If only that were true. My credit union just jacked my (and every other member's) line of credit rate up by 3/4% on the existing balance and the only explanation was that this was the "fairest" way to be able to increase the rate of interest they wanted to offer on deposits.
Sadly I have come to believe that there is little difference between banks and credit unions (even small ones like mine with only 4 branches). Other credit unions here have done, or tried to, the same things to their members with lines of credit.
I haven't read TFA but I did read yesterday that scientists have found a significant correlation between high blood pressure and loss of brain function. Since obesity almost always causes high blood pressure it could simply be this at work and not the actual weight itself.
BTW good for you on losing so much weight - I know just how hard that can be.
You're modded funny but you are right suicide. If you read about people with depression who made failed attempts at suicide a common refrain is that "it just seemed like the sensible thing to do."
It is unfortunate to see the almost mind boggling number of ill informed and callous comments made about depression in these threads.
The only difference between architectures is the instructions available and sometimes what they do.
Ummmm, yeah... different instructions and different results... that would generally cover it. The thing is there can be quite significant differences between architectures. CISC vs RISC is very different. Stack oriented vs register oriented is a big difference. And so on. Now compared to a language like, say, Scheme, all machine architectures and their assembler languages might look almost the same but compared to each other the architectures and languages are very, very different.
As for the parent question a lot can be learned by selecting an easy to understand architecture, e.g., 68K and reading through the vendor's user manuals (usually cheap or free) for the chip and the assembly language.
That is so mistaken it is hard to know where to begin addressing it. Personal interest will provide motivation to learn. That's it. Period. End of story. Don't confuse desire with ability - they aren't the same thing at all. After that it is about learning. One of the things you learn is problem solving approaches. This is fundamentally no different than if the subject was, for example, calculus. You learn logic (in the formal and colloquial senses of the word). You learn how other people have already solved many (most?) of the problems you will face. You learn which problem are tractable and which aren't. None of this has anything to do with coding but is fundamental to programming. CS is math and programming is applied math. Some might have more aptitude for it than others but believe me you still need teachers - at the very least because, unlike the student, they have a clue about what needs to be learned. Hopefully they aren't poor teachers but even most poor teachers will have a more informed perspective than the student.
As for the rest I'll let someone else respond to that. Though I do wonder what "great programmer" means to you.
"Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages"
So it's ok to punish someone even though you can't prove they damaged you or how much they damaged you?
That's not say that it would be the existential, world-changing discovery that I believe proof of intelligent life would be, but people would care.
Plus if the discoverers manage to, ummm... let slip... yesss, let slip... that there was possible evidence of the presence of WoMD on the planet then there'd be no shortage of funding to find ways to go visit the planet.
However, it's my belief that ultimately, there is no real choice. We are a product of our biology, genetics, epi-genetics, and experiences.We make choices based on the combination of these factors, and if it were, in fact, possible to account for all the minute variables in these factors, our decisions could be predicted in virtually every case.
Anyway. Anonymous snipes backed by "emotion" of wanting to "save the people" is all you can expect from the left. When confronted with logic or even a touch of rational debate, lefties put on their super hero masks and start talking about "the value of life".
Another group of people wanted to do whats best for the people too. They made gulags and had great leaps forward for the progress of man kind!
Wow. Well good thing your reactions aren't backed by "emotion" and that you have limited yourself to logical argument and rational debate.
I don't disagree with everything you said but I've got to point out that
nuclear is the only way to ween our dependence off of fossil fuels in the short term (20-50 years)
just isn't true. You could, just for example, cut down on consumption. Ditch the Hummers, stop the cycle of making, buying and then discarding consumer crap; learn a value system beyond "ooo look it's shiny, I want it". Hard to do? Sure. Lot's of worthwhile things are hard to do.
1. "hypermilers" who don't understand lights are timed for the speed limit, and if you don't get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time, you're just going to waste all that gas at red lights.
