Wow. You get to miss the point of my post AND show yourself a smart-ass all in one post. Such efficiency!
When I went to college the internet was but a fetus compared to what it is now. And regardless, my classmates were not tasked and paid to teach me something; the guy up front with the diplomas on his wall and the chalk in his hand was. To give a pass to the person who has an assigned responsibility and fails, only to put that responsibility on your buds isn't as clever as you make it sound.
First of all, grow a sense of humor buddy. Don't assume I'm insulting you. I'm replying to your post to add something to what you said.
Anyways, he's not paid to teach you, he's paid to teach the class. If you don't learn anything in the class and you fail, that's not his problem. You and your classmates have a shared goal of learning the material and working together will make the goal easier to attain for both of you.
Anyways you're not in school anymore so this is all just pointless talking.
More than half of my engineering curriculum was taught by prolific researchers who couldn't teach worth a damn. I was a tutor through most of college and found myself "reteaching" a lot of the stuff they would teach to others who came looking for help. Not because I was bright, see I struggled to understand the same topics, but I was able to break the topics down in a way that made more sense. Tying "building block" concepts progressively, until the process showed the complete picture, at which point I could teach them to myself for my own understanding, and then to others. That's when I realized good teachers require the whole package of skills; proficiency in their subject and a mind to educate by facilitating the process of connecting concepts.
Sounds like a good place for a free market to open up. What teaching is worth should lean heavily on a feedback/review framework like Amazon's such that people don't end up paying for a class that sucks, by every student's experience, because the professor can't communicate concepts, or communicate at all. Like the time I spent almost weeks trying to figure out what the foreigner in my Space Systems course meant by "papamaaa". By the way, that's "performance".
Let me guess, you didn't do well in the classes and you've found it very convenient to blame the professor's accent for your failures.
Just kidding, LOL.
We're in college, there is the internet. You don't need professors of a skill of a stand up comedian to keep you entertained for 3 hours/week. Don't look at the professor for learning, the most important aspect is your classmates. Take classes with your friends or make new friends. You'll do well, you'll have fun and learn a lot. Just don't expect your professor to be your buddy buddy and guide you through everything.
The professor is the guy you ask why you can't figure something out and he'll tell you in 1 second what you're doing wrong. He's not the resource for keeping you entertained and motivated during class.
...then why are virtually all of the most successful tech companies here?
Yes, a few exist outside of the US. Not many.
It's because we have been so far successful in getting the a large chunk of the 95% to move the US.
But, new programmers are being minted everyday and if we don't get there here, they will start creating their own software companies in their own countries. It doesn't take long for a company to start with nothing and become one of the largest company in the world in a decade.
I'm only half serious though. There are enough reasons why the next Google can or can't come from outside the US. Can we confidently say that the next Google will be an American company? Can we do anything about it or just sit and wait?
If these companies were hiring a cook they would require 3 years experience working on an Ace cooktop, 5-years experience with Acme Food Supply, and be able to demonstrate the restaurant's recipe for their signature meat dish before being considered.
Companies didn't come into existence with their particular toolsets: they learned them, and quickly. Then they refuse to consider hiring anyone who doesn't already know them in depth.
I've seen certain fortune 500 companies advertise software engineering job positions that do not require any experience, do not list any requirements (except high school) and job description is as vague and all-encompassing as desire and ability to write software. That does not make getting that position easier to get.
The biggest unwritten requirement is if you'd want to spend and interact 40+ hours a week with that person. That is why most women programmers no matter how inexperienced will always get hired very easily. Programming ability matters very little when the guy is a weirdo and awkward to deal with.
Not that I'm implying you're a weird or anything, but when a guy walks in the door, people fear for the worst. Until you get to know someone, guys think other guys are creepy or bad. Thus, it is very easy to get a friend hired in your company but if a friend doesn't want to give you the recommendation in his company, that probably means your friend doesn't like you and wouldn't care to work with you.
Despite what Slashdot and their parent Dice would like you to believe, job hunting is largely done through connections. If you are reading job requirements and fuming over not enough experience and what not, you're probably exhausted your contacts. Employers also fear the worst of the applicants coming through random job searchers and will scrutinize them more than if they came through connections.
It is blatantly false that companies will not consider hiring anyone who already doesn't know the tool in depth. The biggest tool to learn is the company software repo, the business and culture of the company which is the least documented. Any commercial tool can be learned in weeks or months since there are thousands of resources on it. Learning the company source code base and all the ways the company works is the hardest part.
My psychology book said that in most cases people make up their minds unconsciously and then go find reasons to justify it. I read somewhere (and it could be completely false) that an interviewer decides to offer a job or not very quickly and spends the rest of the time confirming it. I have found that it's the weird things that get people hired. If they were in the same fraternity, attended the same university or some other commonality. I hate to say it but if a team leader is Chinese, you will find that a lot of junior Chinese developers and this is because ethnicity is a super-obvious observation. Sometimes, entire teams have hidden commonality like an fraternity, an ex-employer or a university.
