Problem with some psychological studies is that once the results are out they taint future test subjects, most of whom are university students who are more likely to have heard of the past experiments. Ie, you won't ever be able to replicate the Milgram experiments, even if the law allowed it, because everyone has heard about them.
If you have a gun that kills someone, you are responsible, not the gun maker or the person who sold you a gun. So if I get malware from your web site then you are at least partially responsible and no excuse of "I can't afford the time to look at all the code on my site" will suffice.
How many people use their microphone that often? If they don't care about their own privacy over the inconvience of clicking a button then they probably deserve the privacy intrusion they're going to get.
The goal of advertisers these days is to make a ton of money as middle men without ever producing anything of value themselves. So it's no surprise that this has become the number one industry in America because money for nothing is the American dream.
If we get rid of the junk wannabe journalist bloggers, then why not? Most of the internet is useless drivel, if it vanishes no one will care except those who used to get some money by being an advertising enabler.
Valuable to readers != valuable to those with money up front.
There's the key point. Which side of the equation do the content creators care about the most? Would they rather provide the readers with value and treat them with respect, or suck up to those with the money? The problem with advertising on the internet is that it is leaning very heavily towards the model of screw the customer and get your free money. As in web site owners not having to worry about ads, just sign up with an ad server, sit back, and wait for the checks to arrive, then if the checks aren't big enough start generating lots of fluff stories (like a twitter post pointing to your ten minute video all about the six word bit of news about Fallout 4 from a different tweet).
If they are well received or not, it makes no difference. You seem to have the attitude that the content *must* be financed. Some content should go away, if the public isn't going to voluntarily pay for it, it's a better alternative than keeping the content around at the expense of sucking up the public's bandwidth and serving up malware. Probably less than one percent of the web has any inherent value anyway.
I think such hobbyists are great. However I am wary of the hobbyist that partners with an advertiser that serves up random ads that take up the bulk of the sites bandwidth. Sure, they say they need to get more money or they can't afford to keep the site open, but it's a fricking hobby not a job, if you can't afford your hobby then stop doing it! Or they want to get a better microphone for the podcast, or bigger ISP pipe, or better proprietary software for their modding, or whatever.
At the end of the day, one needs to respect the audience or else they don't deserve any of the money they get. No amount of whining about how no one donates voluntarily will generate any of that respect. If someone refuses to contribute to the community without payment then I will not miss them when they stop contributing.
I'm ready. I'll probably just not go to any web sites, they add very little value to life. I was around when advertising and doing business on the internet was considered the most egregious breach of manners there was. We got along just fine then.
Web sites that use advertisers certainly need to become responsible here and vet their advertisers. That's a big chunk of the problem, they small time hobbyist will often let the advertisers do whatever they want as long as some money comes in. The never even look at the ads before they're served up to the site's visitors. That's irresponsible and certainly not the way that most non-internet advertising is done. No bus lets you put any random ad on its side, there's always some transit employee who approves them first. But on the internet the lure of a few bucks to defray the ISP costs causes too many site operators to put their morals aside.
Many good interview questions do not have a "best" answer. That's something I feel is wrong with how a lot of companies interview, expecting the candidate to give the right answer rather than defending their answer or having a back and forth discussion. The classic example was Microsoft's "why are manhole covers round?" question, which obviously has many possible answers and yet interviewees report that they met interviewers who seemed to expect only the correct answer.
Verilog is newer than VHDL but it lacks some features. There are newer Verilog standards and offshoots, and things like SystemVerilog. Being newer means that more new things end up in Verilog, but if you go to well established companies or the defense industry that VHDL is still prominent. Ultimately you use what the job wants you to use, and over time you'll use both (sometimes on the same project). But VHDL is still current, it's not some dusty old relic like Fortran.
Some people take this stuff too seriously though. Getting into religious arguments about a language misses the point that the language is there to assist you in creating something, the language itself is not the goal.
That's sort of why I asked the question. Whenever I see any sort of "key kids, let's play with FPGAs!" projects they tend to be using Verilog and only rarely will mention VHDL as an aside.
