I completely agree, though some professors and schools have a wierd paranoia about the distribution of their lectures. To some extent there's a reasonable argument that it undermines the value of the education, but personally I think formal schooling in the current model is doomed anyway.
People should just take audio recordings of lectures instead. Then you can automate transcription. If you record video or snapshots of the white/black board then you're really covered. At that point, you can fully involve yourself with the lecture, without having to worry about the risk of failing to record something you'll need to pass the final. Every school should encourage this.
None of these are to be controlled by the Federal government. None of them should.
Let me debate these:
1. Murder. Does it really seem reasonable to allow a state to define murder? Should a state be allowed to say that killing poor people for sport is ok?
2. Obscenity. Does it really seem ok for a state to be allowed to allow child pornography?
3. Wealth Distribution (taxes). This one I guess I can't think of a good argument against, because there's no fundamentally inescapable coercion involved, as is the case with all the others.
4. Theft. Same argument as murder. Weaker if you're only going to consider non violent thefts.
5. Rape. Same argument as murder.
What if we added to the list:
6. Slavery. Should a state be allowed to make it's own decision about slavery?
My claim is that all of the above except for the taxation issue are really the sort of issue that, morally, should be decided by the most global authority available, which in the case of US states is the federal government.
That's actually exactly why I think that HR in small companies can't afford to get back to every single applicant when they get in a ton of resumes: they need to get back quickly to their top 5%, or lose the opportunity to hire them!
It doesn't set a standard in most companies because salaries and raises are secret. I think you'd be surprised. I know 4 people (plus me) who have tried this technique and gotten raises over 15%, and as a result kept jobs they liked.
Scenario: small to mid size business with small HR staff.
Software Guy to Boss: we need to hire someone with good C# skills to offload some of this work.
Boss to Software Guy: okay, I'll get someone hired as soon as possible, thanks for letting me know.
Boss to HR: we need to hire someone with good C# skills.
Inexperienced HR person places add for person with 5 years c# experience.
Question: company you want to work for?
Thoughts: good: boss cares about and is responsive to software guy's needs, communicates needs quickly to hr. bad: HR department doesn't have a lot of knowledge about software development, and doesn't know when to ask for more input.
My opinion: I hardly care if the HR department isn't that good, I'll apply for the job and see if the people i'll work with are any good.
Err, let me caveat the above with: you should also consider jumping ship for other reasons such as career development. What I really meant is not to give up a good job just for money reasons without taking a couple of tries at fixing the money situation first.
You should really only jump ship if it is necessary financially. Too many people are afraid to push for a raise. I think most people who jump ship without trying would be surprised at how easily you can get a raise to match the going rate that other companies will offer to hire you away. Paticularly if you start the conversation with: I really love working here, but given the market rate, I'm concerned that I'm becoming significantly underpaid, could we talk about a raise so I won't have to consider leaving my job here for the best interests of my family?
I certainly agree that, ideally, some response is good. I just wouldn't expect it, particularly with smaller companies that may not have a dedicated HR department. I certainly wouldn't expect a phone call and an opportunity to really talk to someone, receiving an acknowledgement email (thank you for submitting your resume, we'll get in touch if we're interested) is more likely.
I don't personally do this stuff at all, I'm just aware of what happens. The reason you see jobs advertised with poor descriptions, wierd experience expectations, and odd salary levels is that in small to medium companies with inexperienced HR staff and undeveloped hiring practices, the people writing the job advertisements don't have enough knowledge or input to do a good job with the position advertising process. If you're interested in a job with such a company, there's likely to be a step in the process where you need to explain that you'll do the job for $60k/year, and that they're unlikely to find anyone competent to do it for less. You need to provide them with the knowledge that they don't have. This is not a serious flaw for a company, there's no reason to expect every company to fully understand every job that it has to hire for (in fact, gaining expertise is one of the most common reasons companies ever need to hire in the first place, particularly in software!)
