they won't be interested. SAS users are dolts; it's one of those languages where you can do a handful of (admittedly useful) things very easily, but is a tarpit for any kind of general procedural development.
just develop something cool, show it to the SAS people (who won't understand) as a pro forma exercise, then go to the boss.
or there are real reasons and he just doesn't know them. he didn't even tell us what his company does, except that it's "huge". if it's finance then there probably are good reasons. if it's healthcare, then not so much, though since R developers are more common (=cheaper) now, the benefit of just ditching those extremely expensive SAS licenses may still be enough.
i agree, though. he should do his own research and then ask slashdot if necessary, which it really shouldn't be. still, i kind of want to see him go to his boss and say "these guys online totally said R was awesome, we should switch."
as i understand, amending a contract in writing (and initialing and dating the changes) counts as a phase of negotiation. it is in good faith to scrawl "i don't agree," although all that really does is void the contract for the moment so it's pretty pointless. if you keep working despite voiding it, you're probably subjecting yourself to a tort.
however, if you make actual written amendments (without bullshit trickery), and they are stupid enough to sign the contract without reading it, i think it counts as an acceptance of your terms. a friend of mine got out of an IP assignment clause this way; he struck it out and initialed and dated it.
seriously, you are either trolling or need help. see a psychiatrist (google or call around for sliding scale services in your area). if you're in immediate danger, call the domestic violence hotline.
or just try getting off the internet and going outside.
Well, thank god someone is standing up for order and propriety. Radio buttons should mean something, dammit! It's been that way for, uh, well, at least 20 years! Can you imagine the madness that would ensue if people used checkboxes for singleton choices? Human sacrifice! Mass hysteria!
The customer needs a radio button whether he knows it or not! One choice means you use a radio button!
Give me a fucking break. Maybe checkboxes fit the design of the site (or app, or whatever the fuck) better. I don't know.
Who are you to say that's a stupid problem? You're not exactly doing kernel development or low-level signal processing, here. You're designing user interfaces for people in exchange for money. Are you being paid by the "industry standard"? No; you're being paid by the customer. If they really want a fucking checkbox after you explain things to them, you either give them the checkbox or explain why it's too hard for you and forfeit the contract.
"But it's just meaningless aesthetics," you say. Well, yeah, you're doing low-end UI design. Get over yourself. You're not a scientist or an engineer.
what's fair, what's unfair? when i was a kid there was a scholarship for left-handed people; is that unfair? yes, but who cares? people can do what they want.
people are really, really, overestimating the effect of this ridiculous code school just because Google itself attached to it in an effort to counterspin some negative PR they got.
Anyway, I was a poor white person, even incredibly poor by the standards of my current colleagues, and got merit-based assistance. Coming from my background, it was almost (almost...) embarrassingly much. I don't want to get into this right now, but just because someone else is being overpaid or given special consideration, doesn't necessarily mean that you are being underpaid.
I mean underpaid to a noticeable degree. Yes, economics says we're taking a hit (at least locally, in the short term), but even assuming that, to cry oppression about every program like this is just amazingly juvenile. It's funny how the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people love so much to whine about every bit of help given to others, as if it's personally a knife being driven maliciously into their own back.
Personally, I doubt this is charity. It's a savvy move by Google to deflect a PR hit from some social justice groups, while scouting for talent on the cheap (you don't really think Google is going to hire everyone who graduates this silly little code school, do you?). Hell, Google does everything they can to keep their employees around and productive. I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed that getting a few pretty young things to chat with the engineers in the cafeteria might keep them inspired to work longer...
iirc, a friend of mine got a native american scholarship (forgot if it was federal or state) for being 1/8, which was the cutoff. in his case it was total bullshit, but it's a fair cop i suppose.
Google wants employees with above-average skills in their areas of interest, and so they hire plenty of white males since they tend to have them. If you're not in that group, well, it sucks to be you, I guess.
It's the usual "biased skeptic" routine of disingenuous agnosticism.
The other side does it too with e-cigarettes. According to them, we need extensive blank-slate studies of the effects of e-cigarette inhalation, even though we know all of the ingredients (glycerin, propylene glycol, flavorings/colorants, nicotine) and have studied the hell out of each of them already.
