tempire

It's a trap!

In the end, it's all a series of tubes.

Nothing has changed. The problem is the same as it always was.

There is an unbounded amount of opportunity available for those who want to grab hold of it.

If you want to rely on school and get the approval of the corporate machine, you are subject to the whims of their circumstance.

Or, you can go home, put in the work, learn the tech, become the expert, and punch your own ticket. The information is freely available. Your time is your own.

Put. In. The. Work.

fake. it's not blue.

I first read this as "Andorian condor" and was intrigued, but a regular terran condor isn't quite as interesting.

If this is for real, _everyone_ I know is getting completely screwed.

I have a hard time believing any of these numbers. If I earned any of these amounts for 2-3 years, I could live off the interest for the rest of my life.

Contribution made. Octave is on point, and easily accessible for those wanting to learn Matlab-like syntax without having to mortgage their homes.

It's not too slow, it just takes discipline that most developers/companies don't have, primarily because the tools aren't widely available.

Not sure why this was posted, when the pre-built version doesn't work on 10.9.1. It doesn't properly detect that command line tools are installed.

Math is just another word for structured thought. When people say they're not good at math, what they really mean is that they attempted learn something without understanding the underlying principles, and therefore found it difficult.

They're not lazy, they're just ignorant to the process because they were taught incorrectly.

SEEKING WORK (remote - based in Chico, CA - available for on-site)

Available for designing and delivering full products, including programming, promotion, and marketing.

Solutions come in the form of: web apps - mobile apps - video production - photography - social promotion

Sometimes, the best solutions are inexpensive, low-tech re-organizations of personnel workflows.

Profile & contact: http://tempi.re

I'd be happy to try this service, but the Facebook requirement turns me away; I can't help but think this hurts their acceptance in the tech community.

Though mainstream populace probably wouldn't care, social networks only get traction after the tech folk create that traction.

Did you read the article? Your comment is exactly the perspective the article is addressing. They cited acknowledged experts in the field, whereas you've cited "common sense", a subjective term that means nothing without context.

I've been looking for something like this for a while. It's "just enough".

Math: http://khanacademy.org

Computer Science: http://aduni.org

Another vote for khanacademy. I did this myself, and worked out a plan to put every piece of information into long term memory. When you're motivated and not limited by century-old university bureaucracy, you can move very quickly, and run circles around people with a "real" degree, most of whom have forgotten everything but the general concepts.

Udacity is also coming up as an excellent resource, but the important thing to realize is that every resource adds a different perspective on the matter that is extremely valuable.

For CS-specific information, aduni.org is a glorious resource. It's from 2001, but the CS basics never change. I'd recommend getting a handle on all the math from khanacademy so that you understand everything they're referencing.

This is an excellent example of Modern Perl, more so than the article posted the other day. No magic, very easy to understand, documented, and structured.

If you're taking CS in school, make sure to take Linear Algebra. If you're self-taught, The khanacademy.org Linear Algebra playlist is invaluable.

Excellent. Love the interface. Very well-thought out.

Does it read chapter titles via the track tag? I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

I doubt the author has watched many Khan videos; Sal consistently harps on understanding over procedure, while explaining both.

I started at pre-algebra and have kept going - geometry, trig, calc I, II, III, linear algebra - racking up 60 hours of video watch time. Due to lack of practice problems, I probably wouldn't do well on a test; however, I have no problems conversing and theorizing about what I've learned. Due to Sal's method of explanation, I understand the concepts. My entire perspective of reality has changed, for everything, from relationships to spirituality to basic mechanics.

Just a couple of weeks ago, my friend and I were discussing the basic nature of expectations in relationships, and I realized I could prove my points using calculus, and show her how relationships worked in terms of the fundamental theorem. The problem wasn't my understanding, but rather that she would not have understood the language.

Indeed, it seems to me the author has a peeve about a common educational problem, and has ignorantly and unfairly grouped khan with the rest.

The truth is, I would have never done this with any other available system. The overhead of every other method, both in cost and time, is too high.

Long live Khan!

The difference we have here is that I don't think it's anti-discrimination laws that change society. It's communication and confrontation of evil that changes society, and that happens over time.

Anti-discrimination laws didn't pop out of nowhere; the idea had been building over time, and when they hit the courts, new laws where made, instead of addressing the issues with the laws that were already made.

