Nordic Track is difficult to use. It looks so easy on the videos but very tricky when you first try it out. And a few months later, still very hard to use. A stationary bike is much more sensible, there's no learning curve to it.
He's been doing idiotic tweets for as long as Twitter existed. Trump is not a deep person, he doesn't have a subtle bone in his body, and he's certainly not following a secret long term strategy. Occam's Razor applies here and the the simplest solution is that he's exactly what he appears to be: shallow and ego driven. The inscrutable tweet at 3am is merely an impulse he has after listening to some conspiracy oriented radio show. The tweets are stream of consciousness ramblings. He has so many contradictions in what he says over time because he's making it all up on the fly, and not because he knows what he's doing.
Good question. I think there is a much bigger base than people thought who are just opposed to it all. Where "it" means everything, but especially anything to do with politics. They have been flipping their finger at the world for a long time, and now that there's a leader of the flip-the-finger movement they vote for him. They're anti-elite but at the same time for this guy who's the biggest elitist of them all. But Trump manages to give the impression of not being elite, they see him as not smart with elitist education but smart with down home gut feelings. They see his real estate money as a result of being smart and nothing at all to do with being lucky. But maybe more than all that, Trump says what they want to hear - that country's problem is with everyone else except his backers, especially politicians and immigrants.
When people push back against Trump it only reinforces the base. They see the elite being the ones pushing against Trump, or immigrant lovers, etc. The more that people rally against Trump the more it convinces his backers that Trump must be doing something right.
CNN is going downhill. However it's not going downhill because it's turning radically liberal. It's going downhill because it's focusing on the sensational stories, sticking with the pointless stories for months in order to keep the eyeballs.
Be careful that when you try to read opposing viewpoints that you're not reading crazy conspiracy theories. Fox is so overtly biased and with editorials masquerading as news stories, that you can't take all of it seriously and you have to sift through it very carefully. You don't balance a slight liberal bent with an overt conservative approach that is constantly on the attack. You cannot put Fox as an equal balance to the BBC for example. But Fox is sane here compared to the wackos like Breitbart or Infowars or World Net Daily.
Sure, listen to different views, but do not give them all equal weight! It is very useful to know what some of the extremist views are, and useful to know if those views are gaining popularity, but you should not treat those views as part of the balance with the truth residing at the average of it all.
A good viewpoint to get is from foreign or international sources. BBC, AFP, Al Jazeera, The Economist, etc.
No. A rational person would cut out the Breitbart and Infowars for sure. They're known to be full of fake news, sensationalism, and an overt bias that is flaunted. A rational person would seek out news sources that attempt to play fair, be honest, be accurate, and make a good faith attempt to reduce bias.
Yes, a reporter who parrots whatever random gossip that is overheard will sometimes be right. That does not mean the reporter has special insights and should be followed. Did Alex Jones actualy investigate this story, or just repeat it? When 99% is provably crap then you'd better be sure that 1% is a diamond before you go fishing it out with your fingers.
Too often these are boilerplate agreements, and the legal department just isn't set up to handle exceptions. I know someone that had a dispute with his contract and got some changes made and approved. Later on it surprised the newer legal department that it wasn't standard, and it seemed to put them into an impasse on what to do (follow the contract, or follow the procedures).
With someone else I know they wanted to move all contractors to a temp agency to simplify things. He disagreed with the new temp agency contract, which had a clause that assigned patents to the temp agency(!). When pointed out how absurd it was, that the temp agency would get the patent and not the main company, the legal department kept saying "it's a standard contract". Eventually someone more senior in legal looked at it and agreed it was a stupid clause but then it all got stuck in the muck of trying to change a boilerplate contract. Even the VP of engineering couldn't get things to budge, so my friend just left after awhile as he had other contracts.
In most states, such overly broad agreements won't hold up. They have to be related to actually competing against the prior company by using trade secrets or confidential information, not just using the same basic skills that any company uses. My guess is that since most people won't bother to expend the resources to take it to the courts, that companies just do this as a boilerplate agreement.
As for severance packages, you almost never get agreements on those in advance. The sole point of any severance package is that they're paying you to not sue them for unlawful termination. I've never heard of this being a part of an employment agreement to anyone below a C-level.
Not only that, this issue has already been resolved. "Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.", 1998, dealt with an issue that sounds very similar to this one. It was decided in California court that the out of state agreement was not enforceable within the state. (http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA4/61CA4t881.htm)
I'm not sure what is different about this new case.