Anyway, I've been turned away from many jobs that I was qualified for and had the technical skills for. But, if I want to land that job right after an interview, I have to have connections or be a super-charming person. Everyone thinks they are geniuses in their own right but others think differently. The most qualified candidate isn't the one who always gets hired. In the end, in software development, it is the team effort than the individual that matters.
The cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so. This means if we can put an emissions tax on airlines, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions. When that happens, we will still be able to meet demand for relatively low cost.
The cool thing about governments is that they can post emissions standards or face fines, non-renewal of licenses. Then, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions.
Anyways, with cars, manufacturers are required to meet emissions standards. Then, in some states, owners are also required to maintain the vehicle to the emissions standards.
When the oil prices went up, it was effectively a tax on emissions. However, did we see "technological advances"? Nope. Many airlines went bankrupt and had to be bailed out.
The only people we hire now have relevant experience and skills in our very specific field, and experience commensurate for the position we are posting. We have sadly given up on new graduates; they are too flakey, having never held an actual job before, and needing substantial training to get to a point where they can generate revenue... and leave. Now is a great time for people that graduated around 2010, found a job in their field at terrible pay, and are now ready for an actual career.
This is not true.
I know recruiters and they love hiring new graduates. New graduates need jobs, experienced engineers already have jobs.
Training does not take long at all. Revenue generation isn't a factor since there is not even a way to measure how someone directly generated revenue when hundreds of people work on a single product.
The correlation between these parameters suggests that two-thirds of the difference in cancer risk among various tissue types can be blamed on random, or 'stochastic,' mutations in DNA occurring during stem-cell division, and only one-third on hereditary or environmental factors like smoking, the researchers conclude.
The article says,
By “chance” Tomasetti meant the roll of the dice that each cell division represents, leaving aside the influence of deleterious genes or environmental factors such as smoking or exposure to radiation.
The summary says 1/3 has smoking and environmental effects, while the article says the 1/3 doesn't have smoking and environmental effects.
Lately, slashdot summaries have gotten worse and worse and completely change what is being claimed.
... but their Xfinity Wifi Hotspot program, if implemented correctly, shouldn't cause customers any real harm.
What I believe happens is that your modem gets virtualized into two modems/routers. Cable Internet is already based on shared broadcast signals, so in terms of bandwidth it should be identical to adding a second, mostly inactive cable modem somewhere in your neighborhood. Since the 2nd modem is virtualized, it should not affect your transfer rates or bandwidth quotas.
This second modem is connected to a second, virtual router, with its own SSID. Unless there's a vulnerability in the router (which is possible), users of the Xfinity Wifi Hotspot should not be able to access your network, use your IP address, etc.
Available bandwidth could conceivably be reduced, due to more packets in the air, but WiFi is already unregulated and subject to additional interference. Increased load on the modem/router could theoretically reduce your bandwidth as well, although probably not by any noticeable amount.
The best claim is based on increased electricity usage. However, the additional energy needed is probably negligible. Here is a link to a blog post about the increased electricity costs, where they conclude it's about $8 per year in the mid-Atlantic area -- if it's being used. Comcast could give everyone a $1/mo credit for enabling the Xfinity WiFi Hotspot, completely eliminating the issue.
The problem is that they are enabling it without consent.
Comcast should give a large discount to incentiveize people in enabling them. Since they are Comcast, they just said fuck you and turned it on to rake in the sweet sweet profit.
There is a great portion of my favorite book on Political thought regarding wages and the Artisan. Socrates points out that once a person in society receives ample money for a project they no longer have incentive to do future work. Socrates continues stating that this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the person with the wealth is now free to meddle in the affairs of everybody else in society. That meddling is almost never in societies interests, but that person or the person's close friends and associates, so that they gain further control of society and have more stuff than everyone else.
That book in case you are interested is Plato's "The Republic".
The whole "everyone should code" argument is foolish. Society needs plumbers, welders, architects, accountants, doctors, physicists, line workers, and every other job there is. As society has demand for jobs the wages should go up, which draws people into the needed jobs. Since coders are in demand and receive good wages for their work, it seems at least some of this push is to artificially reduce the wages by flooding the market. And lets face it, there are not a whole lot of decent paying middle class jobs left in the US any longer.
Human societies are now billions of people. Even millions of dollars are just a drop in the sea. There is absolutely no way anyone can know what that drop is good or bad for society. Is the projected funded by a billionaire for his interests more detrimental than a project sanctioned by a government official using taxpayer money?
By the same logic of not everyone should code, then everyone shouldn't need to read and write, do math, learn science? Every scientist now learns to code; engineers code, physicists code, biologists code. Why shouldn't the average person code?
Everyone I worked with 15 years ago as an engineer is now in management. What are they managing? Where is this productivity I keep hearing about?
