While we're happy to review any resumes HR sends our way, managers where I work spend significant amounts of time personally searching sites like Linked-in and reading resumes themselves, and directly calling candidates who look good. Our biggest problem is willingness to relocate - candidates who are already on the West Coast are so hammered by recruiters that it's hard to find anyone actually looking, but there are plenty of qualified engineers elsewhere.
The moral of the story is: make sure your resume appears in the right places, and does a good job of selling you (protip: no one cares about "duties and responsibilities" - explain cool problems that you personally solved instead). And realize most of the programming jobs are in Silly Valley and (increasingly) Seattle, so look where demand exceeds supply, not in a town with 2 programming jobs and 3 programmers.
In general relativity, you can paint a coherent picture. Both the observer deep in a gravity well and a distant observer agree that higher gravity makes clocks run slower. But that's not true of special relativity at all. Given two clocks moving relative to one another, each observer thinks the other's clock is running slower and they're equally right. There's simply no universal clock, no standard that's more right than any other clock.
A further problem with hyper-accurate clocks is relativity. TFS mentions the issues with general relativity - strength of gravity affects timekeeping. But there's a more profound issue once you get crazy-precise: only co-moving clocks can be synchronized in the first place. The concept of synchronization simply doesn't apply to clocks moving at different velocities - and two clocks at different positions on the rotating, orbiting Earth will never quite be moving with the same velocity. That relativistic effect is tiny, but it's not even hypothetically reconcilable: there are only so many significant digits of time possible to share between clocks in different locations.
You have your opinion about which scientists have valid opinions, I have mine. Thus we part ways. Compelling data requires no advocates - e.g. I went quickly from scoffing at dark matter to believing the WIMP model whole-heartedly based on the CMBR data, which had nothing to do with the opinion of any given scientist. Such data may yet emerge for a particular climate model that stands out from the crowd, but as yet none have distinguished themselves even from the null hypothesis.
If a group of scientists come together to all endorse the same message, you can ignore them because they're just a bunch of politicians who's opinions are determined by the organization
More like: that's a non-scientific event staged for a political purpose. Who organized the "coming together" and picked the scientist to participate in the "coming together"?
So if a scientist expresses an opinion on AGW... So there's pretty much no scenario in which you have to confront the existence of a scientific consensus
Opinions (especially guesses) are useful in the process of science, but are not scientific outcomes. Consensus is meaningless. Models that falsifiably predict outcomes (which differ from the null hypothesis), and then such outcomes emerge - that's compelling. Data that selects one accurate model out of a large pack of models as the only successful predictor - that's compelling.
note that your accusation that the IPCC is being dominated by the politics instead of the science is testable. Namely if it were true we'd see parades of high profile climatologists and scientists criticizing the process and the outcome
Not if they wanted funding, ever again. Also, societal forces are powerful.
Here's an anecdote unrelated to climate. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate for biochem, once tried to present a paper at a biochem-themed conference on AIDS research. His presentation (would have) pointed out that there's no actual causal evidence between HIV and AIDS - the correlation is inarguable, but there was no understood process by which HIV might cause the symptoms of AIDS (at a detailed level). He was physically ejected from the conference for daring to question the received wisdom. That's the opposite of good science, but that social force is common, and dissenting opinions get quashed under it.
My boss once wrote kernel code for a living, but he's a second-level manager now. Is he a coder? The farther up the chain you move, the more you align yourself with the interests of the organization.
No, that's not OK, as evidenced by the amount I give to charity specifically to help in that way. Remember, trying to give other peoples money to help the poor doesn't make you generous; it make you an asshole.
It's not a zero-sum game. The reason it's not a zero-sum game is called "technology". Technological parity will bring wealth parity, in time.
All of it matters. Our air and water is so amazingly cleaner here than even 50 years ago, it's hard to believe. If you think the environment in the US is getting worse, you need to learn some history!
Chine and India are where we were at our worst - where on a bad day you can't see the building across the street. Will they follow the same path to improvement that we did (or a better one)? I hope so. It's been 45 years now since the Cuyahoga river last (and most famously) caught fire. Let's hope China has had their last river fire, but it's on them to improve.
