When you start getting contradictory results from tested research, at that moment you need stop what you're doing, go back to the original papers and start over. You keep starting over until you either always agree with one set or results of can never replicate the original test.
Your point about Ty Cobb is meaningless because that's not a control experiment, it's a random, fluctuating experiment, where the variables are always changing. Psychology can and never will be science, it's highly educated nut jobs, guessing randomly and scoped about the mental state of another person.
Well when more then 1/2 of your studies and research can't be repeated, you lose. For instance if I call myself the world best engineer and yet over 1/2 of everything i do is wrong and fails, that would be totally in disagreement.
You're right, science is a process, except that nothing in psychology can fit into a repeatable process. For instance psychology would say something like: "You love your mother because she has tits" or "You feel sad because etc...." , psychology is a way to make excuses about how humans think and function without ever applying a process to the study.
Buzzwords are almost a universal way to prove and demonstrate that you don't understand anything! For instance ask someone who uses the word "Big Data", how much data that means as a size in GB, TB, PB etc... or ask someone to explain "The Cloud". All of these words are stand ins for real concepts that are hard to grasp and hard to learn, so instead of educating yourself and sounding like a professional, you can use words like "Big Data", "Cloud" and countless others, sound intelligent but have no clue what you're talking about. When ever I interview someone for a job at my company, one BIG strike they get against them is for using a buzzword without being about to explain what it means.
Well in that case home school the kid. It's unrealistic to disable WiFi for all students because of a weird, one off medical issue, another student has.
I might of said the wrong channel, big deal, I checked, it's actually 161, also 2.4 vs 5GHz isn't a change of 0.05, it's change of 2.6 GHz. If this kid really has some weird sensitivity to RF, the the only real thing the school can do is to change what band the WiFi operates in. If after changing it to 5 GHz the student is still effected, then kick him out and home school him.
Why not move the WiFi to a different band and channel? For instance at home I run 80 MHz, 5 GHz Chanel 13 running @AC speeds. It this child really does have some weird sensitivity, just change the WiFi around so it doesn't bother him.
This is why you go to school and get a good education, so you can get a job that can't be replaced by a robot. Personally if a robot can do a job quicker, cleaner and more efficiently, fire the humans and roll in the robots:D
I'm currently an embedded system developer and web system developers. ALL of my C code MUST compile with -Wall -Wextra -Wpadentic -Werror turned on and must pass strict valgrind scans.
No, I'm not saying that all, I'm saying that it's a combination of several factors:
1. Sloppy, unprofessional programming, such as freeing a non allocated memory block. 2. Modern languages that take over memory management for you.
I'm pointing out C because when developers stop relying on managed memory and garbage collectors they learn to be more responsible and in general avoid simple memory issues.
If you run out of memory because you didn't SELF MANAGE it correct, it's still your fault. Memory leaks are always the fault of the developer, unless they're hardware based.
So sloppy, untested, programming crashed the system. I'm willing to bet that if you take the hood off the system, it's written using high level languages instead of C.
Any Distro and VIM, that's all you need:-). I'm a web developer and I write LARGE web systems, in excess of a couple hundred thousand lines of code, you don't need anything else.
It's nice that Microsoft is finally considering good GUI design. Linux has has extremely functional GUI's for years and now it finally seems that for the first time, Microsoft might be following suit, after all if Windows 10 sported Gnome 3, you'd have the single most powerful desktop in the world.
If you want to cook for the public for free or for a massively reduced, (But still reasonable) rate, you are more then welcome to, just don't poison or harm them. Taxi drivers are mad that for once they might actually have to drive like people who aren't high on meth and charge reasonable rates.
Because they don't! If my friend offers me a ride and only wants gas money, then so be it, which is all Uber is. If Uber can't operate then it starts to open up regulations where friends can't drive friends or where public transits needs addition fees and etc.....
The real solution is for Taxi's to charge reasonable rates and to stop trying to nickle and dime each customer to the point that it makes no sense.
