Fake News would imply the content was incorrect, invented or misleading.
This is not fake news, it happened. There is proof it happened. Just like most of Donald's "fake news" it's not that it's fake, its that he doesn't like it being made public.
Now, what Pence did is NOT illegal. You're not going to see an investigation into it because he hasn't done anything illegal. That doesn't mean it isn't a highly questionable thing to do. It also doesn't wash away the hypocrisy of being part of a ticket whose main selling point was that the main rival was unfit to rule for doing the exact same thing.
Absolutely not illegal what Pence did- but it's not fake news because it was a foolish choice he made and that partially reflects on his fitness to govern, just like it did, as his ticket pointed out, on Hillary's.
Well what Clinton did was illegal because there was classified data on her server. Whether or not what Pence did was illegal in Indiana, I can't say. But it should be illegal at all levels. If your city or county wants to enter into a contract to have its mail hosted by AOL, that is one thing. But all government communications should flow through a mail server specifically chosen by that government agency for record keeping purposes. Private email addresses should not be allowed
Of course we've heard of it. Also Latin-2, Latin-3, Latin-4, Latin-5, etc.
All of which are "extended ASCII" and all incompatible.
This is true, but there are industries that use those ISO encodings and therefore it is not necessarily an invalid choice. If all your data is coming in as Latin-1, there's not necessarily an immediate need to convert it to UTF. It may legitimately be invalid to send the data on in UTF, in fact. At that particular company, I would expect them to have to send and receive data in ISO Latin-1 due to legacy systems.
They don't get to "continue to enter the country", they have to meet the religious persecution test before being granted sanctuary. The rules are tougher for everyone from those seven countries, not just one specific religion like many people claim.
It's far easier to apply for, and receive asylum once you enter into the US. Second best chance at gaining asylum is to request it at immigration. So, yes, there is a chance that they can be granted asylum at immigration.
And why is there a problem that we make special provisions for those suffering from persecution?
There is no problem with that at all. However, Donald Trump has said several times that he intended to ban Muslim immigration then you can see why such special provisions could be considered a violation of the first amendment of the constitution when they specifically work against the religion that Trump has promised to discriminate against.
And Buddhism. And Jews. And Every Other Religion you can name. There was no specificity in that order towards ANY specific religion.
Again you're technically correct but, as we've shown before, Trump has specifically said that he planned to discriminate against a specific religion. Besides, how many Jews, Buddhist, and FSM worshipers do you expect to find in Iran or Syria, for instance? In Iran less than 1% of the population is non-muslim. Syria only shows four religions: Islam, Christianity, Druze (a semi-nomadic group that has been in the region for a long time) and, Judaism (not even giving a percentage, just stating that there are few Jews in the country, and only in Aleppo and Damascus). I highly doubt the Druze are planning to leave Syria. So that basically means this executive order targets two religious groups with respect to Syria. When you look at the other countries, it is the same with over eighty percent of the population being Muslim and the remaining 0-20% basically being Christian.
No, it does not. Find the words, then you can claim "specifically."
Why do you have a problem that religious persecution is an exemption? Do you think that the exemption should seriously apply to people of the majority religion? Kinda hard to say it's being persecuted when it is the majority, huh?
I know that critical thinking is hard, so let me spell this out for you. The only exemption to the order is religious persecution. Therefore, it requires you read between the lines and see that only non-Muslims are prevented from being able to enter the US. That does not mean that people of other religions cannot be denied entry, but it absolutely 100% means that Muslims in those countries cannot enter the US. Period. Therefore the executive order specifically bars Muslims.
No, I'd say it was a de facto admission that getting the job done now is more important than wasting months in court getting the Ninth's typically poor decision overturned.
And how long did it take for the 9th circuit to review the case? How long would it have taken for the Supreme Court to address the issue? I mean, he's been president since January 20th. It hasn't even been six weeks yet. The 9th Circuit took the case on February 7th. Trump had been president for exactly 18 days at that point. The restraining order against the federal government was entered on February 3rd. That means that it took four days for the US Justice Department to get an appeal. Exactly what do you think was going to happen while the legal process expedited the review of this order? These people were all granted visas by the State Department. A lot of these people had been traveling home on extend
First, the executive order suspending immigration did not do so based on religion, only on citizenship in seven specific countries. There was an exemption for refugees from religious persecution, but no mention of Islam or muslims at all.
While you are correct that the order mentions no religion whatsoever, it has a clause in it that specifically allows people of minority religions in those regions to not only continue to enter the country, but to also get expedited waivers for asylum seekers claiming religious persecution. You do know what the minority religion is in those countries, correct? Christianity. And the majority religion? Islam. So the order DOES specifically bar Muslims as opposed to Christians from those countries.
"And [sic] admission" of what? And they haven't YET appealed it, but that does not mean it will never be appealed. In fact, the article you linked to explained why it might not be appealed immediately. Did you read it?
The administration has created a new executive order that was less obvious in its religious discrimination. I would say that is a de facto admission that there were flaws with the previous order. The fact that they did not appeal it was to avoid setting a supreme court precedent that could have potentially made it impossible for them to issue any executive order on the matter.
I've had border guards not be sure if I was really me when I was driving a rental car across the border. Drug traffickers will sometimes use rental cars and my driver ID happened not to match the location where I had rented the car. I'm not offended by the fact that they double-checked it was me. With this guy, they verified his story with his employer and asked him a question or two. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but there are much bigger things to worry about. And we don't know the circumstances from CBP's POV. (Did he match a pattern of people claiming to be software engineers from nigeria who turned out to be here for criminal purposes, for example? I don't know, and neither does he.)