It's the same here. Even though marijuana slows reaction time and impairs judgment (except for my stoner friends who all told me that they totally drive better when they're high), we haven't specifically studied its effect on driving, so hey, we can't really say anything at all, and you can't use the precautionary principle because that's tantamount to communism (when did this become a thing, anyway?).
well, i guess an ideal field test would be a perfect VR driving simulator! it's possible that it's easy to pass the current alcohol field test while just as impaired for actual driving. i really don't know. at any rate, it seems a priori to be a concern of some degree.
as Shakrai said already, it would be amazing indeed if pot somehow had no detrimental effects at all on driving. it's possible, i guess, but it seems very unlikely. i'm sure some people are helped by pot, but i doubt that they are representative.
i doubt that pot's only synergistic effect is as a vasodilator, but it seems easy to test. know of any studies?
and, yes, it is mostly lies. we agree on that anyway.
yeah, that's fair enough. the formula leaves out whether pot really increases fatalities, which is the actual point of interest; oops. if pot use uniformly increases by 3x, then even with no effect it would be detected 3x as often among the dead.
it seems intuitively reasonable that it would cause some accidents, but good numbers are not forthcoming.
admittedly, it's retrospective (they are finding more marijuana metabolites in dead drivers than before), but Bayes' formula suggests validity of the inference. p(pot|dead)=p(dead|pot)*p(pot)/p(dead). legalization will definitely increase p(pot), and it might decrease p(dead|pot) in the long run as people and social norms adapt. but as you said, there are a lot of newbs out for now.
part of the problem is that marijuana intoxication is harder to screen for; this is a good thing in some ways (it's probably intrinsically safer, since they pass the field test at higher rates), but it makes deterrence harder.
so you respond to a strawman with a few personal anecdotes. maybe you should use some of that performance-enhancing marijuana before you read slashdot.
well, yeah, i agree with you, i'm just commenting that this is going to happen.
and it's not all lies. that's the definition of spin: it's a careful 'interpretation' of truth. the lack of a fast objective test for marijuana impairment is a real problem, as is the synergistic effect of pot and alcohol (anecdote: the one and only time i ever blacked out was the one and only time i mixed (relatively modest) amounts of the two).
these problems don't justify criminalization in and of themselves (imho), but it's not "all lies." that's just your spin on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, have we gotten to the point that we're actually bigoted against all religions?
christ, i hope so.
they won't be interested. SAS users are dolts; it's one of those languages where you can do a handful of (admittedly useful) things very easily, but is a tarpit for any kind of general procedural development.
just develop something cool, show it to the SAS people (who won't understand) as a pro forma exercise, then go to the boss.
yes it is. to borrow your sig, data science is just "exxxtreme data analysis."
Yes, the submitter is an idiot incapable of his own research, but this sounds like SAS astroturf FUD (yes, there is such a thing).
or there are real reasons and he just doesn't know them. he didn't even tell us what his company does, except that it's "huge". if it's finance then there probably are good reasons. if it's healthcare, then not so much, though since R developers are more common (=cheaper) now, the benefit of just ditching those extremely expensive SAS licenses may still be enough.
i agree, though. he should do his own research and then ask slashdot if necessary, which it really shouldn't be. still, i kind of want to see him go to his boss and say "these guys online totally said R was awesome, we should switch."
as i understand, amending a contract in writing (and initialing and dating the changes) counts as a phase of negotiation. it is in good faith to scrawl "i don't agree," although all that really does is void the contract for the moment so it's pretty pointless. if you keep working despite voiding it, you're probably subjecting yourself to a tort.
however, if you make actual written amendments (without bullshit trickery), and they are stupid enough to sign the contract without reading it, i think it counts as an acceptance of your terms. a friend of mine got out of an IP assignment clause this way; he struck it out and initialed and dated it.
what... the fuck?
seriously, you are either trolling or need help. see a psychiatrist (google or call around for sliding scale services in your area). if you're in immediate danger, call the domestic violence hotline.
or just try getting off the internet and going outside.
there are special plastic bags for sous-vide which don't leach (or at least leach less).
the real question is "how many patents have Mr. Myhrvold and his minions already staked out in this area?"
Well, thank god someone is standing up for order and propriety. Radio buttons should mean something, dammit! It's been that way for, uh, well, at least 20 years! Can you imagine the madness that would ensue if people used checkboxes for singleton choices? Human sacrifice! Mass hysteria!
The customer needs a radio button whether he knows it or not! One choice means you use a radio button!
Give me a fucking break. Maybe checkboxes fit the design of the site (or app, or whatever the fuck) better. I don't know.
well he has to breed something!
ba-dum-pish.
they're convenient and unobtrusive, especially at the movies or at dinner with other people. they also look nice; yes, this matters.
Who are you to say that's a stupid problem? You're not exactly doing kernel development or low-level signal processing, here. You're designing user interfaces for people in exchange for money. Are you being paid by the "industry standard"? No; you're being paid by the customer. If they really want a fucking checkbox after you explain things to them, you either give them the checkbox or explain why it's too hard for you and forfeit the contract.
