Yes, there are drugs that can prevent you from forming long-term memories such as in painful hospital situations (many people may experience these when getting a tooth removed). However, there's no such thing as deleting memories this way. When you retrieve a memory, you don't do anything to diminish the long-term memory, so it's ridiculous to suggest that talking about an experience while on memory-inhibitors will somehow erase those memories.
I have a feeling it might be something like this as well. I also almost guarantee that Google sticks some falsities in their images to catch people who might try to represent them as their own. Though I imagine they'd be more subtle than this . . . but who knows.
Start with old competitions to practice on. Even if you never actually compete in any of the real time competitions, you can have a lot of fun with these type of problems and competing against former coders (it scores you based on several criteria). More importantly, this is ideal stuff to buff up your interview skills. If you get good at the topcoder problems, you'll do great in any interview coding.
This is already the case. Most banks give some percent in cash, some percent in restricted stock units (RSUs) that vest over 1-3 years typically. The percent given in cash decreases as the size of the bonus increases. And this was also the case before all this mess, albeit a little less-so. Though claw-back provisions on these RSUs are new, but are being done and do make sense.
They received bonuses that had previously been guaranteed. Think about it in sports terms. A great quarterback may receive a multi-million multi-year contract. Just because he starts to play terribly later on doesn't mean he wasn't considered the best talent when the contract was signed. Nor could anyone have necessarily predicted his future failures (at least not with any certainty).
The problem is that hedge funds can't pick up the slack. Yes, they can pick up some, which is why prop-trading is being done away with in banks. However, many of the activities that banks do, just do not scale down and remain profitable in smaller-sized chunks. Arguably, hedge funds have already picked up nearly all that they can, since they are already much less regulated than banks and therefore have significant competitive advantages. Furthermore, as the MF Global scandal made clear, there is actual value in banks that are big enough to be well-trusted.
The difference is that a successful surgery doesn't directly generate more money for a hospital than a failed surgery. In the long run, yes, a successful surgeon brings in more business to a hospital, so yes they get paid long-term salaries that reflect that. However, for investment bankers, the more successful they are, the more money they bring in immediately. This lends itself to short-term incentive pay far better than in most businesses.
In addition to that, finance is a highly cyclical business. With bonuses, you can simply pay everyone less in bad years. If bonuses were disallowed, you'd be stuck paying high salaries without the resources to fund them, and shareholders would instead take the hit. (And yes, salaries would be high, because there's a lot of money floating around and a lot of competition for who's going to get it, so the best talent will absolutely demand high pay.)
That's not to say we don't need more provisions to more closely align those incentives to long-term success in addition to short-term success. But removing bonuses entirely doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Actually, I think more professions could benefit from incentive-based pay. Teaching, for example.
My point was that a "whiteboard test" where requirements are changing every minute isn't related to the real world in any way.
Perhaps in your line of work. In mine, this is not atypical. Though yes, in general, interviews should mirror the expected working condition as much as practical.
What do you do when someone asks you to give them a real, written requirements list before they start, as they would get if this was a real work situation?
Ha. What "real work" environment do you work in where every project has an unchanging set of clearly-written requirements listed from day 1?
Re:Not a Real Problem Unless Vacations Are Evil
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
This all sounds really good . . . except for the fact that unemployment is significantly higher in most of Europe than it is here. So why do we have more jobs here? Could it be because we work harder individually?
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Exactly. And not only that, but the lack of privacy. 90% of stuff you'd want siri to do is just too awkward/intimate to do in public. It's good for drivers, but not much else.
No matter how good Siri might be (and I have some doubts, but it does look cool), it's not going to be revolutionary simply due to this lack of privacy.
Rumored "final batch"? I got mine last week. I ordered from the HP SMB store and was delayed for a month and a half while they sent multiple e-mails saying that I was in the queue, they just had to be built. I like the webOS interface, but bottom line is lack of apps and community means it's a non-starter, so I'm eager for the android port.
Except these are all pretty much being done. The Volker rule takes care of the most significant part of Glass-Steagall. High frequency trading is still a little up-in-the-air, but most likely will be seriously crimped soon enough. And your third demand is rather vague, so I'll just say all of Dodd-Frank is an attempt at that.
