That is a nice theory, except that all of the hunters I know would prefer to hunt caribou to hunting white tailed deer. According to the sources I have seen, the spread of white tailed deer has more to do with agricultural practices which expand their habitat at the expense of the habitat of boreal caribou (the subspecies of caribou which inhabited Minnesota at one time).
What I am saying is that the hiring manager did not save any time by only hiring people with a degree. That rule actually cost the hiring manager time. And it is often the case. Any rule which is enforced without analysis of how it impacts the job will have negative consequences. Most companies which have a rule about only hiring people with degrees have failed to analyze the rule's impact on the quality of people they hire.
I know someone who was working a management job for one company that was eliminating the division for reasons that had nothing to do with the success of this person (they decided that they could make a better return on their money by investing it in a different division of the company so were liquidating his division). Another company was desperate for someone to manage a similar division and was going to offer him the job...until they discovered that he did not have a bachelor's degree.
In this case, the hiring manager had FOUND someone qualified, but because he did not have that piece of paper they ended up hiring someone with the piece of paper who was less qualified (I was very familiar with the industry in question at the time, there were no other companies of similar size in the area in that industry and there was no way they were going to pay someone to relocate for the position).
Ummm, no the rich cannot make "trivial changes" to their lifestyle, or ANY changes to their lifestyle, which would reduce the pollution being talked about in this study by 90%. The overwhelming majority of particulate pollution is emitted by actions of the VERY poor (I am not blaming them for it, just stating a fact). The way to reduce particulate pollution, which is what this article is talking about, by a large amount is to improve the life of the poor so that they are not cooking their food and heating their homes with solid fuel (coal, wood, etc).
There are things done by the wealthy that could, and perhaps should, be eliminated which would reduce particulate pollution, but, on the world scale, only by a small amount.
Umm, the system which Tesla claims to be at least twice as good as the average human driver is one more advanced than the one which was in use in this case....but that being said, this was a situation where the driver was aware that the system he had was not competent.
I am NOT a proponent of self-driving cars. I think that except for niche cases they are a bad idea. However, it is not a contradiction for something like the Tesla autopilot to be safer than a human driver and yet fail in a limited number of situations where most human drivers would succeed.
Today's business dollars are beyond any government oversight.
You clearly misunderstand the PURPOSE of government oversight. It's purpose is not to control the abuses by the big companies, it is to prevent smaller companies from posing a threat to the big companies.
Just look at the Dodd-Frank law. Crafted by the two men, Rep Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, who were among the loudest voices telling everyone that nothing was wrong leading up to the 2008 crash every time someone tried to fix the problem before it blew up. They also provided some of the muscle to keep any sort of fix from happening. Then we have the law itself which was advertised as a solution to "too big to fail". How did it go about fixing that? by making it harder for small banks to compete with bigger banks, forcing them to sell themselves to the mega-banks.
Considering that religious references to the concept of soul essentially go back to the beginning of recorded history and the first non-religious reference I can find is Plato, I think it would be rather hard to support the idea that religion hijacked the term rather than the other way around.
It is rather questionable to say that it has been working quite well for IBM. When they started this, they were one of the biggest businesses in the world. The biggest reason they are still in business is because when IBM started this process they owned a huge amount of extremely valuable real estate. I have not been tracking their real estate holdings, but I am pretty sure they have sold off a large chunk of it as part of this same process. Management would claim that the real estate they sold was because they no longer had employees to sit in that office space, but to some degree it is more the other way around: They got rid of the employees who sat in that office space in order to be able to sell the real estate (and disguise how badly their revenue was shrinking).
Except that the evidence suggests that you are mistaken if you think that the people making this decision would not like the consequence which you are suggesting will result. Those who advocate for gun control seem to desire seeing an increase in deaths and injuries which result from guns...they believe it helps their arguments. Historically, when those who advocate for more gun regulations get into a position to enforce existing gun laws, they do so with less effort than those who oppose gun laws.
That is probably a violation of the law of which this regulation was an interpretation. If so, this court ruling does not change that. As a matter of fact, the FCC probably implemented this rule so that they could prosecute you, even if you had uninstalled the software before they found you.
Ummm, it was the LAW which was ruled on here. It was the FCC regulation INTERPRETING the law. The law of which the regulation was an implementation is still in place. Violating that law is still a criminal offense.
