All your scare mongering doesn't make the Gawker right about their editorial.
At the same time, shouldn't we arrest (or at least monitor) those that could [freaky mutant power]?
Well, no. No we should not.
They have more power than you or I, just the same way that rich people and politicians have more power. Just because they can do things we can't doesn't erode their rights nor does it make them better than us. We are equals in the eyes of the law. That's one of those really important fundamental principals that the nation was founded on. The sort of forward thinking that lead to Washington and Jefferson getting their faces on Rushmore.
And this is why Captain America fought against registration. This "Principles vs. Legitimate Fear" thing is the basis of the civil war arc.
It also applies to a lesser extent to geniuses, athletes, artists, and those with other skills that your or I just don't have.
Mutants can [be] (and in the comics are definitely) a menace and should be registered.
The ones who are menaces should be prosecuted just like everyone else. Our law enforcement needs the tools to handle such situations, which would probably be a lot more than they have now, and in the Marvel universe would probably necessitate the employment of mutants, which is exactly what the registration act enforced. It's the "forced service" part which is simply wrong.
Unless sovereignty comes into play. If there's a legitimate chance that Magneto's army could overthrow the nation, then the gloves come off. Call me Hobbesian, but you can only police what you can control. Once something slips out of that grasp of power, it's a peer and is also out from under the protection of the law. Go to war with those motherfuckers, treat them as an ally, or set up a treaty of some sort.
If he is disabled from developing, his ability develop mentally and socially (socially being a subset of mentally) is disabled, he has no ability to develop his mental capabilities, then I believe it's fair to say that his mental capabilities are impacted, reduced, diminished, less than optimal, that he is in a state of being in which his mental fortitude is not well. With some work and effort, and a shit-ton of time he can perhaps overcome most of it.
It is not disease. It is not communicable. It is through no fault of his own. But you are saying he is not well. That he is unhealthy. That he is ill. And that the illness is mental in nature.
If you consider him disabled, that is.
But no, don't call it a mental illness. That has baggage and implies he's some sort of retard. Call it a "developmental disability". That'll be so much better, and certainly won't come to mean the same thing.
Also, that's exactly what I was talking about. I meant programming computers. The vast majority of people would take one look at assembly and lose their mind. It takes a special sort of person with the right stuff to be able to enjoy coding. And I believe it is the saddest thing in the world that those people are being treated like they have a medical disease.
Fuck the doctors and the diagnosis and the special needs. He's just a nerdy kid.
Sorry. He's your kid. If someone in a labcoat telling you some latin words makes you feel better and helps you cope with the fact that your son is a smart socially-incompetent nerd, then hell, whatever helps. But if I was born in a different time I'd be locked up in a mental ward, so fuck that noise. I dunno, probably ranting too much. Best of luck.
I think you're hurting people with Asperger's Syndrome by saying they have a disability. Asperger's, nerd, introvert, whatever name you want slap on people, the moment you imply that the don't function as well as other's, that label is going to carry a boat-load of baggage with it. It's the same reason that we don't call people slow->mentally retarded->Special needs anymore. Look at it this way: He has the ability to sit alone in a boring room with boring tasks for hours at a time and not go completely flipping insane. A lot of extroverts just can't do that. We're alone but not lonely.
It'll be rough when they start classifying the jocks under some syndrome or disorder or genetic disease. Poor bastards won't be able to fight it. Can't wait till they start classifying charismatic types as some sort of spectrum of sociopath. They'll spin that all to hell.
Hopefully once they've assigned some sort of name or label or condition to every little personality trait then we'll be able to accept that people are different, the bell curve is occasionally a bitch, some diversity is a good thing, and we can all just move on.
Even if the encryption is broken, that can be fixed in a later release
"The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014" If this is real, there are no more releases. At least not from the original development team. And if they have a court order instructing them to leave vulnerabilities in there, and a gag order restraining them from announcing said vulnerabilities, then they're pretty much up shit creek.
Luckily, it won't take much for someone to pick up the project, fork it, and continue on. And hopefully discover any vulnerabilities. Who knows though, projects being instantly and totally gutted of all the orignal developers don't go so well. I'm not going to do it. This is a pretty big test of the open source community.
Yes yes, that's nice and all. Actually it's kind of a dickbag move by an antagonistic atheist with a bone to pick against the religious types and it's this sort of behavior that makes the ignorant religious get in a huff and brews an anti-science sentiment. I get the sentiment, but you're technically wrong.
People certainly "believe" in evolution.
Just the same way that you believe that 1+1=2.
You're not going to say something crazy like you DON'T believe that 1+1=2, right? Cause that's crazy talk. 1+1 obviously = 2.
Can you prove, or show supporting evidence for the fact that 1+1=2?