Clearly, however, he should have been treated respectfully and with an "I apologize for the delay but we needed to verify your identity. I hope you have a wonderful time." They need to maintain authority, but it's also important to keep the country welcoming.
I get stopped at the US Border every time I am asked to present meaningful identification (as in if I present a passport, I get scrutinized, if I am somewhere that a drivers license or birth certificate is sufficient, I am allowed to enter unhindered). The CBP has never indicated why I get stopped. I am sorted into a separate line and have to wait two to three times longer to be see the agent than others on the same vessel as myself. I'm a US citizen. Not once has CBP ever explained to me why this happens. They never apologize for the time they've wasted, and I have to intentionally add hours of layover on connecting flights to avoid missing a connection. This has been going on for over 10 years with no explanation. It did not start immediately after Sept 11th, but sometime in ~2005. I've only made trips to Western Europe since the early 2000's. I have no idea what the deal is, but it's incredibly frustrating.
Sounds like a recruiter. No one actualy wanting to hire a good candidate would say "please memorize stuff in advance for the questions I'm going to ask you." All you're going to get is someone who can memorize stuff. It's already too hard to distinguish between someone who knows stuff from someone who crammed the night before. However recruiters on the other hand want the commision, so they're going to cheat all the time to make sure the mediocre candidate they found gets the job...
That was a LinkedIn Employee in their HR department who sent that email, from a LinkedIn email address. Something they send to all candidates prior to an interview, or at least at that period in time it was.
There is no "extended ASCII table", there's about 500 different code pages. If you're writing anything new that uses characters outside the first 128 you absolutely should use UTF8.
Have you never heard of ISO Latin1? It's been used in the banking industry for a very long time. It's the text encoding used for all your magstripe info on a credit card, for instance.
What I've always found funny about this interview process is that the assumption is always that the interviewer knows the correct answer(s) to the question. It's painful when they don't.
Years ago I interviewed at Google and was asked a question about bit counting (some variation on "given a bit vector, wat's the fastest way to count the number of 1s?"). I quickly answered, "well, if your processor has a population count instruction, stream your vector through that and accumulate the result in a register". Having just evaluated bit counting methods as part of my Ph.D. dissertation, I knew this was the fastest way to do it, assuming the instruction was available (it's not on x86, but is on Power/VMX and most DSPs support it as well).
After I got a blank stare back from the interviewee, I said, "Oh, you were looking for the lookup table answer". We could have left it at that, but he went on to explain using some very convoluted logic how the lookup table would actually be faster than using a dedicated instruction and that my answer was clearly wrong. I mentioned a little bit about the number of cycles required for each approach, but he had none of it. In his mind, I had the wrong answer, even though my second answer was what he was looking for.
It was at that moment that I realized Google was not going to be a good place to work.
-Chris
I decided not to work for a company after an experience like this. The interviewer asked me a question, I solved it adequately. He then tried to claim that my answer was not sufficient because it didn't handle certain words in French. The guy didn't know that the character in question was covered by extended ASCII and claimed that I had to use UTF8 to handle Latin languages. As someone who is bilingual, I knew this was not the case. I gently suggested that the character was in the extended ascii table and he got very defensive. So, I conceded that perhaps he was right (even though I knew he was not), and proceeded to answer the question using UTF instead of extended ascii. That guy was going to be my new manager, had I accepted the job. I had no interest in working for someone who could not handle being wrong.
Honestly, I see all of the complaints above as whines by people who don't understand what a whiteboard interview is.
* If I ask you to write a sorting algorithm on a white board, I am not asking you to by rote copy out a bubble sort - in fact, if you do it by rote, I'm likely to go "oh, well that was uninformative, he didn't solve any problems, he just copied something out" (and that's why I'm unlikely to ask you to sort things, but instead, something more obscure)
* If you "don't do riddles" then I actively don't want to hire you - the entire purpose of a software engineer (i.e. not a flunky programmer) is to do riddles, all day, every day. If you don't want to do that, you don't want to do the job I'm interviewing you for.
* If you need to look up how to find the length of a string in python, I don't give any shits. I don't care if you write x.length(), x.size(), x.count, length(x), I'm asking for you to solve a problem, not get the code in the exact shape it'll compile in.
* If you don't know what NP complete means, I don't care. Of course I'm going to probe a bit into whether you can analyse the performance of your code - that's absolutely part of the job, and something I need to know you can do. But not knowing what one term means is not going to not get you hired.
Long story short - don't assume that everything in a whiteboard interview should be taken literally. I don't want to find out if you can write exact algorithm x perfectly so that it will compile. I want to know if you can solve a problem, and can talk rationally about your solution, its trade offs, its performance, etc.
You're the exception and not the rule. I had LinkedIn pursing me for a bit. They gave me, I kid you not, a study guide of things they wanted me to memorize before the interview. It was about 4 pages long and it wasn't full topics but things like "Know O() of different sorting algorithms", etc. I responded back to the HR person at LinkedIn and told them that I have already completed school, that I have a full time job and other responsibilities, and that I had absolutely no time to study things that I can easily look up just to sit through an interview with them. Unless I am sorting millions and millions of objects, I don't give a damn what the O() of a sort is. I spend most of my time writing drivers and am more concerned about bit-wise manipulations of data than sorting large records. I know how to optimize code but I am not going to waste time pre-optimizing code that hasn't already demonstrated a performance problem. These interviews are silly, but so are the people that submit to them. I refused to play LinkedIn's game and eventually turned down an offer from them. Just be upfront about it and, hopefully, the interview culture will change for the better.