Pretty sure those aren't what everyone's upset about.
I really want to like Google Docs (especially since I have a good friend who works on them at Google). But as someone who uses excel constantly in my job, and Google Spreadsheets a lot for personal use, there's just no comparison. There's zero possibility of doing what I need to do in gDocs, sadly.
In a lot of businesses, "IT" is considered the part of the business that makes it harder for people to do their jobs (either by restricting computer usage/resources or taking weeks to complete a simple task) . . . which corresponds with the computer systems administration and maintenance definition of IT. While CS people, at least in my line of work, can do anything from research to internal application development to strategic rapid application development. These people are generally well-respected, while most people avoid working with "IT" as much as possible. I, myself, would never risk classifying myself as "IT", even though a lot of what I do is, strictly speaking, information technology.
In regards to the original question... I don't have any specific experience in this, but I do think you can inadvertently hurt your later career options by going with a "IT" (admin/systems/maintenance/etc.) job, if what you really want is a more front-line development job. I doubt you'll permanently pigeon-hole yourself into anything, but it could take more effort to make your way out of such a role.
I think the bigger question is: Can Google offer enough value added to the cable companies to get them to agree to certain less-savory aspects Google would like to provide to consumers. Basically, Google should offer the cable companies various new revenue streams (apps, games, subscriptions, etc?) and far better user experience in return for them making some allowances on things like web browsing and maybe some limited online streaming options, say . . . YouTube exclusively? Really, if Google can just get general web browsing in 20%+ of people's cable boxes, it'll be a huge win for them (and us). And as long as Google agrees to restrict it enough for the cable co's, it could be feasible.
As both Google and Apple have seen, the straight-to-consumer TV-box is not a great market, so it's a big deal to get a foot in the cable co's set-top box business. . . . provided that they can play ball with big cable (and that's a big if).
Well, the 6-degrees hypothesis isn't actually concerned with friends, but rather with any acquaintances at all. So facebook's version of "friends" fits the bill pretty well. Though if I were doing this, I would certainly try to exclude people who have over, say, 500 or so friends just on the basis that they're likely to be faked somehow (either due to social gaming, or whatever).
My question though, is why can't facebook just run a simple algorithm to test the max degrees of separation between any two people? The method described in TFA seems like a rather contrived and not-particularly-valid way to test the hypothesis. In fact, it almost feels like it's more of a publicity stunt than a real scientific study . . ..
That's a lot of cash for Apple to blow just to stop Google from getting Motorola. Google benefits both from the patents and the phone hardward/software synergy. Apple would benefit far less from the patents (they already have a lot of their own, plus the Nortel batch), and not at all from Motorola's hardware capability. Plus, an Apple purchase would certainly be more heavily scrutinized than a Google purchase. In the first case, Apple is pretty much just eliminating a competitor (or two), whereas in the latter, Google is only strengthening the two parties.
As a Google shareholder, I'm cautiously optimistic about this deal. On the one hand, Google has shown little ability to handle this sort of business (really, any sort of business involving real customers). But on the other, if they manage it correctly (and keeping it a separately-run company is a good start), it could be a massive gain for both companies and Android in general. If they can successfully tie-in the software & hardware, as Apple does (even half as good as Apple does), they'll be very profitable. And, while the other Android manufacturers might be hesitant in the wake of this, Android still seems like their best bet (at least now they know Google is quite serious about it).
And long term, one can see all the cogs slowly turning, bringing the pieces together . . . Google's core + Google Voice + ultrahighspeed fiber tests + GMoto = some really serious competition to the telcoms.
Either way though, it's better than them just sitting on 30B in cash . . .
Slashdot Mirror
Um, citation needed.
Yes, there are drugs that can prevent you from forming long-term memories such as in painful hospital situations (many people may experience these when getting a tooth removed). However, there's no such thing as deleting memories this way. When you retrieve a memory, you don't do anything to diminish the long-term memory, so it's ridiculous to suggest that talking about an experience while on memory-inhibitors will somehow erase those memories.