Right, non compete usuallly means things like not having salespeople build up a solid rapport with clients and then taking the clients with them when they leave the company. Or if you're the lead designer of their smart phones they don't want you to leave to go design a smart phone for someone else. Ie, you're actually gaining a competitive advantage by using trade secrets or confidential information.
The problem arises in making this too broad - a generic middle grade programmer isn't competing by working for a competitor, though of course you don't want that person to blab the trade secrets. Even a senior person working on say the software design inside of a device isn't competing by taking the top tier skills to work on someone else's devices. Laws in most places however prohibit non-compete clauses in contracts from being too broad.
Yes, this is what I'm working on now. Mesh complicates routing which complicates battery life. But often you need the mesh just to avoid the necessary canopy of other wrieless devices to talk to. Ie, Zigbee devices assume that they can talk to your electric meter, so they're leaf nodes in that sense, but the electric meters will be considered the canopy (they're meshed, using PLC, cellular, etc).
Most consumer things are pretty dumb about power and require periodic recharing of batteries. Sensor networks that have to be left unattended for years or decades are much more challenging. But if this is in a home, then presumably you can use the power from the home in some cases (ie, a sensor on the fridge, or the residents can change the batteries once a month.
Don't forget the dental factor. Diet or not the citric acid is not good for the teeth, but sugar in the Coke/Pepsi is worse if you're sipping at it much of the day.
I had diet coke when it was brand new. Never had diet drinks before. It was a test market so no one in other places had heard of it ("you mean 'Tab'?" they'd ask).
The thing is, I don't drink it because it's slimming. I drink it because it tastes better. I can't even bother with real Coke, it just tastes wrong, it's too syrupy, whether or not it's real sugar or high fructose corn syrup. I can't even stand diet Pepsi.
So do you think ordering 2 large Everything pizza's and 4 litres of regular Coke would be better? Would those people get your respect? Or is this just more of the old "lol, fat people, so funny!" trend?
The sad thing is, sometimes that backdoor isn't intentional. Just the people who wrote it had no idea about security, no idea they were sticking in bugs, and basically they got the job because it was part of a government program to move unskilled workers off of the street.
Seriously though, that's not too far off. I seriously know stuff where the a security hole was added because it was easier for development that way. It's a pain in the ass to develop code on something that is locked down tight. Maybe they just want a temporary hole in the bulkhead but they'll forget to close it up. Or one group is disconnected from the security professionals, and they'll add a feature that compromises the security without realizing it.
The problem with not wanting to maintain is very often a short term problem too. Ie, release 1.1, who's going to work on that when it's not nearly as cool as 1.0 was and not as cool as 2.0 is rumored to be. So they want to junior grunt to do that work. But junior grunt can't figure out the code because the developers who were working on it while it was cool didn't bother documenting why they did things, what it was supposed to do, and they most certainly never once considered that some day a junior grunt would be trying to change their cool code.
This is generally the time when the junior grunt figures out that the ones who got to work on the cool code are a bunch of puffed up morons with atrocious coding skills.
I don't think so. Measles was always taken seriously by doctors. The symptoms are usually serious, such as a high fever and it's very contagious. It has the most vaccine preventable deaths of any disease, and the vaccine is estimated to prevent one millions deaths each year.
I never said Hitler was on the left. That would be an ignorant position to take, presumably based on following Breitbart or Infowars rather than actual history.
And I agree, most Republicans I know in person really hate Trump. The ones I know who love Trump are those who I'd describe as party fanboys or cheerleaders who taking their talking points from mailing lists. Ie, they love Trump because he beat Hillary, which means their team won.
But the arguments seem to have increased recently. In the past you would never see those sorts of arguments except in mimeographed newsletters. Today these are becoming mainstream, especially when the head of the biggest conspiracy oriented fake news organization is the principal adviser to the president.
The key is not size of government, but the authoritianism of the government. You can have a very large government because it's composed of lots of secret police intent on restricting freedoms, or a very large government because it has a lot of bureaucrats attempting to keep everything running smoothly, or a very large government because it has a large military intent on defending against hostile neighbors. Only one of those is necessarily fascist. A gestapo member is not the ideological equivalent of Betsy from line 4 of the DMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Nordic Track is difficult to use. It looks so easy on the videos but very tricky when you first try it out. And a few months later, still very hard to use. A stationary bike is much more sensible, there's no learning curve to it.
Ie, screw the customers in order to make development easier. Which to Microsoft is a win-win game.
