They had a duty to followup on the word of one alleged victim to see how much of the story they could verify. These are extremely serious allegations, and having dropped the ball on the Jimmy Saville story is no excuse for rushing headlong into misplaced allegations against someone else.
You know that Slashdot is not most of our only source for news, right? So when you just post general current events stories, you're not really informing most of us, and you're diluting the value of your brand.
Amd what's worse, there apparently *is* a news for nerds angle here, as the affair was discovered by the FBI while they were monitoring the general's email. But that angle is left unstated in the post.
But their use is distributed primarily amongst countries with much larger money supplies.
Use of bitcoins by a major country would run into similar problems as use of a gold standard: the relatvely slow money supply growth would become a hindrance to economic growth, and would be especially bad during a deflationary cycle, and especially as the number of bitcoins approaches 21 million (the maximum number that will exist).
That's not to say the concept of bitcoins itself is bad- just that I'm skeptical they could be used as a national (or international currency) over an extended period of time. They may be useful long-term as a means of storing value (a hedge against inflation of other currencies). We'll see if they remain useful as a medium of exchange (illicit or otherwise) as the growth of their supply fades.
Their value then will be proportional to their popularity, but their liquidity will decrease as their value grows (see Berkshire Hathaway A shares), creating a negative feedback loop, and probably thus an upper bound on both value and popularity.
Clearly, the point being expressed there is that people who love the field so much *choose* to devote those types of hours.
Now, perhaps this was an indirect way of letting students know that they're *expected* to devote those hours, or that if they don't, they're likely to be out-competed. But taking the words at face value, it's saying that if you really love astronomy, you may find yourself spending hours like that.
If you're a grad student who isn't comfortable with that, then don't do it. It's up to you to decide if that means the field isn't for you.
It's true, there are talented individuals with the ability and motivation to become self-taught and successful in computer science. They are a subset of the field.
Most individuals, even those with lots of raw talent, will benefit from getting a CS degree *from a good school*, and not just for the piece of paper (hat tip: if you're going to school for the piece of paper, you're either in the wrong school or the wrong field).
Firstly, there is the fact that schools with established internship/co-op programs offer an institutional advantage to getting your foot in the door (another tip: if your program has optional internships/co-ops, consider them mandatory; if they don't have them at all, consider another school, unless you're in it for pure research and going for a PhD).
But also, consider the employer's side of things. Now if you've already broken out and established yourself, maybe you had the wherewithal to develop a unique app or web service that caught the industry's attention, then more power to you! But if you haven't, you could have all the skills in the world, but how are you going to demonstrate them to a prospective employer while they're looking at your resume? Chances are, you won't, because your resume will be tossed in the round file. It's not necessarily that you aren't te jewel in the rough you think you are, but it's that there's too much rough for most employers to be interested in sifting through. For every fantastic applicant with a non-CS degree, there are a hundred others who also lack a CS degree and as well as talent.
Top-tier employers are focused on college grads for new hires, it's just that simple. There are ways around that, but most of them involve becoming an entrepreneurial success in your own right, which again is fantastic, but not feasible for everyone.
In short, if you're wondering whether you should pursue a formal education in CS, you should, and a corollary is you should try to get into the best CS program you can. Those who don't need a formal education in CS won't be wondering about it.
Along the same lines, it's bad advice to tell the average person to avoid college. Those who don't need the degree should come to that conclusion themselves, taking on the accompanying risk (sure, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college... but many others dropped out of college who didn't become Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). Advice ought to be a matter of playing the odds. Chaces are, you aren't advising a super-genius.
I suppose you only buy electronics made exclusively outside of China? Good luck with that plan!
No buyers means no makers, means no workers and no pay at all. The factory workers weren't exactly living the high life in their rural villages... that's why they swarm into the cities to work at these factories.
I don't see how my comment is useless or snarky. I know they can go to Beijing and petition the central government.
I also know they have to dodge local government (and at times, central government) thugs who either drag them back home and throw them in jail without trial or who hide them away in secret prisons until they agree not to petition anymore. Oh, look that's mentioned on the very Wikipedia page you linked to, so you either knew that too or you didn't bother to inform yourself on your own materials before spreading them.
I have to disagree with you: it's not funny at all how your ignorance makes you a total moron (it's actually tautological if you think about it... but don't hurt yourself).
Anyway, if you're right, and they can openly and effectively petition their government, then why does it fall on US consumers' shoulders to ensure they aren't being mistreated by their government or businesses?
The government can't execute prior restraint, but whether his speech is protected or can be considered criminal itself is up to the courts to decide if it gets that far.
The big concern, Whitehead said, is whether government officials are monitoring citizens' private Facebook pages and detaining people with whom they disagree.
Disagree in the sense that he wants to decapitate people and the imvestigators didn't agree that he should?
Slashdot Mirror
Science was wrong, therefore the Bible is proven completely inerrant.
They had a duty to followup on the word of one alleged victim to see how much of the story they could verify. These are extremely serious allegations, and having dropped the ball on the Jimmy Saville story is no excuse for rushing headlong into misplaced allegations against someone else.
Except there's still more than one car manufacturer.
You know that Slashdot is not most of our only source for news, right? So when you just post general current events stories, you're not really informing most of us, and you're diluting the value of your brand.
