You need to get with the times. Now we want independent learners.
So keeping loaded guns within reach of the toddler is good. Especially if you also hunt down and buy a wii controller that looks as much like a gun as you can find so the kid can learn that that is a toy. Bonus points if you put the loaded gun in the location the toy gun usually is.
On the bright side, if the next generation isn't smarter they will at least be luckier...
No way. If they get two weeks notice then they get to spend that two weeks being paid to not come to work.
Even if they were the perfect employee, the risk that they are now disgruntled due to not having a job anymore is too high. Even if the risk is 0, you want a policy in place so that idiot managers don't screw up like this.
You better be able to cope without them, after all they could quit and walk out tomorrow, crash the car driving to work and die or be in a coma for the next 6 months, get arrested for murdering a neighbor last week and have to spend time away from work in jail, etc, etc.
When I lectured a 2nd year programming course there were 300 students in a lecture (in theory, in practice not everyone turned up, and it was in the 200s). I didn't care if people came or not, I put the notes up on the course web page, etc.
Feedback from the people present was important. It determined how slow/fast I went (within reason I had to cover everything and didn't want to spend 40 minutes doing stand up comedy after exhausting the material).
If there's no interaction I might as well do it at my leisure in front of a camera and let them watch the lecture on video. The course was large enough that I was giving each lecture twice (650 students) so that would have saved me time even.
What does google doing anything have to do with Apple running a commercial in 1984?
A commercial which had nothing to say about privacy (it isn't the damn novel, it's a short ad) I might add.
Apple ran a commercial about non-conformity to the corporate machine, and now is being that conformity requiring corporate machine itself. Of course they always have been, with their interface guidelines and so on...
Can you point me to where google ran a superbowl ad about how the rest of the world was all about a lack of privacy and being spied on, and that google was different?
We don't know now because it is irrelevant because it isn't backed by anything.
And yes it does enforce some spending discipline, if you can't print the money you have to tax it or borrow it. Raising taxes can result in not being elected next round. Borrowing it without being able to print up the repayments stops soon enough since you can't afford those payments.
We'll see how the next US currency does, this one is getting awfully close to the end of its lifespan. It's been almost 40 years, which is pretty long for the US which has historically changed quite often.
The main thing a backed currency gives is the reduction of government control of the money supply. Obviously if you think the government will usually do a poor job you will prefer a "backed by gold" currency. If you think the government will usually do a good job you will prefer a "fiat" currency.
Power failures are expected, what you can do is have plans for when they occur - batteries, generators, service migration to other sites, etc, etc. Those plans (and the execution of them) are what they had problems with.
Because requiring some discipline on spending by not allowing the printing of arbitrary amounts of money would be such a bad thing...
And of course that isn't the only thing he has suggested and certainly wasn't proclaimed as an instant fix
Finally, the "arbitrary value" of the metal is completely irrelevant. It doesn't have to be worth anything - it just has to of limited supply. Clearly people don't care if there's nothing backing their currency so the value part is irrelevant. All that matters is the "can't print at will" part.
I live in the US and have insurance. What matters to me is the healthcare of all the people in the US (regardless of insurance).
And whether it improves care for those people isn't important - what matters is does is make it worse.
Now the government always does find a way to amaze me on these matters and hence likely will again, but I can't see how you come up with a worse system than the US currently has.
Ridiculous tax rules tying employment and health insurance together? What idiot thought that was a good idea?
Generally when comparing countries you compare *all* the people.
You don't declare that Zimbabwe is wealthier than the US because we are only going to count Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and compare that with the average of everyone in the US.
You can't just exclude a huge chunk of the population because they make the numbers worse.
Given the number of people with private health insurance in Sweden number in the low thousands, any comparison you do with them will be overwhelmed by noise.
And some of us realise that money is just a proxy for society's resources. And those resources are limited.
Sure you could spend $1,000,000 keeping one person alive for an extra few years (with an extremely low quality of life), or you could spend that $1,000,000 treating a thousand children who will go on to live another 60 years at full quality of life.
Pretending you don't have to choose and have unlimited resources is just dumb and you end up not being able to do either.
If you are contractor (and since you say "my companies fault" that seems unlikely - the IRS has pretty strict rules on what doesn't qualify as an independent contractor) then that's true.
Optimal play in blackjack does not have an advantage over the house. Unless by optimal you mean card counting and varying bet sizes accordingly - in which case it still doesn't have an advantage because you won't be allowed to play anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
And he gets to decide what is and isn't misinformed fear mongering, FUD-spreading speculation, and meaningless obstruction?
And unsurprisingly it's the stuff he doesn't agree with.
Yes.
The only weather that stops a bicycle is hail*, and even then just invest in a suit of plate armor and that won't even matter.
* OK, a hurricane or tornado might also make matters difficult.
I spoke much to soon with: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571786&cid=31365008
You need to get with the times. Now we want independent learners.
So keeping loaded guns within reach of the toddler is good. Especially if you also hunt down and buy a wii controller that looks as much like a gun as you can find so the kid can learn that that is a toy. Bonus points if you put the loaded gun in the location the toy gun usually is.
On the bright side, if the next generation isn't smarter they will at least be luckier...
So go rob a bank. It's win win. Either you are now rich, or you get to spend a lot of time eating better food than you get now and free cable TV!