He's been doing idiotic tweets for as long as Twitter existed. Trump is not a deep person, he doesn't have a subtle bone in his body, and he's certainly not following a secret long term strategy. Occam's Razor applies here and the the simplest solution is that he's exactly what he appears to be: shallow and ego driven. The inscrutable tweet at 3am is merely an impulse he has after listening to some conspiracy oriented radio show. The tweets are stream of consciousness ramblings. He has so many contradictions in what he says over time because he's making it all up on the fly, and not because he knows what he's doing.
Good question. I think there is a much bigger base than people thought who are just opposed to it all. Where "it" means everything, but especially anything to do with politics. They have been flipping their finger at the world for a long time, and now that there's a leader of the flip-the-finger movement they vote for him. They're anti-elite but at the same time for this guy who's the biggest elitist of them all. But Trump manages to give the impression of not being elite, they see him as not smart with elitist education but smart with down home gut feelings. They see his real estate money as a result of being smart and nothing at all to do with being lucky. But maybe more than all that, Trump says what they want to hear - that country's problem is with everyone else except his backers, especially politicians and immigrants.
When people push back against Trump it only reinforces the base. They see the elite being the ones pushing against Trump, or immigrant lovers, etc. The more that people rally against Trump the more it convinces his backers that Trump must be doing something right.
CNN is going downhill. However it's not going downhill because it's turning radically liberal. It's going downhill because it's focusing on the sensational stories, sticking with the pointless stories for months in order to keep the eyeballs.
Be careful that when you try to read opposing viewpoints that you're not reading crazy conspiracy theories. Fox is so overtly biased and with editorials masquerading as news stories, that you can't take all of it seriously and you have to sift through it very carefully. You don't balance a slight liberal bent with an overt conservative approach that is constantly on the attack. You cannot put Fox as an equal balance to the BBC for example. But Fox is sane here compared to the wackos like Breitbart or Infowars or World Net Daily.
Sure, listen to different views, but do not give them all equal weight! It is very useful to know what some of the extremist views are, and useful to know if those views are gaining popularity, but you should not treat those views as part of the balance with the truth residing at the average of it all.
A good viewpoint to get is from foreign or international sources. BBC, AFP, Al Jazeera, The Economist, etc.
No. A rational person would cut out the Breitbart and Infowars for sure. They're known to be full of fake news, sensationalism, and an overt bias that is flaunted. A rational person would seek out news sources that attempt to play fair, be honest, be accurate, and make a good faith attempt to reduce bias.
Yes, a reporter who parrots whatever random gossip that is overheard will sometimes be right. That does not mean the reporter has special insights and should be followed. Did Alex Jones actualy investigate this story, or just repeat it? When 99% is provably crap then you'd better be sure that 1% is a diamond before you go fishing it out with your fingers.
Too often these are boilerplate agreements, and the legal department just isn't set up to handle exceptions. I know someone that had a dispute with his contract and got some changes made and approved. Later on it surprised the newer legal department that it wasn't standard, and it seemed to put them into an impasse on what to do (follow the contract, or follow the procedures).
With someone else I know they wanted to move all contractors to a temp agency to simplify things. He disagreed with the new temp agency contract, which had a clause that assigned patents to the temp agency(!). When pointed out how absurd it was, that the temp agency would get the patent and not the main company, the legal department kept saying "it's a standard contract". Eventually someone more senior in legal looked at it and agreed it was a stupid clause but then it all got stuck in the muck of trying to change a boilerplate contract. Even the VP of engineering couldn't get things to budge, so my friend just left after awhile as he had other contracts.
Why do you waste so much of your time stalking someone online?
In most states, such overly broad agreements won't hold up. They have to be related to actually competing against the prior company by using trade secrets or confidential information, not just using the same basic skills that any company uses. My guess is that since most people won't bother to expend the resources to take it to the courts, that companies just do this as a boilerplate agreement.
As for severance packages, you almost never get agreements on those in advance. The sole point of any severance package is that they're paying you to not sue them for unlawful termination. I've never heard of this being a part of an employment agreement to anyone below a C-level.
Not only that, this issue has already been resolved. "Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.", 1998, dealt with an issue that sounds very similar to this one. It was decided in California court that the out of state agreement was not enforceable within the state.
(http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA4/61CA4t881.htm)
I'm not sure what is different about this new case.