No, they did not. The people in question had been long time customers of the bakers, for whom the bakers had made many cakes. However, when they requested that the bakers make a cake for a ceremony celebrating their sexual relationship, the bakers declined because they were unwilling to participate in celebrating what they believed to be self-destructive behavior.
Actually, there are two things which changed. First, the gatekeepers to knowledge selected successors with a bias. Second, the barriers to mass communication were massively reduced, which resulted in people becoming aware that the gatekeepers to knowledge were not trustworthy.
There has always been some of this, but people did not realize how extensive it was. My first experience of this occurred when I was 12. I witnessed an event that was being recorded for the evening news. Then I watched the evening news broadcast of the event and what they said about the event bore little resemblance to what I had witnessed while standing next to the camera and the reporter who reported on the event.
If you have a scientifically or mathematically verified model but refuse to use it, the fault isn't with the model. The important part about paper ballots is that anyone and everyone can count them. That paper is used is immaterial, and that people can participate in the verification is the salient aspect of the system. So if you want to have an electronic voting machine, the important part is that everyone can look at the code and verify for themselves that it isn't doing anything untoward.
The end of your last sentence is the key to understanding the limits on the first. It is not enough for everyone to be able to look at the code, they must also have the ability (not just the permission) to verify for themselves that it is doing what it is supposed to do. That means that they must be able to do two things, understand how the code accomplished what it accomplishes AND know that the code they are looking at is indeed the code being used on the machines.
The thing about having a scientifically or mathematically verified model is that everyone whom you expect to use that model must be able to do the verification for themselves AND a significant number of them must have actually done so...enough that everyone who hasn't knows someone they trust who has done so...which brings us to what this article is talking about, reputation.
Unless youre a baker that doesn't want to make a cake for gays, and even gives you a reference to other bakers who will happily serve you, right?
Actually the baker in question was perfectly willing to make a cake for gays (the gays who sued had been long time customers). They merely refused to bake a cake celebrating the sexual relationship between the two gays.
That did not work in this case. Windows 10 has a nice little "feature" which allows it to obtain updates via peer to peer. We had multiple Windows 10 computers which, while set to look to our WSUS server rather than to Microsoft's servers for updates, downloaded the updates from other Windows 10 computers on the Internet. We have since modified Group Policy to stop them from doing that.
You are the third or fourth person to more or less give me this answer. It seems to me that the problem is a poorly worded false advertising law...or perhaps stupid ISPs (if I ran an ISP and my top speed was less than my competitor's, but my typical speed was faster, I would promote that fact rather than the "up to" speed).
Personally, this answer seems to me to mean that the law is unnecessary. I long ago learned to pay attention to advertising qualifiers such as "up to" and "as much as", etc..
I would assume that Australia already has laws against false advertising. So, this would be redundant. I do not see how this is any worse than much other false advertising.
So, now you are concluding that if the Supreme Court rules that U.S. laws apply to data which Microsoft stores on servers in Ireland that the President will start a war over enforcing those laws. You really need to spend some time studying the separation of powers as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court is not nearly as powerful (or, at least not intended to be) under the U.S. Constitution as you seem to imagine.
What you are saying is that it would be a bad idea for U.S. laws to apply to company assets in other countries. I do no disagree, but if the law is written in such a way as to claim such application, it is not the Supreme Court's job, nor is it within the Supreme Court's authority, to rule that it does not. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to fix laws which they think are stupid, it only has the authority to adjudicate on what the law means and whether it is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. The Supreme Court is under no obligation to take other country's laws into consideration when deciding the meaning of U.S. laws. So your conclusion that if the Supreme Court decides that Microsoft is obligated to turn over data sought by the prosecution which it currently holds in a database located in Europe, it would mean that European companies with a U.S. presence are not subject to U.S. laws is incorrect. It is perfectly possible that the Supreme Court can rule that companies with a presence in the U.S. must follow U.S. law, even if that law is contradictory to the law in other countries where those companies have a presence. Not only is it possible for it to rule that way, it may be the only legitimate way for it to rule depending on how the law is written. It is the job of the President and Congress, primarily Congress, to resolve such conflicts.
Slashdot Mirror
That is a nice theory, except that all of the hunters I know would prefer to hunt caribou to hunting white tailed deer. According to the sources I have seen, the spread of white tailed deer has more to do with agricultural practices which expand their habitat at the expense of the habitat of boreal caribou (the subspecies of caribou which inhabited Minnesota at one time).
