I agree! The usefulness of the data is even questionable and too simple to provide anything beyond correlation and conjecture.
The $100 000 is probably given as a number, because the data they produce should be more advanced than just DeptA -> M vs F, Dept B -> M vs F. More variables should be included, such as the experience, education and effectiveness(productivity) of these workers.
What you get paid in salaried positions that are negotiable is a function of your ability to negotiate and the HR person you are negotiating with's responsiveness to that. It also depends on what you have to offer obviously(experience, domain knowledge, your references, etc). How do you quantify these variables?
If it is shown to correlate, the cause would be hard to determine. Is it caused by the effectiveness of males vs females to negotiate, or is it caused by HR's lack of response to the same input from potential female candidates? Or is it caused by disparities in experience and qualifications. Anyone could conjecture all day long as to the causes, but that's all it would be; conjecture. This could only be offset by richer data. Even then, there are so many unquantifiable variables involved.
The resultant correlation, if shown, could be seen as a microcosm of what happens in the wider world. It would fail to show a "systematic" cause, i.e. Google purposely did this.
As far as the costs are concerned, just because a company makes a lot of money, doesn't mean that money has less value.
Where it says, "...blinded the minds of them which believe not", the addition of [the Bible] is not what it is being spoken about. Believe not, as in those who do not beleive in salvation through the Christ, if read in context. The Bible speaks of those things, but isn't the same as those things:)
Thee believe not part addition [Bible] is not what it is speaking about. Believe not, i.e. salvation through Christ, God, i.e. the gospel if read in context. The Bible contains those things, but isn't the same as those things:)
I said nothing against what was said there, in fact, they all speak of perceived broad issues, but it doesn't state any specific issue with any particular argument or source about the existence of Jesus. Even one of the guys quoted by you states that most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism). Again, the issue isn't the existence of said person, but is about what he did.
How we perceive a 1st century entity won't be perfect and will be with bias. How we perceive Julius Ceasar is likewise tainted. But, he still existed.
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the criticism section and smell all you like. And you never responded to your authorship and dating issues. And also there is more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Well, actually, I have a poor sense of smell and if you want to refute the wikipedia article and challenge the sources, do so. That onus is yours. That's the only way things are improved. The earliest papyrii we have is from the 2nd century not the 3rd and date of authorship(divine or not) ranges from 60-130 depending on the document and the book you are referring to even according to liberal scholars. And sources...well have fun, not going to bother with you:)
I heard about the "scraping process" when in theology(I completed and then went on to do Computer Science lol). But, years ago I saw it again in relation to a Yemeni manuscript of the Quran, which had that on it. It is called the Sana'a manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The process is called palimpsest and has an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . That's definitely my word of the day.
I'm sure we are referring to the same story about the forger. Even the ussuary of Jesus' brother James was supposedly found, only to have been found to be a fake(the inscription at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Not that anyone would care if they found it. Plus, if I remember Josephus claimed that he was thrown off the temple wall at some point (prior to 70CE when the temple was destroyed of course).
We observe ancient gravity daily when we see its effect on the stars since we are seeing their light from millions or billions of years ago(it takes a long time to get here). I we could be in a matrix or something. But, I'm speaking of the world as we observe it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The belief that he didn't exist is sort of back water and uncommon. There are writers and scholars who believe in many things, which are often contradictory. You could find an odd scholar to back lots of odd beliefs. The overall consensus is that Jesus did exist. The nature of that existence is at question though.
Even the wikipedia article and then the article on the documentary by James Cameron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , especially the second of the two, shows that there is more criticism than agreement on the conclusion given of the Talpiot Tomb.
It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the article, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.
Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if their story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.
The article for the movie, which contains the more extraordinary claims being made, contains great critiques.
This all reminds me of how dissapointed I am in general with documentary quality as it has degraded over the last 20-30 years. The journalist were more honest scientifically it seems then and gave good explanations of things. Now, it seems like we are fed pop candy science with flashy pictures.
My brain hurt when I read the first part, i.e. that some scholars claim...did not receive...from heaven. No? I thought all scholars were muslim and thought that the Quran was revealed from God! The whole sentence is insulting to human intelligence.