Blah blah blah Principia Mathematica, which DOES prove that 1+1=2, but it depends on mathmatical axioms that simply have to be presumed to be true. Like the null set axiom: Empty sets can exist. Which is more like saying that the concept of thinking of things has a place to start when want to think about things, but don't have anything to think about yet, but will at some point add a thing to place where you think about things.
If you think that sounds like something approaching philosophy.... yeeeeeeeah...
So get off your high-horse, stop being a dickbag, and realize that while the scientific approach is better, you don't have any room to browbeat religious people.
It has been tried. The internal channels HAVE FAILED. Repeatedly. You are just plain wrong on this one.
The opponents to the NSA wants everything public anyways
Where the fuck did you get that from? THIS "opponent to the NSA" just wants them to get a real warrant before snooping on the communication between US citizens, "metadata" or otherwise. I demand this because it's constitutionally illegal to do otherwise. A secret court with no oversight rubber-stamping mass surveillance every year doesn't count, is invalid, and makes the program illegal. (Also, it'd be nice if they treated foreigners the same way, but I have less hope for that)
Think about it. Now think about the last time you took a bus.
Also, what exactly is keeping this more efficient system of everyone using the same car from being put into place with taxis? The only difference between this new system you're envisioning and what we could have now is the wage of the taxi driver.
I'm all for a more efficient use, but some people are going to want to own their own car so they can use it whenever they want and know what the interior is going to be like. And I think that the owner of the car should be liable for the behavior of the car.
Wow, that'd be a lot like trusting people to mod their car and add spinning rims, or spoilers, or monster truck wheels, or a turbo, or a tinted windows. I hear a few people do that sort of thing if they're into it.
Or if it's as simple as tweaking the NO_SPEEDING flag to zero, it's more like trusting people to replace their own brake pads.
There's always a risk that they could fuck it up, I guess. But I think you're craving a nanny-state a bit too much. So yeah, go freedom and stuff.
If the vendor pays, then the vendor owns the brain in the car you bought rather than YOU owning the brain in YOUR car. They will make modding the car illegal as they own it. And if they are liable for it's misbehavior, that even makes sense.
Do you want to live in a world where you own your property? Or would you prefer to rent a license from the corporate overlords?
They have curves, everyone wants to get their hands on them, and their size has social status impact. People learn how to handle them when they're teenagers. Some are full of plastic. In some cases, if you squeeze them, juices come out.
Sex is an easy sell. Give it to a marketer, they could work their magic and spin that statement into a full-fledged ad campaign.
Easy to say when you are not the one at the pointy end of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.
Yeah, the lawsuit makes it even easier. But as a potential customer I too prefer companies that don't feel the need to censor their own employees from talking about the products they make.
Let me make that clear: A healthy company that makes good products should be confidant that their employees can bitch and moan about whatever failings they can find with the product and still know that the product is well made, or at least that the problems have been dealt with correctly.
If the public comments of the employee are brought up in court, the company should be able to justify those comments: "Yes your honor, Mr. Bob called the transmission of leaky cock-sucking sonnovabitch, and that falls in line with our public announcement on April 3rd about the a potential recall and memos to our dealers. There are problems and we dealt with them"
As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing. And I don't know too many engineers who are up to date on their product liability law.
They're the engineer working on the problem, they are THEE expert on the subject. The company is liable for problems with the product. Not just problems that are found and proven in court, they are liable for ALL problems. The fact that the engineer might show where those problems are just brings such things to light. If you're operating with the presumption that a lot of shit and crap product will simply never be discovered, then you're running a scam and lying to your customers.
Fact is that NO lawyer worth his retainer would agree with you.
A lawyer wouldn't agree that companies trying to cover up their failings are shit? What? I think you're trying to say that no lawyer would want engineers saying anything to anybody. That makes sense as it makes their job easier. If a lawyer ran the business, all communication would go through the legal department. But it does nothing to give me faith in the output of a company. Indeed, the deeper the lawyers have their hooks into a company, the less I trust said company.
There are VERY good reasons why companies tend to only let a few, carefully selected people who know what they are doing speak for the company.
You're right, but only from the perspective of the quarterly profits and legal fees. And that dominates our corporate culture. And so every company has an iron curtain between the makers and the users.
There are also very good reasons to let the engineers speak freely. It makes for a better product when the product managers know that anything they try and rush out the door will quickly come to light and reflect poorly on them. It lets the engineers have a bit more pride in what they do. It let's engineers make the thing that customers want. And it would make customers have more faith in the product and they'd BUY MORE. Unless, of course, the product is shit.
Oh wait, that's already illegal. As is mucking about on other people's property and a bunch of other actions that are generally dickish in nature.
It's like we don't need special rules about what is and is not a "protest" because it shouldn't fucking matter and the "free speech zone" includes all of the USA.