It seems that he broke FAA rules (I'm not familiar with those, but most countries' rules for model aircraft don't allow them to be flown over crowds). Because of the resulting injury, a stiff sentence would be in order. But in this case, as opposed to violent crimes and the like, there is no benefit in removing this guy from society for a bit, other than making an example out of him. Wouldn't justice be better served with community service? Especially since I'd think the guy is also on the hook to pay a substantial amount in damages to the girl, even if he's only ordered to pay actual damages.
Most jurisdictions will let you do a 30 day stint like this on weekends. He'll show up after work on Friday and get out to go to work on Monday bright and early. So we're not preventing him from being a productive member of society, but we are preventing him from having the free time to crash a drone into people for a quarter of the year.
The EU is applying the back taxes to worldwide profits, as Apple is choosing to transfer those profits
to the EU
Apple doesn't transfer U.S. profits to to the EU, so how is it fair for the E.U. to tax Apple on U.S. profits again exactly?
That, kids, is why they play this game.
There are $14 billion reasons why the EU is playing this game but legality or fairness is not one of them.
Ireland does not charge taxes for profit made in other countries. Apple transferred their profits to Ireland to avoid paying taxes in other countries. If they transferred US profits to Ireland then, yes, they do have to pay tax on it. This is because of the way that Apple transfers the money - as a patent licensing fee. The subsidiary in Ireland is making a profit on all those fees they paid to Ireland worldwide.
Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.
I'm seriously dying laughing over here. Have you ever stayed at a Trump hotel? They're great when they're brand new but they never get maintained or renovated when they really need it.
While I tend to agree, I think there are some times when it's appropriate to have auto-playing content (maybe only restricted to silent content). For example, multimedia-rich pages such as this benefit from a tasteful (in my opinion) use of multimedia.
That said, the ability to choose click-to-play settings (either globally or domain-specific) would be a Good Thing.
And of course, there's a special place in hell for any website which allows auto-play ads with audio.
Do you work for the NYT or something? I have yet to see a single news website that succeeds at "tasteful use of multimedia." NYT might be better than most because they're historically a print media, but I don't go to a freaking news website to watch a video! I go there to read the news! If I wanted to watch a video and listen to some multimedia, I'd probably go to YouTube or turn on my TV. In the rare instances where the article makes me want to watch some footage, I'd like to be able to choose to do so instead of having the video shoved down my throat at the top of the article I am trying to read. I can read the whole article in half the time it takes some news anchor to blabber on about the content.
I always thought it was interesting that you can mention another product by name in a TV spot here in America. It is actually illegal in some other countries. You can't name a competitor directly. So most of the time you are left with references to a white box with a generic label like"Product X" or similar. The way they talk about it though, usually makes it clear which other company they are referring to. American advertisers do not have to go through such a loophole.
If you pay attention, most of those US commercials that compare Brand A to Brand B are actually comparing two products owned by the same conglomerate. They get a double bang for their buck on those kinds of ads because it tends to make people think that their only two options are A and B and either way that conglomerate picks up a sale. At least this is the case with household chemicals, diapers, etc
Eliminating left turns to save time at the expense of longer distance is plausible.
Making the journey shorter by eliminating left turns is not. So what is the article not telling us?
I'm assuming the distance saved is overall, and by employing a smaller fleet. One truck can cover more area and therefore the total distance is shorter because they can have one truck serving an area that used to be covered by two. So each individual driver is driving a little more, but in the same amount of time that two drivers used to cover the same area.
Never mind that the factory jobs that left the US did so because of high labor rates and the only way to get them back and keep them is to pay people competitive wages... for China.
Manufacturing jobs are returning to the US because labor is getting too expensive in China, as Chinese workers want a middle class lifestyle. But the new factories in the US require fewer workers and those workers must possess a college degree, eliminating the vast majority of Trump voters who are eagerly waiting for the 1980's manufacturing jobs to return.
In the meantime, Common F. Sense is eagerly waiting for someone to justify why factory workers suddenly need a college degree.
When college goes from optional to mandatory, it's time to start aligning the price of that degree alongside K-12 education. Fuck the greedy institutions who feel burying students in college debt for a decade or two is somehow the "right" answer.
...I know that the cost of public universities has increased since I finished school, but there's no requirement that you become overloaded with debt to get a bachelors degree.
Based on how you've marginalized the cost of higher education, I can tell you have no idea how expensive it has become to get a bachelors degree, a cost that has risen over 200% in the last 30 years. Not to mention actually landing a job after you spend $40,000+ getting a degree, unlike history when a degree all but guaranteed you employment. There's a reason outstanding college debt is now measured in trillions, and working a menial job through college used to be a way to avoid taking loans. That's hardly the case today.
I'll bet you and are not that far apart in age. I have a bachelors degree. My family was incredibly poor and I started paying my own way for almost everything (except shelter) at 16. By the time I was 19, I was completely independent and in school. I graduated with honors in 3.5 years, and had less than $10,000 in student loans. All while working full time and without any scholarships or grants. I'm not marginalizing the cost of school. I've been there and done that. I did not drink while in school, take girls out to dinner, go on all those fun and exciting trips all my friends went on, none of that. Every dime I made went towards my degree and every hour possible was spent in class to decrease the number of semesters I would be working for a low income. This was all in the 2000's. I broke up with my high school sweetheart when she tried to pressure me into going to a private school with her that would have run me $40,000 a year just in tuition costs. So no, I have no sympathy for anyone claiming that school is just too expensive these days. Maybe the problem is that they've never faced hardships and don't know how to sacrifice? Oh and my student loans are already paid off, too.
