Now you could 1 base the indexes, where x[1] resolves to address of x, but the implementation of that is:
x + 1 - 1, and x[y] in general becomes x + y - 1
Or you can create a second value called
x_base=x-1
and instead of computing
x+1-1
you compute
x_base+1
with no extra subtraction and now you count like humans do.
That's going to be true for any language, and the question is posed to every language designer: either the programmer counts from zero, or every array access in the language has a subtraction added to it.
soon it will be easy to do anything that can be efficiently parallelized.
...on a SIMD architecure. GPUs still run the same program (or at best a few programs) over groups of cores. GPUs are quite a bit aways from supporting multicore style MIMD parallelism.
If the person was the wrong person for the job then improve your recruiting program.
Spoken like a true noob that never had to hire anyone. Hiring is imperfect even under the best of circumstances. You don't believe me? the best hiring process known to man, which takes several years of assessments, relies in numerous tests, and candidates are chosen by a dedicated committee of experts whose compensation is directly tied to performance often results in disastrous hires. It is called the sports draft and every year there are plenty of draft busts in all sports. If those people with (comparatively) unlimited resources still make mistakes, what hope does a company have on a one day interview? Bad people will be hired, that is a fact of life.
It's actually the complete opposite. Applying numbers to a subjective measure forces you to tease out biases and explicitly state the reasons behind your subjective conclusions. Placing numbers to it is the best thing you can do provided you remember where the numbers came from and keep in mind at all times how noisy they can be, so you never follow them blindly.
Stack ranking works great if you use it to get rid of the bottom 1% every year. Surely in a department with 100 people there is at least one hire who didn't turn out great.
The problem is when it is applied at a 10% threshold. It is not hard after a few hiring/firing rounds to end up with teams of over 10 people all of which are very good, yet stack ranking still demands that you fire the "bottom" perfectly OK person-decile.
This is exactly why I liked 3D in this movie (I'm a 3D hater too). It wasn't on your face the entire time reminding you every other scene about how they can get things to fly at you.
The script is weak, but the minimalist aspects of it are interesting. The movie has exactly two actors plus a handful of voices over the radio.
Indeed several people survived the Indian Ocean tsunami while in a small fishermen boat just a few miles off shore from areas that were completely devastated. They described a minor brow passing under them, without even realizing that it was a major tsunami.
Same holds for the massive Sanriku Tsunami in 1896: "Fishermen twenty miles out to sea didn't notice the wave pass under their boats because it only had a height at the time of about fifteen inches,"
This. I'm one of those people who naturally works in "duck mode". All cool on the surface, a shit storm under water. Usually only around a year or two after I join a team does higher management realizes how much I got done, and more importantly how much I managed to get my team to do, by coaching, inspiring and cajoling.
I've never worked in a stack rank place, but if I ever did, I don't think I would last long enough to prove my worth.
I wonder why you forgot to mention that solar is on a Moore's Law-like curve, and hence already cheaper today than some sources of energy in use today and expected to be cheaper than most sources of energy within a decade.
Word on the street is that AT&T billings for intelligence related activities were around $2 billion a year total, between FBI NSA, CIA and other security organizations.
Except that the Surface Pro is not a tablet. I hate the thing (I have a company provided one), but a regardless of my dislike for the thing a Surface Pro is a laplet, that is, a laptop/tablet hybrid not tablet.
Around here we saw a similar astroturf campaign agains wind power. Call in radio shows were full of irate "farmers" complaining against wind mills. I spent a week in the region talking to actual farmers and they were all in favor of wind mills. They average farmer here earns somewhere between $30K-100K of rental income from the windmill companies and they couldn't be more thrilled about it.
Usage patterns like those you describe hold for milder climates like the New England and Northern Europe. For sunnier climes the peak occurs in the middle of the day when the temperature goes up and ACs work overtime. As well, one could program the residential ACs to come on around noon and lower tto 50-60F by 4pm.
By the time people come home it would be back up to around 70F with no further demands at night since temperature drops rapidly past 5pm in Winter. In the summer this is not a problem since sunset is later which allows home ACs to run for an extra hour or two on solar.