Reversing the common thinking during the hiring process is a great strategy for getting a job (offer). Too many people go to a company, thinking and conveying: how can I convince you to give me this job? A much better attitude is to come in saying: I'm interested in what you're doing, this is what I have to offer, how much will you pay me to get it? It reverses the process from you pursuing the job to the job pursuing you, and it's not hard to do, it mostly just requires the appearance of self-confidence, and the ability to back it with real knowledge.
It might be different in NZ, but in most places, you won't get contacted by most employers just for sending in a resume. At my company (~50 people) we get something on the order of 200 resumes a day. We call the ones that are a sufficiently good match. We just don't have the manpower to follow up every one.
Specific requirements on jobs are a foil intended to weed out the insufficiently motivated and persistent. You'll often see jobs posted with literally impossible to fill requirements (12 years c#, anyone?). The goal is to get people to apply only if they are seriously confident about their c# skills. So if you see a job description you think you can do, apply for it. These positions do get filled, and I guarantee that 9 out of 10 are filled by people who don't meet the 'minimum' qualifications.
1. The same people who decide what can go on TV (or a similar parallel board). There's an appeals process as usual. 2. UK and foreign websites can adopt or not adopt the convention, and move to xxx.uk, or not. Countries that don't comply can be filtered entirely by users in the US who care about this stuff. 3. I don't think anyone who wants this legislation cares if you have some trouble finding your porn. 4. The people who want this legislation don't mind if it costs the porn providers more money. 5. The people who care about this stuff do the policing, and do it voluntarily, so it costs nothing. 6. You enforce across borders by threatening to filter the whole country if they don't comply. 7..xxx blockers are the point of such legislation. 8. The cost burdens will be pushed mostly on the porn providers, which again, makes the people who want this legislation happy. 9. Again, ok with the people who want this legislation. 10. Same thing.
It's the same as the bully scenario. Their force is part of the combined force of arms that you have to deal with if you want to resist a subpoena by force.
The army's force might back the police in a case of a rampage, but it does not back up the police in the case of a subpoena.
But in fact it does, if the subpoena situation turns into a rampage.
A high resolution timer is very useful when asking a question such as:
How far apart (in time) were these two 10 Gbps ethernet packets?
With the old, low resolution, timers, you got one of two answers typically: 0 ms or 1 ms. And when it said 1ms, it was actually probably closer to 0 ms, the clock just happened to roll over. The 'real' answer was probably 0.000000030 seconds, and that happened to be enough to make the clock trip into the next millisecond.
With a higher resolution timer, the above scenario might tell you that those 2 packets were 30 nanosecs apart.
This can be rather useful for assorted predictive algorithms, and pretty much any code that needs to measure the passage of time while operating in the greater than 1000 operations per second range.
It's a timer: thing that measures the passage of time (used for example in network, audio, video code among other things) With resolution: resolution means how accurate or precise the timer is capable of being (for example, can your timer measure seconds, or only minutes?) That is high: lots of resolution (in this case, the design allows for nanosecond accuracy, whereas the low resolution timers linux used to be stuck with were only millisecond accurate)
I debated whether to include that in my list, but decided it was funnier without. On the more serious side, I'm glad that it would be hard to find my Slashdot postings when googling me for a job, because I post a lot of wacky stuff to slashdot, and it often doesn't seem to be understood for the humor that is intended.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree, though some professors and schools have a wierd paranoia about the distribution of their lectures. To some extent there's a reasonable argument that it undermines the value of the education, but personally I think formal schooling in the current model is doomed anyway.
Hence automated transcription.
Or, take the notes you really want, without fear of missing anything or not writing fast enough.
People should just take audio recordings of lectures instead. Then you can automate transcription. If you record video or snapshots of the white/black board then you're really covered. At that point, you can fully involve yourself with the lecture, without having to worry about the risk of failing to record something you'll need to pass the final. Every school should encourage this.