Right, non compete usuallly means things like not having salespeople build up a solid rapport with clients and then taking the clients with them when they leave the company. Or if you're the lead designer of their smart phones they don't want you to leave to go design a smart phone for someone else. Ie, you're actually gaining a competitive advantage by using trade secrets or confidential information.
The problem arises in making this too broad - a generic middle grade programmer isn't competing by working for a competitor, though of course you don't want that person to blab the trade secrets. Even a senior person working on say the software design inside of a device isn't competing by taking the top tier skills to work on someone else's devices. Laws in most places however prohibit non-compete clauses in contracts from being too broad.
Police: Well I hardly think this is good enough. I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large red label "warning lark's vomit".
Salesman: Our sales would plummet.
Yes, this is what I'm working on now. Mesh complicates routing which complicates battery life. But often you need the mesh just to avoid the necessary canopy of other wrieless devices to talk to. Ie, Zigbee devices assume that they can talk to your electric meter, so they're leaf nodes in that sense, but the electric meters will be considered the canopy (they're meshed, using PLC, cellular, etc).
Most consumer things are pretty dumb about power and require periodic recharing of batteries. Sensor networks that have to be left unattended for years or decades are much more challenging. But if this is in a home, then presumably you can use the power from the home in some cases (ie, a sensor on the fridge, or the residents can change the batteries once a month.
Near the place that you get asbergers?
Don't forget the dental factor. Diet or not the citric acid is not good for the teeth, but sugar in the Coke/Pepsi is worse if you're sipping at it much of the day.
I had diet coke when it was brand new. Never had diet drinks before. It was a test market so no one in other places had heard of it ("you mean 'Tab'?" they'd ask).
The thing is, I don't drink it because it's slimming. I drink it because it tastes better. I can't even bother with real Coke, it just tastes wrong, it's too syrupy, whether or not it's real sugar or high fructose corn syrup. I can't even stand diet Pepsi.
So do you think ordering 2 large Everything pizza's and 4 litres of regular Coke would be better? Would those people get your respect? Or is this just more of the old "lol, fat people, so funny!" trend?
The sad thing is, sometimes that backdoor isn't intentional. Just the people who wrote it had no idea about security, no idea they were sticking in bugs, and basically they got the job because it was part of a government program to move unskilled workers off of the street.
Seriously though, that's not too far off. I seriously know stuff where the a security hole was added because it was easier for development that way. It's a pain in the ass to develop code on something that is locked down tight. Maybe they just want a temporary hole in the bulkhead but they'll forget to close it up. Or one group is disconnected from the security professionals, and they'll add a feature that compromises the security without realizing it.
Just say that you worked on Big Iron and everyone knows there will have been plenty of Rust.
The problem with not wanting to maintain is very often a short term problem too. Ie, release 1.1, who's going to work on that when it's not nearly as cool as 1.0 was and not as cool as 2.0 is rumored to be. So they want to junior grunt to do that work. But junior grunt can't figure out the code because the developers who were working on it while it was cool didn't bother documenting why they did things, what it was supposed to do, and they most certainly never once considered that some day a junior grunt would be trying to change their cool code.
This is generally the time when the junior grunt figures out that the ones who got to work on the cool code are a bunch of puffed up morons with atrocious coding skills.
Naw, we went to 32 bits by making it unsigned. I've got until the next century, or I retire, whichever comes first.
I don't think so. Measles was always taken seriously by doctors. The symptoms are usually serious, such as a high fever and it's very contagious.
It has the most vaccine preventable deaths of any disease, and the vaccine is estimated to prevent one millions deaths each year.
I never said Hitler was on the left. That would be an ignorant position to take, presumably based on following Breitbart or Infowars rather than actual history.
And I agree, most Republicans I know in person really hate Trump. The ones I know who love Trump are those who I'd describe as party fanboys or cheerleaders who taking their talking points from mailing lists. Ie, they love Trump because he beat Hillary, which means their team won.
But the arguments seem to have increased recently. In the past you would never see those sorts of arguments except in mimeographed newsletters. Today these are becoming mainstream, especially when the head of the biggest conspiracy oriented fake news organization is the principal adviser to the president.
The key is not size of government, but the authoritianism of the government. You can have a very large government because it's composed of lots of secret police intent on restricting freedoms, or a very large government because it has a lot of bureaucrats attempting to keep everything running smoothly, or a very large government because it has a large military intent on defending against hostile neighbors. Only one of those is necessarily fascist. A gestapo member is not the ideological equivalent of Betsy from line 4 of the DMV.