28 Mbps to my house using a Speedtest.net test from Ookla. This is exactly the dichotomy that the M-Lab data is showing, and my example is not an isolated one; Comcast users have been complaining for months.

How do we know that it is not just the provider being sapped for bandwidth? I notice that speed tests I run in the mid-day and evening come back pretty much the same, but Netflix takes noticeably longer to buffer in the evening. I always assumed this was because their servers were much busier then.

You earned a scholarship in kindergarten?

Even in comparison today, his school's graduation rate is 63% and is ranked 482nd out of 489 districts by state assessment scores, while my school has a graduation rate of 94% and ranks in the top 5%.

I am curious if you believe that this is because the schools was a bad school (under-funded, bad teachers and administrators), or because the parents of the kids that attended there were generally lower than average quality parents? (on drugs, welfare baby mommas, abusive, spend all their free time watching TV and not disciplining or spending any time with their children, non loving, single parent with 3 jobs to make ends meat, ETC.)

So your parents sent your middle brother to private school from first grade on and simultaneously kept your oldest brother in a stink hole situation?

That sounds pretty rough. Why didn't they put the oldest in private school instead? Surely by 7th grade you can see that there are problems there. Perhaps by 12 grade in the private school, he could have turned things around.

Perhaps it was the mere fact that the younger brother was given such preferential treatment that the older never became successful.

Perhaps it was the fact that your parents became better parents with more experience, or because they were less stressed out since they did not have the financial hardship that they had before.

I am not trying to discount your story, but the problem lies in the fact that it can be compared with plenty of other similar situations as yours but having completely different results (the kids in public school fared better in life).

Quality of school definitely CAN have a profound effect on a child's life. But in my experience and personal observation, this is only because of a failure on the parenting side. If a child is reared with enough love and enough wisdom, discipline and vision is imparted into them before, and during the school years - they will do fine if they are in a run down inner city school, or a middle class private school.

So maybe you say that this is unfair that some parents have to raise their kids with such diligence to have them succeed, while some others don't (because of economic factors).

Trust me, the kid and parents in the situation where extra attention is needed to enhance the likelihood of success in the child's life are better off and happier people than a wealthy parent that hires a nanny to raise their kids and sends them to private school. Which situation is true parenting after all? Which kid will carry on a true legacy of their parents and hold their ideals and values continuing their legacy?

You went to school for two years there to prepare for 1 govt provided test? It must have been rough to remember the history or social science questions of material you have studied two years prior huh?

No rules but the laws of Canada? Well that is very close to the same thing as most schools then right? The only difference was a few rules such as you could be late to class or truant and you could leave campus whenever you wanted to. Funny that one of the laws of Canada prohibits redboxing - one of the very same "rules" that you were kicked out of school to begin with...

So you are telling me that 3 rule changes, only having one test in all of school, people telling everyone that they should study or they will fail at life (something I probably have heard from every teacher I have ever had) and a motto of "we will never give up on you" changed things that much?

What was the name of this miraculous institution???

One could change just one rule in any school in the world and it would make the kind of improvement that you describe. Optional attendance. Of course 1/3 of the school won't show up, but that is the "bad kids" anyway.

Grow a pair, it's the internet (not much of the fake PC here [which is really just honesty suppression] that you see in society today). I don't like people trying to plant false ideologies in sheeple's brains based on fiction. It actually works (just look at America over the last 20 years). So I deal with it rather harshly when I see it.

So lets ask the question. Why are some people bullies and some aren't? Is is because more rules are imposed on some then others? Is it because kids aren't allowed to play bull rush or play in the mud?

Bullies usually have emotional problems or brain chemistry issues. A high percentage of bullies have fathers that are abusive to their mothers and are bullies themselves (vicious cycle). It is difficult to tell if this is merely learned or genetic, but I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with playing bull rush.

What is likely having an effect on the kids in this school's situation is positive peer pressure. The administration puts the kids in a position of judging other peers. This has been used for at least 20 years and was effective in a high school I once attended. It was no utopia, but I sure didn't observe much bullying going on.