Good engineers quickly outgrow what they themselves alone are capable of to their visions of what is possible. Management is the only way you can get hundreds of engineers to realize your vision.
Strange. I've owned a car (several of them, actually) for a couple of decades and I never made a payment other than the first one I used to buy the car. I've also never paid over $3000 for a car. Something about learning to maintain it yourself and not having much money. Also something about how true ownership beats the pants off someone else having control of my stuff.
Guess as you get paid more, you gather this strange belief that everyone does the same crazy dumb shit that you're doing.
Cars are cash items due to severe depreciation and high maintenance costs. Can't afford to buy it cash? Don't. If you have under $1000 cash (the minimum I find drivable cars selling for) the last thing you need are payments! And if you need it for a job, make sure you pay the car off within a month or two (there's plenty of $2000 jalopies you can pick up at the various fleece-me-blind no-credit car lots that should be priced at $1000 cash).
If you buy a used car, it will run into problems. If you go to a mechanic with even the smallest of problems, they will quote you $500. If you ignore the problem, it will get worse and worse until it is unsafe to drive or the car simply doesn't start at all.
Learning to maintain a car isn't that hard but you can't do it on your apartment parking lot.
The article spells out the differences - the India probe took longer, weighed less, has fewer experiments, and probably won't last long. Meanwhile the NASA probe got there quickly, weighs 4 times more, has twice the number of experiments, and can serve as a communication relay for probes on the ground.
I can drive across country in a $5000 car, a $50,000 car, or a $500,000 truck. Each of them have different purposes and will get you there in different ways. To say NASA needs to only use the $5000 car isn't in our long term interest.
Or maybe, just maybe, they innovated and solved key problems to make ti cheaper.
But we can't have that, can we? American steel is stronger than Indian steel.
Let's just give credit where it's due and learn from their success. We can't put our noses up and say our space program is a 2015 Cadillac Escalade whereas yours is a 1999 Honda Accord.
Corporations want infrastructure, rule of the law, and educated workforce that comes with doing business in US while paying third-world wages and hiding income in tax shelters. You can't have it both ways.
By the same argument, we want high wages through government intervention and artificial barriers to labor just by the virtue of the luck of being born on the right side of the line. At the same time, we want to buy the cheapest parts and gadgets manufactured in China so we can consume more even though it costs the manufacturing sector in the US.
We also want it both ways as well. Everybody wants it both ways.
The goal is to find the balance that is best for everyone.
If it's anything like the science fairs we used to have at my high school, then it will turn out dad is a plant biologist (who swears the girls did it all on their own) and the girls will be curiously vague when asked about the methodology.
The greatest challenge is not knowing how to do something but knowing all the ways on not how to do it.
There is always someone who shows the exact way of doing something and the kids follow the step and sometimes produce great results.
Even great university research has someone vastly experienced guiding it.
It is obviously because Apple has engineered iOS so well that it only requires a fraction of the memory that Android does.
And, iOS8 has such wonderful memory technologies that Apple developed that even new apps only need a small fraction of the memory that they would need in Android and iOS7. So, there was absolutely no need to put extra memory that will never be used.
What a load of PC "humans are the only baddies in the world" bollocks.
Chimpanzees have a well documented history of intra-group hierarchical violence, violence against females and extra-group murdering raids. This is nothing new. Anthropologists have known this stuff for decades.
Especially entertaining is what he wrote regarding the bonobos. They are essentially the free love orgy and hippies of the primate world. And, chimps are the violent and brutal ones.
So, whatever the primates do, there isn't a definite reflection on humans. We all share the fact that society and social connections are the most important things in our lives but it can go in multitude of directions - from hippie to killers.
In my opinion the peer-review should be changed to a double-blind system: the reviewer should not see name and affiliation of the authors, and judge the work as it would grade an undergrad paper (i.e. harshly). Like this I believe the signal-to-noise ratio in journals would increase, and only good papers would get published. At that point, I'd be willing to accept impact factor as a measure of worthiness of a publication. Until then, it's just friends judging friends, with nobody wanting to piss off anybody else. Minor revisions, congratulations, you're published.
There are many many double blind review systems.
The world of research on a specific topic is very small. If you write a paper, you can probably guess who will review it. Also, the reviewer can also guess who wrote it.
If that doesn't happen, then it goes to the guy who drew the short straw and you get a pointless review criticizing pointless things from a person who knows nothing about the field but is in the review committee for whatever reasons.
How about we just stop invading other countries where we know people don't like to see Americans? If we had opted out of the second Iraq war, we could have saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and our own collective faces on the international stage. To top it all off we wouldn't need to be having this discussion at all. We didn't accomplish anything with that war.
I know that is not a popular opinion here, but it is the truth.
Under the sanctions, Iraqis were suffering. The child death rate was soaring, there were food shortages and there were thousands of deaths. The power of Saddam Hussein was actually growing and he was getting richer and more powerful while the population was suffering.