Never mind that the factory jobs that left the US did so because of high labor rates and the only way to get them back and keep them is to pay people competitive wages... for China.
Manufacturing jobs are returning to the US because labor is getting too expensive in China, as Chinese workers want a middle class lifestyle. But the new factories in the US require fewer workers and those workers must possess a college degree, eliminating the vast majority of Trump voters who are eagerly waiting for the 1980's manufacturing jobs to return.
In the meantime, Common F. Sense is eagerly waiting for someone to justify why factory workers suddenly need a college degree.
When college goes from optional to mandatory, it's time to start aligning the price of that degree alongside K-12 education. Fuck the greedy institutions who feel burying students in college debt for a decade or two is somehow the "right" answer.
There are 33 public universities in the State of California alone. There are over 600 public universities in the entire US. There are over 1000 public community colleges in the US. If you are/were buried in college debt for multiple decades then perhaps that is your own fault? Two years of community college followed by two years of a public university should not cost you a fortune. If you work while you go to school, you can save even more money. I worked full-time every year except for my senior year and was able to graduate in less than 4 years. I know that the cost of public universities has increased since I finished school, but there's no requirement that you become overloaded with debt to get a bachelors degree.
Last night you have a young lady being interviewed on ABC punched in the face and pepper sprayed by one of these "oppressed" liberals. You have another pulled out of a car and beaten for no reason.
Watch those videos again and you'll see that the guy with the pepper spray was wearing black nitrile gloves and was reportedly masked. In the videos I saw, the crowd went nuts and tried to chase the guy down after he did that. It's not the crowd out there that is acting this way, it's a few asshats that are trying to cause chaos. Whether they are left wing, right wing, or just plain anarchists is impossible to tell. But clearly those people showed up with the intent to commit crime and to leave behind no evidence. You don't see the rest of the crowd wearing rubber gloves and masks, do you?
This summary is unreadable, it literally makes no sense.
Look, fifth grade teachers need to make a living. If that means plagiarizing their student's science reports and selling them to online new services, so be it. We do not need our teachers starving. The last thing we'd want to do is actually pay them ourselves!
Having and using Prime, I can't believe the number of items are shipped UPS but when you track it you find out they dropped it in the US Mail...
Surely it would be cheaper for Amazon to just mail the item themselves.
Amazon already has trailers upon trailers of packages getting picked up every day by UPS and FedEx. FedEx and UPS are finding it hard to deliver all of these packages that Amazon is shipping. It's not too difficult for UPS or FedEx to add an extra trailer to a truck / train departing from one of their hubs. It's difficult to have enough trucks / drivers to deliver the last mile. So, they give Amazon a price break to have them deliver the package to the Post Office for them. Now UPS / FedEx can deliver a few semi-trucks worth of packages to the main post office in a region and then the USPS decides how to do the last mile - something the Federal government requires the USPS to do Mon-Sat anyway.
Obviously, data loss is embarrassing. I think we all appreciate the importance of not only having multiple backups, but testing to ensure that your backups work, and are sufficient to fully restore operations. GitLab is just the latest in a long tradition of sites and services that have found themselves facing the consequences of not regularly testing their recovery plans.
But I do respect their response. They quickly recognized what had happened, and they diagnosed what went wrong with their backups. They did not try to use PR-speak to conceal their mistake -- they publicly copped to it, in plain industry-standard language that their users would understand, and even offered a livestream of their team resolving the issue. I think this has been a masterclass in how to recover from a blunder. I bet you that this is not a mistake GitLab will be repeating anytime soon.
Also, I think it's very fortunate that they're in the git repo business, and presumably users who had data that was affected by the loss still have a copy in their own local repos. Thank god for distributed SCM.
They claimed they did not lose any Git data, only database records pertaining to users, issue tracking, tasks, etc. I don't know of anyone who backs up their bug tracking and other databases, so some people probably would have preferred to have lost their git data. It's easier to restore on an active project.
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
Because the way I see this, when you have ad hoc "secret rules" applied by justice or intelligence bodies, that is the definition of abuse of power (or spying, which is basically "abuse of power" for non-judicial purposes). One thing is to know there are gag orders put in place to companies - those gags were approved publicly, so the people basically "know companies might or might not be screwing with your privacy rights", but such a thing as "secret rules" would turn that to "every government executive body or law enforcement might or might not be screwing with your _rights_" (as in "all rights", that's how broad it becomes).
The existence of such rules mean, in essence, there can be rules like, for instance "allowing your or your entire family's execution because you ate a pretzel this morning without giving tip and a police officer didn't like it"; or milder, yet stupider things like "ban you from Netflix because you watch too much foreign movies". It gets that stupid.
I don't know how they justify it in their heads but the way they keep the charade up is by making it so that no one has legal standing to sue. Then those pesky judges in the supreme court don't have to spend a few minutes thinking about the constitutionality of these things. No suit? No hearing, no ban on NSLs. Its the perfect plan and the judges that sit on the FISA court let it go because they're hoping the cooperation will allow them to attain that high seat on the Supreme Court!
Slashdot Mirror
Fake News would imply the content was incorrect, invented or misleading.
This is not fake news, it happened. There is proof it happened. Just like most of Donald's "fake news" it's not that it's fake, its that he doesn't like it being made public.
Now, what Pence did is NOT illegal. You're not going to see an investigation into it because he hasn't done anything illegal. That doesn't mean it isn't a highly questionable thing to do. It also doesn't wash away the hypocrisy of being part of a ticket whose main selling point was that the main rival was unfit to rule for doing the exact same thing.