"But it's just meaningless aesthetics," you say. Well, yeah, you're doing low-end UI design. Get over yourself. You're not a scientist or an engineer.
familiarity breeds contempt.
Because with few exceptions, Asia is a miserable shithole.
what's fair, what's unfair? when i was a kid there was a scholarship for left-handed people; is that unfair? yes, but who cares? people can do what they want.
people are really, really, overestimating the effect of this ridiculous code school just because Google itself attached to it in an effort to counterspin some negative PR they got.
I don't think that that was Kyosuke's point.
Anyway, I was a poor white person, even incredibly poor by the standards of my current colleagues, and got merit-based assistance. Coming from my background, it was almost (almost...) embarrassingly much. I don't want to get into this right now, but just because someone else is being overpaid or given special consideration, doesn't necessarily mean that you are being underpaid.
I mean underpaid to a noticeable degree. Yes, economics says we're taking a hit (at least locally, in the short term), but even assuming that, to cry oppression about every program like this is just amazingly juvenile. It's funny how the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people love so much to whine about every bit of help given to others, as if it's personally a knife being driven maliciously into their own back.
Personally, I doubt this is charity. It's a savvy move by Google to deflect a PR hit from some social justice groups, while scouting for talent on the cheap (you don't really think Google is going to hire everyone who graduates this silly little code school, do you?). Hell, Google does everything they can to keep their employees around and productive. I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed that getting a few pretty young things to chat with the engineers in the cafeteria might keep them inspired to work longer...
iirc, a friend of mine got a native american scholarship (forgot if it was federal or state) for being 1/8, which was the cutoff. in his case it was total bullshit, but it's a fair cop i suppose.
Google wants employees with above-average skills in their areas of interest, and so they hire plenty of white males since they tend to have them. If you're not in that group, well, it sucks to be you, I guess.
It's the usual "biased skeptic" routine of disingenuous agnosticism.
The other side does it too with e-cigarettes. According to them, we need extensive blank-slate studies of the effects of e-cigarette inhalation, even though we know all of the ingredients (glycerin, propylene glycol, flavorings/colorants, nicotine) and have studied the hell out of each of them already.
It's the same here. Even though marijuana slows reaction time and impairs judgment (except for my stoner friends who all told me that they totally drive better when they're high), we haven't specifically studied its effect on driving, so hey, we can't really say anything at all, and you can't use the precautionary principle because that's tantamount to communism (when did this become a thing, anyway?).
well, i guess an ideal field test would be a perfect VR driving simulator! it's possible that it's easy to pass the current alcohol field test while just as impaired for actual driving. i really don't know. at any rate, it seems a priori to be a concern of some degree.
as Shakrai said already, it would be amazing indeed if pot somehow had no detrimental effects at all on driving. it's possible, i guess, but it seems very unlikely. i'm sure some people are helped by pot, but i doubt that they are representative.
i doubt that pot's only synergistic effect is as a vasodilator, but it seems easy to test. know of any studies?
and, yes, it is mostly lies. we agree on that anyway.
yeah, that's fair enough. the formula leaves out whether pot really increases fatalities, which is the actual point of interest; oops. if pot use uniformly increases by 3x, then even with no effect it would be detected 3x as often among the dead.
it seems intuitively reasonable that it would cause some accidents, but good numbers are not forthcoming.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
admittedly, it's retrospective (they are finding more marijuana metabolites in dead drivers than before), but Bayes' formula suggests validity of the inference. p(pot|dead)=p(dead|pot)*p(pot)/p(dead). legalization will definitely increase p(pot), and it might decrease p(dead|pot) in the long run as people and social norms adapt. but as you said, there are a lot of newbs out for now.
part of the problem is that marijuana intoxication is harder to screen for; this is a good thing in some ways (it's probably intrinsically safer, since they pass the field test at higher rates), but it makes deterrence harder.
so you respond to a strawman with a few personal anecdotes. maybe you should use some of that performance-enhancing marijuana before you read slashdot.
well, yeah, i agree with you, i'm just commenting that this is going to happen.
and it's not all lies. that's the definition of spin: it's a careful 'interpretation' of truth. the lack of a fast objective test for marijuana impairment is a real problem, as is the synergistic effect of pot and alcohol (anecdote: the one and only time i ever blacked out was the one and only time i mixed (relatively modest) amounts of the two).
these problems don't justify criminalization in and of themselves (imho), but it's not "all lies." that's just your spin on it.