His first example in the New Yorker was how the NSA thwarted Basaaly Moalin.
Some background: Basaaly Moalin emailed Najibullah Zazi asking how to make a bomb. Zazi was already under FBI investigation. The NSA is scanning all email traffic, finds the word "bomb" in this email, and they foward this to the FBI, and they go forward from there. The two end up arrested.
This is a good turn of events. Bravo FBI for doing a good job. We are not saying that this is a bad thing, nor are we saying that these things should not be investigated.
What we want is for them to get a warrant before scanning all the email. The FBI was already investigating him for some reason. Would it have been that hard to ask a judge first? Someone sent a clear-text email to a person under investigation asking how to make a bomb. You don't need a complete dragnet of all the populaces communication to go find that terrorist. We have perfectly legal tools written into the bloody constitution about how you're supposed to go about this. USE THEM.
Around 9/11, we intercepted some of [the hijackers’] calls, but we couldn’t see where they came from. So guys like [Khalid al-]Mihdhar, [one of the 9/11 hijackers who was living] in California—we knew he was calling people connected to Al Qaeda in Yemen.
That sounds like a REAL EASY case to get a warrant for. "Hey judge, there's this guy calling Al Qaeda. We intercepted his phone call going from point A to point B and we'd like to ask the phone companies where those points are. You know, so we can keep tabs on where the terrorist cells are calling from. Just might be coming from within the states.... Yeah, I know right? Just like that scene 'the call is coming from inside the house!'. That'd be funny if we weren't talking about thousands of dead people. So mother-may-I-gimme a warrant already."
And they’re going to say, Well, you eliminated all the tools to catch the terrorists!
We want to remind you that the tools need to require you to jump through a hoop, just like the RAS you described in your example. You need your tools. But you must jump through the legal hoop.
We saw what happened when Edgar Hoover had his dragnet on everyone. It didn't turn out well. And we certainly can't trust you with similar power.
Yeah, I'd say that sql isn't that big of a deal anymore because it's ubiquitous, and easy to work with. Picking it up as a skillset is akin to learning how to script or use regex.
Big companies that live and breath data do indeed hire their own DBAs to manage it. Or a non-SQL alternative. Because it's that important. For them.
But I think you're focused a little too much on web-dev. Sure, for webdev I'd say SQL is a requirement. But for game developers, embedded developers, robotics, AI, test engineers, anything Labview, library develoeprs, etc... A lot of programmers don't even interact with servers.
You said "most programmers..." when you probably should have started with "most webDevs...."
First off, this reeks WAY too much of that bullshit stock question: On a scale of ten where would you rate yourself
8. Everyone is an 8. If you're not an 8, you've probably got issues of one type or another.
As for the actual question, you don't have to know jack fucking shit to get hired by an incompetent manager, dodge all responsibility for as long as you can, and then bail. It happens. People with literally zero experience show up, talk a good talk, and land jobs. Their resume is full of lies and the company doesn't verify.
I know of one case where the guy was desperate for a paycheck and landed an IT gig. During the day he logged everyone's problems, but he was "real busy putting out fires, I'll get to you tomorrow". After work and at night he would learn the shit out of the thing he was asked about and he'd come in fix the thing the next day. He's lead dev at a company now. Eventually you don't have to fake it.
Now, anywhere I work, and have any sort of sway over the hiring process, I'm going to demand that you at least pass a simple coding quiz to weed out the worst offenders. My manager actually asked me for such a test. I pulled this out of my ass. What do you guys think?
In the language of your choice or in pseudocode please provide a solution to the following stub:/* reverses the string for every sentence. Ex input: “My test. It works ok.” 21 Ex result: “test My. ok works It.” */ void reverseSentence(char* str, int sizeStr) {
}
After he gets done ask: -What are the discrepancies in the requirements as stated? -How would you resolve them? -What are the undefined cases?
(“reverse the string” is not the same thing as reversing the sentence structure as shown in the examples. And it doesn’t really define what a sentence is. It says nothing about what to do when there are no periods, or when sizeStr is zero.)
It doesn't really matter how you solve it, as long as you spot the giant glaring pit-trap, and provide some reasonable code to perform what you wanted it to do.
In the end it's actually more a matter of what keywords your have on your resume, how well you can schmooze with HR types and office drones, and how cheap you're willing to work. Sorry if that comes off as cynical, but I'd rather be cynical and true than naive and wrong.
Well yes, that's how it works. Flamebait gets modded as flamebait. If you find that all the posts like this one are being modded similarly, it just means that the modding isn't some statistical outlier and that the masses have a consensus for what they consider "flamebait".