I have a feeling it might be something like this as well. I also almost guarantee that Google sticks some falsities in their images to catch people who might try to represent them as their own. Though I imagine they'd be more subtle than this . . . but who knows.
Not sure how Services (flipping burgers, IT support, etc.) fall in there but a service based economy sucks as well.
Umm.... Apparently you're living back in the early twentieth century. The US has been a service-based economy for quite some time. From wikipedia:
GDP by sector - agriculture: (1.2%), industry: (21.9%), services: (76.9%) (2009 est.)
Get involved in some of the competitions here: http://community.topcoder.com/tc
Start with old competitions to practice on. Even if you never actually compete in any of the real time competitions, you can have a lot of fun with these type of problems and competing against former coders (it scores you based on several criteria). More importantly, this is ideal stuff to buff up your interview skills. If you get good at the topcoder problems, you'll do great in any interview coding.
I suggested two years, though
This is already the case. Most banks give some percent in cash, some percent in restricted stock units (RSUs) that vest over 1-3 years typically. The percent given in cash decreases as the size of the bonus increases. And this was also the case before all this mess, albeit a little less-so. Though claw-back provisions on these RSUs are new, but are being done and do make sense.
They received bonuses that had previously been guaranteed. Think about it in sports terms. A great quarterback may receive a multi-million multi-year contract. Just because he starts to play terribly later on doesn't mean he wasn't considered the best talent when the contract was signed. Nor could anyone have necessarily predicted his future failures (at least not with any certainty).
The problem is that hedge funds can't pick up the slack. Yes, they can pick up some, which is why prop-trading is being done away with in banks. However, many of the activities that banks do, just do not scale down and remain profitable in smaller-sized chunks. Arguably, hedge funds have already picked up nearly all that they can, since they are already much less regulated than banks and therefore have significant competitive advantages. Furthermore, as the MF Global scandal made clear, there is actual value in banks that are big enough to be well-trusted.
The difference is that a successful surgery doesn't directly generate more money for a hospital than a failed surgery. In the long run, yes, a successful surgeon brings in more business to a hospital, so yes they get paid long-term salaries that reflect that. However, for investment bankers, the more successful they are, the more money they bring in immediately. This lends itself to short-term incentive pay far better than in most businesses.
In addition to that, finance is a highly cyclical business. With bonuses, you can simply pay everyone less in bad years. If bonuses were disallowed, you'd be stuck paying high salaries without the resources to fund them, and shareholders would instead take the hit. (And yes, salaries would be high, because there's a lot of money floating around and a lot of competition for who's going to get it, so the best talent will absolutely demand high pay.)
That's not to say we don't need more provisions to more closely align those incentives to long-term success in addition to short-term success. But removing bonuses entirely doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Actually, I think more professions could benefit from incentive-based pay. Teaching, for example.
More to the point . . .
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/no-wall-street-bonuses-arent-destroying-the-economy/248093/
My point was that a "whiteboard test" where requirements are changing every minute isn't related to the real world in any way.
Perhaps in your line of work. In mine, this is not atypical. Though yes, in general, interviews should mirror the expected working condition as much as practical.
Sitev, who led the team into the quarters just a few weeks after getting married, said he dreams about going to the seaside.
Boy, that's some crazy dedication to science . . . or maybe just crazy.
What do you do when someone asks you to give them a real, written requirements list before they start, as they would get if this was a real work situation?
Ha. What "real work" environment do you work in where every project has an unchanging set of clearly-written requirements listed from day 1?
This all sounds really good . . . except for the fact that unemployment is significantly higher in most of Europe than it is here. So why do we have more jobs here? Could it be because we work harder individually?
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Exactly. And not only that, but the lack of privacy. 90% of stuff you'd want siri to do is just too awkward/intimate to do in public. It's good for drivers, but not much else.
No matter how good Siri might be (and I have some doubts, but it does look cool), it's not going to be revolutionary simply due to this lack of privacy.
Rumored "final batch"? I got mine last week. I ordered from the HP SMB store and was delayed for a month and a half while they sent multiple e-mails saying that I was in the queue, they just had to be built. I like the webOS interface, but bottom line is lack of apps and community means it's a non-starter, so I'm eager for the android port.