There are many many highly successful not-for-profit companies. "Profits" are not a requirement for a business.
Most non-profits make a profit on every sale. The word doesn't mean what your think it means.
If you're a small business, and not making a profit, then what? Rather than offering a deal that your customers still find value in, to lots of people, you're stuck helping just a handful. Rather than employing a lot of people, you've only created jobs for a handful. And the first time there's a bump in the road, you're out of business, since you have no warchest. You're not doing right by your employees or your customers by undercharging.
And once you've grown as much as you're likely to? Who else is going to fund the R&D to create new technology to lower the cost of whatever you're doing? To bring gradually lower prices over time? And retirees need to eat too you know - passing some earnings back to the owners is also a needed and fundamental goal (and one that with dividends averaging around 2%, companies aren't doing enough of).
But the UN is not a gathering of scientists; it's a gathering of politicians, and as such they make political announcements. As a political body with 1 vote per country, pretty much all they ever do is call for redistribution of wealth, and that directly motivates any muddled reading of science that you'll get from them.
You go right ahead and reduce your standard of living all you want, if that's what your religion calls for. Hairshirts and self-flagellation? It's your trip, man. But it's not my trip. I want everyone in the world to bring their standard of living up to mine! Instead of making everyone poor, how about we make everyone rich?
For 150 years now, technological improvement has reduced the pollution associated with a given standard of living, and the labor, energy, and resources needed for that production, because that's what technology is: efficiency of production and delivery.
You're worried about our share now, but that's trivial in the scheme of things. China, India, and Brazil won't always be behind us, and it's only a matter of time before they have the same standard of living we do, with 10x the population. Fix your attention there, if your goal is something other than punishing yourself or your neighbor for imagined sins.
Did you know China's having a serious economic crisis because the era of outsourcing is dying? You're fighting last century's battles, my friend. Manufacturing capacity in the US never really fell, it just became more automated (so the jobs went away, but not the output). As technological progress makes it cheaper to make things here with robots than in China with sweatshops, the tail end of manufacturing is coming back - and because of technology, you don't see the air anymore in most US cities.
Meanwhile, China and India are countries in their own right with their own economies. They're not some children whose deeds can be attributed to their parents in the US! They're going through the same technological revolution we did in the 1800s, though much faster and at 10x the scale. Their air pollution is about what ours was once - it's just that we've cleaned up our act so very much since then that even across an ocean their pollution is a significant portion of ours.
Over the course of this century, US and Europe and Japan are likely to fade as the leading economies. India, China, and Brazil (and to some extent Korea, but their population likely will stay small in comparison) will be the ones to watch, because as technology evens out it's all about population, and if you're worried about carbon emission or any other byproduct of economies, fix your attention there.
BTW "Profit" is only a bad word if you're a villain in an Ayn Rand novel. Profit just measures the difference between how much X cost to create and delver from how much X was worth to someone - that is, the value created. It's not a bad thing.
so why always the argument the rich are needed to create jobs?
This question reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Creating goods and services requires both labor and "the means of production". Wherever there are jobs, there is ownership of the means of production, and however concentrated or distributed that ownership may be, you can't have jobs without capital.
People get twisted up in thinking of capital as "the right to the profits", but the gross profits of public corporations are already split better than 80% labor, 20% capital. What's important for ownership of capital is that it should accumulate in the hands of people who make wise investment decisions! Projects that will efficiently provide needed/wanted goods and services should be funded, wasteful projects shouldn't be, and the skill of predicting which will be which is a difficult technical skill indeed. The concentration of investment decision-making into the hands of those who accumulated it through successful investments is a feature, not a bug.
The problem lies elsewhere: with the granting of monopoly, the bailouts, and the other ways that bad investors are shielded from bad decisions. The problem is: the government enables bad companies to survive through granting them special privileges, or making it difficult for new players to oust them. It's not about "rich", it's about "corrupt". Getting rich through savvy investing is just and right -- the wise should prosper while fools suffer -- it's maintaining wealth by government intervention that we need to stamp out.