Absolutely not illegal what Pence did- but it's not fake news because it was a foolish choice he made and that partially reflects on his fitness to govern, just like it did, as his ticket pointed out, on Hillary's.
Well what Clinton did was illegal because there was classified data on her server. Whether or not what Pence did was illegal in Indiana, I can't say. But it should be illegal at all levels. If your city or county wants to enter into a contract to have its mail hosted by AOL, that is one thing. But all government communications should flow through a mail server specifically chosen by that government agency for record keeping purposes. Private email addresses should not be allowed
> Have you never heard of ISO Latin1?
Of course we've heard of it. Also Latin-2, Latin-3, Latin-4, Latin-5, etc.
All of which are "extended ASCII" and all incompatible.
This is true, but there are industries that use those ISO encodings and therefore it is not necessarily an invalid choice. If all your data is coming in as Latin-1, there's not necessarily an immediate need to convert it to UTF. It may legitimately be invalid to send the data on in UTF, in fact. At that particular company, I would expect them to have to send and receive data in ISO Latin-1 due to legacy systems.
They don't get to "continue to enter the country", they have to meet the religious persecution test before being granted sanctuary. The rules are tougher for everyone from those seven countries, not just one specific religion like many people claim.
It's far easier to apply for, and receive asylum once you enter into the US. Second best chance at gaining asylum is to request it at immigration. So, yes, there is a chance that they can be granted asylum at immigration.
And why is there a problem that we make special provisions for those suffering from persecution?
There is no problem with that at all. However, Donald Trump has said several times that he intended to ban Muslim immigration then you can see why such special provisions could be considered a violation of the first amendment of the constitution when they specifically work against the religion that Trump has promised to discriminate against.
And Buddhism. And Jews. And Every Other Religion you can name. There was no specificity in that order towards ANY specific religion.
Again you're technically correct but, as we've shown before, Trump has specifically said that he planned to discriminate against a specific religion. Besides, how many Jews, Buddhist, and FSM worshipers do you expect to find in Iran or Syria, for instance? In Iran less than 1% of the population is non-muslim. Syria only shows four religions: Islam, Christianity, Druze (a semi-nomadic group that has been in the region for a long time) and, Judaism (not even giving a percentage, just stating that there are few Jews in the country, and only in Aleppo and Damascus). I highly doubt the Druze are planning to leave Syria. So that basically means this executive order targets two religious groups with respect to Syria. When you look at the other countries, it is the same with over eighty percent of the population being Muslim and the remaining 0-20% basically being Christian.
No, it does not. Find the words, then you can claim "specifically."
Why do you have a problem that religious persecution is an exemption? Do you think that the exemption should seriously apply to people of the majority religion? Kinda hard to say it's being persecuted when it is the majority, huh?
I know that critical thinking is hard, so let me spell this out for you. The only exemption to the order is religious persecution. Therefore, it requires you read between the lines and see that only non-Muslims are prevented from being able to enter the US. That does not mean that people of other religions cannot be denied entry, but it absolutely 100% means that Muslims in those countries cannot enter the US. Period. Therefore the executive order specifically bars Muslims.
No, I'd say it was a de facto admission that getting the job done now is more important than wasting months in court getting the Ninth's typically poor decision overturned.
And how long did it take for the 9th circuit to review the case? How long would it have taken for the Supreme Court to address the issue? I mean, he's been president since January 20th. It hasn't even been six weeks yet. The 9th Circuit took the case on February 7th. Trump had been president for exactly 18 days at that point. The restraining order against the federal government was entered on February 3rd. That means that it took four days for the US Justice Department to get an appeal. Exactly what do you think was going to happen while the legal process expedited the review of this order? These people were all granted visas by the State Department. A lot of these people had been traveling home on extend
First, the executive order suspending immigration did not do so based on religion, only on citizenship in seven specific countries. There was an exemption for refugees from religious persecution, but no mention of Islam or muslims at all.
While you are correct that the order mentions no religion whatsoever, it has a clause in it that specifically allows people of minority religions in those regions to not only continue to enter the country, but to also get expedited waivers for asylum seekers claiming religious persecution. You do know what the minority religion is in those countries, correct? Christianity. And the majority religion? Islam. So the order DOES specifically bar Muslims as opposed to Christians from those countries.
"And [sic] admission" of what? And they haven't YET appealed it, but that does not mean it will never be appealed. In fact, the article you linked to explained why it might not be appealed immediately. Did you read it?
The administration has created a new executive order that was less obvious in its religious discrimination. I would say that is a de facto admission that there were flaws with the previous order. The fact that they did not appeal it was to avoid setting a supreme court precedent that could have potentially made it impossible for them to issue any executive order on the matter.
I've had border guards not be sure if I was really me when I was driving a rental car across the border. Drug traffickers will sometimes use rental cars and my driver ID happened not to match the location where I had rented the car. I'm not offended by the fact that they double-checked it was me. With this guy, they verified his story with his employer and asked him a question or two. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but there are much bigger things to worry about. And we don't know the circumstances from CBP's POV. (Did he match a pattern of people claiming to be software engineers from nigeria who turned out to be here for criminal purposes, for example? I don't know, and neither does he.)
Clearly, however, he should have been treated respectfully and with an "I apologize for the delay but we needed to verify your identity. I hope you have a wonderful time." They need to maintain authority, but it's also important to keep the country welcoming.
