My only concern with that line of thinking is that it isn't just evolution -- the same group that denies evolution denies anything that implies the earth is more than 10 thousand years old. So you end up writing off not just the foundation of modern biology, but geology, astronomy (stars can't be more than 10,000 light years from us if we can see them!), even history (we have archaeology from societies that existed before the world did). At what point do you stop catering to this and just teach as though we're living in the real world?
Have you ever reached down into a top-loading washing machine? You open the lid and the spinning gradually slows down. You bend down to reach into the washer to the bottom of the bucket (which is where all of the clothes are) to move them around to stop the vibration. Try doing that WITHOUT your face being close to the lid. Granted, you could wait until the spinning completely stopped, but it seems reasonable to assume the lid won't fly off at you while you do that.
That can't be true. If they found data that led them to a conspirator, they would want to arrest that person. They would need to have evidence to present in that person's trial that they participated in this terrorist event. I can't imagine that their plan is that if the defendant's attorney asks them how they got this data, they'll just say "some un-named third party pulled this data out of their own hardware and assured us their hardware had copied it from this mobile phone."
I'm calling bullshit on that one.
I will grant you that you can build a better team by choosing who you let go and who you keep. But if you let the "bottom" 15% go (using whatever subjective method you use to find them), the "top" 15% are going to see the warning signs and start heading for the exit anyway.
And now today, in this foul year of our lord 2016, the fact remains. Corporations no longer operate for the greater good of a people but for shareholder value.
I won't go directly to corporations that cooperated with the Nazis for examples of corporations perfectly willing to execute innocent people (pre-reconstruction) for profit, but let's just say there isn't any reason to think the good old days were any better than today. Corporations used to have more rope and could take longer to turn a profit from investments, but profits were always the goal.
Think of Germany's situation after WWII. They had a bunch of war criminals and could prosecute and punish them. Those were the people running camps, the soldiers guarding camps, anyone who explicitly knew what was happening and helped it happen.
But every single person in the country knew the Nazis had been rounding up jews and killing anyone who helped hide them. Many had to realize that millions of jews had disappeared and there weren't anywhere near enough soldiers left in country to guard and take care of them. Many knew that some jews were being used as slave labor. So basically, an unknown but large percentage of the country didn't outright commit war crimes but did collaborate with the Nazis to some degree.
You can't prosecute 25% of your country. So they just said "We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen. it's illegal to deny it happened. But we aren't going to let it happen again either -- it's illegal to try and spread racial hate through speech." It was a compromise to prevent having to throw 20% of the country in jail. It's not crazy, it's just very foreign to American concepts.
You are implying that higher bandwidth means more supply of the product. Supply and Demand only applies if they're restricting how many customers they're willing/able to sell to based on the bandwidth. If they are only selling to the first 10 people on the plane because they only have 3 mbs bandwidth, and with 70 they'll be able to sell to 240 people, then you'd be right. But actually, they're willing to sell to anyone who wants access no matter what bandwidth they have. Supply and Demand doesn't apply here.
It's pretty common in smaller flights (think turbo prop planes) that are only partially sold to have to shift passengers around for weight balance. It's not so much the total weight, but the location of weight in the cabin can definitely affect flight characteristics of the plane.
I'm saying we've been trying to make this problem worse for literally thousands of years. Our current crops are much more resistant to pests than their natural ancestors. We will continue to try to make them even more resistant by multiple methods. Now that we have a pretty respectable understanding of genetics, we even better at doing it by cross-breeding individuals to get traits than we were for the last 10 thousand years. Actually splicing genes together manually is just another step more efficient. The goals haven't changed.
Crops already are invasive species. The majority of them were originally native to the Middle East and we have modified them through manual selection to grow in other regions just as successfully. We count on them to outcompete native plants (if corn (which was actually from Central America I believe) can't outproduce native prairie grasses in Iowa and Nebraska then we won't have any corn).