This political decision from the UN should surprise no one, to be sure. Let me guess - the proposed remedy involves the wealthier nations paying lots of money to the poorer nations? And basically ignores China and India? (Did you know ~30% of San Francisco's air pollution was emitted in China?)
in the end, It's the bottom line that allows game companies to pay their developers to continue to develop more titles, and what the actual customer experience is going to be is a direct reflection of how many titles they actually sold
That's only true in the absence of fraud. And fraud can exist both between seller and buyer, and between employer and employee. EA may not be CA -- EA's CEO hasn't gone to prison yet -- but it's still an outright evil company, abusive of both customers and employees.
If the new DRM doesn't get in the way of gameplay, that's one thing, but if it prevents you (the legitimate customer) from actually playing the game, that's fraud. Sounds like EA has ramped up the mandatory work week from 100 hours to 160 hours until the problems are patched, however.
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the conservatives' brains lit up in the areas associated with planning the work to clean up the mess, and liberals' brains in the areas with hope that the government would fix it?
TV schedules? Like, from the 20th century? My grandfather read about those in a history book once! People use to schedule their lives around entertainment which was, get this, broadcast to everyone at the same time. Weird, right? It's true, the past is a foreign country.
There are also (far less expensive) anti-satellite missiles that a fighter can launch from high altitude to kill sats in low orbits. Geosync orbit is pretty safe, but GPS sats orbit much lower.
There you go, applying rationality where it isn't wanted. Did you know that in the US there was a case where a man with a large prescription for painkillers had many friends come to his home to visit him regularly. The police documented all this, arrested him for selling prescription drugs, and he was found guilty and went to jail, all without any evidence of any actual sale.
Python's a bit of a mess if you've never programmed before. Admittedly, I don't know much about 3.x, but Python has a very "evolved" feel, with a lot of inconsistencies and evident history of changes to the language, plus classes are such a hack.
Maybe that's all smoothed out in 3.x? Does Python look like it was designed on purpose now?
Slashdot Mirror
While we're happy to review any resumes HR sends our way, managers where I work spend significant amounts of time personally searching sites like Linked-in and reading resumes themselves, and directly calling candidates who look good. Our biggest problem is willingness to relocate - candidates who are already on the West Coast are so hammered by recruiters that it's hard to find anyone actually looking, but there are plenty of qualified engineers elsewhere.
The moral of the story is: make sure your resume appears in the right places, and does a good job of selling you (protip: no one cares about "duties and responsibilities" - explain cool problems that you personally solved instead). And realize most of the programming jobs are in Silly Valley and (increasingly) Seattle, so look where demand exceeds supply, not in a town with 2 programming jobs and 3 programmers.
In general relativity, you can paint a coherent picture. Both the observer deep in a gravity well and a distant observer agree that higher gravity makes clocks run slower. But that's not true of special relativity at all. Given two clocks moving relative to one another, each observer thinks the other's clock is running slower and they're equally right. There's simply no universal clock, no standard that's more right than any other clock.
A further problem with hyper-accurate clocks is relativity. TFS mentions the issues with general relativity - strength of gravity affects timekeeping. But there's a more profound issue once you get crazy-precise: only co-moving clocks can be synchronized in the first place. The concept of synchronization simply doesn't apply to clocks moving at different velocities - and two clocks at different positions on the rotating, orbiting Earth will never quite be moving with the same velocity. That relativistic effect is tiny, but it's not even hypothetically reconcilable: there are only so many significant digits of time possible to share between clocks in different locations.
The "War on Drugs" episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit covered this case.
You have your opinion about which scientists have valid opinions, I have mine. Thus we part ways. Compelling data requires no advocates - e.g. I went quickly from scoffing at dark matter to believing the WIMP model whole-heartedly based on the CMBR data, which had nothing to do with the opinion of any given scientist. Such data may yet emerge for a particular climate model that stands out from the crowd, but as yet none have distinguished themselves even from the null hypothesis.
If a group of scientists come together to all endorse the same message, you can ignore them because they're just a bunch of politicians who's opinions are determined by the organization
More like: that's a non-scientific event staged for a political purpose. Who organized the "coming together" and picked the scientist to participate in the "coming together"?
