What you're mostly saying here is that if the system doesn't work at all, then it's pointless. Okay.
The legal liability is a more interesting point, though; I think this is the highest hurdle such technology faces. Even when it is nobody's fault, our system demands that we assign blame.
Someone who robs a bank is not a banker. Just because a person gets themselves to a high place in society does not mean that they are following the rules of society, or are even participating except to exploit the construct.
I would argue that the vast majority of IT positions do not need someone who would be a hot commodity in Silicon Valley. Sure, there probably is a real shortage at the very top; that's why it's the top, those people are rare! But any person of above-average intelligence can learn most IT jobs on the fly in a matter of weeks, given the chance. In 20 years in IT spanning a dozen or so jobs, I have gotten exactly one job for which I was fully qualified; the rest, I convinced the company that I could learn what I did not know. This is what changed sometime around 2007: that approach is useless now. It's not that I can no longer learn or demonstrate the point, it's that people aren't even talking to me. Most of the jobs I apply for (each one of which I have actual experience with), do not even contact me for an interview. Several of them are still not filled, either.
I don't know what system businesses are using to weed out candidates, but it is a bad one.
Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old. If people did not submit the other videos for removal, then it's not a judgment call on Google's part.
I have no idea how your post got modded insightful.
From the sounds of that, why would I want ANY degree?
Because hiring is a taxing job, and the vast majority of people doing it will take every shortcut available. If you apply for a non-starting IT position and have no degree, your resume goes straight to/dev/null the majority of the time. You'd think your experience listed on the document would handily override the lack, and you'd probably be right, but they won't be able to take that into account because they don't even get that far in reading it.
I don't know whether you have a good grasp on the scale of disparity here. Most Americans will make much less than $3 million total over their entire lives. A Hollywood superstar is making 18-20 times that per year. A top football player can get ten times that amount as a signing bonus.
I'm also not entirely clear on why choosing a certain profession means that you are entitled to stop working after five successful years and never have to work again. Sure, a pretty actress's or NFL player's first career is over quickly, but why should they be set for life at that point? When my mainframe know-how became largely obsolete in the late 80s/early 90s, I learned new PC-centric skills and got another job. Why shouldn't that apply to these people?
That is complete nonsense. Christians are expected to memorize several passages word-for-word, and though you are correct that the specific set and wording passages varies by denomination, they all have their set. In denominations with Confirmation, members are expected to basically memorize an entire catechism. Things like The Lord's Prayer are universally expected. If you attend church regularly, you will end up memorizing hymns, the more ritualistic parts such as the blessing and benediction, and oft-cited passages in sermons (which again may vary by church or pastor/priest, but they all have favorites.)
I do not know of any church that adopts new translations as they release; the vast majority of Christian churches adopt one translation and stick with it for years and years.
I was pretty excited about this concept in 1999. In the interim, there has been no revolution. I'm not saying that one isn't on the verge of happening, but I am saying I'm through trying to predict it. When it comes, I will adapt. Until then, yeah yeah flying cars, of course, sure.
One problem with this idea is that I think many advocates for Cloud computing are making assumptions about infinite resources that are not, in fact, infinite. I don't see a lot of discussion about this problem when cloud computing is brought up.
It is because MADD is a very powerful lobby. What these people should have done was spend that money on badgering the courts to stiffen penalties instead of trying to hit the Court Lottery.
My definition of 'success' is fine if you're not myopic. The Xbox is a success because it has established Microsoft in an entirely new market, put their interface and marketplace in front of millions of new people, and perhaps most importantly, it has introduced revenue streams from an industry utterly unconnected with the success of Windows. This will all contribute to the long-term health of the company. In a company that is already not ailing, that's much more important than short-term profits.
I'd much rather have leadership that tried and failed in new markets than leadership that was afraid to even attempt diversification. Those failures haven't run Microsoft into the ground, seems like their risk was well worth a shot. The Xbox is a success, so they don't always fail to penetrate new markets. Do you really expect any company to succeed with new products 100% of the time?
Slashdot Mirror
What you're mostly saying here is that if the system doesn't work at all, then it's pointless. Okay.
The legal liability is a more interesting point, though; I think this is the highest hurdle such technology faces. Even when it is nobody's fault, our system demands that we assign blame.
Very true, but if the total number of accidents decreases, is this important?
Someone who robs a bank is not a banker. Just because a person gets themselves to a high place in society does not mean that they are following the rules of society, or are even participating except to exploit the construct.
He's talking about the Internet, not piracy. Not dumb.
Zero tolerance is a very easy and popular way to reach judgment with no effort. That's how he got modded up; nobody stopped and thought about it.