Taxi drivers are upset that they finally have competition and for once they have to compete in a fair market place. If I need to get from point A to point B and my choices are a Taxi, or Uber, I'll always pick Uber because it's a better car, a better car ride, driven by someone who is actually qualified to drive me and someone who cares about more then earning a dollar. Taxi drivers are unsafe, unstable, wreckless, road navigators that ignore safety and rules all to make a dollar, It's time they learn that the public shouldn't have to put up with it.
Exactly, so because very few women ever take a degree in Computer Science or Engineering that mean's the total number of women to possibly pick from is very low, hence even fewer of them will be picked from the talent pool. This all goes back the argument that just because you have a post secondary qualification, doesn't mean you should get a job. If 2% of an Engineering / Computer Science program is comprised of females then that means the total talent pool to pick from for an employer will be 2% female and 98% male. Now assuming that 60% of that talent pool is actually talented, and deserve a job, that means only 1.2% of females are actually worth hiring, just like 58.8% of males. This is often regarded that most companies have sexist hiring policy's, when in fact they hire the same amount of men and women when you consider the available options in the given talent pool.
In my Engineering programs, I took two of them, the total number females compared to males who graduated was 2 females ( across both programs ) and 60 males, so assuming the 60% talent margin, that means only 1 of those females was worth anyone's time. That doesn't make the companies who didn't the hire the other girl sexist it just makes them honest. Just because you took a post secondary degree, does not mean you deserve a job, you need to also boaster the talent to back yourself and that is what a lot of people are missing.
So the argument is that because more women don't take Computer Science degrees that results in less women being hired, so don't take Computer Science away from them?
Very few women actually enroll in Computer Science / Engineering Programs, as a result this means that the talent pool from which to hire from contains less females vs males. This doesn't mean that big commons don't want to hire women, it just means that there aren't a lot of qualified women pick from.
Slashdot Mirror
When you start getting contradictory results from tested research, at that moment you need stop what you're doing, go back to the original papers and start over. You keep starting over until you either always agree with one set or results of can never replicate the original test.
Your point about Ty Cobb is meaningless because that's not a control experiment, it's a random, fluctuating experiment, where the variables are always changing. Psychology can and never will be science, it's highly educated nut jobs, guessing randomly and scoped about the mental state of another person.
Well when more then 1/2 of your studies and research can't be repeated, you lose. For instance if I call myself the world best engineer and yet over 1/2 of everything i do is wrong and fails, that would be totally in disagreement.
You're right, science is a process, except that nothing in psychology can fit into a repeatable process. For instance psychology would say something like: "You love your mother because she has tits" or "You feel sad because etc...." , psychology is a way to make excuses about how humans think and function without ever applying a process to the study.
Psychology is not science.
Buzzwords are almost a universal way to prove and demonstrate that you don't understand anything! For instance ask someone who uses the word "Big Data", how much data that means as a size in GB, TB, PB etc... or ask someone to explain "The Cloud". All of these words are stand ins for real concepts that are hard to grasp and hard to learn, so instead of educating yourself and sounding like a professional, you can use words like "Big Data", "Cloud" and countless others, sound intelligent but have no clue what you're talking about. When ever I interview someone for a job at my company, one BIG strike they get against them is for using a buzzword without being about to explain what it means.
Well in that case home school the kid. It's unrealistic to disable WiFi for all students because of a weird, one off medical issue, another student has.
I might of said the wrong channel, big deal, I checked, it's actually 161, also 2.4 vs 5GHz isn't a change of 0.05, it's change of 2.6 GHz. If this kid really has some weird sensitivity to RF, the the only real thing the school can do is to change what band the WiFi operates in. If after changing it to 5 GHz the student is still effected, then kick him out and home school him.
Why not move the WiFi to a different band and channel? For instance at home I run 80 MHz, 5 GHz Chanel 13 running @AC speeds. It this child really does have some weird sensitivity, just change the WiFi around so it doesn't bother him.
This is why you go to school and get a good education, so you can get a job that can't be replaced by a robot. Personally if a robot can do a job quicker, cleaner and more efficiently, fire the humans and roll in the robots :D
HA!!!