Which was all caused by the first Iraq war which was the result of arming Saddam Hussein so that he would fight Iran. We were fighting Iran because they were hostile to us because of supporting the unpopular Shah dictator. We supported a military coup that put the Shah in power because oil was nationalized by then Iranian government. The Iranian government nationalized the oil fields because they were outright owned by foreign oil companies and didn't think it was fair. I don't know what happened before that.
Just a chain of dick moves and greed all the way.
Other nearby countries using their oil resources wisely have done very well and are the countries with the highest per capita.
Your life is already under a microscope. You can't go to the supermarket without a crew from TMZ following you and paparazzi are camped out on your lawn.... just how freaking stupid do you have to be to post nude pics of yourself to the cloud?
I'm going to start a consulting agency to the stars, called "Common Sense", and get paid to distribute my common sense to people who obviously have none of their own.
Here's a free tip: If you don't want nude pics of yourself spread to the web, don't take nude pics of yourself!
Or even better yet, never be nude. Always wear clothes. Then, there there is absolutely no chance of nude pics.
The "iBrute" exploit code didn't become available until earlier this week.
The iBrute was just an open source project to exploit this. Before that there were many people offering tools to break iCloud. Do a search and you'll see results from May 2014 about the bug.
Looking at the EXIF data attached to the photographs, where it's available, and the structure of the filenames I can see that only some of them came from iPhones/iCloud. I can also see photographs from Android phones (Nexus 7 and Samsung Galaxy 5s) likely acquired via Google Drive, other photographs clearly taken from Dropbox accounts (the dumps include default dropbox files), and many clearly taken from Twitter and Facebook private messages (filenames are a dead giveaway).
Some of the filenames look like those you would get from a recovery or backup programme rather than an auto generated one, which chimes with what victims have said on Twitter regarding deleting the images months or even years ago.
In any case there are clearly multiple sources and as usual Apple Derangement Syndrome is in full swing.
Likely as not this was related to the heartbleed bug. Large amounts of passwords were acquired around that time, and were probably being used on multiple services. It's equally possible that this wasn't a breach at Apple et al but a breach of Amazon Web Services or Microsoft's Azure as those services are used to backup data from iCloud, Google Drive, and many others.
What's worse for some of the celebs is that the pictures contain GPS data that could compromise their homes.
The Jennifer Lawrence pictures looks like they span 2-3 years. Each set has different hair colors, body shapes. My first thought was upgraded cell phones - phones that were reset but the data was still there when the user got a new phone.
The common link between these stars could be a phone retail outlet. Maybe an employee there would take the old phones, make copy of the internal flash memory before it was shipped off somewhere else.
A brute-force program to hack AppleID passwords was recently uploaded to the software-hosting GitHub. The program, appropriately called iBrute, is designed to flood AppleID logons with possible password combinations. The assumption is that the hacker would know the username, often derived from an email address.
Shortly before the stolen images were announced, the owner of iBrute announced the vulnerability — Find My iPhone did not deny access to brute force methods of figuring out a password. Early this morning, the same iBrute owner announced that the vulnerability has been closed, although there has not yet been confirmation from Apple.
iBrute is now reportedly locked out. But there is also speculation that the Find My iPhone hack was not solely to blame for all the apparently stolen files. For instance, someone could trick a celebrity user — or the celebrity’s assistant — into revealing enough information to gain access to iCloud backups. Additionally, it’s possible other online services were involved, since some of the images reportedly show celebrities using Android mobile devices.
The "find my iphone" bruteforce attack has been known for months. Search for how to get rid of "iCloud lock" and you'll see results.
I think once the iCloud password was found, then the same password was probably used to access other sites. Though I don't know why models/actresses would put dropbox and other cloud services on their phone.
I'm sure tools have been created that trawls the internet for e-mail addresses and tries to guess the password for the iCloud service. If you have the same user/pass combo in iCloud as anywhere else, then your account is probably compromised.
>>For the purposes of the study, science-literate is a new term which means tops in those criteria studied.
Actually I work in education. Scientific literacy is a concept that has been around for a long time, and is generally defined to mean scientific concepts that everyone should understand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literacy
>For the matter of however it correlates to whatever way you define literacy is not the author's problem. They collected the data and Canada is at the top in the data they collected. Science-literacy is not laid out, well defined term so you go
It is, actually.
So now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
Well, there you go. Their research fits all the criteria for scientific literacy.
The test clearly test for scientific reasoning, explain and predict natural phenomenon, ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences and all the other vague, unquantified criteria that is deemed to measure scientific literacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. You get to miss the point of my post AND show yourself a smart-ass all in one post. Such efficiency!
When I went to college the internet was but a fetus compared to what it is now. And regardless, my classmates were not tasked and paid to teach me something; the guy up front with the diplomas on his wall and the chalk in his hand was. To give a pass to the person who has an assigned responsibility and fails, only to put that responsibility on your buds isn't as clever as you make it sound.