The point at which it could become a bad thing has already past.
Seriously though, try mentioning anything in every third conversation for a week (Did I mention my sunburn? I got a sunburn on Sunday. I went kayaking and got a sunburn. My sunburn was really bad. My sunburn is slightly better today. I thought by sunburn was better but it still hurts. My sunburn started peeling today). People will react pretty much the same way they would if you mentioned therapy in every third conversation for a week.
There is a decent chance the cost of the land is included, since he's providing it to this project as well. If you're putting together a press release proclaiming your good work (and I don't mean that as a criticism -- he definitely deserves the right to take credit for his work) you might as well make the numbers as complete as you can.
But at least the reference manual was a reliable source. You may or may not internalize the information, but the information was probably correct. The "experts" you are relying on from the internet might not be anything more than someone who is passing on information that someone else posted on the internet, or just making things up themselves. When you take information from someone who is an authority and has actually applied that information and verified it for themselves, you're better off than just assuming you must know everything because you read something that some guy posted on the internet.
I'm assuming he put that line about company time together because it rhymed nicely. But if you're using a work computer for personal stuff, even off-hours, expect your company to know about it. Most of the time that's probably fine. But if there is ever a need for your company to examine your laptop and they find cached images from objectionable late night searches, downloaded movies or music or anything of that nature, you might have to talk to HR to explain it. If those images are of children in compromising positions or something like that, your company will turn "your" laptop over to the police and fire you. Don't kid yourself that using company hardware outside of work hours means your company doesn't feel responsible for what you do.
Likewise, if you resign, it's not your IT department's job to make sure your former teammates don't find out about your "My Little Pony" fan club. If you want to keep that secret from your work, don't use work hardware to do it.
Maybe contratulations is a word that means "condolences," and NotDrWho is just consoling the upper and upper middle class people of those cities because they still have to wait for Google to get around to them.
When DRM is a prerequisite to get the rights to offer the item to consumers at all. I'm not saying it necessarily WAS worth it, but the people who owned the rights to the music wouldn't allow downloads without DRM. So the options to bring it to market were download music with DRM, or don't download music legally. The consumer gets to decide whether they want that deal or not.
Live for a while on $100K in a rural Alabama, and then try it in the San Francisco Bay area. Then come back and tell us that there is a specific number that should be used to determine if you make enough money, regardless of your cost of living.
The thing is that this is really short-sighted (I say this as a development manager). You can force people to work long hours in a horrible job market -- but 100% of your good developers are going to jump ship the moment the market turns around. The only time this strategy makes sense is when two things are both true:
1. The job market is so bad even great developers are scared to quit
2. Your company is so close to going out of business that you don't have the option to think even medium term. You only care about the next month or two of results.
Quite apart from how horrible it would be to try to watch a movie recorded by a camera the width of a matchstick that's strapped to a person's head while they watch the movie, does Google Glass even have the battery life to record a full movie? It seems like this is a symbolic gesture by the MPAA.
I get that long-term battery life will probably improve, but why not wait until something is actually a problem before sending out press releases that might annoy your customers?
From GM's point of view, Tesla IS a fringe brand. How many sales does GM lose to Tesla? Granted, some people may be in the market for a $60K Corvette and decide to buy a $80K Tesla Model S instead. But if you look at directly competing models, how many people decide to buy a Tesla instead of a $35K Chevy Volt? Basically, none.
If you create a bell curve of all car models by selling price, Tesla will be in the fringe with the other cars that are close to 6 figures. Being a fringe brand doesn't mean you don't make a good car. Lamborghini is a fringe brand too. If you don't think it's a fringe brand, ask all of your friends who have ever purchased a car how many of them have seriously considered buying one.