So if a scientist expresses an opinion on AGW ... So there's pretty much no scenario in which you have to confront the existence of a scientific consensus
Opinions (especially guesses) are useful in the process of science, but are not scientific outcomes. Consensus is meaningless. Models that falsifiably predict outcomes (which differ from the null hypothesis), and then such outcomes emerge - that's compelling. Data that selects one accurate model out of a large pack of models as the only successful predictor - that's compelling.
note that your accusation that the IPCC is being dominated by the politics instead of the science is testable. Namely if it were true we'd see parades of high profile climatologists and scientists criticizing the process and the outcome
Not if they wanted funding, ever again. Also, societal forces are powerful.
Here's an anecdote unrelated to climate. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate for biochem, once tried to present a paper at a biochem-themed conference on AIDS research. His presentation (would have) pointed out that there's no actual causal evidence between HIV and AIDS - the correlation is inarguable, but there was no understood process by which HIV might cause the symptoms of AIDS (at a detailed level). He was physically ejected from the conference for daring to question the received wisdom. That's the opposite of good science, but that social force is common, and dissenting opinions get quashed under it.
My boss once wrote kernel code for a living, but he's a second-level manager now. Is he a coder? The farther up the chain you move, the more you align yourself with the interests of the organization.
No, that's not OK, as evidenced by the amount I give to charity specifically to help in that way. Remember, trying to give other peoples money to help the poor doesn't make you generous; it make you an asshole.
It's not a zero-sum game. The reason it's not a zero-sum game is called "technology". Technological parity will bring wealth parity, in time.
All of it matters. Our air and water is so amazingly cleaner here than even 50 years ago, it's hard to believe. If you think the environment in the US is getting worse, you need to learn some history!
Chine and India are where we were at our worst - where on a bad day you can't see the building across the street. Will they follow the same path to improvement that we did (or a better one)? I hope so. It's been 45 years now since the Cuyahoga river last (and most famously) caught fire. Let's hope China has had their last river fire, but it's on them to improve.
There are many many highly successful not-for-profit companies. "Profits" are not a requirement for a business.
Most non-profits make a profit on every sale. The word doesn't mean what your think it means.
If you're a small business, and not making a profit, then what? Rather than offering a deal that your customers still find value in, to lots of people, you're stuck helping just a handful. Rather than employing a lot of people, you've only created jobs for a handful. And the first time there's a bump in the road, you're out of business, since you have no warchest. You're not doing right by your employees or your customers by undercharging.
And once you've grown as much as you're likely to? Who else is going to fund the R&D to create new technology to lower the cost of whatever you're doing? To bring gradually lower prices over time? And retirees need to eat too you know - passing some earnings back to the owners is also a needed and fundamental goal (and one that with dividends averaging around 2%, companies aren't doing enough of).
Science is not a "political decision",
But the UN is not a gathering of scientists; it's a gathering of politicians, and as such they make political announcements. As a political body with 1 vote per country, pretty much all they ever do is call for redistribution of wealth, and that directly motivates any muddled reading of science that you'll get from them.
You go right ahead and reduce your standard of living all you want, if that's what your religion calls for. Hairshirts and self-flagellation? It's your trip, man. But it's not my trip. I want everyone in the world to bring their standard of living up to mine! Instead of making everyone poor, how about we make everyone rich?
For 150 years now, technological improvement has reduced the pollution associated with a given standard of living, and the labor, energy, and resources needed for that production, because that's what technology is: efficiency of production and delivery.
You're worried about our share now, but that's trivial in the scheme of things. China, India, and Brazil won't always be behind us, and it's only a matter of time before they have the same standard of living we do, with 10x the population. Fix your attention there, if your goal is something other than punishing yourself or your neighbor for imagined sins.
Did you know China's having a serious economic crisis because the era of outsourcing is dying? You're fighting last century's battles, my friend. Manufacturing capacity in the US never really fell, it just became more automated (so the jobs went away, but not the output). As technological progress makes it cheaper to make things here with robots than in China with sweatshops, the tail end of manufacturing is coming back - and because of technology, you don't see the air anymore in most US cities.
Meanwhile, China and India are countries in their own right with their own economies. They're not some children whose deeds can be attributed to their parents in the US! They're going through the same technological revolution we did in the 1800s, though much faster and at 10x the scale. Their air pollution is about what ours was once - it's just that we've cleaned up our act so very much since then that even across an ocean their pollution is a significant portion of ours.