That's to be expected. The media generally glosses over details and gets them wrong oftentimes just to have a good story. Journalists write about fields they know nothing about oftentimes. They oftentimes have a set desired story and then find the off field people in the field who agree with their desired results.
A good example of this is the previously-mentioned Talpiot Tomb with its given wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and then about the movie made from it by James Cameron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , you will find that under the criticisms that essentially the thing is bogus. It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the critiques, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.
Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if there story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.
I haven't the faintest clue how your beliefs even relate to Buddhism considering you don't believe in reincarnation or the karmic cycle, etc. I guess you can call yourself whatever you want. You probably are an Atheist who embrasses some aspects of Buddhism.
Mohammed, as far as I understood the muslim story to be, never wrote down the Quran. That was part of the alleged miracle, i.e. that he was illiterate and yet dictated the Quran. Others did, or verbally memorized it and recited it. Within a generation it was by Caliph Uthman, if memory serves, compiled into the Quran as we know it now, and possible variants were burnt/destroyed. Revelations did come at different times according to Islam(it speaks of the times in the Hadith).
Most religions are about the miraculous in some way, i.e. that which is impossible physically - the supernatural. It would be impossible to follow most religions and not believe in things that cannot be scientifically substantiated. Otherwise, those things wouldn't be supernatural and those things would be Science and not faith. You can never prove the Resurrection of Christ nor that Mohammed was met by the Archangel Gabriel, etc. That's the point.
I won't go into this further, but essentially without dating the ink, little is shown. People used older parchment and hides, and even erased/wiped them off and then wrote something else on them later. The ink has to be tested. I don't think the thing is a forgery.
On a cool note, one forger, which unfortunately I can't remember the case, managed to use medieval ink(how did he get it?) on a medieval parchment and sold it for millions of dollars. It was only years later that it was shown to be a fake. He was already dead by then:). Now that's genius. If only I had those skills:(
Yes, this is correct; I was in fact about to comment that as it bugged me a lot. Our first computer(at home, of course) was that bondi blue Mac. So it's kind of hard to forget.
Interestingly, I hear what you're saying quite commonly in computer engineering/sciences, as I'm in that faculty. My friends always complain about it, but take the first year classes, as they are required. In the whole scheme of things, one year of general classes in the sciences, arts and humanities(is that under arts?) isn't that long. At 18 years old we always feel as though we have a good understanding of the world, which is somewhat true, but as we grow older and more experienced, we come to realize the arrogance of such an assumption. We will never come to understand the world in which we live fully.
Computer Engineering is distinct from Computer Science. Computer Engineering is really a mixture of electrical engineering and computer science. You take 8 Math classes instead of 4 and you come to understand and make digital/analog circuits. After this year(I'm finishing this year and have also complete a M.A.), I'll only be about 1 year away from either degree(Electrical Engineering or Computer Science). The interesting thing about being able to understand both Computer Science and Electrical Engineering are all of the amazing hardware/software devices you could create. In Computer Science you are generally restricted to writing software for existing hardware platforms, but imagine being able to do both? Imagine the neat things you could create!
A lot of people here seem to make comments that you can just "read" about computer sciences and understand it. Would you trust a doctor to operate on you who learnt from "Surgery for dummies"? Would you trust someone to make the software that runs for car controls and on planes to have gone that route? You create projects, do tests, etc., which are then graded by professors. When you graduate, it is because you were viewed academically as able to practice engineering, not because you felt as though you were. That is why in Canada, engineers are certified as professional engineers and cannot receive that designation unless they get the degree and work for 2 years under the supervision of another P.Eng. No one else can legally call themselves engineers or use the word engineering in their business name, this includes Computer Science graduates.
Being able to write is always an asset.
Re:What is more reliable, safe, fast, ubiquitous,.
on
Where Is Firefox OS?
·
· Score: 1
Well, to be fair the actual core functionality, including the browser would be still written in whatever c variant the various parts are written in. Really linux + window manager + desktop setup they choose + the browser. The name is really a misnomer; it is really more of an OS with stripped-down functionality with chrome being the centre with web apps on top. Your point about native code is true though; no matter how hard you try, writing photoshop in javascript just isn't feasible, or any app with advanced functionality. I'm not saying this not knowing Javascript and HTML, but I'm saying this knowing its speed(I've had to do work speeding up portions of code for optimization, writing web apps, etc for years) and your comparing centiseconds to nanoseconds. Also HTML is a layout manager that seems to lack a lot of the things common to desktop applications, which has lead to hacks around it, but they aren't pretty. I haven't checked out HTML 5 yet, as it doesn't work on everything yet. Plus HTML and CSS in particular are really a mess when you get to cross-platform issues. It would be a big step backwards.