1. Murder
2. Obscenity
3. Wealth Distribution (taxes)
4. Theft
5. Rape
None of these are to be controlled by the Federal government. None of them should.
Let me debate these:
1. Murder. Does it really seem reasonable to allow a state to define murder? Should a state be allowed to say that killing poor people for sport is ok?
2. Obscenity. Does it really seem ok for a state to be allowed to allow child pornography?
3. Wealth Distribution (taxes). This one I guess I can't think of a good argument against, because there's no fundamentally inescapable coercion involved, as is the case with all the others.
4. Theft. Same argument as murder. Weaker if you're only going to consider non violent thefts.
5. Rape. Same argument as murder.
What if we added to the list:
6. Slavery. Should a state be allowed to make it's own decision about slavery?
My claim is that all of the above except for the taxation issue are really the sort of issue that, morally, should be decided by the most global authority available, which in the case of US states is the federal government.
That's actually exactly why I think that HR in small companies can't afford to get back to every single applicant when they get in a ton of resumes: they need to get back quickly to their top 5%, or lose the opportunity to hire them!
It doesn't set a standard in most companies because salaries and raises are secret. I think you'd be surprised. I know 4 people (plus me) who have tried this technique and gotten raises over 15%, and as a result kept jobs they liked.
Scenario: small to mid size business with small HR staff.
Software Guy to Boss: we need to hire someone with good C# skills to offload some of this work.
Boss to Software Guy: okay, I'll get someone hired as soon as possible, thanks for letting me know.
Boss to HR: we need to hire someone with good C# skills.
Inexperienced HR person places add for person with 5 years c# experience.
Question: company you want to work for?
Thoughts:
good: boss cares about and is responsive to software guy's needs, communicates needs quickly to hr.
bad: HR department doesn't have a lot of knowledge about software development, and doesn't know when to ask for more input.
My opinion: I hardly care if the HR department isn't that good, I'll apply for the job and see if the people i'll work with are any good.
Err, let me caveat the above with: you should also consider jumping ship for other reasons such as career development. What I really meant is not to give up a good job just for money reasons without taking a couple of tries at fixing the money situation first.
You should really only jump ship if it is necessary financially. Too many people are afraid to push for a raise. I think most people who jump ship without trying would be surprised at how easily you can get a raise to match the going rate that other companies will offer to hire you away. Paticularly if you start the conversation with: I really love working here, but given the market rate, I'm concerned that I'm becoming significantly underpaid, could we talk about a raise so I won't have to consider leaving my job here for the best interests of my family?
I certainly agree that, ideally, some response is good. I just wouldn't expect it, particularly with smaller companies that may not have a dedicated HR department. I certainly wouldn't expect a phone call and an opportunity to really talk to someone, receiving an acknowledgement email (thank you for submitting your resume, we'll get in touch if we're interested) is more likely.
I don't personally do this stuff at all, I'm just aware of what happens. The reason you see jobs advertised with poor descriptions, wierd experience expectations, and odd salary levels is that in small to medium companies with inexperienced HR staff and undeveloped hiring practices, the people writing the job advertisements don't have enough knowledge or input to do a good job with the position advertising process. If you're interested in a job with such a company, there's likely to be a step in the process where you need to explain that you'll do the job for $60k/year, and that they're unlikely to find anyone competent to do it for less. You need to provide them with the knowledge that they don't have. This is not a serious flaw for a company, there's no reason to expect every company to fully understand every job that it has to hire for (in fact, gaining expertise is one of the most common reasons companies ever need to hire in the first place, particularly in software!)
Reversing the common thinking during the hiring process is a great strategy for getting a job (offer). Too many people go to a company, thinking and conveying: how can I convince you to give me this job? A much better attitude is to come in saying: I'm interested in what you're doing, this is what I have to offer, how much will you pay me to get it? It reverses the process from you pursuing the job to the job pursuing you, and it's not hard to do, it mostly just requires the appearance of self-confidence, and the ability to back it with real knowledge.