Man I don't know where you live but please send your traffic engineers here. I live in a city of about 1.5 million people. There are maybe 8-10 stretches of road where driving the limit will get you from one green light to the next. In most cases, even if you are first off the intersection you either have to drive waayyyy faster than the limit, or waaayyy slower than the limit, to be able to hit a green at the next intersection. I swear it is almost as if they are designing it like this on purpose. On the few stretches where it isn't like this it is *so* wonderful... I just keep it at the limit and know I will get 8-10 whole blocks without having to stop.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how long it takes people to start moving when the light turns green. It's like they've been turned into deer staring at a light... the guy in front is 20ft away before they even start moving, and the same for the guy behind, and the guy behind him... so 3 cars get through where 5-6 should have been able to get through.
You are right, it is a cat and mouse game. The problem is that the solution being employed is looking at the wrong mouse and the wrong cat.
In this case the mice are the spammers themselves - the people - not the messages. And the cat shouldn't be anti-spam software, at least not in the sense of detect and eliminate software. The cat should be a bounty on the spammers themselves. There are always people who know who the spammers are. Those people are likely just as unscrupulous as the spammers so they can be induced to rat out the spammers for a reasonable reward. Think of the amount of money spent on software to deal with this, the value of ISP resources, the value of individual time dealing with this etc. It should be possible to offer some pretty significant rewards in return for helping with the elimination of the spammers.
The same method would work with those who deliberately spread a virus/worm for any reason.
Ah well, just to show you I'm not totally unreasonable here you go, from the StatsCan Daily, Monday, January 27, 1997:
In 1995
- single women earned an average 94% of what men did.
- single university educated women earned 96% of what men did.
Now note that this is comparing all women in the defined group who were working "full-time" (30 hours a week or more) to all men in the defined group working full-time and without normalizing for the actual hours worked. If you read a little more you find that on average men working full time worked 10.75% more hours than women. If you applied that to the numbers above you would find that single women made more per hour than single men. Sometimes significantly more.
And that is without controlling for any of the other factors, like the amount of education (is a BA = PhD?), actual work experience, leaves of absence from work and so on.
But you never saw anything like that printed in the papers I can tell you that. There's tons of this stuff available to anyone who wants to look. But you have to not assume that the people writing it have no agenda. Because they do.
Mmmm, no it isn't. The point of a citation is to make it easy for someone to check information being put forward. I don't generally think that just because I make a comment that it suddenly becomes my responsibility to make it easy to check the information. Those who are genuinely interested will find it if they look; those who aren't won't be convinced no matter what is provided.
Now you could take a look at the citation provided by the GP to your post - wherein it is claimed that even without accounting for all the relevant factors women's wages are up to 80% of men's. In fact 60% to 80%. Now that's a pretty big range of error, isn't it? Especially considering that the poster admitted that not all the relevant factors are included - so it isn't all that difficult to believe that when additional factors are included women's wages are essentially equivalent to men's.
And, as someone once pointed out watching what StatsCan says isn't as important as watching what they don't say. For example for years when they were claiming that women only made $0.xx on the dollar compared to men they "neglected" to mention that they were comparing women working 30 hours a week to men working 43 hours a week - so that even if both were being paid $10/hr StatsCan would conclude, and state, that women were only being paid $0.69 on the dollar compared to men.
Well I guess well paid depends on the cost of living where you are and what other people make. The average family income here is about $60K/yr so starting fresh out of school at $45K (with all the nice bennies you mentioned) for 10 months work seems like it is well paid to me. Especially compared to a new Ph.D. gets in say chemistry.
Well what I've heard sociologists say is that in agrarian/peasant/poor societies people have lots of kids because they want to be sure enough survive to take care of them in their old age. If you are doing well financially then there isn't that impetus to procreate. However I notice is that women in high income relationships still want kids - they just hire nannies to take care of them.
...or that the jobs that women traditionally do (teaching, nursing, etc) are valued a lot less by society. I never could understand why teachers are treated like crap in North America.
Well I don't know where you live but in the part of Canada I live in teachers are very well paid. They start at about $45K and move up quickly and that's for working less than 10 months of the year. And, I have to say this, at the universities I attended the education students weren't considered the brightest lights.