If you teach a 10 year old to write "code", that won't help them in 8 or 10 years time when they try to apply for a job. The "code" technology will have moved on in that time,
Sure, unless you teach them C.
Here, I've got a good rant about this:
BOW DOWN MORTALS Before the one true language. The Ur-language that ushers in all the false idols. The Most Holy of relics...
C
The old gods are calling. Can you hear them? It's the sound of inevitability as the young usurpers weep into their transient drinks feeling their lifeblood leak away like so much memory. What pidly followers they amassed will blow away like so much dust. And where do they turn when all they hold dear is cast about on shifting sands? The stable bedrock of C.
LOOK UPON IT'S MAJESTY and look upon your EVERYTHING and you will see it staring back at you. Your Linux, your arduinos, your Rasberry Pis, your toaster, your fridge. We are the ones who cook your food. We are the ones who drive your cars. We are the ones who hand-carry your garbage when your program closes. DO NOT fuck with us.
Just high enough above the metal to be portable as all fucking get out and low enough slide through that silicon like greased lightning. This IS your grand-daddies programming language because he knew his shit. The experience of GENERATIONS is out there and honestly eager to help. Ask on stack overflow about how the shareponit widget gets shuffled by the flub API in the.WHORE framework and you'll have a couple crickets for company. But ask for some fluent C and the fucking CHOIR comes out to play.
C is the language to learn my friends. It gets you where you need to be. It's not the last language you want to learn, but it's certainly the one you want to sharpen. Hone that to a razor edge and you can cut any problem down to size. And that's no Turing tarpit. I may program in Brainfuck and Malbolge for shits'n'giggles, but C is the workhorse of solving real meaningful problems. Bash glues yesterday's solutions together, and some pretty GUI-maker can make yet another button for a clueless suit, but you whip out C for the hard cases.
#include "stdio.h" int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf("Bro, do you even code?\n");
return 0; }
That.... actually makes a bit of sense and I understand how a judge could see it that way.
So if Google wants their fork to interface just like Oracles, they should take a clean-room approach and have all the API's function exactly the same way, but without being derived from Oracle's source.
And they have to function EXACTLY like the one they're copying. That's the entire point of using a standard API. If that aspect is copyrightable, the content of the API of how things interface to other things, then this is sheer madness.
Neat. I think you're talking about this stuff. It says researchers have put the heritability of IQ between 0.5 and 0.8. However, Turkheimer (2003) found that for children of low socioeconomic status heritability of IQ falls almost to zero. CITATION, BITCH.
Heritability measures the fraction of phenotype variability that can be attributed to genetic variation. This is not the same as saying that this fraction of an individual phenotype is caused by genetics. In addition, heritability can change without any genetic change occurring (e.g. when the environment starts contributing to more variation). A case in point, consider that both genes and environment have the potential to influence intelligence. Heritability could increase if genetic variation increases, causing individuals to show more phenotypic variation (e.g. to show different levels of intelligence). On the other hand, heritability might also increase if the environmental variation decreases, causing individuals to show less phenotypic variation (e.g. to show more similar levels of intelligence). Heritability is increasing because genetics are contributing more variation or because non-genetic factors are contributing less variation; what matters is the relative contribution.
Key point: Heritability goes up and down depending on the environment. The environmental variation is completely dominant for the poor. Go figure, it sucks being poor and it's hard to go get your life on track.
But hey, I'm sure Ag school taught you all sorts of important things that are very useful for raising crops. It's not quite sociology however, so you might want to take your lessons with a grain of salt.
This does kind of lead to a unsettling conclusion: Eugenics for the rich! They're the only ones who we can identify as genetically gifted in the area. Thank goodness we're not getting out-bred by the bible-thumpers who don't believe in evolution, right? It's not like the intelligent upper class would avoid having kids.... right!?
Riiiiiight, so while you're doing that some shmuck comes along, sees a bit of land next to a river and finds out he can undercut your greenhouse Minnesota bananas, make a buck, and put you out of business. And all he has to do is piss off LA urbanites who would rather he not irrigate his orchard.
Slashdot Mirror
All your scare mongering doesn't make the Gawker right about their editorial.
At the same time, shouldn't we arrest (or at least monitor) those that could [freaky mutant power]?
Well, no. No we should not.
They have more power than you or I, just the same way that rich people and politicians have more power. Just because they can do things we can't doesn't erode their rights nor does it make them better than us. We are equals in the eyes of the law. That's one of those really important fundamental principals that the nation was founded on. The sort of forward thinking that lead to Washington and Jefferson getting their faces on Rushmore.
And this is why Captain America fought against registration. This "Principles vs. Legitimate Fear" thing is the basis of the civil war arc.
It also applies to a lesser extent to geniuses, athletes, artists, and those with other skills that your or I just don't have.