I get stopped at the US Border every time I am asked to present meaningful identification (as in if I present a passport, I get scrutinized, if I am somewhere that a drivers license or birth certificate is sufficient, I am allowed to enter unhindered). The CBP has never indicated why I get stopped. I am sorted into a separate line and have to wait two to three times longer to be see the agent than others on the same vessel as myself. I'm a US citizen. Not once has CBP ever explained to me why this happens. They never apologize for the time they've wasted, and I have to intentionally add hours of layover on connecting flights to avoid missing a connection. This has been going on for over 10 years with no explanation. It did not start immediately after Sept 11th, but sometime in ~2005. I've only made trips to Western Europe since the early 2000's. I have no idea what the deal is, but it's incredibly frustrating.
Sounds like a recruiter. No one actualy wanting to hire a good candidate would say "please memorize stuff in advance for the questions I'm going to ask you." All you're going to get is someone who can memorize stuff. It's already too hard to distinguish between someone who knows stuff from someone who crammed the night before. However recruiters on the other hand want the commision, so they're going to cheat all the time to make sure the mediocre candidate they found gets the job...
That was a LinkedIn Employee in their HR department who sent that email, from a LinkedIn email address. Something they send to all candidates prior to an interview, or at least at that period in time it was.
There is no "extended ASCII table", there's about 500 different code pages. If you're writing anything new that uses characters outside the first 128 you absolutely should use UTF8.
Have you never heard of ISO Latin1? It's been used in the banking industry for a very long time. It's the text encoding used for all your magstripe info on a credit card, for instance.
What I've always found funny about this interview process is that the assumption is always that the interviewer knows the correct answer(s) to the question. It's painful when they don't.
Years ago I interviewed at Google and was asked a question about bit counting (some variation on "given a bit vector, wat's the fastest way to count the number of 1s?"). I quickly answered, "well, if your processor has a population count instruction, stream your vector through that and accumulate the result in a register". Having just evaluated bit counting methods as part of my Ph.D. dissertation, I knew this was the fastest way to do it, assuming the instruction was available (it's not on x86, but is on Power/VMX and most DSPs support it as well).
After I got a blank stare back from the interviewee, I said, "Oh, you were looking for the lookup table answer". We could have left it at that, but he went on to explain using some very convoluted logic how the lookup table would actually be faster than using a dedicated instruction and that my answer was clearly wrong. I mentioned a little bit about the number of cycles required for each approach, but he had none of it. In his mind, I had the wrong answer, even though my second answer was what he was looking for.
It was at that moment that I realized Google was not going to be a good place to work.
-Chris
I decided not to work for a company after an experience like this. The interviewer asked me a question, I solved it adequately. He then tried to claim that my answer was not sufficient because it didn't handle certain words in French. The guy didn't know that the character in question was covered by extended ASCII and claimed that I had to use UTF8 to handle Latin languages. As someone who is bilingual, I knew this was not the case. I gently suggested that the character was in the extended ascii table and he got very defensive. So, I conceded that perhaps he was right (even though I knew he was not), and proceeded to answer the question using UTF instead of extended ascii. That guy was going to be my new manager, had I accepted the job. I had no interest in working for someone who could not handle being wrong.
Honestly, I see all of the complaints above as whines by people who don't understand what a whiteboard interview is.
* If I ask you to write a sorting algorithm on a white board, I am not asking you to by rote copy out a bubble sort - in fact, if you do it by rote, I'm likely to go "oh, well that was uninformative, he didn't solve any problems, he just copied something out" (and that's why I'm unlikely to ask you to sort things, but instead, something more obscure) * If you "don't do riddles" then I actively don't want to hire you - the entire purpose of a software engineer (i.e. not a flunky programmer) is to do riddles, all day, every day. If you don't want to do that, you don't want to do the job I'm interviewing you for. * If you need to look up how to find the length of a string in python, I don't give any shits. I don't care if you write x.length(), x.size(), x.count, length(x), I'm asking for you to solve a problem, not get the code in the exact shape it'll compile in. * If you don't know what NP complete means, I don't care. Of course I'm going to probe a bit into whether you can analyse the performance of your code - that's absolutely part of the job, and something I need to know you can do. But not knowing what one term means is not going to not get you hired.
Long story short - don't assume that everything in a whiteboard interview should be taken literally. I don't want to find out if you can write exact algorithm x perfectly so that it will compile. I want to know if you can solve a problem, and can talk rationally about your solution, its trade offs, its performance, etc.
You're the exception and not the rule. I had LinkedIn pursing me for a bit. They gave me, I kid you not, a study guide of things they wanted me to memorize before the interview. It was about 4 pages long and it wasn't full topics but things like "Know O() of different sorting algorithms", etc. I responded back to the HR person at LinkedIn and told them that I have already completed school, that I have a full time job and other responsibilities, and that I had absolutely no time to study things that I can easily look up just to sit through an interview with them. Unless I am sorting millions and millions of objects, I don't give a damn what the O() of a sort is. I spend most of my time writing drivers and am more concerned about bit-wise manipulations of data than sorting large records. I know how to optimize code but I am not going to waste time pre-optimizing code that hasn't already demonstrated a performance problem. These interviews are silly, but so are the people that submit to them. I refused to play LinkedIn's game and eventually turned down an offer from them. Just be upfront about it and, hopefully, the interview culture will change for the better.
It seems that he broke FAA rules (I'm not familiar with those, but most countries' rules for model aircraft don't allow them to be flown over crowds). Because of the resulting injury, a stiff sentence would be in order. But in this case, as opposed to violent crimes and the like, there is no benefit in removing this guy from society for a bit, other than making an example out of him. Wouldn't justice be better served with community service? Especially since I'd think the guy is also on the hook to pay a substantial amount in damages to the girl, even if he's only ordered to pay actual damages.
