If it had been truly as you said, they would have *replaced* the headphone jack with a more modern digital alternative that had at least some promise of ubiquity, such as a usb-c port.
The difference between removal of the headphone jack and the removal of ps/2 ports is that taking away the ps/2 ports on many PC's didn't usually completely remove the ability to have any other things connected to your computer while using usb keyboards or mice because there were often 4 or more usb ports available on a system anyways. I can appreciate the notion that the headphone jack may be an obsolete piece of technology (although I don't personally subscribe to the belief, I can at least appreciate where it is coming from), but in reality, it would have made far more sense from this perspective for Apple to have *replaced* the headphone jack with a usb-c connector than to have simply removed it entirely, and apparently expected people who otherwise wanted to use it to gang everything up on the lightning connector or els
And for that matter, do the lightning headphones that come with the iPhone even have a pass-thru lightning connector, or are you seriously expected to not be able to charge and use wired headphones at the same time? At the very least, there are accessibility implications here, which could become a human rights issue except for the fact that people who might otherwise be impacted in this way are unlikely to be actually *forced* to use an iPhone.
Actually, experts know that for small-sized data sets (typically less than 20, but ymmv), bubble sort is often the fastest sorting algorithm there is on account of how simple the instructions are to implement bubble sort compared to most other sorting algorithms, as well as being very cache-friendly to boot.
In reality, it is unlikely that you are solving any of their problems by showing that you can implement a bubble sort in real code. You are showing that a) you can solve the problem, and b) that you actually *do* know how to translate that solution into actual code, and that they don't accidentally hire somebody who simply says they know how to program but doesn't actually. Sure they'd get fired within days if not mere hours, but there can still be whole fucking lot of paperwork to have to fill out that can be saved if they just know whether or not the person can actually do the job they want *before* they hire them.
The point of an exercise like implementing a bubble sort algorithm is not to do something that you are regularly going to be expected to do on the job, the point is to test whether or not you have the necessary skill to figure out how to solve such problems on the spot even if you *DON'T* remember how, exactly, it might be implemented. Trivial algorithms such as bubble sort or merge sort are really good benchmarks in this regard because few programmers bother memorizing their exact implementation, and most skilled ones can spontaneously reimplement one from a general recall of only certain key points about the algorithm.
If you can show that you know how to solve problems that others might have already done, without having to depend on other people or other libraries to do all the work for you, then you have demonstrated at least having some of the skill that is generally likely to be highly transferable to solving new kinds of problems that nobody else has encountered before. Due almost certainly to the time constraints of an interview, they aren't likely to ask you to implement an algorithm that you might be expected to do on the job in a programming interview.
The answer to your question would therefore be at best a simple "no", and at worst, "thank you for your interest in this company, we hope you find success elsewhere".
I find parameterized queries a pain to test and troubleshoot on some platforms because you cannot see the actual SQL the RDBMS is using. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I'm disappointed with them.
You're right....
You're doing it wrong. Prepared statements are absurdly easy in any remotely modern rdbms, often even cheaper and easier than constructing the entire sql string yourself.
Not necessarily... even an independent contractor can be expected to do a job for the client at a rate the client has specified or else not get the job for that client at all. You can argue that an independent contractor could still negotiate their price, but if the client doesn't want to negotiate, then that's still exactly the same story.
If Uber workers were independent contractors, then Uber, in this case, would be the driver's client, not the passengers, and Uber, as it happens, has specified the rate they are willing to pay. Dissatisfaction with how much one is making by no means any kind of pre-requisite for being an employee.
If, however, Uber workers were truly independent contractors, they could freely subcontract other drivers to drive multiple passengers at the same time and get paid for all of them (and presumably pay their own drivers a percentage of the rate that Uber offers per ride). Uber disallows this however, thereby exercising too much control over the work that their drivers do, and clearly placing them in the category of employee.
How much the workers make and how they cannot negotiate the price with the passengers is as far removed from what makes them employees as is imaginable, because actual independent contractors could easily be in the exact same situation. If an independent contractor can't find work at a rate that is satisfactory to them, then that is not the fault of those who might otherwise hire them, and does not make them employees when they happen to accept a job they are only taking because nobody else has jobs for them.
Uber is far from the only company guilty of this... MLM's come to mind as one other noteworthy category of companies that do it constantly.... it's clearly not illegal, or else many MLM's would not exist.
I make a point of buying viscous products in flat-topped containers, but standing the bottle upside down is a poor alternative even for those wide-topped ketchup bottles that are designed to be stored that way.