This is the strangest sounding story that I have ever heard. It is either fake, or there were other factors going on such the juveniles with true behavioral problems just never bothered showing up to school because they weren't required to.

A school with absolutely no rules? So you could cheat on tests openly? you could walk through the campus naked? you could sell or do drugs in class? You could vandalize the campus? Threaten to kill the teacher? You could break into the school's office or computer system and change your grades? Bribe the graders? ETC?

A bunch of 16-18 year old kids with no such requirement following all the rules once they aren't enforced? Nice story.

I call BS. Source: Documented history of innate human nature and the 100% failures of all utopian ideas like the one you fabricated...

I would downvote you if I could. Your 6 day old account probably will be abandoned in a week anyway.

Love the down-voted replies with no rebuttal. Shows the ignorance of HN viewers.

Please explain how CA regulations forced manufacturers to China, and not merely to Arizona.

Well more often not actually moving the factory to China, really it is just sending the designs to an existing factory there.

If you (as a factory owner or group of owners) were being forced to pay a huge amount of money and take a concerted amount of effort to relocate a factory because you cannot afford to make all the overly stringent environmental concessions that were placed on you (or alternatively go out of business). You would definitely sit down and consider all your options.

Do you (as a factory owner) want to uproot your family and move as well. Do you want to bet the company in an expensive and risky move? How do you know that Arizona won't pass the same law 5 years down the road?

The other alternative would be to take higher profits and less risk by beginning to incrementally phase in products made in china and eventually completely shut down your plant and leave only your administrative and engineering offices open?

What would any achievement/profit minded person do?

Are you too young to know all the asthma kids that grew up in no and so cal in the 70s/80s? Pollution in California used to be bad, then the people got serious about it, and now California has clean air. Incremental my ass. I guess you would have settled for incrementally decreasing numbers of asthma kids?

Because of the Laws that we made: OK kids the good news first... you don't have asthma. The bad news ... Millions of Chinese people through no fault of their own (but rather their government) are dead or dying and the planet is half dead too. Global climate change was accelerated significantly and will kill many of your great grandchildren and perhaps end the human race eventually... Feel better? Are you sure we really did the "Responsible" thing here?

We can push a problem off to a foreign country (who handles it a lot worse than we would) and wash our hands of it but eventually things will be a lot worse for everyone.

Pollution in California used to be bad, then the people got serious about it, and now California has clean air

We do? Must be my eyes then that make the air look smoggy every day.

Look! If people want to fill their houses, garages, yards and public storage lockers with crap from China/Walmart, they should have to look outside and see the effects of it. Putting if off on the Chinese was one of the most irresponsible things that could have been done.

Since this big shift in environmental policy that drove all the factories out of the the country, coupled with free trade agreements - US consumption of manufactured goods per capita has more than tripled. Why do we need all this crap? It is ruining the environment and we cannot even see the effects of it around us yet.

If people could look around them and see gross pollution their over consumption was causing, only then would they really cut back on buying all the crap.

That means that in less than two years, Google shredded 85% of the $13bn paid for Motorola.

You did not even make it down to the third paragraph of the article?

Under this deal the search giant will keep the majority of Motorola's mobile patents, considered its prize assets.

SMH

Good luck telling voters that everything at Walmart now costs twice as much. Our economy and infrastructure is now dependent on cheap goods from China. Peoples perceived standards of living have gone up because we buy all this cheap garbage.

What career politician is going to do this?

That is why I used the term "swift and strangling". They were too aggressive and now the planet has to pay. This is akin to vigilantes who end up killing innocents because they are overzealous. Unfortunately, these politicians don't have to answer to anyone. Imagine that, a group of "environmentalists" pushing stiff regulations actually caused more damage then they thought they would prevent. Idiots.

They could have done far more incremental regulating over a longer period of time and the world would have been a much better place because of it. How do these environmentalist planet wreckers sleep at night?

How ironic CA actually gives a crap about the air their citizens breathe, wait, no, that's not ironic at all. Believe me china is beginning to give a crap also, in a major way. No one can live with sucky air, even the Chinese (and us expats who have to deal with crazy bad air quality...).