First of all, grow a sense of humor buddy. Don't assume I'm insulting you. I'm replying to your post to add something to what you said.
Anyways, he's not paid to teach you, he's paid to teach the class. If you don't learn anything in the class and you fail, that's not his problem. You and your classmates have a shared goal of learning the material and working together will make the goal easier to attain for both of you.
Anyways you're not in school anymore so this is all just pointless talking.
More than half of my engineering curriculum was taught by prolific researchers who couldn't teach worth a damn. I was a tutor through most of college and found myself "reteaching" a lot of the stuff they would teach to others who came looking for help. Not because I was bright, see I struggled to understand the same topics, but I was able to break the topics down in a way that made more sense. Tying "building block" concepts progressively, until the process showed the complete picture, at which point I could teach them to myself for my own understanding, and then to others. That's when I realized good teachers require the whole package of skills; proficiency in their subject and a mind to educate by facilitating the process of connecting concepts.
Sounds like a good place for a free market to open up. What teaching is worth should lean heavily on a feedback/review framework like Amazon's such that people don't end up paying for a class that sucks, by every student's experience, because the professor can't communicate concepts, or communicate at all. Like the time I spent almost weeks trying to figure out what the foreigner in my Space Systems course meant by "papamaaa". By the way, that's "performance".
Let me guess, you didn't do well in the classes and you've found it very convenient to blame the professor's accent for your failures.
Just kidding, LOL.
We're in college, there is the internet. You don't need professors of a skill of a stand up comedian to keep you entertained for 3 hours/week. Don't look at the professor for learning, the most important aspect is your classmates. Take classes with your friends or make new friends. You'll do well, you'll have fun and learn a lot. Just don't expect your professor to be your buddy buddy and guide you through everything.
The professor is the guy you ask why you can't figure something out and he'll tell you in 1 second what you're doing wrong. He's not the resource for keeping you entertained and motivated during class.
...then why are virtually all of the most successful tech companies here?
Yes, a few exist outside of the US. Not many.
It's because we have been so far successful in getting the a large chunk of the 95% to move the US.
But, new programmers are being minted everyday and if we don't get there here, they will start creating their own software companies in their own countries. It doesn't take long for a company to start with nothing and become one of the largest company in the world in a decade.
I'm only half serious though. There are enough reasons why the next Google can or can't come from outside the US. Can we confidently say that the next Google will be an American company? Can we do anything about it or just sit and wait?
If these companies were hiring a cook they would require 3 years experience working on an Ace cooktop, 5-years experience with Acme Food Supply, and be able to demonstrate the restaurant's recipe for their signature meat dish before being considered.
Companies didn't come into existence with their particular toolsets: they learned them, and quickly. Then they refuse to consider hiring anyone who doesn't already know them in depth.
I've seen certain fortune 500 companies advertise software engineering job positions that do not require any experience, do not list any requirements (except high school) and job description is as vague and all-encompassing as desire and ability to write software. That does not make getting that position easier to get.
The biggest unwritten requirement is if you'd want to spend and interact 40+ hours a week with that person. That is why most women programmers no matter how inexperienced will always get hired very easily. Programming ability matters very little when the guy is a weirdo and awkward to deal with.
Not that I'm implying you're a weird or anything, but when a guy walks in the door, people fear for the worst. Until you get to know someone, guys think other guys are creepy or bad. Thus, it is very easy to get a friend hired in your company but if a friend doesn't want to give you the recommendation in his company, that probably means your friend doesn't like you and wouldn't care to work with you.
Despite what Slashdot and their parent Dice would like you to believe, job hunting is largely done through connections. If you are reading job requirements and fuming over not enough experience and what not, you're probably exhausted your contacts. Employers also fear the worst of the applicants coming through random job searchers and will scrutinize them more than if they came through connections.
It is blatantly false that companies will not consider hiring anyone who already doesn't know the tool in depth. The biggest tool to learn is the company software repo, the business and culture of the company which is the least documented. Any commercial tool can be learned in weeks or months since there are thousands of resources on it. Learning the company source code base and all the ways the company works is the hardest part.
My psychology book said that in most cases people make up their minds unconsciously and then go find reasons to justify it. I read somewhere (and it could be completely false) that an interviewer decides to offer a job or not very quickly and spends the rest of the time confirming it. I have found that it's the weird things that get people hired. If they were in the same fraternity, attended the same university or some other commonality. I hate to say it but if a team leader is Chinese, you will find that a lot of junior Chinese developers and this is because ethnicity is a super-obvious observation. Sometimes, entire teams have hidden commonality like an fraternity, an ex-employer or a university.