If they are designed to be stored that way, then they aren't being stored upside down in the first place, are they? If the writing on the bottle appears right-side up, but the opening for dispensing is on the bottom, how can you say that it is being stored upside down?
You may, however, have to manipulate the bottle to be upside down briefly while you are opening and closing it in order to have some control over exactly how much of the contents you dispense.
While I'm sure you are right that it is not what they mean, it most definitely is what they said. They said "each" without qualifying it with "average", and as such have said something that at best is simply factually false, and at worst just plain confusing.
For example, while it's true that there is an average of approximately one human testicle per human being, it is ludicrous to think that each human has one testicle.
Except for the fact that the Firefly 'verse had "dozens of planets and hundreds of moons", sure. I'd say that to measure up to that, it would need at least 3 or 4 times as many rocky worlds as they've found in what seems to the habitable zone in the Trappist system, and probably have another dozen or two of gas giants in the habitable zone as well.
No, it would still not be true... because the headline says that iPhone Owners in US spent $40 *EACH* on Apps... so even if the average amount spent on apps by iPhone owners was $40, it is entirely false to say that they *each* spent that amount.
Would *you* risk getting detained for an indefinite period, however illegally, just because you want to assert that your constitutional rights are being violated? Of course I can appreciate the sentiment behind what you are saying, but people are bending over and taking this kind of crap at the borders not because they particularly *want* any appearance of increased security, but because they just want to fucking go home, and cooperating fully with the border agents, even the ones who might abuse their position, and even if your rights are being violated, is generally expected to be the most expedient path to that end.
Your old adage is a reasonable first assumption, but like any generalization, is riddled with exceptions. In the end, the only way to actually tell is to research it yourself.
Oracle vs Google re: the Java API comes to mind as one noteworthy example...
But what, exactly, makes their use of this work "fair"? They rebroadcasted the work without permission of the copyright holder, and I'm not sure they even acknowledged the copyright holder in their rebroadcast. Unless facebook live's terms of usage states that they own the content that is uploaded to it, I think that the guy's copyright was most definitely infringed.
If allowing the public to access your content means that you can no longer exert copyright control over it, then that means that every single open source license ever invented has just been shut down cold.
Eugenics became a dirty word because of Nazis, who would improve humanity by killing off the "degenerates". But there is nothing wrong with improving the human stock per se..
Perhaps not, except for the fact that if you *don't* "kill off the degenerates", then they will continually breed with your so-called "improved stock", defeating any attempts to improve them over the course of generations, unless you legislate mandatory sterilization for absolutely everyone that does not fit certain criteria, which itself poses no small ethical problem for those that might consider it... Perhaps almost ironically, it has much in common with the ethical problems created by outlawing abortion.
Nothing in the definition of property necessitates that it should necessarily be physical or tangible, that is a wholly arbitrary distinction that you have randomly chosen to apply to it.... The only criteria for property is that it belongs to someone... and at best the only reason why the exclusivity of control would not be considered property is because perhaps you, personally, do not recognize it as such.... but because that exclusivity is entirely the point of having copyright in the first place, the law recognizes that this exclusivity *does* belong to the copyright holder, and so any unauthorized copying of their works amounts to theft of that property to a commensurate degree. You can steal cable and internet bandwidth, for example... neither of these have any tangible component, but they are the property of those who have rightful access to them, and as such can most *definitely* still be stolen.
Uber's drivers are prohibited from subcontracting others to do multiple jobs for them at the same time, so uber is exerting too much control over them, causing the drivers to be employees.
Last time I checked, nobody was turning copyright into a mechanism for human trafficking. Trying to point out flaws in a position by likening them to an entirely different position that a person wasn't ever actually trying to make is pretty much a strawman argument.
Perhaps you didn't read my entire post.... since I attempted to show how, exactly that exclusivity of control was the property of the copyright holder.
Theft - the unlawful deprivation from the rightful owner of some of their lawfully recognized property.
Copyright infringement - the unlawful deprivation from the rightful owner of some measure of exclusivity of control over who may copy a work. This exclusivity is supposed to be part of copyright, and so is rightfully the property of the copyright holder. You can hardly say that the copyright holder has just as much exclusivity of control over who may copy a work if somebody copies the work without authorization because by definition, exclusive means that nobody else is doing it.
So how, exactly, is copyright infringement not theft?
I agree, but the solution to that is to address the moral rights that the public have to public domain works... to write letters to representatives and to educate more people to do likewise, not to go and infringe on copyright. All that taking the latter approach will do is make the rights holders push harder and harder at trying to enforce their rights, resulting in increased inconvenience for everyone. DRM, anyone? It perpetuates an arms race that nobody is going to win.