It might be different in NZ, but in most places, you won't get contacted by most employers just for sending in a resume. At my company (~50 people) we get something on the order of 200 resumes a day. We call the ones that are a sufficiently good match. We just don't have the manpower to follow up every one.
Specific requirements on jobs are a foil intended to weed out the insufficiently motivated and persistent. You'll often see jobs posted with literally impossible to fill requirements (12 years c#, anyone?). The goal is to get people to apply only if they are seriously confident about their c# skills. So if you see a job description you think you can do, apply for it. These positions do get filled, and I guarantee that 9 out of 10 are filled by people who don't meet the 'minimum' qualifications.
Unfortunately, it's only twice as fast. :-(
But maybe it will get faster yet.
http://memory-chips.globalspec.com/LearnMore/Semic onductors/Memory_Chips/FLASH_Memory_Chips
Slightly out of date (claims 100k writes, while current generation flash gets around 300k, I think, but I couldn't find a cite for that quickly).
That should be more than adequate for a typical 2-3 year laptop lifespan.
So all we have to do is put our totally unusable by any one else source code into open source, and suddenly we can write off our development costs!
Yes, 10x is almost certainly a gross underestimate for the frame rate improvement real games will see from physics acceleration. Damn liars!
I just go with the disease convention:
Cow == Mad Cow
Pork == Trichinosis
Chicken == Bird Flu
What's a meat eater to eat?
Sorry about that, you're completely right.
Answers to all your questions:
.xxx blockers are the point of such legislation.
1. The same people who decide what can go on TV (or a similar parallel board). There's an appeals process as usual.
2. UK and foreign websites can adopt or not adopt the convention, and move to xxx.uk, or not. Countries that don't comply can be filtered entirely by users in the US who care about this stuff.
3. I don't think anyone who wants this legislation cares if you have some trouble finding your porn.
4. The people who want this legislation don't mind if it costs the porn providers more money.
5. The people who care about this stuff do the policing, and do it voluntarily, so it costs nothing.
6. You enforce across borders by threatening to filter the whole country if they don't comply.
7.
8. The cost burdens will be pushed mostly on the porn providers, which again, makes the people who want this legislation happy.
9. Again, ok with the people who want this legislation.
10. Same thing.
I think it does, right? You can run vmware on it and run linux in virtualization, right?
I'm a thing!
It's the same as the bully scenario. Their force is part of the combined force of arms that you have to deal with if you want to resist a subpoena by force.
The army's force might back the police in a case of a rampage, but it does not back up the police in the case of a subpoena.
But in fact it does, if the subpoena situation turns into a rampage.
Bah, hit submit too soon on my previous reply:
A high resolution timer is very useful when asking a question such as:
How far apart (in time) were these two 10 Gbps ethernet packets?
With the old, low resolution, timers, you got one of two answers typically: 0 ms or 1 ms. And when it said 1ms, it was actually probably closer to 0 ms, the clock just happened to roll over. The 'real' answer was probably 0.000000030 seconds, and that happened to be enough to make the clock trip into the next millisecond.
With a higher resolution timer, the above scenario might tell you that those 2 packets were 30 nanosecs apart.
This can be rather useful for assorted predictive algorithms, and pretty much any code that needs to measure the passage of time while operating in the greater than 1000 operations per second range.
It's a timer: thing that measures the passage of time (used for example in network, audio, video code among other things)
With resolution: resolution means how accurate or precise the timer is capable of being (for example, can your timer measure seconds, or only minutes?)
That is high: lots of resolution (in this case, the design allows for nanosecond accuracy, whereas the low resolution timers linux used to be stuck with were only millisecond accurate)
I debated whether to include that in my list, but decided it was funnier without.
On the more serious side, I'm glad that it would be hard to find my Slashdot postings when googling me for a job, because I post a lot of wacky stuff to slashdot, and it often doesn't seem to be understood for the humor that is intended.