Anyway, I've been turned away from many jobs that I was qualified for and had the technical skills for. But, if I want to land that job right after an interview, I have to have connections or be a super-charming person. Everyone thinks they are geniuses in their own right but others think differently. The most qualified candidate isn't the one who always gets hired. In the end, in software development, it is the team effort than the individual that matters.
The cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so. This means if we can put an emissions tax on airlines, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions. When that happens, we will still be able to meet demand for relatively low cost.
The cool thing about governments is that they can post emissions standards or face fines, non-renewal of licenses. Then, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions.
Anyways, with cars, manufacturers are required to meet emissions standards. Then, in some states, owners are also required to maintain the vehicle to the emissions standards.
When the oil prices went up, it was effectively a tax on emissions. However, did we see "technological advances"? Nope. Many airlines went bankrupt and had to be bailed out.
The only people we hire now have relevant experience and skills in our very specific field, and experience commensurate for the position we are posting. We have sadly given up on new graduates; they are too flakey, having never held an actual job before, and needing substantial training to get to a point where they can generate revenue... and leave. Now is a great time for people that graduated around 2010, found a job in their field at terrible pay, and are now ready for an actual career.
This is not true.
I know recruiters and they love hiring new graduates. New graduates need jobs, experienced engineers already have jobs.
Training does not take long at all. Revenue generation isn't a factor since there is not even a way to measure how someone directly generated revenue when hundreds of people work on a single product.
The correlation between these parameters suggests that two-thirds of the difference in cancer risk among various tissue types can be blamed on random, or 'stochastic,' mutations in DNA occurring during stem-cell division, and only one-third on hereditary or environmental factors like smoking, the researchers conclude.
The article says,
By “chance” Tomasetti meant the roll of the dice that each cell division represents, leaving aside the influence of deleterious genes or environmental factors such as smoking or exposure to radiation.
The summary says 1/3 has smoking and environmental effects, while the article says the 1/3 doesn't have smoking and environmental effects.
Lately, slashdot summaries have gotten worse and worse and completely change what is being claimed.
... but their Xfinity Wifi Hotspot program, if implemented correctly, shouldn't cause customers any real harm.
What I believe happens is that your modem gets virtualized into two modems/routers. Cable Internet is already based on shared broadcast signals, so in terms of bandwidth it should be identical to adding a second, mostly inactive cable modem somewhere in your neighborhood. Since the 2nd modem is virtualized, it should not affect your transfer rates or bandwidth quotas.
This second modem is connected to a second, virtual router, with its own SSID. Unless there's a vulnerability in the router (which is possible), users of the Xfinity Wifi Hotspot should not be able to access your network, use your IP address, etc.
Available bandwidth could conceivably be reduced, due to more packets in the air, but WiFi is already unregulated and subject to additional interference. Increased load on the modem/router could theoretically reduce your bandwidth as well, although probably not by any noticeable amount.
The best claim is based on increased electricity usage. However, the additional energy needed is probably negligible. Here is a link to a blog post about the increased electricity costs, where they conclude it's about $8 per year in the mid-Atlantic area -- if it's being used. Comcast could give everyone a $1/mo credit for enabling the Xfinity WiFi Hotspot, completely eliminating the issue.
The problem is that they are enabling it without consent.
Comcast should give a large discount to incentiveize people in enabling them. Since they are Comcast, they just said fuck you and turned it on to rake in the sweet sweet profit.
There is a great portion of my favorite book on Political thought regarding wages and the Artisan. Socrates points out that once a person in society receives ample money for a project they no longer have incentive to do future work. Socrates continues stating that this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the person with the wealth is now free to meddle in the affairs of everybody else in society. That meddling is almost never in societies interests, but that person or the person's close friends and associates, so that they gain further control of society and have more stuff than everyone else.
That book in case you are interested is Plato's "The Republic".
The whole "everyone should code" argument is foolish. Society needs plumbers, welders, architects, accountants, doctors, physicists, line workers, and every other job there is. As society has demand for jobs the wages should go up, which draws people into the needed jobs. Since coders are in demand and receive good wages for their work, it seems at least some of this push is to artificially reduce the wages by flooding the market. And lets face it, there are not a whole lot of decent paying middle class jobs left in the US any longer.
Human societies are now billions of people. Even millions of dollars are just a drop in the sea. There is absolutely no way anyone can know what that drop is good or bad for society. Is the projected funded by a billionaire for his interests more detrimental than a project sanctioned by a government official using taxpayer money?
By the same logic of not everyone should code, then everyone shouldn't need to read and write, do math, learn science? Every scientist now learns to code; engineers code, physicists code, biologists code. Why shouldn't the average person code?
Everyone I worked with 15 years ago as an engineer is now in management. What are they managing? Where is this productivity I keep hearing about?
Good engineers quickly outgrow what they themselves alone are capable of to their visions of what is possible. Management is the only way you can get hundreds of engineers to realize your vision.