That's seriously funny! The way I would of wrote that:
Running out of time:
1,. Hardware Developer - You only had to read the datasheet.
2. Software Developer - This is why marketing doesn't set deadline.
As an embedded engineer, I NEVER blame hardware without being completely sure that it's the problem.
I feel sorry for you, can I ask what your program does and how old it is?
Said the poor developer. Prove it's hardware before assuming.
Hey as long as you have a plan thats awesome :-).
I'm currently an embedded system developer and web system developers. ALL of my C code MUST compile with -Wall -Wextra -Wpadentic -Werror turned on and must pass strict valgrind scans.
No, I'm not saying that all, I'm saying that it's a combination of several factors:
1. Sloppy, unprofessional programming, such as freeing a non allocated memory block.
2. Modern languages that take over memory management for you.
I'm pointing out C because when developers stop relying on managed memory and garbage collectors they learn to be more responsible and in general avoid simple memory issues.
If you run out of memory because you didn't SELF MANAGE it correct, it's still your fault. Memory leaks are always the fault of the developer, unless they're hardware based.
So sloppy, untested, programming crashed the system. I'm willing to bet that if you take the hood off the system, it's written using high level languages instead of C.
iSCSI support become terminated after one of the last builds and it was never re-enabled.
Any Distro and VIM, that's all you need :-). I'm a web developer and I write LARGE web systems, in excess of a couple hundred thousand lines of code, you don't need anything else.
gedit ..... what's wrong with VI / VIM?
It's nice that Microsoft is finally considering good GUI design. Linux has has extremely functional GUI's for years and now it finally seems that for the first time, Microsoft might be following suit, after all if Windows 10 sported Gnome 3, you'd have the single most powerful desktop in the world.
If you want to cook for the public for free or for a massively reduced, (But still reasonable) rate, you are more then welcome to, just don't poison or harm them. Taxi drivers are mad that for once they might actually have to drive like people who aren't high on meth and charge reasonable rates.
Because they don't! If my friend offers me a ride and only wants gas money, then so be it, which is all Uber is. If Uber can't operate then it starts to open up regulations where friends can't drive friends or where public transits needs addition fees and etc.....
The real solution is for Taxi's to charge reasonable rates and to stop trying to nickle and dime each customer to the point that it makes no sense.
Taxi drivers are upset that they finally have competition and for once they have to compete in a fair market place. If I need to get from point A to point B and my choices are a Taxi, or Uber, I'll always pick Uber because it's a better car, a better car ride, driven by someone who is actually qualified to drive me and someone who cares about more then earning a dollar. Taxi drivers are unsafe, unstable, wreckless, road navigators that ignore safety and rules all to make a dollar, It's time they learn that the public shouldn't have to put up with it.
Exactly, so because very few women ever take a degree in Computer Science or Engineering that mean's the total number of women to possibly pick from is very low, hence even fewer of them will be picked from the talent pool. This all goes back the argument that just because you have a post secondary qualification, doesn't mean you should get a job. If 2% of an Engineering / Computer Science program is comprised of females then that means the total talent pool to pick from for an employer will be 2% female and 98% male. Now assuming that 60% of that talent pool is actually talented, and deserve a job, that means only 1.2% of females are actually worth hiring, just like 58.8% of males. This is often regarded that most companies have sexist hiring policy's, when in fact they hire the same amount of men and women when you consider the available options in the given talent pool.
In my Engineering programs, I took two of them, the total number females compared to males who graduated was 2 females ( across both programs ) and 60 males, so assuming the 60% talent margin, that means only 1 of those females was worth anyone's time. That doesn't make the companies who didn't the hire the other girl sexist it just makes them honest. Just because you took a post secondary degree, does not mean you deserve a job, you need to also boaster the talent to back yourself and that is what a lot of people are missing.
So the argument is that because more women don't take Computer Science degrees that results in less women being hired, so don't take Computer Science away from them?
Very few women actually enroll in Computer Science / Engineering Programs, as a result this means that the talent pool from which to hire from contains less females vs males. This doesn't mean that big commons don't want to hire women, it just means that there aren't a lot of qualified women pick from.