I would argue that the vast majority of IT positions do not need someone who would be a hot commodity in Silicon Valley. Sure, there probably is a real shortage at the very top; that's why it's the top, those people are rare! But any person of above-average intelligence can learn most IT jobs on the fly in a matter of weeks, given the chance. In 20 years in IT spanning a dozen or so jobs, I have gotten exactly one job for which I was fully qualified; the rest, I convinced the company that I could learn what I did not know. This is what changed sometime around 2007: that approach is useless now. It's not that I can no longer learn or demonstrate the point, it's that people aren't even talking to me. Most of the jobs I apply for (each one of which I have actual experience with), do not even contact me for an interview. Several of them are still not filled, either.
I don't know what system businesses are using to weed out candidates, but it is a bad one.
That's because you checked.
Hate speech doesn't stop being hate speech because someone writes it down. It also doesn't stop being hate speech because a whole lot of people agree with it. The Bible is less than 500 years old. If people did not submit the other videos for removal, then it's not a judgment call on Google's part.
I have no idea how your post got modded insightful.
From the sounds of that, why would I want ANY degree?
Because hiring is a taxing job, and the vast majority of people doing it will take every shortcut available. If you apply for a non-starting IT position and have no degree, your resume goes straight to /dev/null the majority of the time. You'd think your experience listed on the document would handily override the lack, and you'd probably be right, but they won't be able to take that into account because they don't even get that far in reading it.
For most people, watching gets better as they get older.
He was proving that it wasn't a mathematician's answer.
I don't know whether you have a good grasp on the scale of disparity here. Most Americans will make much less than $3 million total over their entire lives. A Hollywood superstar is making 18-20 times that per year. A top football player can get ten times that amount as a signing bonus.
I'm also not entirely clear on why choosing a certain profession means that you are entitled to stop working after five successful years and never have to work again. Sure, a pretty actress's or NFL player's first career is over quickly, but why should they be set for life at that point? When my mainframe know-how became largely obsolete in the late 80s/early 90s, I learned new PC-centric skills and got another job. Why shouldn't that apply to these people?
That is complete nonsense. Christians are expected to memorize several passages word-for-word, and though you are correct that the specific set and wording passages varies by denomination, they all have their set. In denominations with Confirmation, members are expected to basically memorize an entire catechism. Things like The Lord's Prayer are universally expected. If you attend church regularly, you will end up memorizing hymns, the more ritualistic parts such as the blessing and benediction, and oft-cited passages in sermons (which again may vary by church or pastor/priest, but they all have favorites.)
I do not know of any church that adopts new translations as they release; the vast majority of Christian churches adopt one translation and stick with it for years and years.
This sort of problem is going to be inherent to a system that makes decisions entirely based on the lowest bid.
I was pretty excited about this concept in 1999. In the interim, there has been no revolution. I'm not saying that one isn't on the verge of happening, but I am saying I'm through trying to predict it. When it comes, I will adapt. Until then, yeah yeah flying cars, of course, sure.
One problem with this idea is that I think many advocates for Cloud computing are making assumptions about infinite resources that are not, in fact, infinite. I don't see a lot of discussion about this problem when cloud computing is brought up.
It is because MADD is a very powerful lobby. What these people should have done was spend that money on badgering the courts to stiffen penalties instead of trying to hit the Court Lottery.
Yes.
That is an interesting page.
In Chrome on a Windows 7 desktop: DHTML 80 FPS; Canvas 60 FPS; SVG 120 FPS; and SWF 59 FPS.
I also looked at the tests with shadows since you mentioned complexity being a factor:
Canvas 31 FPS; SVG 110 FPS; Flash 58 FPS.
Not very convincing for your argument; you clearly have variables other than the animation technology to consider.
Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. We can't hear you. It doesn't work anywhere, really.
Yeah. Sarcasm never works.
The RIAA was asking for $4.5 million, so maybe this seemed almost reasonable at the time.
It's like I bought a car and then it just worked!
Arguing about bias is a distraction. The real problem with FOX isn't actually bias; it is lying.
My definition of 'success' is fine if you're not myopic. The Xbox is a success because it has established Microsoft in an entirely new market, put their interface and marketplace in front of millions of new people, and perhaps most importantly, it has introduced revenue streams from an industry utterly unconnected with the success of Windows. This will all contribute to the long-term health of the company. In a company that is already not ailing, that's much more important than short-term profits.
I'd much rather have leadership that tried and failed in new markets than leadership that was afraid to even attempt diversification. Those failures haven't run Microsoft into the ground, seems like their risk was well worth a shot. The Xbox is a success, so they don't always fail to penetrate new markets. Do you really expect any company to succeed with new products 100% of the time?
There is no lack of attention. It gets mentioned virtually every day. There is a lack of caring about it.