I'm not the expert, but VHDL adds the strong typing. A lot of people disparage strong typing and any other "annoyance" features but it really helps in the long run to point out possible problems as early as possible. Tediousness is not a bad thing. Plus as you say there's a bigger break from procedural languages.
I think there's some parallel here in American vs European preference with the C versus Pascal/Modula/Ada preferences.
That's why I think it's possibly a good question for interviews, not in order to see if they have the correct answer but to see how they defend their answer.
Ultimately, any good HDL programmer is going to use both over time depending upon what job you get.
But google interviews people based upon a random selection of interviewers. That is, no matter how technical and detailed your knowledge is, you may end up being interviewed by someone in the marketing or accounting department; if you're a hardware guru someone may ask you about Arduino; if you're an embedded systems expert someone may ask you about JavaScript. So at Google it's better to know how to fit in than know how to do the job. Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V is probably a good job skill for that.
And to be useful they have to be expensive. The cheap ones are too difficult to use because your focus is constantly changing back and forth. If you're looking at the road ahead of you then you can't read the HUD, if you're reading the HUD then you lose focus on the road and it's no different from looking at the console or glancing down to see your speedometer.
Doesn't stop auto makers from sticking in the useless apps though. A couple years later and the apps don't even work anymore. Automakers are in the technophile phase still, computers are new to them and they're too giddy about the possibilities to think things through. The automakers are still assuming everyone buys a new car every couple of years so why bother making a long lasting feature that will still work for whatever owner has the vehicle 15 years from now.
The votes are still secret. A voter's name or identification is not on the vote itself and should not be on any receipts (unless they chose some horrifically designed voting machine).
I thought that problem was fixed already? We're dealing with modern fraud today not decades old fraud. Or is your justification that because one side cheated that the other side is allowed to cheat to make up for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Problem with some psychological studies is that once the results are out they taint future test subjects, most of whom are university students who are more likely to have heard of the past experiments. Ie, you won't ever be able to replicate the Milgram experiments, even if the law allowed it, because everyone has heard about them.
We have enough ads without your crap as well.
If you have a gun that kills someone, you are responsible, not the gun maker or the person who sold you a gun. So if I get malware from your web site then you are at least partially responsible and no excuse of "I can't afford the time to look at all the code on my site" will suffice.
How many people use their microphone that often? If they don't care about their own privacy over the inconvience of clicking a button then they probably deserve the privacy intrusion they're going to get.
The goal of advertisers these days is to make a ton of money as middle men without ever producing anything of value themselves. So it's no surprise that this has become the number one industry in America because money for nothing is the American dream.
If we get rid of the junk wannabe journalist bloggers, then why not? Most of the internet is useless drivel, if it vanishes no one will care except those who used to get some money by being an advertising enabler.
Valuable to readers != valuable to those with money up front.
There's the key point. Which side of the equation do the content creators care about the most? Would they rather provide the readers with value and treat them with respect, or suck up to those with the money? The problem with advertising on the internet is that it is leaning very heavily towards the model of screw the customer and get your free money. As in web site owners not having to worry about ads, just sign up with an ad server, sit back, and wait for the checks to arrive, then if the checks aren't big enough start generating lots of fluff stories (like a twitter post pointing to your ten minute video all about the six word bit of news about Fallout 4 from a different tweet).
If they are well received or not, it makes no difference. You seem to have the attitude that the content *must* be financed. Some content should go away, if the public isn't going to voluntarily pay for it, it's a better alternative than keeping the content around at the expense of sucking up the public's bandwidth and serving up malware. Probably less than one percent of the web has any inherent value anyway.
Nope. But if I do visit that site, even accidentally, I'll still have my ad-block on.
I think such hobbyists are great. However I am wary of the hobbyist that partners with an advertiser that serves up random ads that take up the bulk of the sites bandwidth. Sure, they say they need to get more money or they can't afford to keep the site open, but it's a fricking hobby not a job, if you can't afford your hobby then stop doing it! Or they want to get a better microphone for the podcast, or bigger ISP pipe, or better proprietary software for their modding, or whatever.