Mutants can [be] (and in the comics are definitely) a menace and should be registered.
The ones who are menaces should be prosecuted just like everyone else. Our law enforcement needs the tools to handle such situations, which would probably be a lot more than they have now, and in the Marvel universe would probably necessitate the employment of mutants, which is exactly what the registration act enforced. It's the "forced service" part which is simply wrong.
Unless sovereignty comes into play. If there's a legitimate chance that Magneto's army could overthrow the nation, then the gloves come off. Call me Hobbesian, but you can only police what you can control. Once something slips out of that grasp of power, it's a peer and is also out from under the protection of the law. Go to war with those motherfuckers, treat them as an ally, or set up a treaty of some sort.
If he is disabled from developing, his ability develop mentally and socially (socially being a subset of mentally) is disabled, he has no ability to develop his mental capabilities, then I believe it's fair to say that his mental capabilities are impacted, reduced, diminished, less than optimal, that he is in a state of being in which his mental fortitude is not well. With some work and effort, and a shit-ton of time he can perhaps overcome most of it.
It is not disease. It is not communicable. It is through no fault of his own. But you are saying he is not well. That he is unhealthy. That he is ill. And that the illness is mental in nature.
If you consider him disabled, that is.
But no, don't call it a mental illness. That has baggage and implies he's some sort of retard. Call it a "developmental disability". That'll be so much better, and certainly won't come to mean the same thing.
Also, that's exactly what I was talking about. I meant programming computers. The vast majority of people would take one look at assembly and lose their mind. It takes a special sort of person with the right stuff to be able to enjoy coding. And I believe it is the saddest thing in the world that those people are being treated like they have a medical disease.
Fuck the doctors and the diagnosis and the special needs. He's just a nerdy kid.
Sorry. He's your kid. If someone in a labcoat telling you some latin words makes you feel better and helps you cope with the fact that your son is a smart socially-incompetent nerd, then hell, whatever helps. But if I was born in a different time I'd be locked up in a mental ward, so fuck that noise. I dunno, probably ranting too much. Best of luck.
I think you're hurting people with Asperger's Syndrome by saying they have a disability.
Asperger's, nerd, introvert, whatever name you want slap on people, the moment you imply that the don't function as well as other's, that label is going to carry a boat-load of baggage with it. It's the same reason that we don't call people slow->mentally retarded->Special needs anymore. Look at it this way: He has the ability to sit alone in a boring room with boring tasks for hours at a time and not go completely flipping insane. A lot of extroverts just can't do that. We're alone but not lonely.
It'll be rough when they start classifying the jocks under some syndrome or disorder or genetic disease. Poor bastards won't be able to fight it.
Can't wait till they start classifying charismatic types as some sort of spectrum of sociopath. They'll spin that all to hell.
Hopefully once they've assigned some sort of name or label or condition to every little personality trait then we'll be able to accept that people are different, the bell curve is occasionally a bitch, some diversity is a good thing, and we can all just move on.
Even if the encryption is broken, that can be fixed in a later release
"The development of TrueCrypt was ended in 5/2014"
If this is real, there are no more releases. At least not from the original development team. And if they have a court order instructing them to leave vulnerabilities in there, and a gag order restraining them from announcing said vulnerabilities, then they're pretty much up shit creek.
Luckily, it won't take much for someone to pick up the project, fork it, and continue on. And hopefully discover any vulnerabilities. Who knows though, projects being instantly and totally gutted of all the orignal developers don't go so well. I'm not going to do it. This is a pretty big test of the open source community.
The lawyer also said that Rodger was diagnosed with "high-functioning Asperger syndrome" as a child.[50][51]
This. We've been labeled as a mental disorder a while ago.
Yes yes, that's nice and all. Actually it's kind of a dickbag move by an antagonistic atheist with a bone to pick against the religious types and it's this sort of behavior that makes the ignorant religious get in a huff and brews an anti-science sentiment. I get the sentiment, but you're technically wrong.
People certainly "believe" in evolution.
Just the same way that you believe that 1+1=2.
You're not going to say something crazy like you DON'T believe that 1+1=2, right? Cause that's crazy talk. 1+1 obviously = 2.
Can you prove, or show supporting evidence for the fact that 1+1=2?
Blah blah blah Principia Mathematica, which DOES prove that 1+1=2, but it depends on mathmatical axioms that simply have to be presumed to be true. Like the null set axiom: Empty sets can exist. Which is more like saying that the concept of thinking of things has a place to start when want to think about things, but don't have anything to think about yet, but will at some point add a thing to place where you think about things.
If you think that sounds like something approaching philosophy.... yeeeeeeeah...
So get off your high-horse, stop being a dickbag, and realize that while the scientific approach is better, you don't have any room to browbeat religious people.