You argue that the status quo remains unless something is done - I agree, however that something is not law. There's a word for forcing morality on people: bigotry.

Allowing black people to use public roads is a matter of upholding existing law: All people are created equal. It took a lot of time, but eventually America began to understand the inconsistency of that law - A law that wasn't forced on people, but rather one that people chose to support when they supported the revolution. Change didn't happen by law. The change happened by people no longer standing for it.

The fact is, whether the group of people is gay, black, or whatever, there will always be a people group that is being discriminated against by someone. 20 years from now, we'll be coming up with more laws about group x, and pundits will say, "This is just like the gay rights wars of the early 21st century - we need more laws!", just as much as gay rights pundits are making comparisons to mid-20th century race relations, and demanding more laws to address an issue that people are already changing.

The point is this: laws don't change people. You can't enforce morality on people. Enforcement only creates bitterness and more problems. Change happens because of cultural influence, and that cultural influence is the input to the change function, not the output of f(law).

Your last point is that state-recognized marriages get tax benefits, but that's an issue with the tax code, not marriage. Attempting to fix the problem by defining/redefining marriage is like spraying air freshener without flushing the toilet. The problem is the tax code, not marriage. If you remove the concept of a marriage license, there are no tax benefits, for anyone, no matter their sexuality. The state simply has no jurisdiction over marriage. It's an inherently personal matter. Subsequently, Ron Paul's removal of the IRS also addresses the larger problem.

This is why I keep touting "freedom freedom freedom", because that's the core principle from which the solution is grown. Get the government out of the way, so that people, together, can work out problems. Enforcing morality by law encourages segregation. Staying out of it, thereby forcing people to deal with themselves and others without running to mommy government...that's the long term solution.

Freedom solves all problems. It's arguably the ether of human relationships.

True enough. This is the pattern set by other candidates as long as I've been paying attention. It's why people don't get Paul, because he's not trying to push his views on other people by mandating them into law. As such, he's likely the only non-bigoted GOP candidate, because he's not out to force his opinions on others.

You can't really blame people - it's just such a foreign concept, so it takes time to really sink in.

Marriage cannot be made equitable by the state so long as the definition of marriage differs from person to person.

Ron Paul believes that marriage licensing should simply not be. If there are no licenses, there is no discrimination. Problem solved.

It seems like you believe that everyone should know that gay marriage is ok, and that everyone should agree with your view on the matter, because it's clearly the right one.

There are people who will never agree with you, no matter the position. Your view on morality is your view, and that's all there is to it. It doesn't need justification, it simply is. Attempting to push this on other people by mandating in law is the worst form of bigotry.

That's what libertarianism is all about: freedom. Freedom for you, for me, for everyone, to do as they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. That's what Ron Paul is about: we all don't have to agree. We can believe opposite things, and still accept each other as we are.

I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue.

It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality).

Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.

It's not pandering; it's consistent with the philosophy he's been touting for the last billionty years. Every time he gets up to speak, he talks about freedom of the individual, and having the federal government get out of the way. It's almost comical how people continually want to know his positions, when he doesn't have positions, but rather a unifying philosophy that positions grow out of.

That's the unique thing about Ron Paul, he's not your standard politician, which is why he confuses the media so much.

In a way, yes. The role of the US Federal government described in the constitution was to make sure agreements were upheld between the states, and deal with international issues outside of the states concern. The rest is up to the people to decide for themselves, whether by individual liberty or local government bodies.

Specifically, that the people support the government, not the other way around. Ron Paul's favorite president, Grover Cleveland, says it well:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution (federal aid for a natural disaster), and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland#Vetoes

This is hilarious, considering the hard time German government gives Google in terms of privacy.

Indeed. I thought the same thing, but I suspect he's including a design firm that tested out multiple versions of the site, backend infrastructure to handle potential load, support to handle issues in a timely manner should they come up, and maybe his personal time.

Now I'm depressed because someone I liked on the island just died.

Damned LOST music.

I think you're munging terms.

As posted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_web

"The real-time web is a set of technologies and practices that enable users to receive information as soon as it is published by its authors, rather than requiring that they or their software check a source periodically for updates."

Mojolicious fits that description.