As "exclusive" means that nobody else is doing it, if you want to be literal, then yes. While Microsoft still owns the copyright, unauthorized copying *does* deprive them of some measure of the exclusivity that copyright is *supposed* to have.
Slashdot Mirror
If it had been truly as you said, they would have *replaced* the headphone jack with a more modern digital alternative that had at least some promise of ubiquity, such as a usb-c port.
The difference between removal of the headphone jack and the removal of ps/2 ports is that taking away the ps/2 ports on many PC's didn't usually completely remove the ability to have any other things connected to your computer while using usb keyboards or mice because there were often 4 or more usb ports available on a system anyways. I can appreciate the notion that the headphone jack may be an obsolete piece of technology (although I don't personally subscribe to the belief, I can at least appreciate where it is coming from), but in reality, it would have made far more sense from this perspective for Apple to have *replaced* the headphone jack with a usb-c connector than to have simply removed it entirely, and apparently expected people who otherwise wanted to use it to gang everything up on the lightning connector or els
And for that matter, do the lightning headphones that come with the iPhone even have a pass-thru lightning connector, or are you seriously expected to not be able to charge and use wired headphones at the same time? At the very least, there are accessibility implications here, which could become a human rights issue except for the fact that people who might otherwise be impacted in this way are unlikely to be actually *forced* to use an iPhone.
So, no.... they do not.
In reality, it is unlikely that you are solving any of their problems by showing that you can implement a bubble sort in real code. You are showing that a) you can solve the problem, and b) that you actually *do* know how to translate that solution into actual code, and that they don't accidentally hire somebody who simply says they know how to program but doesn't actually. Sure they'd get fired within days if not mere hours, but there can still be whole fucking lot of paperwork to have to fill out that can be saved if they just know whether or not the person can actually do the job they want *before* they hire them.
The point of an exercise like implementing a bubble sort algorithm is not to do something that you are regularly going to be expected to do on the job, the point is to test whether or not you have the necessary skill to figure out how to solve such problems on the spot even if you *DON'T* remember how, exactly, it might be implemented. Trivial algorithms such as bubble sort or merge sort are really good benchmarks in this regard because few programmers bother memorizing their exact implementation, and most skilled ones can spontaneously reimplement one from a general recall of only certain key points about the algorithm.
If you can show that you know how to solve problems that others might have already done, without having to depend on other people or other libraries to do all the work for you, then you have demonstrated at least having some of the skill that is generally likely to be highly transferable to solving new kinds of problems that nobody else has encountered before. Due almost certainly to the time constraints of an interview, they aren't likely to ask you to implement an algorithm that you might be expected to do on the job in a programming interview.
The answer to your question would therefore be at best a simple "no", and at worst, "thank you for your interest in this company, we hope you find success elsewhere".
You're right....
You're doing it wrong. Prepared statements are absurdly easy in any remotely modern rdbms, often even cheaper and easier than constructing the entire sql string yourself.
Not necessarily... even an independent contractor can be expected to do a job for the client at a rate the client has specified or else not get the job for that client at all. You can argue that an independent contractor could still negotiate their price, but if the client doesn't want to negotiate, then that's still exactly the same story.
If Uber workers were independent contractors, then Uber, in this case, would be the driver's client, not the passengers, and Uber, as it happens, has specified the rate they are willing to pay. Dissatisfaction with how much one is making by no means any kind of pre-requisite for being an employee.
If, however, Uber workers were truly independent contractors, they could freely subcontract other drivers to drive multiple passengers at the same time and get paid for all of them (and presumably pay their own drivers a percentage of the rate that Uber offers per ride). Uber disallows this however, thereby exercising too much control over the work that their drivers do, and clearly placing them in the category of employee.
How much the workers make and how they cannot negotiate the price with the passengers is as far removed from what makes them employees as is imaginable, because actual independent contractors could easily be in the exact same situation. If an independent contractor can't find work at a rate that is satisfactory to them, then that is not the fault of those who might otherwise hire them, and does not make them employees when they happen to accept a job they are only taking because nobody else has jobs for them.
Uber is far from the only company guilty of this... MLM's come to mind as one other noteworthy category of companies that do it constantly.... it's clearly not illegal, or else many MLM's would not exist.
Head and Shoulders makes shampoo bottles that dispense from the bottom. There may be others, but I have definitely seen that one.
If they are designed to be stored that way, then they aren't being stored upside down in the first place, are they? If the writing on the bottle appears right-side up, but the opening for dispensing is on the bottom, how can you say that it is being stored upside down?