Of course in general response to your comment one should ask, if these traditional jobs are paid less, why would women train for and then seek out these jobs when logically there must be easier jobs for the money or equivalently jobs no harder that pay significantly more. Around here the flagmen on road crews get paid the same as the guys digging the ditch, running the backhoe etc. etc. Virtually 100% of the flagmen on road crews here are women. These women seem to have figured it out.
I've been on interviews where they ask me for my requirements and I'm open and firm about what I need to make. Sometimes they come back with "Well, this position only pays $X", this isn't really to inform you. It's to test you. It's to find out if you will work for less. Stick to your guns. Be police, but firm that you need to make your figure. If you're the best candidate for the job, they'll hire you and pay you what you're worth.
This happened to me many years ago. I'd had lunch with the President of the company and his wife and then he took me to the head of HR and told her "I want you to hire this guy" and then left the room. She and I discussed the job for a while, including her highly amusing "But this is LA so you only need three weeks vacation because it's not like New York where you'd have to go somewhere else." Then we got down to money and she named a figure that was about half(!) what I expected from prior chatting with friends in the industry. I told her that and she said "That's no problem, I was just testing you." I finished the session and said I'd let her know but that had been the end for me. I figured if they would play games like that before hiring me what the heck were they going to do afterwards when I'd moved, settled in blah blah blah.
Well maybe the US is different in this regard (but I do doubt that) however Statistics Canada said years ago that when you account for education, experience, hours worked etc. then there was no statistically significant difference between the pay of men and women. Not that this has in any way stopped propaganda statements like "Women only earn $0.65 on the dollar compared to men!!!!!" continuing to be spread. And to anyone who cries "Citation?" you've got fingers, look it up.
Well that's not necessarily true... women do live longer than men so if we just set the retirement age for each sex as (Avg Life Expectancy) - 7 then women would have retirements just as long as men but be able to gain up to 7 years more job experience. Problem solved. And it would reduce the burden on pension plans.
Slashdot Mirror
If only that were true. My credit union just jacked my (and every other member's) line of credit rate up by 3/4% on the existing balance and the only explanation was that this was the "fairest" way to be able to increase the rate of interest they wanted to offer on deposits.
Sadly I have come to believe that there is little difference between banks and credit unions (even small ones like mine with only 4 branches). Other credit unions here have done, or tried to, the same things to their members with lines of credit.
I haven't read TFA but I did read yesterday that scientists have found a significant correlation between high blood pressure and loss of brain function. Since obesity almost always causes high blood pressure it could simply be this at work and not the actual weight itself.
BTW good for you on losing so much weight - I know just how hard that can be.
You're modded funny but you are right suicide. If you read about people with depression who made failed attempts at suicide a common refrain is that "it just seemed like the sensible thing to do."
It is unfortunate to see the almost mind boggling number of ill informed and callous comments made about depression in these threads.
The only difference between architectures is the instructions available and sometimes what they do.
Ummmm, yeah... different instructions and different results... that would generally cover it. The thing is there can be quite significant differences between architectures. CISC vs RISC is very different. Stack oriented vs register oriented is a big difference. And so on. Now compared to a language like, say, Scheme, all machine architectures and their assembler languages might look almost the same but compared to each other the architectures and languages are very, very different.
As for the parent question a lot can be learned by selecting an easy to understand architecture, e.g., 68K and reading through the vendor's user manuals (usually cheap or free) for the chip and the assembly language.
At the risk of oversimplifying, that's pretty much the point of statutory damages.
I know. It was a rhetorical question pointing out the questionable morality underlying such a scheme.
That is so mistaken it is hard to know where to begin addressing it. Personal interest will provide motivation to learn. That's it. Period. End of story. Don't confuse desire with ability - they aren't the same thing at all. After that it is about learning. One of the things you learn is problem solving approaches. This is fundamentally no different than if the subject was, for example, calculus. You learn logic (in the formal and colloquial senses of the word). You learn how other people have already solved many (most?) of the problems you will face. You learn which problem are tractable and which aren't. None of this has anything to do with coding but is fundamental to programming. CS is math and programming is applied math. Some might have more aptitude for it than others but believe me you still need teachers - at the very least because, unlike the student, they have a clue about what needs to be learned. Hopefully they aren't poor teachers but even most poor teachers will have a more informed perspective than the student.