What I am saying is that the hiring manager did not save any time by only hiring people with a degree. That rule actually cost the hiring manager time. And it is often the case. Any rule which is enforced without analysis of how it impacts the job will have negative consequences. Most companies which have a rule about only hiring people with degrees have failed to analyze the rule's impact on the quality of people they hire.
I know someone who was working a management job for one company that was eliminating the division for reasons that had nothing to do with the success of this person (they decided that they could make a better return on their money by investing it in a different division of the company so were liquidating his division). Another company was desperate for someone to manage a similar division and was going to offer him the job...until they discovered that he did not have a bachelor's degree.
In this case, the hiring manager had FOUND someone qualified, but because he did not have that piece of paper they ended up hiring someone with the piece of paper who was less qualified (I was very familiar with the industry in question at the time, there were no other companies of similar size in the area in that industry and there was no way they were going to pay someone to relocate for the position).
Of course, sending them away worked out SO well for Puerto Rico.
Ummm, no the rich cannot make "trivial changes" to their lifestyle, or ANY changes to their lifestyle, which would reduce the pollution being talked about in this study by 90%. The overwhelming majority of particulate pollution is emitted by actions of the VERY poor (I am not blaming them for it, just stating a fact). The way to reduce particulate pollution, which is what this article is talking about, by a large amount is to improve the life of the poor so that they are not cooking their food and heating their homes with solid fuel (coal, wood, etc).
There are things done by the wealthy that could, and perhaps should, be eliminated which would reduce particulate pollution, but, on the world scale, only by a small amount.
Umm, the system which Tesla claims to be at least twice as good as the average human driver is one more advanced than the one which was in use in this case....but that being said, this was a situation where the driver was aware that the system he had was not competent.
I am NOT a proponent of self-driving cars. I think that except for niche cases they are a bad idea. However, it is not a contradiction for something like the Tesla autopilot to be safer than a human driver and yet fail in a limited number of situations where most human drivers would succeed.
Today's business dollars are beyond any government oversight.
You clearly misunderstand the PURPOSE of government oversight. It's purpose is not to control the abuses by the big companies, it is to prevent smaller companies from posing a threat to the big companies.
Just look at the Dodd-Frank law. Crafted by the two men, Rep Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, who were among the loudest voices telling everyone that nothing was wrong leading up to the 2008 crash every time someone tried to fix the problem before it blew up. They also provided some of the muscle to keep any sort of fix from happening. Then we have the law itself which was advertised as a solution to "too big to fail". How did it go about fixing that? by making it harder for small banks to compete with bigger banks, forcing them to sell themselves to the mega-banks.
The fact that _some_ religions _hijack_ the term
Considering that religious references to the concept of soul essentially go back to the beginning of recorded history and the first non-religious reference I can find is Plato, I think it would be rather hard to support the idea that religion hijacked the term rather than the other way around.
It is rather questionable to say that it has been working quite well for IBM. When they started this, they were one of the biggest businesses in the world. The biggest reason they are still in business is because when IBM started this process they owned a huge amount of extremely valuable real estate. I have not been tracking their real estate holdings, but I am pretty sure they have sold off a large chunk of it as part of this same process. Management would claim that the real estate they sold was because they no longer had employees to sit in that office space, but to some degree it is more the other way around: They got rid of the employees who sat in that office space in order to be able to sell the real estate (and disguise how badly their revenue was shrinking).
Except that the evidence suggests that you are mistaken if you think that the people making this decision would not like the consequence which you are suggesting will result. Those who advocate for gun control seem to desire seeing an increase in deaths and injuries which result from guns...they believe it helps their arguments. Historically, when those who advocate for more gun regulations get into a position to enforce existing gun laws, they do so with less effort than those who oppose gun laws.
That is probably a violation of the law of which this regulation was an interpretation. If so, this court ruling does not change that. As a matter of fact, the FCC probably implemented this rule so that they could prosecute you, even if you had uninstalled the software before they found you.
Forget small businesses, this could have been used to fine individuals for calling their township supervisors to complain about a vote they made.
The rule was an interpretation of an existing law...that law is still on the books.
Ummm, it was the LAW which was ruled on here. It was the FCC regulation INTERPRETING the law. The law of which the regulation was an implementation is still in place. Violating that law is still a criminal offense.