Jellomizer: [I don't want to hear about the NSA's transgressions. Why couldn't he blow the whistle internally?
digsbo: This has repeatedly been shown to be impossible.
It is only impossible, because no one is willing to try to solve the problem.
Excuse me?
Snowden tried several times to "raise the alarm" going through official internal channels.
Let's take a look at another whistle blower in the NSA's history:
Thomas Drake "worked his way through the legal processes that are prescribed for government employees who believe that questionable activities are taking place in their departments"... worked with Roark who notified her superior, then-Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Porter Goss, William Rehnquist, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel David Addington.
Roark got no response.
It has been tried. The internal channels HAVE FAILED. Repeatedly. You are just plain wrong on this one.
The opponents to the NSA wants everything public anyways
Where the fuck did you get that from?
THIS "opponent to the NSA" just wants them to get a real warrant before snooping on the communication between US citizens, "metadata" or otherwise. I demand this because it's constitutionally illegal to do otherwise. A secret court with no oversight rubber-stamping mass surveillance every year doesn't count, is invalid, and makes the program illegal. (Also, it'd be nice if they treated foreigners the same way, but I have less hope for that)
MicahRaleigh - Red Flag: Failure to identify conflicting requirements. Failure to even read requirements. Shits-Easy syndrome - NO HIRE
Sticky seats.
Think about it. Now think about the last time you took a bus.
Also, what exactly is keeping this more efficient system of everyone using the same car from being put into place with taxis? The only difference between this new system you're envisioning and what we could have now is the wage of the taxi driver.
I'm all for a more efficient use, but some people are going to want to own their own car so they can use it whenever they want and know what the interior is going to be like.
And I think that the owner of the car should be liable for the behavior of the car.
Wow, that'd be a lot like trusting people to mod their car and add spinning rims, or spoilers, or monster truck wheels, or a turbo, or a tinted windows. I hear a few people do that sort of thing if they're into it.
Or if it's as simple as tweaking the NO_SPEEDING flag to zero, it's more like trusting people to replace their own brake pads.
There's always a risk that they could fuck it up, I guess. But I think you're craving a nanny-state a bit too much. So yeah, go freedom and stuff.
If the vendor pays, then the vendor owns the brain in the car you bought rather than YOU owning the brain in YOUR car.
They will make modding the car illegal as they own it. And if they are liable for it's misbehavior, that even makes sense.
Do you want to live in a world where you own your property?
Or would you prefer to rent a license from the corporate overlords?
They have curves, everyone wants to get their hands on them, and their size has social status impact.
People learn how to handle them when they're teenagers.
Some are full of plastic.
In some cases, if you squeeze them, juices come out.
Sex is an easy sell. Give it to a marketer, they could work their magic and spin that statement into a full-fledged ad campaign.
This is +5 insightful?
Easy to say when you are not the one at the pointy end of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.
Yeah, the lawsuit makes it even easier. But as a potential customer I too prefer companies that don't feel the need to censor their own employees from talking about the products they make.
Let me make that clear: A healthy company that makes good products should be confidant that their employees can bitch and moan about whatever failings they can find with the product and still know that the product is well made, or at least that the problems have been dealt with correctly.
If the public comments of the employee are brought up in court, the company should be able to justify those comments:
"Yes your honor, Mr. Bob called the transmission of leaky cock-sucking sonnovabitch, and that falls in line with our public announcement on April 3rd about the a potential recall and memos to our dealers. There are problems and we dealt with them"
As much as I'd like to see engineers speaking freely about problems, the consequences of doing so can be catastrophic when they don't know what they are doing. And I don't know too many engineers who are up to date on their product liability law.
They're the engineer working on the problem, they are THEE expert on the subject. The company is liable for problems with the product. Not just problems that are found and proven in court, they are liable for ALL problems. The fact that the engineer might show where those problems are just brings such things to light. If you're operating with the presumption that a lot of shit and crap product will simply never be discovered, then you're running a scam and lying to your customers.
Fact is that NO lawyer worth his retainer would agree with you.
A lawyer wouldn't agree that companies trying to cover up their failings are shit? What?
I think you're trying to say that no lawyer would want engineers saying anything to anybody. That makes sense as it makes their job easier. If a lawyer ran the business, all communication would go through the legal department. But it does nothing to give me faith in the output of a company. Indeed, the deeper the lawyers have their hooks into a company, the less I trust said company.
There are VERY good reasons why companies tend to only let a few, carefully selected people who know what they are doing speak for the company.
You're right, but only from the perspective of the quarterly profits and legal fees. And that dominates our corporate culture. And so every company has an iron curtain between the makers and the users.