Over the course of this century, US and Europe and Japan are likely to fade as the leading economies. India, China, and Brazil (and to some extent Korea, but their population likely will stay small in comparison) will be the ones to watch, because as technology evens out it's all about population, and if you're worried about carbon emission or any other byproduct of economies, fix your attention there.
Are your replying to the right post?
BTW "Profit" is only a bad word if you're a villain in an Ayn Rand novel. Profit just measures the difference between how much X cost to create and delver from how much X was worth to someone - that is, the value created. It's not a bad thing.
so why always the argument the rich are needed to create jobs?
This question reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Creating goods and services requires both labor and "the means of production". Wherever there are jobs, there is ownership of the means of production, and however concentrated or distributed that ownership may be, you can't have jobs without capital.
People get twisted up in thinking of capital as "the right to the profits", but the gross profits of public corporations are already split better than 80% labor, 20% capital. What's important for ownership of capital is that it should accumulate in the hands of people who make wise investment decisions! Projects that will efficiently provide needed/wanted goods and services should be funded, wasteful projects shouldn't be, and the skill of predicting which will be which is a difficult technical skill indeed. The concentration of investment decision-making into the hands of those who accumulated it through successful investments is a feature, not a bug.
The problem lies elsewhere: with the granting of monopoly, the bailouts, and the other ways that bad investors are shielded from bad decisions. The problem is: the government enables bad companies to survive through granting them special privileges, or making it difficult for new players to oust them. It's not about "rich", it's about "corrupt". Getting rich through savvy investing is just and right -- the wise should prosper while fools suffer -- it's maintaining wealth by government intervention that we need to stamp out.
This political decision from the UN should surprise no one, to be sure. Let me guess - the proposed remedy involves the wealthier nations paying lots of money to the poorer nations? And basically ignores China and India? (Did you know ~30% of San Francisco's air pollution was emitted in China?)
in the end, It's the bottom line that allows game companies to pay their developers to continue to develop more titles, and what the actual customer experience is going to be is a direct reflection of how many titles they actually sold
That's only true in the absence of fraud. And fraud can exist both between seller and buyer, and between employer and employee. EA may not be CA -- EA's CEO hasn't gone to prison yet -- but it's still an outright evil company, abusive of both customers and employees.
If the new DRM doesn't get in the way of gameplay, that's one thing, but if it prevents you (the legitimate customer) from actually playing the game, that's fraud. Sounds like EA has ramped up the mandatory work week from 100 hours to 160 hours until the problems are patched, however.
Have you actually had your sense of humor surgically removed, or did you meditate for years to accomplish that?
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the conservatives' brains lit up in the areas associated with planning the work to clean up the mess, and liberals' brains in the areas with hope that the government would fix it?
TV schedules? Like, from the 20th century? My grandfather read about those in a history book once! People use to schedule their lives around entertainment which was, get this, broadcast to everyone at the same time. Weird, right? It's true, the past is a foreign country.
There are also (far less expensive) anti-satellite missiles that a fighter can launch from high altitude to kill sats in low orbits. Geosync orbit is pretty safe, but GPS sats orbit much lower.
There you go, applying rationality where it isn't wanted. Did you know that in the US there was a case where a man with a large prescription for painkillers had many friends come to his home to visit him regularly. The police documented all this, arrested him for selling prescription drugs, and he was found guilty and went to jail, all without any evidence of any actual sale.
Jury nullification might not be illegal but it'll get you into a lot of trouble in the USA.
How so? The day a judge can punish the members of a jury for finding the wrong verdict is the day trial by jury is over.
I'm amazed everyone has forgotten Myst. Myst was a HyperCard stack with QuickTime movies - and amazing demonstration of with you could do with it.
Python's a bit of a mess if you've never programmed before. Admittedly, I don't know much about 3.x, but Python has a very "evolved" feel, with a lot of inconsistencies and evident history of changes to the language, plus classes are such a hack.
Maybe that's all smoothed out in 3.x? Does Python look like it was designed on purpose now?