Strange. I've owned a car (several of them, actually) for a couple of decades and I never made a payment other than the first one I used to buy the car. I've also never paid over $3000 for a car. Something about learning to maintain it yourself and not having much money. Also something about how true ownership beats the pants off someone else having control of my stuff.
Guess as you get paid more, you gather this strange belief that everyone does the same crazy dumb shit that you're doing.
Cars are cash items due to severe depreciation and high maintenance costs. Can't afford to buy it cash? Don't. If you have under $1000 cash (the minimum I find drivable cars selling for) the last thing you need are payments! And if you need it for a job, make sure you pay the car off within a month or two (there's plenty of $2000 jalopies you can pick up at the various fleece-me-blind no-credit car lots that should be priced at $1000 cash).
If you buy a used car, it will run into problems. If you go to a mechanic with even the smallest of problems, they will quote you $500. If you ignore the problem, it will get worse and worse until it is unsafe to drive or the car simply doesn't start at all.
Learning to maintain a car isn't that hard but you can't do it on your apartment parking lot.
The article spells out the differences - the India probe took longer, weighed less, has fewer experiments, and probably won't last long. Meanwhile the NASA probe got there quickly, weighs 4 times more, has twice the number of experiments, and can serve as a communication relay for probes on the ground.
I can drive across country in a $5000 car, a $50,000 car, or a $500,000 truck. Each of them have different purposes and will get you there in different ways. To say NASA needs to only use the $5000 car isn't in our long term interest.
Or maybe, just maybe, they innovated and solved key problems to make ti cheaper.
But we can't have that, can we? American steel is stronger than Indian steel.
Let's just give credit where it's due and learn from their success. We can't put our noses up and say our space program is a 2015 Cadillac Escalade whereas yours is a 1999 Honda Accord.
Corporations want infrastructure, rule of the law, and educated workforce that comes with doing business in US while paying third-world wages and hiding income in tax shelters. You can't have it both ways.
By the same argument, we want high wages through government intervention and artificial barriers to labor just by the virtue of the luck of being born on the right side of the line. At the same time, we want to buy the cheapest parts and gadgets manufactured in China so we can consume more even though it costs the manufacturing sector in the US.
We also want it both ways as well. Everybody wants it both ways.
The goal is to find the balance that is best for everyone.
If it's anything like the science fairs we used to have at my high school, then it will turn out dad is a plant biologist (who swears the girls did it all on their own) and the girls will be curiously vague when asked about the methodology.
The greatest challenge is not knowing how to do something but knowing all the ways on not how to do it.
There is always someone who shows the exact way of doing something and the kids follow the step and sometimes produce great results.
Even great university research has someone vastly experienced guiding it.
It is obviously because Apple has engineered iOS so well that it only requires a fraction of the memory that Android does.
And, iOS8 has such wonderful memory technologies that Apple developed that even new apps only need a small fraction of the memory that they would need in Android and iOS7. So, there was absolutely no need to put extra memory that will never be used.
What a load of PC "humans are the only baddies in the world" bollocks.
Chimpanzees have a well documented history of intra-group hierarchical violence, violence against females and extra-group murdering raids. This is nothing new. Anthropologists have known this stuff for decades.
In Matthew Lieberman's book Social, he has a chapter on this.
Especially entertaining is what he wrote regarding the bonobos. They are essentially the free love orgy and hippies of the primate world. And, chimps are the violent and brutal ones.
So, whatever the primates do, there isn't a definite reflection on humans. We all share the fact that society and social connections are the most important things in our lives but it can go in multitude of directions - from hippie to killers.
In my opinion the peer-review should be changed to a double-blind system: the reviewer should not see name and affiliation of the authors, and judge the work as it would grade an undergrad paper (i.e. harshly). Like this I believe the signal-to-noise ratio in journals would increase, and only good papers would get published. At that point, I'd be willing to accept impact factor as a measure of worthiness of a publication. Until then, it's just friends judging friends, with nobody wanting to piss off anybody else. Minor revisions, congratulations, you're published.
There are many many double blind review systems.
The world of research on a specific topic is very small. If you write a paper, you can probably guess who will review it. Also, the reviewer can also guess who wrote it.
If that doesn't happen, then it goes to the guy who drew the short straw and you get a pointless review criticizing pointless things from a person who knows nothing about the field but is in the review committee for whatever reasons.
How about we just stop invading other countries where we know people don't like to see Americans? If we had opted out of the second Iraq war, we could have saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and our own collective faces on the international stage. To top it all off we wouldn't need to be having this discussion at all. We didn't accomplish anything with that war. I know that is not a popular opinion here, but it is the truth.
Under the sanctions, Iraqis were suffering. The child death rate was soaring, there were food shortages and there were thousands of deaths. The power of Saddam Hussein was actually growing and he was getting richer and more powerful while the population was suffering.