Slashdot Mirror
My only concern with that line of thinking is that it isn't just evolution -- the same group that denies evolution denies anything that implies the earth is more than 10 thousand years old. So you end up writing off not just the foundation of modern biology, but geology, astronomy (stars can't be more than 10,000 light years from us if we can see them!), even history (we have archaeology from societies that existed before the world did). At what point do you stop catering to this and just teach as though we're living in the real world?
Have you ever reached down into a top-loading washing machine? You open the lid and the spinning gradually slows down. You bend down to reach into the washer to the bottom of the bucket (which is where all of the clothes are) to move them around to stop the vibration. Try doing that WITHOUT your face being close to the lid. Granted, you could wait until the spinning completely stopped, but it seems reasonable to assume the lid won't fly off at you while you do that.
That can't be true. If they found data that led them to a conspirator, they would want to arrest that person. They would need to have evidence to present in that person's trial that they participated in this terrorist event. I can't imagine that their plan is that if the defendant's attorney asks them how they got this data, they'll just say "some un-named third party pulled this data out of their own hardware and assured us their hardware had copied it from this mobile phone." I'm calling bullshit on that one.
I will grant you that you can build a better team by choosing who you let go and who you keep. But if you let the "bottom" 15% go (using whatever subjective method you use to find them), the "top" 15% are going to see the warning signs and start heading for the exit anyway.
And now today, in this foul year of our lord 2016, the fact remains. Corporations no longer operate for the greater good of a people but for shareholder value.
I won't go directly to corporations that cooperated with the Nazis for examples of corporations perfectly willing to execute innocent people (pre-reconstruction) for profit, but let's just say there isn't any reason to think the good old days were any better than today. Corporations used to have more rope and could take longer to turn a profit from investments, but profits were always the goal.
Think of Germany's situation after WWII. They had a bunch of war criminals and could prosecute and punish them. Those were the people running camps, the soldiers guarding camps, anyone who explicitly knew what was happening and helped it happen.
But every single person in the country knew the Nazis had been rounding up jews and killing anyone who helped hide them. Many had to realize that millions of jews had disappeared and there weren't anywhere near enough soldiers left in country to guard and take care of them. Many knew that some jews were being used as slave labor. So basically, an unknown but large percentage of the country didn't outright commit war crimes but did collaborate with the Nazis to some degree.
You can't prosecute 25% of your country. So they just said "We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen. it's illegal to deny it happened. But we aren't going to let it happen again either -- it's illegal to try and spread racial hate through speech." It was a compromise to prevent having to throw 20% of the country in jail. It's not crazy, it's just very foreign to American concepts.
You are implying that higher bandwidth means more supply of the product. Supply and Demand only applies if they're restricting how many customers they're willing/able to sell to based on the bandwidth. If they are only selling to the first 10 people on the plane because they only have 3 mbs bandwidth, and with 70 they'll be able to sell to 240 people, then you'd be right. But actually, they're willing to sell to anyone who wants access no matter what bandwidth they have. Supply and Demand doesn't apply here.
When things are chosen by a "staff pick", the staff of a particular organization picks things they think look interesting. That's...the whole deal.
It's not a subjective process.
I think you mean it's not an objective process.
It's pretty common in smaller flights (think turbo prop planes) that are only partially sold to have to shift passengers around for weight balance. It's not so much the total weight, but the location of weight in the cabin can definitely affect flight characteristics of the plane.
I'm saying we've been trying to make this problem worse for literally thousands of years. Our current crops are much more resistant to pests than their natural ancestors. We will continue to try to make them even more resistant by multiple methods. Now that we have a pretty respectable understanding of genetics, we even better at doing it by cross-breeding individuals to get traits than we were for the last 10 thousand years. Actually splicing genes together manually is just another step more efficient. The goals haven't changed.
Crops already are invasive species. The majority of them were originally native to the Middle East and we have modified them through manual selection to grow in other regions just as successfully. We count on them to outcompete native plants (if corn (which was actually from Central America I believe) can't outproduce native prairie grasses in Iowa and Nebraska then we won't have any corn).