I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to destruction of OSX. If you know the context, he was demoting the desktop from the role of central file syncing hub and putting iCloud in its place. This would put files in the cloud. He doesn't talk about destroying the node though(OSX)! At no point did he roll out some sort of evil destruction plan for OSX or imply it...really this is speculation gone a mock.
About the actual Macs themselves, I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to the destruction of the Mac platform. Apple makes a lot of money on Macs; not as much as they do with iOS devices, but still quite a bit. There will be more and more borrowing done between the platforms(which I think are essentially, at the core, the same, but with different physical interfaces and support different parts of Cocoa), but this doesn't mean the destruction of either. There are just some things that will always work better on a desktop than on a touchscreen. E.g., I have no idea how I'd use XCode on an iPad. The typing on an iPad is fine for some things, but I couldn't imagine typing programs on an iPad. On the other hand, there are other things which work better on touch screens. We can have both and Apple seems to be fine with that and profiting from that distinction. I'm pretty sure the iBook and powerbook are secure in their existence for quite a while:)
The only way I can see OSX going away is through a new version coming out with a completely new name. I am getting sick of all of the vast array of cat names for OSX! I always forget what cat we're on, the order of previous cats and the name of the cat-to-come. Renaming the OS would be problematic on several levels though. OSX was quite a different OS from OS9 though. It was NeXT-based(Unix), took NeXT's APIs(renamed Cocoa), and then added support for Carbon and made it nice and usable; it definitely deserved a new OS branding, because it was so different from OS9. There have been a lot of features added and refinements done since 2001, but I wouldn't call them a new OS, neither does Apple really, as they are just newer and newer "versions" of the OS, OSX. So, unless there is something very new and different coming, I don't know if they'd rename it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree! The usefulness of the data is even questionable and too simple to provide anything beyond correlation and conjecture. The $100 000 is probably given as a number, because the data they produce should be more advanced than just DeptA -> M vs F, Dept B -> M vs F. More variables should be included, such as the experience, education and effectiveness(productivity) of these workers. What you get paid in salaried positions that are negotiable is a function of your ability to negotiate and the HR person you are negotiating with's responsiveness to that. It also depends on what you have to offer obviously(experience, domain knowledge, your references, etc). How do you quantify these variables? If it is shown to correlate, the cause would be hard to determine. Is it caused by the effectiveness of males vs females to negotiate, or is it caused by HR's lack of response to the same input from potential female candidates? Or is it caused by disparities in experience and qualifications. Anyone could conjecture all day long as to the causes, but that's all it would be; conjecture. This could only be offset by richer data. Even then, there are so many unquantifiable variables involved. The resultant correlation, if shown, could be seen as a microcosm of what happens in the wider world. It would fail to show a "systematic" cause, i.e. Google purposely did this. As far as the costs are concerned, just because a company makes a lot of money, doesn't mean that money has less value.
Where it says, "...blinded the minds of them which believe not", the addition of [the Bible] is not what it is being spoken about. Believe not, as in those who do not beleive in salvation through the Christ, if read in context. The Bible speaks of those things, but isn't the same as those things :)
Thee believe not part addition [Bible] is not what it is speaking about. Believe not, i.e. salvation through Christ, God, i.e. the gospel if read in context. The Bible contains those things, but isn't the same as those things :)
I said nothing against what was said there, in fact, they all speak of perceived broad issues, but it doesn't state any specific issue with any particular argument or source about the existence of Jesus. Even one of the guys quoted by you states that most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism). Again, the issue isn't the existence of said person, but is about what he did.
How we perceive a 1st century entity won't be perfect and will be with bias. How we perceive Julius Ceasar is likewise tainted. But, he still existed.