More likely the submitter read the damn article which references the Mythical Man Month, and has never heard of Brooks let alone read the book.
No way. If they get two weeks notice then they get to spend that two weeks being paid to not come to work.
Even if they were the perfect employee, the risk that they are now disgruntled due to not having a job anymore is too high. Even if the risk is 0, you want a policy in place so that idiot managers don't screw up like this.
You better be able to cope without them, after all they could quit and walk out tomorrow, crash the car driving to work and die or be in a coma for the next 6 months, get arrested for murdering a neighbor last week and have to spend time away from work in jail, etc, etc.
Which I'd also count as "what idiot thought that was a good idea" in and of themselves. Price controls always cause your problems than they solve.
Price controls with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink official way to set go over them anyway are even more insane.
When I lectured a 2nd year programming course there were 300 students in a lecture (in theory, in practice not everyone turned up, and it was in the 200s). I didn't care if people came or not, I put the notes up on the course web page, etc.
Feedback from the people present was important. It determined how slow/fast I went (within reason I had to cover everything and didn't want to spend 40 minutes doing stand up comedy after exhausting the material).
If there's no interaction I might as well do it at my leisure in front of a camera and let them watch the lecture on video. The course was large enough that I was giving each lecture twice (650 students) so that would have saved me time even.
Except that that reasoning doesn't apply in this case.
Not that that will matter of course, but it isn't a slam dunk by that case.
What does google doing anything have to do with Apple running a commercial in 1984?
A commercial which had nothing to say about privacy (it isn't the damn novel, it's a short ad) I might add.
Apple ran a commercial about non-conformity to the corporate machine, and now is being that conformity requiring corporate machine itself. Of course they always have been, with their interface guidelines and so on...
Can you point me to where google ran a superbowl ad about how the rest of the world was all about a lack of privacy and being spied on, and that google was different?
We don't know now because it is irrelevant because it isn't backed by anything.
And yes it does enforce some spending discipline, if you can't print the money you have to tax it or borrow it. Raising taxes can result in not being elected next round. Borrowing it without being able to print up the repayments stops soon enough since you can't afford those payments.
We'll see how the next US currency does, this one is getting awfully close to the end of its lifespan. It's been almost 40 years, which is pretty long for the US which has historically changed quite often.
The main thing a backed currency gives is the reduction of government control of the money supply. Obviously if you think the government will usually do a poor job you will prefer a "backed by gold" currency. If you think the government will usually do a good job you will prefer a "fiat" currency.
Who cares?
Power failures are expected, what you can do is have plans for when they occur - batteries, generators, service migration to other sites, etc, etc. Those plans (and the execution of them) are what they had problems with.
Because requiring some discipline on spending by not allowing the printing of arbitrary amounts of money would be such a bad thing...
And of course that isn't the only thing he has suggested and certainly wasn't proclaimed as an instant fix
Finally, the "arbitrary value" of the metal is completely irrelevant. It doesn't have to be worth anything - it just has to of limited supply. Clearly people don't care if there's nothing backing their currency so the value part is irrelevant. All that matters is the "can't print at will" part.
I live in the US and have insurance. What matters to me is the healthcare of all the people in the US (regardless of insurance).
And whether it improves care for those people isn't important - what matters is does is make it worse.
Now the government always does find a way to amaze me on these matters and hence likely will again, but I can't see how you come up with a worse system than the US currently has.
Ridiculous tax rules tying employment and health insurance together? What idiot thought that was a good idea?
Generally when comparing countries you compare *all* the people.
You don't declare that Zimbabwe is wealthier than the US because we are only going to count Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and compare that with the average of everyone in the US.
You can't just exclude a huge chunk of the population because they make the numbers worse.
Given the number of people with private health insurance in Sweden number in the low thousands, any comparison you do with them will be overwhelmed by noise.
You make decision every time you buy a coke instead of spending the money to vaccinate a child in Africa.
And the answer you come up with is: a life is worth less than consuming something with negative nutritional value.
Assholes get sick too you know.
And some of us realise that money is just a proxy for society's resources. And those resources are limited.
Sure you could spend $1,000,000 keeping one person alive for an extra few years (with an extremely low quality of life), or you could spend that $1,000,000 treating a thousand children who will go on to live another 60 years at full quality of life.
Pretending you don't have to choose and have unlimited resources is just dumb and you end up not being able to do either.
You didn't buy one too have a look-see?
Because that's what their supplier told them. And until they know otherwise they aren't going to slander a business partner.
If they do find out otherwise, I suspect they will make another announcement about that...
If you are contractor (and since you say "my companies fault" that seems unlikely - the IRS has pretty strict rules on what doesn't qualify as an independent contractor) then that's true.
If you are an employee then that is simply false:
"""
A “work made for hire” is—
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
""" - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
Even then there's no real change to you hand.
Unless you are bluffing, which is the thing you seem not to like, there is an optimal number of cards to draw given your hand and the previous action.
5-card draw also only has two rounds of betting and hence is less profitable if you have an advantage over your opponents.
Optimal play in blackjack does not have an advantage over the house. Unless by optimal you mean card counting and varying bet sizes accordingly - in which case it still doesn't have an advantage because you won't be allowed to play anyway.