You may, however, have to manipulate the bottle to be upside down briefly while you are opening and closing it in order to have some control over exactly how much of the contents you dispense.
While I'm sure you are right that it is not what they mean, it most definitely is what they said. They said "each" without qualifying it with "average", and as such have said something that at best is simply factually false, and at worst just plain confusing.
For example, while it's true that there is an average of approximately one human testicle per human being, it is ludicrous to think that each human has one testicle.
Except for the fact that the Firefly 'verse had "dozens of planets and hundreds of moons", sure. I'd say that to measure up to that, it would need at least 3 or 4 times as many rocky worlds as they've found in what seems to the habitable zone in the Trappist system, and probably have another dozen or two of gas giants in the habitable zone as well.
No, it would still not be true... because the headline says that iPhone Owners in US spent $40 *EACH* on Apps... so even if the average amount spent on apps by iPhone owners was $40, it is entirely false to say that they *each* spent that amount.
Would *you* risk getting detained for an indefinite period, however illegally, just because you want to assert that your constitutional rights are being violated? Of course I can appreciate the sentiment behind what you are saying, but people are bending over and taking this kind of crap at the borders not because they particularly *want* any appearance of increased security, but because they just want to fucking go home, and cooperating fully with the border agents, even the ones who might abuse their position, and even if your rights are being violated, is generally expected to be the most expedient path to that end.
Your old adage is a reasonable first assumption, but like any generalization, is riddled with exceptions. In the end, the only way to actually tell is to research it yourself.
Oracle vs Google re: the Java API comes to mind as one noteworthy example...
But what, exactly, makes their use of this work "fair"? They rebroadcasted the work without permission of the copyright holder, and I'm not sure they even acknowledged the copyright holder in their rebroadcast. Unless facebook live's terms of usage states that they own the content that is uploaded to it, I think that the guy's copyright was most definitely infringed.
If allowing the public to access your content means that you can no longer exert copyright control over it, then that means that every single open source license ever invented has just been shut down cold.
Perhaps not, except for the fact that if you *don't* "kill off the degenerates", then they will continually breed with your so-called "improved stock", defeating any attempts to improve them over the course of generations, unless you legislate mandatory sterilization for absolutely everyone that does not fit certain criteria, which itself poses no small ethical problem for those that might consider it... Perhaps almost ironically, it has much in common with the ethical problems created by outlawing abortion.
Nothing in the definition of property necessitates that it should necessarily be physical or tangible, that is a wholly arbitrary distinction that you have randomly chosen to apply to it.... The only criteria for property is that it belongs to someone... and at best the only reason why the exclusivity of control would not be considered property is because perhaps you, personally, do not recognize it as such.... but because that exclusivity is entirely the point of having copyright in the first place, the law recognizes that this exclusivity *does* belong to the copyright holder, and so any unauthorized copying of their works amounts to theft of that property to a commensurate degree. You can steal cable and internet bandwidth, for example... neither of these have any tangible component, but they are the property of those who have rightful access to them, and as such can most *definitely* still be stolen.
Uber's drivers are prohibited from subcontracting others to do multiple jobs for them at the same time, so uber is exerting too much control over them, causing the drivers to be employees.
Last time I checked, nobody was turning copyright into a mechanism for human trafficking. Trying to point out flaws in a position by likening them to an entirely different position that a person wasn't ever actually trying to make is pretty much a strawman argument.
Perhaps you didn't read my entire post.... since I attempted to show how, exactly that exclusivity of control was the property of the copyright holder.
Theft - the unlawful deprivation from the rightful owner of some of their lawfully recognized property.
Copyright infringement - the unlawful deprivation from the rightful owner of some measure of exclusivity of control over who may copy a work. This exclusivity is supposed to be part of copyright, and so is rightfully the property of the copyright holder. You can hardly say that the copyright holder has just as much exclusivity of control over who may copy a work if somebody copies the work without authorization because by definition, exclusive means that nobody else is doing it.
So how, exactly, is copyright infringement not theft?
I agree, but the solution to that is to address the moral rights that the public have to public domain works... to write letters to representatives and to educate more people to do likewise, not to go and infringe on copyright. All that taking the latter approach will do is make the rights holders push harder and harder at trying to enforce their rights, resulting in increased inconvenience for everyone. DRM, anyone? It perpetuates an arms race that nobody is going to win.
As "exclusive" means that nobody else is doing it, if you want to be literal, then yes. While Microsoft still owns the copyright, unauthorized copying *does* deprive them of some measure of the exclusivity that copyright is *supposed* to have.