Right, because majority opinion has always been a reliable way to judge the quality of something, e.g. bell bottom pants, mullets, Justin Bieber, George W. Bush.
Part of the problem is that a critic can sit down for two hours watch a movie and write a meaningful review. This is not possible when it comes to software.
Let me use a real life example: I was an early proponent of Java since my first few interactions with it in 1994 were positive. Only when I was is deep in the bowels of the beast did I start to see the problems: flawed parameter passing model, the "everything has to be an object" religion (which ironically is violated by built in data types), the "you must write a preamble bigger than COBOL's to have a well designed piece of code", the horrible graphics library that if first shipped with, etc.
After that I realized that maybe moving to Java is not such a good idea after all. I think the popularity of C#/Haskell/Scala/C++11/Python are a result of this realization.
Can we do away with the "correlation vs causation" meme every time someone quotes a study? This might be news to you but 99% of scientists already know this and control for it. But more importantly, in matters like this a correlation is enough to stop building until a proper explanation path is developed.
Actually every experimental deep geothermal hole we've dug so far had measurable impacts on geyser an even earthquake activity. I believe in geothermal as a great source of energy, but evidence thus far suggests we should proceed with caution.
But they are more directional, counteracting the broadband effect. Plus are there really any observatories near NYC? I think you are just complaining for complaining sake.
Slashdot Mirror
Now you could 1 base the indexes, where x[1] resolves to address of x, but the implementation of that is:
x + 1 - 1, and x[y] in general becomes x + y - 1
Or you can create a second value called
x_base=x-1
and instead of computing
x+1-1
you compute
x_base+1
with no extra subtraction and now you count like humans do.
That's going to be true for any language, and the question is posed to every language designer: either the programmer counts from zero, or every array access in the language has a subtraction added to it.
Oops.
how about
if (parityA=(parityB xor parityC))
is that an extra bug? of course not. It's a buggy construct which luckily gets caught often by the type checker, but still shouldn't be there.
Any language that states as a goal: omission or elimination of potentially-harmful constructs, but keeps the awful C construct:
...
if (x = 3)
{
}
is not really serious about elimination of harmful constructs.
soon it will be easy to do anything that can be efficiently parallelized.
...on a SIMD architecure. GPUs still run the same program (or at best a few programs) over groups of cores. GPUs are quite a bit aways from supporting multicore style MIMD parallelism.
If the person was the wrong person for the job then improve your recruiting program.
Spoken like a true noob that never had to hire anyone. Hiring is imperfect even under the best of circumstances. You don't believe me? the best hiring process known to man, which takes several years of assessments, relies in numerous tests, and candidates are chosen by a dedicated committee of experts whose compensation is directly tied to performance often results in disastrous hires. It is called the sports draft and every year there are plenty of draft busts in all sports. If those people with (comparatively) unlimited resources still make mistakes, what hope does a company have on a one day interview? Bad people will be hired, that is a fact of life.
I think in the beginning, there were plenty of employees that got rich off stock options.
Correct, the number is over a thousand millionaire Microsoft employees from the early days.
It's actually the complete opposite. Applying numbers to a subjective measure forces you to tease out biases and explicitly state the reasons behind your subjective conclusions. Placing numbers to it is the best thing you can do provided you remember where the numbers came from and keep in mind at all times how noisy they can be, so you never follow them blindly.
I said fire 1% rather clearly, the other 5% left of their own accord for whatever reasons (retirement being one of them). It's called churn.
Don't try to let math do your thinking for you (like MS used to and Yahoo is apparently going to start doing).
In a perfect world yes. However sometimes you need strong incentives to have managers do the right thing in a world where time is a finite resource.
If one of your employees didn't work out, deal with it personally and realize it is a one-off event.
It is also less demoralizing if the slackers are let go once a year, as part of a transparent process.
Except that if you use it every year, then the one that didn't turn out great was already fired last year.
Not really. Most departments have enough turn-around that you will be hiring 5 people a year, every year.
Stack ranking works great if you use it to get rid of the bottom 1% every year. Surely in a department with 100 people there is at least one hire who didn't turn out great.