Amd what's worse, there apparently *is* a news for nerds angle here, as the affair was discovered by the FBI while they were monitoring the general's email. But that angle is left unstated in the post.
I am disappoint.
But their use is distributed primarily amongst countries with much larger money supplies.
Use of bitcoins by a major country would run into similar problems as use of a gold standard: the relatvely slow money supply growth would become a hindrance to economic growth, and would be especially bad during a deflationary cycle, and especially as the number of bitcoins approaches 21 million (the maximum number that will exist).
That's not to say the concept of bitcoins itself is bad- just that I'm skeptical they could be used as a national (or international currency) over an extended period of time. They may be useful long-term as a means of storing value (a hedge against inflation of other currencies). We'll see if they remain useful as a medium of exchange (illicit or otherwise) as the growth of their supply fades.
Their value then will be proportional to their popularity, but their liquidity will decrease as their value grows (see Berkshire Hathaway A shares), creating a negative feedback loop, and probably thus an upper bound on both value and popularity.
Until bitcoins are widely used enough to become the major currency of a country, a comparison is just specious.
I don't know what humans can't read spaces, but I'm glad they work with you and not me.
1. Use spaces instead of tabs.
2. Make your code readable by humans.
Republicans have been doing that for years.
*rimshot*
Clearly, the point being expressed there is that people who love the field so much *choose* to devote those types of hours.
Now, perhaps this was an indirect way of letting students know that they're *expected* to devote those hours, or that if they don't, they're likely to be out-competed. But taking the words at face value, it's saying that if you really love astronomy, you may find yourself spending hours like that.
If you're a grad student who isn't comfortable with that, then don't do it. It's up to you to decide if that means the field isn't for you.
This isn't the worst thing to happen on Pennsyvalnia college grounds.
Disassociate our health insurance system from employers.
Anyway, a much less heavy-handed approach here would be to offer smokers the job, but not the health insurance benefits.
It's not his fault. The emotion chip is not yet ready for production use.
What else would they lure them with? Apple TVs?
It's true, there are talented individuals with the ability and motivation to become self-taught and successful in computer science. They are a subset of the field.
Most individuals, even those with lots of raw talent, will benefit from getting a CS degree *from a good school*, and not just for the piece of paper (hat tip: if you're going to school for the piece of paper, you're either in the wrong school or the wrong field).
Firstly, there is the fact that schools with established internship/co-op programs offer an institutional advantage to getting your foot in the door (another tip: if your program has optional internships/co-ops, consider them mandatory; if they don't have them at all, consider another school, unless you're in it for pure research and going for a PhD).
But also, consider the employer's side of things. Now if you've already broken out and established yourself, maybe you had the wherewithal to develop a unique app or web service that caught the industry's attention, then more power to you! But if you haven't, you could have all the skills in the world, but how are you going to demonstrate them to a prospective employer while they're looking at your resume? Chances are, you won't, because your resume will be tossed in the round file. It's not necessarily that you aren't te jewel in the rough you think you are, but it's that there's too much rough for most employers to be interested in sifting through. For every fantastic applicant with a non-CS degree, there are a hundred others who also lack a CS degree and as well as talent.
Top-tier employers are focused on college grads for new hires, it's just that simple. There are ways around that, but most of them involve becoming an entrepreneurial success in your own right, which again is fantastic, but not feasible for everyone.
In short, if you're wondering whether you should pursue a formal education in CS, you should, and a corollary is you should try to get into the best CS program you can. Those who don't need a formal education in CS won't be wondering about it.
Along the same lines, it's bad advice to tell the average person to avoid college. Those who don't need the degree should come to that conclusion themselves, taking on the accompanying risk (sure, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college... but many others dropped out of college who didn't become Bill Gates or Steve Jobs). Advice ought to be a matter of playing the odds. Chaces are, you aren't advising a super-genius.
I suppose you only buy electronics made exclusively outside of China? Good luck with that plan!
No buyers means no makers, means no workers and no pay at all. The factory workers weren't exactly living the high life in their rural villages... that's why they swarm into the cities to work at these factories.
I don't see how my comment is useless or snarky. I know they can go to Beijing and petition the central government.
I also know they have to dodge local government (and at times, central government) thugs who either drag them back home and throw them in jail without trial or who hide them away in secret prisons until they agree not to petition anymore. Oh, look that's mentioned on the very Wikipedia page you linked to, so you either knew that too or you didn't bother to inform yourself on your own materials before spreading them.
I have to disagree with you: it's not funny at all how your ignorance makes you a total moron (it's actually tautological if you think about it... but don't hurt yourself).
Anyway, if you're right, and they can openly and effectively petition their government, then why does it fall on US consumers' shoulders to ensure they aren't being mistreated by their government or businesses?
... they should petition their government about that.
...when they invent non-backlit tablets that can play porn, let me know!
The government can't execute prior restraint, but whether his speech is protected or can be considered criminal itself is up to the courts to decide if it gets that far.
Disagree in the sense that he wants to decapitate people and the imvestigators didn't agree that he should?
Exactly. I wondered if they swapped the article on me or something.
"It can only be attributable to human error."
Oh, as it's sci-fi cause it has a talking tree.
(But really I'd say The Handmaid's Tale, but the epilogue offers some redemption.)
Everyone else is over-thinking this.