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the criticism section and smell all you like. And you never responded to your authorship and dating issues. And also there is more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Well, actually, I have a poor sense of smell and if you want to refute the wikipedia article and challenge the sources, do so. That onus is yours. That's the only way things are improved. The earliest papyrii we have is from the 2nd century not the 3rd and date of authorship(divine or not) ranges from 60-130 depending on the document and the book you are referring to even according to liberal scholars. And sources...well have fun, not going to bother with you :)
I heard about the "scraping process" when in theology(I completed and then went on to do Computer Science lol). But, years ago I saw it again in relation to a Yemeni manuscript of the Quran, which had that on it. It is called the Sana'a manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The process is called palimpsest and has an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . That's definitely my word of the day.
I'm sure we are referring to the same story about the forger. Even the ussuary of Jesus' brother James was supposedly found, only to have been found to be a fake(the inscription at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Not that anyone would care if they found it. Plus, if I remember Josephus claimed that he was thrown off the temple wall at some point (prior to 70CE when the temple was destroyed of course).
We observe ancient gravity daily when we see its effect on the stars since we are seeing their light from millions or billions of years ago(it takes a long time to get here). I we could be in a matrix or something. But, I'm speaking of the world as we observe it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The belief that he didn't exist is sort of back water and uncommon. There are writers and scholars who believe in many things, which are often contradictory. You could find an odd scholar to back lots of odd beliefs. The overall consensus is that Jesus did exist. The nature of that existence is at question though.
Even the wikipedia article and then the article on the documentary by James Cameron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , especially the second of the two, shows that there is more criticism than agreement on the conclusion given of the Talpiot Tomb.
It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the article, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.
Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if their story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.
The article for the movie, which contains the more extraordinary claims being made, contains great critiques.
This all reminds me of how dissapointed I am in general with documentary quality as it has degraded over the last 20-30 years. The journalist were more honest scientifically it seems then and gave good explanations of things. Now, it seems like we are fed pop candy science with flashy pictures.
My brain hurt when I read the first part, i.e. that some scholars claim...did not receive...from heaven. No? I thought all scholars were muslim and thought that the Quran was revealed from God! The whole sentence is insulting to human intelligence.
That's to be expected. The media generally glosses over details and gets them wrong oftentimes just to have a good story. Journalists write about fields they know nothing about oftentimes. They oftentimes have a set desired story and then find the off field people in the field who agree with their desired results.
A good example of this is the previously-mentioned Talpiot Tomb with its given wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and then about the movie made from it by James Cameron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , you will find that under the criticisms that essentially the thing is bogus. It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the critiques, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.
Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if there story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.
I haven't the faintest clue how your beliefs even relate to Buddhism considering you don't believe in reincarnation or the karmic cycle, etc. I guess you can call yourself whatever you want. You probably are an Atheist who embrasses some aspects of Buddhism. Mohammed, as far as I understood the muslim story to be, never wrote down the Quran. That was part of the alleged miracle, i.e. that he was illiterate and yet dictated the Quran. Others did, or verbally memorized it and recited it. Within a generation it was by Caliph Uthman, if memory serves, compiled into the Quran as we know it now, and possible variants were burnt/destroyed. Revelations did come at different times according to Islam(it speaks of the times in the Hadith). Most religions are about the miraculous in some way, i.e. that which is impossible physically - the supernatural. It would be impossible to follow most religions and not believe in things that cannot be scientifically substantiated. Otherwise, those things wouldn't be supernatural and those things would be Science and not faith. You can never prove the Resurrection of Christ nor that Mohammed was met by the Archangel Gabriel, etc. That's the point. I won't go into this further, but essentially without dating the ink, little is shown. People used older parchment and hides, and even erased/wiped them off and then wrote something else on them later. The ink has to be tested. I don't think the thing is a forgery. On a cool note, one forger, which unfortunately I can't remember the case, managed to use medieval ink(how did he get it?) on a medieval parchment and sold it for millions of dollars. It was only years later that it was shown to be a fake. He was already dead by then :). Now that's genius. If only I had those skills :(
That is beyond awesome!
Yes, this is correct; I was in fact about to comment that as it bugged me a lot. Our first computer(at home, of course) was that bondi blue Mac. So it's kind of hard to forget.