The point at which it could become a bad thing has already past.
I expected this to be about software containers.
Seriously though, try mentioning anything in every third conversation for a week (Did I mention my sunburn? I got a sunburn on Sunday. I went kayaking and got a sunburn. My sunburn was really bad. My sunburn is slightly better today. I thought by sunburn was better but it still hurts. My sunburn started peeling today). People will react pretty much the same way they would if you mentioned therapy in every third conversation for a week.
There is a decent chance the cost of the land is included, since he's providing it to this project as well. If you're putting together a press release proclaiming your good work (and I don't mean that as a criticism -- he definitely deserves the right to take credit for his work) you might as well make the numbers as complete as you can.
So the question can be used to weed out pedants. I guess it is useful after all.
But at least the reference manual was a reliable source. You may or may not internalize the information, but the information was probably correct. The "experts" you are relying on from the internet might not be anything more than someone who is passing on information that someone else posted on the internet, or just making things up themselves. When you take information from someone who is an authority and has actually applied that information and verified it for themselves, you're better off than just assuming you must know everything because you read something that some guy posted on the internet.
I'm assuming he put that line about company time together because it rhymed nicely. But if you're using a work computer for personal stuff, even off-hours, expect your company to know about it. Most of the time that's probably fine. But if there is ever a need for your company to examine your laptop and they find cached images from objectionable late night searches, downloaded movies or music or anything of that nature, you might have to talk to HR to explain it. If those images are of children in compromising positions or something like that, your company will turn "your" laptop over to the police and fire you. Don't kid yourself that using company hardware outside of work hours means your company doesn't feel responsible for what you do.
Likewise, if you resign, it's not your IT department's job to make sure your former teammates don't find out about your "My Little Pony" fan club. If you want to keep that secret from your work, don't use work hardware to do it.
Maybe contratulations is a word that means "condolences," and NotDrWho is just consoling the upper and upper middle class people of those cities because they still have to wait for Google to get around to them.
When DRM is a prerequisite to get the rights to offer the item to consumers at all. I'm not saying it necessarily WAS worth it, but the people who owned the rights to the music wouldn't allow downloads without DRM. So the options to bring it to market were download music with DRM, or don't download music legally. The consumer gets to decide whether they want that deal or not.
The only downside to that plan is you have to live in rural Alabama (no offense to my Alabaman friends)
Live for a while on $100K in a rural Alabama, and then try it in the San Francisco Bay area. Then come back and tell us that there is a specific number that should be used to determine if you make enough money, regardless of your cost of living.
The thing is that this is really short-sighted (I say this as a development manager). You can force people to work long hours in a horrible job market -- but 100% of your good developers are going to jump ship the moment the market turns around. The only time this strategy makes sense is when two things are both true: 1. The job market is so bad even great developers are scared to quit 2. Your company is so close to going out of business that you don't have the option to think even medium term. You only care about the next month or two of results.
SV? Is that El Salvador?
Quite apart from how horrible it would be to try to watch a movie recorded by a camera the width of a matchstick that's strapped to a person's head while they watch the movie, does Google Glass even have the battery life to record a full movie? It seems like this is a symbolic gesture by the MPAA. I get that long-term battery life will probably improve, but why not wait until something is actually a problem before sending out press releases that might annoy your customers?
From GM's point of view, Tesla IS a fringe brand. How many sales does GM lose to Tesla? Granted, some people may be in the market for a $60K Corvette and decide to buy a $80K Tesla Model S instead. But if you look at directly competing models, how many people decide to buy a Tesla instead of a $35K Chevy Volt? Basically, none. If you create a bell curve of all car models by selling price, Tesla will be in the fringe with the other cars that are close to 6 figures. Being a fringe brand doesn't mean you don't make a good car. Lamborghini is a fringe brand too. If you don't think it's a fringe brand, ask all of your friends who have ever purchased a car how many of them have seriously considered buying one.