Most jurisdictions will let you do a 30 day stint like this on weekends. He'll show up after work on Friday and get out to go to work on Monday bright and early. So we're not preventing him from being a productive member of society, but we are preventing him from having the free time to crash a drone into people for a quarter of the year.
I have said it before: the ring is a massive Reality Distortion Field Generator.
Apple needs it more than ever, now that Jobs has been dead for five years.
I thought it was Job's mausoleum?
The EU is applying the back taxes to worldwide profits, as Apple is choosing to transfer those profits to the EU
Apple doesn't transfer U.S. profits to to the EU, so how is it fair for the E.U. to tax Apple on U.S. profits again exactly?
That, kids, is why they play this game.
There are $14 billion reasons why the EU is playing this game but legality or fairness is not one of them.
Ireland does not charge taxes for profit made in other countries. Apple transferred their profits to Ireland to avoid paying taxes in other countries. If they transferred US profits to Ireland then, yes, they do have to pay tax on it. This is because of the way that Apple transfers the money - as a patent licensing fee. The subsidiary in Ireland is making a profit on all those fees they paid to Ireland worldwide.
Our new President understands facilities maintenance and renovation as necessary and profitable.
I'm seriously dying laughing over here. Have you ever stayed at a Trump hotel? They're great when they're brand new but they never get maintained or renovated when they really need it.
If they can work well here in our cold winters and hot summers they can probably work well in most places in North America.
I wouldn't call a Chinook that lasts a few months summer, eh. ;)
While I tend to agree, I think there are some times when it's appropriate to have auto-playing content (maybe only restricted to silent content). For example, multimedia-rich pages such as this benefit from a tasteful (in my opinion) use of multimedia. That said, the ability to choose click-to-play settings (either globally or domain-specific) would be a Good Thing. And of course, there's a special place in hell for any website which allows auto-play ads with audio.
Do you work for the NYT or something? I have yet to see a single news website that succeeds at "tasteful use of multimedia." NYT might be better than most because they're historically a print media, but I don't go to a freaking news website to watch a video! I go there to read the news! If I wanted to watch a video and listen to some multimedia, I'd probably go to YouTube or turn on my TV. In the rare instances where the article makes me want to watch some footage, I'd like to be able to choose to do so instead of having the video shoved down my throat at the top of the article I am trying to read. I can read the whole article in half the time it takes some news anchor to blabber on about the content.
I always thought it was interesting that you can mention another product by name in a TV spot here in America. It is actually illegal in some other countries. You can't name a competitor directly. So most of the time you are left with references to a white box with a generic label like"Product X" or similar. The way they talk about it though, usually makes it clear which other company they are referring to. American advertisers do not have to go through such a loophole.
If you pay attention, most of those US commercials that compare Brand A to Brand B are actually comparing two products owned by the same conglomerate. They get a double bang for their buck on those kinds of ads because it tends to make people think that their only two options are A and B and either way that conglomerate picks up a sale. At least this is the case with household chemicals, diapers, etc
Eliminating left turns to save time at the expense of longer distance is plausible.
Making the journey shorter by eliminating left turns is not. So what is the article not telling us?
I'm assuming the distance saved is overall, and by employing a smaller fleet. One truck can cover more area and therefore the total distance is shorter because they can have one truck serving an area that used to be covered by two. So each individual driver is driving a little more, but in the same amount of time that two drivers used to cover the same area.
Shouldn't one or two dongles be enough for anybody?
640k dongles ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates
Never mind that the factory jobs that left the US did so because of high labor rates and the only way to get them back and keep them is to pay people competitive wages... for China.
Manufacturing jobs are returning to the US because labor is getting too expensive in China, as Chinese workers want a middle class lifestyle. But the new factories in the US require fewer workers and those workers must possess a college degree, eliminating the vast majority of Trump voters who are eagerly waiting for the 1980's manufacturing jobs to return.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/education/edlife/factory-workers-college-degree-apprenticeships.html
In the meantime, Common F. Sense is eagerly waiting for someone to justify why factory workers suddenly need a college degree.
When college goes from optional to mandatory, it's time to start aligning the price of that degree alongside K-12 education. Fuck the greedy institutions who feel burying students in college debt for a decade or two is somehow the "right" answer.
...I know that the cost of public universities has increased since I finished school, but there's no requirement that you become overloaded with debt to get a bachelors degree.
Based on how you've marginalized the cost of higher education, I can tell you have no idea how expensive it has become to get a bachelors degree, a cost that has risen over 200% in the last 30 years. Not to mention actually landing a job after you spend $40,000+ getting a degree, unlike history when a degree all but guaranteed you employment. There's a reason outstanding college debt is now measured in trillions, and working a menial job through college used to be a way to avoid taking loans. That's hardly the case today.
I'll bet you and are not that far apart in age. I have a bachelors degree. My family was incredibly poor and I started paying my own way for almost everything (except shelter) at 16. By the time I was 19, I was completely independent and in school. I graduated with honors in 3.5 years, and had less than $10,000 in student loans. All while working full time and without any scholarships or grants. I'm not marginalizing the cost of school. I've been there and done that. I did not drink while in school, take girls out to dinner, go on all those fun and exciting trips all my friends went on, none of that. Every dime I made went towards my degree and every hour possible was spent in class to decrease the number of semesters I would be working for a low income. This was all in the 2000's. I broke up with my high school sweetheart when she tried to pressure me into going to a private school with her that would have run me $40,000 a year just in tuition costs. So no, I have no sympathy for anyone claiming that school is just too expensive these days. Maybe the problem is that they've never faced hardships and don't know how to sacrifice? Oh and my student loans are already paid off, too.