Interestingly, I hear what you're saying quite commonly in computer engineering/sciences, as I'm in that faculty. My friends always complain about it, but take the first year classes, as they are required. In the whole scheme of things, one year of general classes in the sciences, arts and humanities(is that under arts?) isn't that long. At 18 years old we always feel as though we have a good understanding of the world, which is somewhat true, but as we grow older and more experienced, we come to realize the arrogance of such an assumption. We will never come to understand the world in which we live fully.
Computer Engineering is distinct from Computer Science. Computer Engineering is really a mixture of electrical engineering and computer science. You take 8 Math classes instead of 4 and you come to understand and make digital/analog circuits. After this year(I'm finishing this year and have also complete a M.A.), I'll only be about 1 year away from either degree(Electrical Engineering or Computer Science). The interesting thing about being able to understand both Computer Science and Electrical Engineering are all of the amazing hardware/software devices you could create. In Computer Science you are generally restricted to writing software for existing hardware platforms, but imagine being able to do both? Imagine the neat things you could create!
A lot of people here seem to make comments that you can just "read" about computer sciences and understand it. Would you trust a doctor to operate on you who learnt from "Surgery for dummies"? Would you trust someone to make the software that runs for car controls and on planes to have gone that route? You create projects, do tests, etc., which are then graded by professors. When you graduate, it is because you were viewed academically as able to practice engineering, not because you felt as though you were. That is why in Canada, engineers are certified as professional engineers and cannot receive that designation unless they get the degree and work for 2 years under the supervision of another P.Eng. No one else can legally call themselves engineers or use the word engineering in their business name, this includes Computer Science graduates.
Being able to write is always an asset.
Well, to be fair the actual core functionality, including the browser would be still written in whatever c variant the various parts are written in. Really linux + window manager + desktop setup they choose + the browser. The name is really a misnomer; it is really more of an OS with stripped-down functionality with chrome being the centre with web apps on top. Your point about native code is true though; no matter how hard you try, writing photoshop in javascript just isn't feasible, or any app with advanced functionality. I'm not saying this not knowing Javascript and HTML, but I'm saying this knowing its speed(I've had to do work speeding up portions of code for optimization, writing web apps, etc for years) and your comparing centiseconds to nanoseconds. Also HTML is a layout manager that seems to lack a lot of the things common to desktop applications, which has lead to hacks around it, but they aren't pretty. I haven't checked out HTML 5 yet, as it doesn't work on everything yet. Plus HTML and CSS in particular are really a mess when you get to cross-platform issues. It would be a big step backwards.
I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to destruction of OSX. If you know the context, he was demoting the desktop from the role of central file syncing hub and putting iCloud in its place. This would put files in the cloud. He doesn't talk about destroying the node though(OSX)! At no point did he roll out some sort of evil destruction plan for OSX or imply it...really this is speculation gone a mock. :)
About the actual Macs themselves, I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to the destruction of the Mac platform. Apple makes a lot of money on Macs; not as much as they do with iOS devices, but still quite a bit. There will be more and more borrowing done between the platforms(which I think are essentially, at the core, the same, but with different physical interfaces and support different parts of Cocoa), but this doesn't mean the destruction of either. There are just some things that will always work better on a desktop than on a touchscreen. E.g., I have no idea how I'd use XCode on an iPad. The typing on an iPad is fine for some things, but I couldn't imagine typing programs on an iPad. On the other hand, there are other things which work better on touch screens. We can have both and Apple seems to be fine with that and profiting from that distinction. I'm pretty sure the iBook and powerbook are secure in their existence for quite a while
The only way I can see OSX going away is through a new version coming out with a completely new name. I am getting sick of all of the vast array of cat names for OSX! I always forget what cat we're on, the order of previous cats and the name of the cat-to-come. Renaming the OS would be problematic on several levels though. OSX was quite a different OS from OS9 though. It was NeXT-based(Unix), took NeXT's APIs(renamed Cocoa), and then added support for Carbon and made it nice and usable; it definitely deserved a new OS branding, because it was so different from OS9. There have been a lot of features added and refinements done since 2001, but I wouldn't call them a new OS, neither does Apple really, as they are just newer and newer "versions" of the OS, OSX. So, unless there is something very new and different coming, I don't know if they'd rename it.