No, they did not. The people in question had been long time customers of the bakers, for whom the bakers had made many cakes. However, when they requested that the bakers make a cake for a ceremony celebrating their sexual relationship, the bakers declined because they were unwilling to participate in celebrating what they believed to be self-destructive behavior.
Actually, there are two things which changed. First, the gatekeepers to knowledge selected successors with a bias. Second, the barriers to mass communication were massively reduced, which resulted in people becoming aware that the gatekeepers to knowledge were not trustworthy.
There has always been some of this, but people did not realize how extensive it was. My first experience of this occurred when I was 12. I witnessed an event that was being recorded for the evening news. Then I watched the evening news broadcast of the event and what they said about the event bore little resemblance to what I had witnessed while standing next to the camera and the reporter who reported on the event.
If you have a scientifically or mathematically verified model but refuse to use it, the fault isn't with the model. The important part about paper ballots is that anyone and everyone can count them. That paper is used is immaterial, and that people can participate in the verification is the salient aspect of the system. So if you want to have an electronic voting machine, the important part is that everyone can look at the code and verify for themselves that it isn't doing anything untoward.
The end of your last sentence is the key to understanding the limits on the first. It is not enough for everyone to be able to look at the code, they must also have the ability (not just the permission) to verify for themselves that it is doing what it is supposed to do. That means that they must be able to do two things, understand how the code accomplished what it accomplishes AND know that the code they are looking at is indeed the code being used on the machines.
The thing about having a scientifically or mathematically verified model is that everyone whom you expect to use that model must be able to do the verification for themselves AND a significant number of them must have actually done so...enough that everyone who hasn't knows someone they trust who has done so...which brings us to what this article is talking about, reputation.
Unless youre a baker that doesn't want to make a cake for gays, and even gives you a reference to other bakers who will happily serve you, right?
Actually the baker in question was perfectly willing to make a cake for gays (the gays who sued had been long time customers). They merely refused to bake a cake celebrating the sexual relationship between the two gays.
Except that the bakers did not refuse to serve a class of people. They refused to provide service for a specific event.
That did not work in this case. Windows 10 has a nice little "feature" which allows it to obtain updates via peer to peer. We had multiple Windows 10 computers which, while set to look to our WSUS server rather than to Microsoft's servers for updates, downloaded the updates from other Windows 10 computers on the Internet. We have since modified Group Policy to stop them from doing that.
How foolish of you. The solution is obviously MORE regulation.
You are the third or fourth person to more or less give me this answer. It seems to me that the problem is a poorly worded false advertising law...or perhaps stupid ISPs (if I ran an ISP and my top speed was less than my competitor's, but my typical speed was faster, I would promote that fact rather than the "up to" speed).
Personally, this answer seems to me to mean that the law is unnecessary. I long ago learned to pay attention to advertising qualifiers such as "up to" and "as much as", etc..
I would assume that Australia already has laws against false advertising. So, this would be redundant. I do not see how this is any worse than much other false advertising.
So, now you are concluding that if the Supreme Court rules that U.S. laws apply to data which Microsoft stores on servers in Ireland that the President will start a war over enforcing those laws. You really need to spend some time studying the separation of powers as laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court is not nearly as powerful (or, at least not intended to be) under the U.S. Constitution as you seem to imagine.
What you are saying is that it would be a bad idea for U.S. laws to apply to company assets in other countries. I do no disagree, but if the law is written in such a way as to claim such application, it is not the Supreme Court's job, nor is it within the Supreme Court's authority, to rule that it does not. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to fix laws which they think are stupid, it only has the authority to adjudicate on what the law means and whether it is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. The Supreme Court is under no obligation to take other country's laws into consideration when deciding the meaning of U.S. laws. So your conclusion that if the Supreme Court decides that Microsoft is obligated to turn over data sought by the prosecution which it currently holds in a database located in Europe, it would mean that European companies with a U.S. presence are not subject to U.S. laws is incorrect. It is perfectly possible that the Supreme Court can rule that companies with a presence in the U.S. must follow U.S. law, even if that law is contradictory to the law in other countries where those companies have a presence. Not only is it possible for it to rule that way, it may be the only legitimate way for it to rule depending on how the law is written. It is the job of the President and Congress, primarily Congress, to resolve such conflicts.