There are also very good reasons to let the engineers speak freely. It makes for a better product when the product managers know that anything they try and rush out the door will quickly come to light and reflect poorly on them. It lets the engineers have a bit more pride in what they do. It let's engineers make the thing that customers want. And it would make customers have more faith in the product and they'd BUY MORE. Unless, of course, the product is shit.
And you can't murder anyone.
Oh wait, that's already illegal. As is mucking about on other people's property and a bunch of other actions that are generally dickish in nature.
It's like we don't need special rules about what is and is not a "protest" because it shouldn't fucking matter and the "free speech zone" includes all of the USA.
His first example in the New Yorker was how the NSA thwarted Basaaly Moalin.
Some background: Basaaly Moalin emailed Najibullah Zazi asking how to make a bomb. Zazi was already under FBI investigation. The NSA is scanning all email traffic, finds the word "bomb" in this email, and they foward this to the FBI, and they go forward from there. The two end up arrested.
This is a good turn of events. Bravo FBI for doing a good job. We are not saying that this is a bad thing, nor are we saying that these things should not be investigated.
What we want is for them to get a warrant before scanning all the email. The FBI was already investigating him for some reason. Would it have been that hard to ask a judge first? Someone sent a clear-text email to a person under investigation asking how to make a bomb. You don't need a complete dragnet of all the populaces communication to go find that terrorist. We have perfectly legal tools written into the bloody constitution about how you're supposed to go about this. USE THEM.
Around 9/11, we intercepted some of [the hijackers’] calls, but we couldn’t see where they came from. So guys like [Khalid al-]Mihdhar, [one of the 9/11 hijackers who was living] in California—we knew he was calling people connected to Al Qaeda in Yemen.
That sounds like a REAL EASY case to get a warrant for. "Hey judge, there's this guy calling Al Qaeda. We intercepted his phone call going from point A to point B and we'd like to ask the phone companies where those points are. You know, so we can keep tabs on where the terrorist cells are calling from. Just might be coming from within the states. ... Yeah, I know right? Just like that scene 'the call is coming from inside the house!'. That'd be funny if we weren't talking about thousands of dead people. So mother-may-I-gimme a warrant already."
And they’re going to say, Well, you eliminated all the tools to catch the terrorists!
We want to remind you that the tools need to require you to jump through a hoop, just like the RAS you described in your example. You need your tools. But you must jump through the legal hoop.
We saw what happened when Edgar Hoover had his dragnet on everyone. It didn't turn out well. And we certainly can't trust you with similar power.
So.... just to throw this out there. Why the presumption that Amazon's new hires will be 75% male?
Iowa
We're looking for a C programmer with some DO-178 chops.
Hit me up, I get a small bonus.
Yeah, I'd say that sql isn't that big of a deal anymore because it's ubiquitous, and easy to work with. Picking it up as a skillset is akin to learning how to script or use regex.
Big companies that live and breath data do indeed hire their own DBAs to manage it. Or a non-SQL alternative. Because it's that important. For them.
But I think you're focused a little too much on web-dev. Sure, for webdev I'd say SQL is a requirement. But for game developers, embedded developers, robotics, AI, test engineers, anything Labview, library develoeprs, etc... A lot of programmers don't even interact with servers.
You said "most programmers..." when you probably should have started with "most webDevs...."
First off, this reeks WAY too much of that bullshit stock question: On a scale of ten where would you rate yourself
8. Everyone is an 8. If you're not an 8, you've probably got issues of one type or another.
As for the actual question, you don't have to know jack fucking shit to get hired by an incompetent manager, dodge all responsibility for as long as you can, and then bail. It happens. People with literally zero experience show up, talk a good talk, and land jobs. Their resume is full of lies and the company doesn't verify.
I know of one case where the guy was desperate for a paycheck and landed an IT gig. During the day he logged everyone's problems, but he was "real busy putting out fires, I'll get to you tomorrow". After work and at night he would learn the shit out of the thing he was asked about and he'd come in fix the thing the next day. He's lead dev at a company now. Eventually you don't have to fake it.
Now, anywhere I work, and have any sort of sway over the hiring process, I'm going to demand that you at least pass a simple coding quiz to weed out the worst offenders. My manager actually asked me for such a test. I pulled this out of my ass. What do you guys think?
In the language of your choice or in pseudocode please provide a solution to the following stub: /*
reverses the string for every sentence.
Ex input: “My test. It works ok.” 21
Ex result: “test My. ok works It.”
*/
void reverseSentence(char* str, int sizeStr)
{
}
After he gets done ask:
-What are the discrepancies in the requirements as stated?
-How would you resolve them?
-What are the undefined cases?
(“reverse the string” is not the same thing as reversing the sentence structure as shown in the examples. And it doesn’t really define what a sentence is.
It says nothing about what to do when there are no periods, or when sizeStr is zero.)