Never mind that the factory jobs that left the US did so because of high labor rates and the only way to get them back and keep them is to pay people competitive wages... for China.
Manufacturing jobs are returning to the US because labor is getting too expensive in China, as Chinese workers want a middle class lifestyle. But the new factories in the US require fewer workers and those workers must possess a college degree, eliminating the vast majority of Trump voters who are eagerly waiting for the 1980's manufacturing jobs to return.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/education/edlife/factory-workers-college-degree-apprenticeships.html
In the meantime, Common F. Sense is eagerly waiting for someone to justify why factory workers suddenly need a college degree.
When college goes from optional to mandatory, it's time to start aligning the price of that degree alongside K-12 education. Fuck the greedy institutions who feel burying students in college debt for a decade or two is somehow the "right" answer.
There are 33 public universities in the State of California alone. There are over 600 public universities in the entire US. There are over 1000 public community colleges in the US. If you are/were buried in college debt for multiple decades then perhaps that is your own fault? Two years of community college followed by two years of a public university should not cost you a fortune. If you work while you go to school, you can save even more money. I worked full-time every year except for my senior year and was able to graduate in less than 4 years. I know that the cost of public universities has increased since I finished school, but there's no requirement that you become overloaded with debt to get a bachelors degree.
Last night you have a young lady being interviewed on ABC punched in the face and pepper sprayed by one of these "oppressed" liberals. You have another pulled out of a car and beaten for no reason.
Watch those videos again and you'll see that the guy with the pepper spray was wearing black nitrile gloves and was reportedly masked. In the videos I saw, the crowd went nuts and tried to chase the guy down after he did that. It's not the crowd out there that is acting this way, it's a few asshats that are trying to cause chaos. Whether they are left wing, right wing, or just plain anarchists is impossible to tell. But clearly those people showed up with the intent to commit crime and to leave behind no evidence. You don't see the rest of the crowd wearing rubber gloves and masks, do you?
This summary is unreadable, it literally makes no sense.
Look, fifth grade teachers need to make a living. If that means plagiarizing their student's science reports and selling them to online new services, so be it. We do not need our teachers starving. The last thing we'd want to do is actually pay them ourselves!
Having and using Prime, I can't believe the number of items are shipped UPS but when you track it you find out they dropped it in the US Mail... Surely it would be cheaper for Amazon to just mail the item themselves.
Amazon already has trailers upon trailers of packages getting picked up every day by UPS and FedEx. FedEx and UPS are finding it hard to deliver all of these packages that Amazon is shipping. It's not too difficult for UPS or FedEx to add an extra trailer to a truck / train departing from one of their hubs. It's difficult to have enough trucks / drivers to deliver the last mile. So, they give Amazon a price break to have them deliver the package to the Post Office for them. Now UPS / FedEx can deliver a few semi-trucks worth of packages to the main post office in a region and then the USPS decides how to do the last mile - something the Federal government requires the USPS to do Mon-Sat anyway.
Obviously, data loss is embarrassing. I think we all appreciate the importance of not only having multiple backups, but testing to ensure that your backups work, and are sufficient to fully restore operations. GitLab is just the latest in a long tradition of sites and services that have found themselves facing the consequences of not regularly testing their recovery plans.
But I do respect their response. They quickly recognized what had happened, and they diagnosed what went wrong with their backups. They did not try to use PR-speak to conceal their mistake -- they publicly copped to it, in plain industry-standard language that their users would understand, and even offered a livestream of their team resolving the issue. I think this has been a masterclass in how to recover from a blunder. I bet you that this is not a mistake GitLab will be repeating anytime soon.
Also, I think it's very fortunate that they're in the git repo business, and presumably users who had data that was affected by the loss still have a copy in their own local repos. Thank god for distributed SCM.
They claimed they did not lose any Git data, only database records pertaining to users, issue tracking, tasks, etc. I don't know of anyone who backs up their bug tracking and other databases, so some people probably would have preferred to have lost their git data. It's easier to restore on an active project.
Am I oblivious to the US Constitution? How can you have "secret rules", not approved/ratified/signed/passed/whatever in and by a public law.making body such as the upper house, the lower house, an executive order (am I missing something here?)? Aren't all these supposed to publicize new laws to those that vote? So people actually know what the guys they voted for are doing, and, you know, actually know if they are following the "most recent law"?
Because the way I see this, when you have ad hoc "secret rules" applied by justice or intelligence bodies, that is the definition of abuse of power (or spying, which is basically "abuse of power" for non-judicial purposes). One thing is to know there are gag orders put in place to companies - those gags were approved publicly, so the people basically "know companies might or might not be screwing with your privacy rights", but such a thing as "secret rules" would turn that to "every government executive body or law enforcement might or might not be screwing with your _rights_" (as in "all rights", that's how broad it becomes).
The existence of such rules mean, in essence, there can be rules like, for instance "allowing your or your entire family's execution because you ate a pretzel this morning without giving tip and a police officer didn't like it"; or milder, yet stupider things like "ban you from Netflix because you watch too much foreign movies". It gets that stupid.
I don't know how they justify it in their heads but the way they keep the charade up is by making it so that no one has legal standing to sue. Then those pesky judges in the supreme court don't have to spend a few minutes thinking about the constitutionality of these things. No suit? No hearing, no ban on NSLs. Its the perfect plan and the judges that sit on the FISA court let it go because they're hoping the cooperation will allow them to attain that high seat on the Supreme Court!