As for the rest I'll let someone else respond to that. Though I do wonder what "great programmer" means to you.
Well not only that but:
"Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages"
So it's ok to punish someone even though you can't prove they damaged you or how much they damaged you?
That's not say that it would be the existential, world-changing discovery that I believe proof of intelligent life would be, but people would care.
Plus if the discoverers manage to, ummm... let slip... yesss, let slip... that there was possible evidence of the presence of WoMD on the planet then there'd be no shortage of funding to find ways to go visit the planet.
However, it's my belief that ultimately, there is no real choice. We are a product of our biology, genetics, epi-genetics, and experiences.We make choices based on the combination of these factors, and if it were, in fact, possible to account for all the minute variables in these factors, our decisions could be predicted in virtually every case.
I knew you were going to say that!
Anyway. Anonymous snipes backed by "emotion" of wanting to "save the people" is all you can expect from the left. When confronted with logic or even a touch of rational debate, lefties put on their super hero masks and start talking about "the value of life". Another group of people wanted to do whats best for the people too. They made gulags and had great leaps forward for the progress of man kind!
Wow. Well good thing your reactions aren't backed by "emotion" and that you have limited yourself to logical argument and rational debate.
I don't disagree with everything you said but I've got to point out that
nuclear is the only way to ween our dependence off of fossil fuels in the short term (20-50 years)
just isn't true. You could, just for example, cut down on consumption. Ditch the Hummers, stop the cycle of making, buying and then discarding consumer crap; learn a value system beyond "ooo look it's shiny, I want it". Hard to do? Sure. Lot's of worthwhile things are hard to do.
You missed a few contributors... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iss
1. "hypermilers" who don't understand lights are timed for the speed limit, and if you don't get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time, you're just going to waste all that gas at red lights.
Man I don't know where you live but please send your traffic engineers here. I live in a city of about 1.5 million people. There are maybe 8-10 stretches of road where driving the limit will get you from one green light to the next. In most cases, even if you are first off the intersection you either have to drive waayyyy faster than the limit, or waaayyy slower than the limit, to be able to hit a green at the next intersection. I swear it is almost as if they are designing it like this on purpose. On the few stretches where it isn't like this it is *so* wonderful... I just keep it at the limit and know I will get 8-10 whole blocks without having to stop.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how long it takes people to start moving when the light turns green. It's like they've been turned into deer staring at a light... the guy in front is 20ft away before they even start moving, and the same for the guy behind, and the guy behind him... so 3 cars get through where 5-6 should have been able to get through.
You are right, it is a cat and mouse game. The problem is that the solution being employed is looking at the wrong mouse and the wrong cat.
In this case the mice are the spammers themselves - the people - not the messages. And the cat shouldn't be anti-spam software, at least not in the sense of detect and eliminate software. The cat should be a bounty on the spammers themselves. There are always people who know who the spammers are. Those people are likely just as unscrupulous as the spammers so they can be induced to rat out the spammers for a reasonable reward. Think of the amount of money spent on software to deal with this, the value of ISP resources, the value of individual time dealing with this etc. It should be possible to offer some pretty significant rewards in return for helping with the elimination of the spammers.
The same method would work with those who deliberately spread a virus/worm for any reason.
Ah well, just to show you I'm not totally unreasonable here you go, from the StatsCan Daily, Monday, January 27, 1997:
In 1995
- single women earned an average 94% of what men did.
- single university educated women earned 96% of what men did.
Now note that this is comparing all women in the defined group who were working "full-time" (30 hours a week or more) to all men in the defined group working full-time and without normalizing for the actual hours worked. If you read a little more you find that on average men working full time worked 10.75% more hours than women. If you applied that to the numbers above you would find that single women made more per hour than single men. Sometimes significantly more.
And that is without controlling for any of the other factors, like the amount of education (is a BA = PhD?), actual work experience, leaves of absence from work and so on.