The problem is when it is applied at a 10% threshold. It is not hard after a few hiring/firing rounds to end up with teams of over 10 people all of which are very good, yet stack ranking still demands that you fire the "bottom" perfectly OK person-decile.
This is exactly why I liked 3D in this movie (I'm a 3D hater too). It wasn't on your face the entire time reminding you every other scene about how they can get things to fly at you.
The script is weak, but the minimalist aspects of it are interesting. The movie has exactly two actors plus a handful of voices over the radio.
I'd say it's not proven until they've been up and running at least a decade or so.
Today is your lucky day. From wikipedia:
The Middelgrunden offshore wind farm---with 20 turbines the world's largest offshore farm at the time it was built in 2000
which is more than a decade ago.
Indeed several people survived the Indian Ocean tsunami while in a small fishermen boat just a few miles off shore from areas that were completely devastated. They described a minor brow passing under them, without even realizing that it was a major tsunami.
Same holds for the massive Sanriku Tsunami in 1896: "Fishermen twenty miles out to sea didn't notice the wave pass under their boats because it only had a height at the time of about fifteen inches,"
This. I'm one of those people who naturally works in "duck mode". All cool on the surface, a shit storm under water. Usually only around a year or two after I join a team does higher management realizes how much I got done, and more importantly how much I managed to get my team to do, by coaching, inspiring and cajoling.
I've never worked in a stack rank place, but if I ever did, I don't think I would last long enough to prove my worth.
I wonder why you forgot to mention that solar is on a Moore's Law-like curve, and hence already cheaper today than some sources of energy in use today and expected to be cheaper than most sources of energy within a decade.
http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/renewable-energy/important-graph-cost-solar-headed-parity-coal-and-gas/
Word on the street is that AT&T billings for intelligence related activities were around $2 billion a year total, between FBI NSA, CIA and other security organizations.
Except that the Surface Pro is not a tablet. I hate the thing (I have a company provided one), but a regardless of my dislike for the thing a Surface Pro is a laplet, that is, a laptop/tablet hybrid not tablet.
Around here we saw a similar astroturf campaign agains wind power. Call in radio shows were full of irate "farmers" complaining against wind mills. I spent a week in the region talking to actual farmers and they were all in favor of wind mills. They average farmer here earns somewhere between $30K-100K of rental income from the windmill companies and they couldn't be more thrilled about it.
Usage patterns like those you describe hold for milder climates like the New England and Northern Europe. For sunnier climes the peak occurs in the middle of the day when the temperature goes up and ACs work overtime. As well, one could program the residential ACs to come on around noon and lower tto 50-60F by 4pm.
By the time people come home it would be back up to around 70F with no further demands at night since temperature drops rapidly past 5pm in Winter. In the summer this is not a problem since sunset is later which allows home ACs to run for an extra hour or two on solar.
Right, because majority opinion has always been a reliable way to judge the quality of something, e.g. bell bottom pants, mullets, Justin Bieber, George W. Bush.
Part of the problem is that a critic can sit down for two hours watch a movie and write a meaningful review. This is not possible when it comes to software.
Let me use a real life example: I was an early proponent of Java since my first few interactions with it in 1994 were positive. Only when I was is deep in the bowels of the beast did I start to see the problems: flawed parameter passing model, the "everything has to be an object" religion (which ironically is violated by built in data types), the "you must write a preamble bigger than COBOL's to have a well designed piece of code", the horrible graphics library that if first shipped with, etc.
After that I realized that maybe moving to Java is not such a good idea after all. I think the popularity of C#/Haskell/Scala/C++11/Python are a result of this realization.
Can we do away with the "correlation vs causation" meme every time someone quotes a study? This might be news to you but 99% of scientists already know this and control for it. But more importantly, in matters like this a correlation is enough to stop building until a proper explanation path is developed.
Actually every experimental deep geothermal hole we've dug so far had measurable impacts on geyser an even earthquake activity. I believe in geothermal as a great source of energy, but evidence thus far suggests we should proceed with caution.
But they are more directional, counteracting the broadband effect. Plus are there really any observatories near NYC? I think you are just complaining for complaining sake.