Damn it! I was too slow
and before you know it the super soldiers will be hear.
"hear"....ing? Yep, deaf super soldiers will now hear robotically!
Except these are all pretty much being done. The Volker rule takes care of the most significant part of Glass-Steagall. High frequency trading is still a little up-in-the-air, but most likely will be seriously crimped soon enough. And your third demand is rather vague, so I'll just say all of Dodd-Frank is an attempt at that.
Pretty sure those aren't what everyone's upset about.
I really want to like Google Docs (especially since I have a good friend who works on them at Google). But as someone who uses excel constantly in my job, and Google Spreadsheets a lot for personal use, there's just no comparison. There's zero possibility of doing what I need to do in gDocs, sadly.
In a lot of businesses, "IT" is considered the part of the business that makes it harder for people to do their jobs (either by restricting computer usage/resources or taking weeks to complete a simple task) . . . which corresponds with the computer systems administration and maintenance definition of IT. While CS people, at least in my line of work, can do anything from research to internal application development to strategic rapid application development. These people are generally well-respected, while most people avoid working with "IT" as much as possible. I, myself, would never risk classifying myself as "IT", even though a lot of what I do is, strictly speaking, information technology.
In regards to the original question... I don't have any specific experience in this, but I do think you can inadvertently hurt your later career options by going with a "IT" (admin/systems/maintenance/etc.) job, if what you really want is a more front-line development job. I doubt you'll permanently pigeon-hole yourself into anything, but it could take more effort to make your way out of such a role.
I think the bigger question is: Can Google offer enough value added to the cable companies to get them to agree to certain less-savory aspects Google would like to provide to consumers. Basically, Google should offer the cable companies various new revenue streams (apps, games, subscriptions, etc?) and far better user experience in return for them making some allowances on things like web browsing and maybe some limited online streaming options, say . . . YouTube exclusively? Really, if Google can just get general web browsing in 20%+ of people's cable boxes, it'll be a huge win for them (and us). And as long as Google agrees to restrict it enough for the cable co's, it could be feasible.
As both Google and Apple have seen, the straight-to-consumer TV-box is not a great market, so it's a big deal to get a foot in the cable co's set-top box business. . . . provided that they can play ball with big cable (and that's a big if).
Well, the 6-degrees hypothesis isn't actually concerned with friends, but rather with any acquaintances at all. So facebook's version of "friends" fits the bill pretty well. Though if I were doing this, I would certainly try to exclude people who have over, say, 500 or so friends just on the basis that they're likely to be faked somehow (either due to social gaming, or whatever).
My question though, is why can't facebook just run a simple algorithm to test the max degrees of separation between any two people? The method described in TFA seems like a rather contrived and not-particularly-valid way to test the hypothesis. In fact, it almost feels like it's more of a publicity stunt than a real scientific study . . . .
That's a lot of cash for Apple to blow just to stop Google from getting Motorola. Google benefits both from the patents and the phone hardward/software synergy. Apple would benefit far less from the patents (they already have a lot of their own, plus the Nortel batch), and not at all from Motorola's hardware capability. Plus, an Apple purchase would certainly be more heavily scrutinized than a Google purchase. In the first case, Apple is pretty much just eliminating a competitor (or two), whereas in the latter, Google is only strengthening the two parties.
They couldn't bid the inverse conductance quantum constant??
As a Google shareholder, I'm cautiously optimistic about this deal. On the one hand, Google has shown little ability to handle this sort of business (really, any sort of business involving real customers). But on the other, if they manage it correctly (and keeping it a separately-run company is a good start), it could be a massive gain for both companies and Android in general. If they can successfully tie-in the software & hardware, as Apple does (even half as good as Apple does), they'll be very profitable. And, while the other Android manufacturers might be hesitant in the wake of this, Android still seems like their best bet (at least now they know Google is quite serious about it).
And long term, one can see all the cogs slowly turning, bringing the pieces together . . . Google's core + Google Voice + ultrahighspeed fiber tests + GMoto = some really serious competition to the telcoms.
Either way though, it's better than them just sitting on 30B in cash . . .