But you never saw anything like that printed in the papers I can tell you that. There's tons of this stuff available to anyone who wants to look. But you have to not assume that the people writing it have no agenda. Because they do.
Mmmm, no it isn't. The point of a citation is to make it easy for someone to check information being put forward. I don't generally think that just because I make a comment that it suddenly becomes my responsibility to make it easy to check the information. Those who are genuinely interested will find it if they look; those who aren't won't be convinced no matter what is provided.
Now you could take a look at the citation provided by the GP to your post - wherein it is claimed that even without accounting for all the relevant factors women's wages are up to 80% of men's. In fact 60% to 80%. Now that's a pretty big range of error, isn't it? Especially considering that the poster admitted that not all the relevant factors are included - so it isn't all that difficult to believe that when additional factors are included women's wages are essentially equivalent to men's.
And, as someone once pointed out watching what StatsCan says isn't as important as watching what they don't say. For example for years when they were claiming that women only made $0.xx on the dollar compared to men they "neglected" to mention that they were comparing women working 30 hours a week to men working 43 hours a week - so that even if both were being paid $10/hr StatsCan would conclude, and state, that women were only being paid $0.69 on the dollar compared to men.
Fortunately you don't get to be the one who decides the validity for everyone else.
Well I guess well paid depends on the cost of living where you are and what other people make. The average family income here is about $60K/yr so starting fresh out of school at $45K (with all the nice bennies you mentioned) for 10 months work seems like it is well paid to me. Especially compared to a new Ph.D. gets in say chemistry.
Well what I've heard sociologists say is that in agrarian/peasant/poor societies people have lots of kids because they want to be sure enough survive to take care of them in their old age. If you are doing well financially then there isn't that impetus to procreate. However I notice is that women in high income relationships still want kids - they just hire nannies to take care of them.
Apparently the very first thing women check out is the guy's shoes.
Well I don't know where you live but in the part of Canada I live in teachers are very well paid. They start at about $45K and move up quickly and that's for working less than 10 months of the year. And, I have to say this, at the universities I attended the education students weren't considered the brightest lights.
Of course in general response to your comment one should ask, if these traditional jobs are paid less, why would women train for and then seek out these jobs when logically there must be easier jobs for the money or equivalently jobs no harder that pay significantly more. Around here the flagmen on road crews get paid the same as the guys digging the ditch, running the backhoe etc. etc. Virtually 100% of the flagmen on road crews here are women. These women seem to have figured it out.
I've been on interviews where they ask me for my requirements and I'm open and firm about what I need to make. Sometimes they come back with "Well, this position only pays $X", this isn't really to inform you. It's to test you. It's to find out if you will work for less. Stick to your guns. Be police, but firm that you need to make your figure. If you're the best candidate for the job, they'll hire you and pay you what you're worth.
This happened to me many years ago. I'd had lunch with the President of the company and his wife and then he took me to the head of HR and told her "I want you to hire this guy" and then left the room. She and I discussed the job for a while, including her highly amusing "But this is LA so you only need three weeks vacation because it's not like New York where you'd have to go somewhere else." Then we got down to money and she named a figure that was about half(!) what I expected from prior chatting with friends in the industry. I told her that and she said "That's no problem, I was just testing you." I finished the session and said I'd let her know but that had been the end for me. I figured if they would play games like that before hiring me what the heck were they going to do afterwards when I'd moved, settled in blah blah blah.
Don't laugh! My gf mentions that boys and young men are getting prettier all the time - it bothers her.
Well maybe the US is different in this regard (but I do doubt that) however Statistics Canada said years ago that when you account for education, experience, hours worked etc. then there was no statistically significant difference between the pay of men and women. Not that this has in any way stopped propaganda statements like "Women only earn $0.65 on the dollar compared to men!!!!!" continuing to be spread. And to anyone who cries "Citation?" you've got fingers, look it up.
Well that's not necessarily true... women do live longer than men so if we just set the retirement age for each sex as (Avg Life Expectancy) - 7 then women would have retirements just as long as men but be able to gain up to 7 years more job experience. Problem solved. And it would reduce the burden on pension plans.