At the end of the day, one needs to respect the audience or else they don't deserve any of the money they get. No amount of whining about how no one donates voluntarily will generate any of that respect. If someone refuses to contribute to the community without payment then I will not miss them when they stop contributing.
I'm ready. I'll probably just not go to any web sites, they add very little value to life. I was around when advertising and doing business on the internet was considered the most egregious breach of manners there was. We got along just fine then.
Why does there need to be a way to help us buy? We do pretty well at wasting money without help.
Web sites that use advertisers certainly need to become responsible here and vet their advertisers. That's a big chunk of the problem, they small time hobbyist will often let the advertisers do whatever they want as long as some money comes in. The never even look at the ads before they're served up to the site's visitors. That's irresponsible and certainly not the way that most non-internet advertising is done. No bus lets you put any random ad on its side, there's always some transit employee who approves them first. But on the internet the lure of a few bucks to defray the ISP costs causes too many site operators to put their morals aside.
Many good interview questions do not have a "best" answer. That's something I feel is wrong with how a lot of companies interview, expecting the candidate to give the right answer rather than defending their answer or having a back and forth discussion. The classic example was Microsoft's "why are manhole covers round?" question, which obviously has many possible answers and yet interviewees report that they met interviewers who seemed to expect only the correct answer.
Verilog is newer than VHDL but it lacks some features. There are newer Verilog standards and offshoots, and things like SystemVerilog. Being newer means that more new things end up in Verilog, but if you go to well established companies or the defense industry that VHDL is still prominent. Ultimately you use what the job wants you to use, and over time you'll use both (sometimes on the same project). But VHDL is still current, it's not some dusty old relic like Fortran.
Some people take this stuff too seriously though. Getting into religious arguments about a language misses the point that the language is there to assist you in creating something, the language itself is not the goal.
That's sort of why I asked the question. Whenever I see any sort of "key kids, let's play with FPGAs!" projects they tend to be using Verilog and only rarely will mention VHDL as an aside.
I'm not the expert, but VHDL adds the strong typing. A lot of people disparage strong typing and any other "annoyance" features but it really helps in the long run to point out possible problems as early as possible. Tediousness is not a bad thing. Plus as you say there's a bigger break from procedural languages.
I think there's some parallel here in American vs European preference with the C versus Pascal/Modula/Ada preferences.
That's why I think it's possibly a good question for interviews, not in order to see if they have the correct answer but to see how they defend their answer.
Ultimately, any good HDL programmer is going to use both over time depending upon what job you get.
Why Verilog and not VHDL?
(actually that's a good interview filter question too)
That's dangerous. You may accidentally end up with a job at Google.
Google can only hope they have that problem. Right now they have social butterflies everywhere with just a few engineers who keep things afloat.
But google interviews people based upon a random selection of interviewers. That is, no matter how technical and detailed your knowledge is, you may end up being interviewed by someone in the marketing or accounting department; if you're a hardware guru someone may ask you about Arduino; if you're an embedded systems expert someone may ask you about JavaScript.
So at Google it's better to know how to fit in than know how to do the job. Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V is probably a good job skill for that.
Told me to write Hello World. It's now called Google+. Don't blame me.
It would stop, if cyclists could learn to share the road and obey the traffic laws and stop heaping abuse upon non-cyclists.
And to be useful they have to be expensive. The cheap ones are too difficult to use because your focus is constantly changing back and forth. If you're looking at the road ahead of you then you can't read the HUD, if you're reading the HUD then you lose focus on the road and it's no different from looking at the console or glancing down to see your speedometer.
Doesn't stop auto makers from sticking in the useless apps though. A couple years later and the apps don't even work anymore. Automakers are in the technophile phase still, computers are new to them and they're too giddy about the possibilities to think things through. The automakers are still assuming everyone buys a new car every couple of years so why bother making a long lasting feature that will still work for whatever owner has the vehicle 15 years from now.
The votes are still secret. A voter's name or identification is not on the vote itself and should not be on any receipts (unless they chose some horrifically designed voting machine).
I thought that problem was fixed already? We're dealing with modern fraud today not decades old fraud. Or is your justification that because one side cheated that the other side is allowed to cheat to make up for it?