Even if they do eventually start cleaning up their act (which I doubt) the price has already been paid. The world now has to bear far greater amounts of global pollution (not just in the air either) than it would have if politicians and activists in the US had just taken a more incremental (and less stifling) approach.

Their blind and foolish over aggression in environmental policies resulted in worse consequences for the planet. That is plain to see now. Of course hind sight is 20/20, but there were plenty of people warning that this would happen so full blame is on the table IMO.

Did you know that 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world. These are the ships that transport these goods and raw materials to and from China http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...

How ironic that CA made such swift and strangling economic regulations that all the factories moved to china or shut down.

Now we have no control of the egregious pollution that China produces and the world (including CA) is far worse off because of it.

Why can't politicians and activists just have a little foresight for a change? This kind of thing always seems to happen. Unintended consequences will always happen, but when people warned of this years ago and the powers that be did not listen... SMH

Ugh. Please do some basic research before spouting off this nonsense. Government employment grew by 1.5% in the last decade. - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs4

I like how you pick and choose numbers to suit your points. Are you a statistician or a marketer? By size/jobs I am referring to contracted jobs also. I would almost throw fake disability on top there too (that the current administration almost actively encourages so cooked up unemployment numbers look better).

You literally said Americans were too lazy and entitled to fill all of the open manufacturing jobs. Now you agree there aren't any manufacturing jobs?

Huh? What part of "250,000 jobs open" means none open?

That's simply not true. The rate of unfilled manufacturing jobs is the same as it was in 2006, as it was in 2001. [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs6]. The overall rate of unfilled jobs per unemployed American is just coming off its lowest point in history [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=rs7].

Rate relative to what? changing and skewed unemployment numbers? I can't even read your acronym described statistic charts. They are wrong half of the time and have reasons beyond the context of the survey the other half. Here is a statement from a great article from Mike Rowe (I would dare say that not many have more hands on experience with laborers) on the state of today's workers.

http://profoundlydisconnected.com/cnn-viewer-has-questions/ Last week, I spent a few hours with the head of labor relations for one of the largest engineering firms in the world. He has thousands of positions open right now. Literally, thousands. After Katrina, his firm poured many millions of dollars into workforce development down in the Gulf. They trained — for free — hundreds of workers in a variety of positions that offered all kinds of opportunities to advance. The pay was fair. The benefits were solid. But the program ultimately failed. Why? Because virtually every single trainee decided it was just too damn hot. I’m not even kidding. They just didn’t want to work in the heat. And so … they didn’t.

In the next few years, this company anticipates 15,000 new openings for welders and pipe-fitters in the southeast. And the head of recruitment has absolutely no idea where the workers will come from. That should scare us all.

Your view that people aren't working because they are too lazy or the illegals took all the jobs is not backed up by any facts whatsoever. Please attempt to develop the slightest bit of empathy and respect for your common man.

Well if you have 245k jobs sitting there, and you have a bunch of people (many with families) practically going hungry, I would say that is lazy, not sure what you would call it. People in America have traditionally moved to the jobs. A company could build a factory out in the middle of nowhere and a town would spring up around it. No longer. Today people move to the local welfare/disability office. There is no arguing that the fundamental work ethic of Americans has changed dramatically over the past 30 years.

IF I see 12 million illegals in the US and 3/4 of employable ones employed - then I see 10 million citizens crying out for help because they cannot find a job, Who an I supposed to be empathetic for? Someone who broke a law and entered our country illegally? or someone who came here or was born legally?

I never stated that we should deport illegals either, I am just stating what happened to jobs. If 8m illegals are employed today, and 20 years ago it was 2m - to me that means that 6m jobs were filled by them that could have been filled by citizens. Does that simple math add up? Maybe those jobs wouldn't be filled because Americans won't pick peaches anymore. That is why I said that they are lazy. They would rather be a leech on their fellow citizens then be a janitor. How is that not lazy?

I am getting sick of this thread. You are going way off topic of my statements and taking them way out of context so go ahead and have the last reply. I won't be looking at it.