It doesn't really matter how you solve it, as long as you spot the giant glaring pit-trap, and provide some reasonable code to perform what you wanted it to do.
In the end it's actually more a matter of what keywords your have on your resume, how well you can schmooze with HR types and office drones, and how cheap you're willing to work. Sorry if that comes off as cynical, but I'd rather be cynical and true than naive and wrong.
comments like these.
Well yes, that's how it works. Flamebait gets modded as flamebait. If you find that all the posts like this one are being modded similarly, it just means that the modding isn't some statistical outlier and that the masses have a consensus for what they consider "flamebait".
If you teach a 10 year old to write "code", that won't help them in 8 or 10 years time when they try to apply for a job. The "code" technology will have moved on in that time,
Sure, unless you teach them C.
Here, I've got a good rant about this:
BOW DOWN MORTALS Before the one true language. The Ur-language that ushers in all the false idols. The Most Holy of relics...
C
The old gods are calling. Can you hear them? It's the sound of inevitability as the young usurpers weep into their transient drinks feeling their lifeblood leak away like so much memory. What pidly followers they amassed will blow away like so much dust. And where do they turn when all they hold dear is cast about on shifting sands? The stable bedrock of C.
LOOK UPON IT'S MAJESTY and look upon your EVERYTHING and you will see it staring back at you. Your Linux, your arduinos, your Rasberry Pis, your toaster, your fridge. We are the ones who cook your food. We are the ones who drive your cars. We are the ones who hand-carry your garbage when your program closes. DO NOT fuck with us.
Just high enough above the metal to be portable as all fucking get out and low enough slide through that silicon like greased lightning. This IS your grand-daddies programming language because he knew his shit. The experience of GENERATIONS is out there and honestly eager to help. Ask on stack overflow about how the shareponit widget gets shuffled by the flub API in the .WHORE framework and you'll have a couple crickets for company. But ask for some fluent C and the fucking CHOIR comes out to play.
C is the language to learn my friends. It gets you where you need to be. It's not the last language you want to learn, but it's certainly the one you want to sharpen. Hone that to a razor edge and you can cut any problem down to size. And that's no Turing tarpit. I may program in Brainfuck and Malbolge for shits'n'giggles, but C is the workhorse of solving real meaningful problems. Bash glues yesterday's solutions together, and some pretty GUI-maker can make yet another button for a clueless suit, but you whip out C for the hard cases.
#include "stdio.h"
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
printf("Bro, do you even code?\n");
return 0;
}
That.... actually makes a bit of sense and I understand how a judge could see it that way.
So if Google wants their fork to interface just like Oracles, they should take a clean-room approach and have all the API's function exactly the same way, but without being derived from Oracle's source.
And they have to function EXACTLY like the one they're copying. That's the entire point of using a standard API. If that aspect is copyrightable, the content of the API of how things interface to other things, then this is sheer madness.
Unfortunately, it's still legal.
(1) Intelligence is 80% heritable
Neat. I think you're talking about this stuff. It says researchers have put the heritability of IQ between 0.5 and 0.8. However, Turkheimer (2003) found that for children of low socioeconomic status heritability of IQ falls almost to zero. CITATION, BITCH.
See the link to heritability:
Heritability measures the fraction of phenotype variability that can be attributed to genetic variation. This is not the same as saying that this fraction of an individual phenotype is caused by genetics. In addition, heritability can change without any genetic change occurring (e.g. when the environment starts contributing to more variation). A case in point, consider that both genes and environment have the potential to influence intelligence. Heritability could increase if genetic variation increases, causing individuals to show more phenotypic variation (e.g. to show different levels of intelligence). On the other hand, heritability might also increase if the environmental variation decreases, causing individuals to show less phenotypic variation (e.g. to show more similar levels of intelligence). Heritability is increasing because genetics are contributing more variation or because non-genetic factors are contributing less variation; what matters is the relative contribution.
Key point: Heritability goes up and down depending on the environment. The environmental variation is completely dominant for the poor. Go figure, it sucks being poor and it's hard to go get your life on track.
But hey, I'm sure Ag school taught you all sorts of important things that are very useful for raising crops. It's not quite sociology however, so you might want to take your lessons with a grain of salt.
This does kind of lead to a unsettling conclusion: Eugenics for the rich! They're the only ones who we can identify as genetically gifted in the area. Thank goodness we're not getting out-bred by the bible-thumpers who don't believe in evolution, right? It's not like the intelligent upper class would avoid having kids.... right!?
Riiiiiight, so while you're doing that some shmuck comes along, sees a bit of land next to a river and finds out he can undercut your greenhouse Minnesota bananas, make a buck, and put you out of business. And all he has to do is piss off LA urbanites who would rather he not irrigate his orchard.
And so the world turns.