Which was all caused by the first Iraq war which was the result of arming Saddam Hussein so that he would fight Iran. We were fighting Iran because they were hostile to us because of supporting the unpopular Shah dictator. We supported a military coup that put the Shah in power because oil was nationalized by then Iranian government. The Iranian government nationalized the oil fields because they were outright owned by foreign oil companies and didn't think it was fair. I don't know what happened before that.
Just a chain of dick moves and greed all the way.
Other nearby countries using their oil resources wisely have done very well and are the countries with the highest per capita.
Not really. People with World of Warcraft accounts don't have iCloud stored nudies.
They do have nudies, but nobody wants to see them.
Or if you ask them, they'll send you the nudies all day.
Your life is already under a microscope. You can't go to the supermarket without a crew from TMZ following you and paparazzi are camped out on your lawn.... just how freaking stupid do you have to be to post nude pics of yourself to the cloud?
I'm going to start a consulting agency to the stars, called "Common Sense", and get paid to distribute my common sense to people who obviously have none of their own.
Here's a free tip: If you don't want nude pics of yourself spread to the web, don't take nude pics of yourself!
Or even better yet, never be nude. Always wear clothes. Then, there there is absolutely no chance of nude pics.
The "iBrute" exploit code didn't become available until earlier this week.
The iBrute was just an open source project to exploit this. Before that there were many people offering tools to break iCloud. Do a search and you'll see results from May 2014 about the bug.
The article says ...
What we find suspicious is that a lot of these interceptors are right on top of U.S. military bases.
The summary says ...
Many of them are built around U.S. military bases.
Way to slant the summary to make it look like Chinese towers rather than our towers.
Looking at the EXIF data attached to the photographs, where it's available, and the structure of the filenames I can see that only some of them came from iPhones/iCloud. I can also see photographs from Android phones (Nexus 7 and Samsung Galaxy 5s) likely acquired via Google Drive, other photographs clearly taken from Dropbox accounts (the dumps include default dropbox files), and many clearly taken from Twitter and Facebook private messages (filenames are a dead giveaway). Some of the filenames look like those you would get from a recovery or backup programme rather than an auto generated one, which chimes with what victims have said on Twitter regarding deleting the images months or even years ago. In any case there are clearly multiple sources and as usual Apple Derangement Syndrome is in full swing. Likely as not this was related to the heartbleed bug. Large amounts of passwords were acquired around that time, and were probably being used on multiple services. It's equally possible that this wasn't a breach at Apple et al but a breach of Amazon Web Services or Microsoft's Azure as those services are used to backup data from iCloud, Google Drive, and many others. What's worse for some of the celebs is that the pictures contain GPS data that could compromise their homes.
The Jennifer Lawrence pictures looks like they span 2-3 years. Each set has different hair colors, body shapes. My first thought was upgraded cell phones - phones that were reset but the data was still there when the user got a new phone.
The common link between these stars could be a phone retail outlet. Maybe an employee there would take the old phones, make copy of the internal flash memory before it was shipped off somewhere else.
A brute-force program to hack AppleID passwords was recently uploaded to the software-hosting GitHub. The program, appropriately called iBrute, is designed to flood AppleID logons with possible password combinations. The assumption is that the hacker would know the username, often derived from an email address.
Shortly before the stolen images were announced, the owner of iBrute announced the vulnerability — Find My iPhone did not deny access to brute force methods of figuring out a password. Early this morning, the same iBrute owner announced that the vulnerability has been closed, although there has not yet been confirmation from Apple.
iBrute is now reportedly locked out. But there is also speculation that the Find My iPhone hack was not solely to blame for all the apparently stolen files. For instance, someone could trick a celebrity user — or the celebrity’s assistant — into revealing enough information to gain access to iCloud backups. Additionally, it’s possible other online services were involved, since some of the images reportedly show celebrities using Android mobile devices.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/09...
The "find my iphone" bruteforce attack has been known for months. Search for how to get rid of "iCloud lock" and you'll see results.
I think once the iCloud password was found, then the same password was probably used to access other sites. Though I don't know why models/actresses would put dropbox and other cloud services on their phone.
I'm sure tools have been created that trawls the internet for e-mail addresses and tries to guess the password for the iCloud service. If you have the same user/pass combo in iCloud as anywhere else, then your account is probably compromised.
>>For the purposes of the study, science-literate is a new term which means tops in those criteria studied.
Actually I work in education. Scientific literacy is a concept that has been around for a long time, and is generally defined to mean scientific concepts that everyone should understand.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_literacy
>For the matter of however it correlates to whatever way you define literacy is not the author's problem. They collected the data and Canada is at the top in the data they collected. Science-literacy is not laid out, well defined term so you go
It is, actually.
So now you know. And knowing is half the battle.
Well, there you go. Their research fits all the criteria for scientific literacy.
The test clearly test for scientific reasoning, explain and predict natural phenomenon, ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences and all the other vague, unquantified criteria that is deemed to measure scientific literacy.