I actually like asking those kinds of questions. I look at the resume for a skill they say they know, then ask the most basic question I can think of about that subject. For example "I see here you say that you have experience with Cisco Networking equipment, please describe how you'd login to a switch and elevate your permissions". If you can't answer that off the top of your head, you've never worked with Cisco equipment (or it's been so long that your experience is probably worthless). For database work then yeah a select statement is a good choice.
I thought the job of a project manager was just to make up project schedules in MS Project and run around and bug people to see what their progress on each step is.
That's probably about as true as saying that the job of a developer is to do typing things on a computer so that in future it might do something you want.
That appeared to add zero value to the conversation. Unless perhaps you're being pendantic and asserting that the growth rate itself isn't exponential since it's flat. (which is true but irrelevant to the growth of the revenues)
So they publicly admitted to committing a federal crime, I'm sure criminal prosecutions will be following swiftly then? Oh wait sorry, I forgot that the law only applies to little people.
Check your shirt tag and your jeans. Where were they made? Vietnam? Thailand? How about the device you used to type this empty platitude? What was the wage of the person that built it? Stop bitching about capitalists; you are one.
Actually to use the correct terminology that would just be a matter of domestic labor benefiting from the exploitation of foreign labor. In order to be a capitalist you would need to own shares in the clothing manufacturer, of course many people do that sort of thing through their 401k but that's not what you were talking about.
If he were speaking correctly he'd say "There was less of a free market since 1913" which would be correct, while "There was less capitalism since 1913" would not be.
Show me a company that _only_ reports financial data every T=100 years and I'll bow to your wisdom. Companies report annually, all of them. They are required to do so in fact, so using the Government mandated "T=1" the term "exponential" is absolutely false.
Ok, I'm genuinely curious, how does that have anything to do with it?
If you start with a company revenue of 100 at T=0 then:
1) In additive growth: T0=100, T1=120, T2=140, T3=160
2) In exponential growth: T0=100, T1=120, T2=144, T3=1.728
Merely reporting at intervals of T(n) where n=1 per year doesn't turn #2 into #1. According to their latest 10-K filing their revenue for the last three years was (in millions):
2012 46,039
2013 55,519
2014 66,001
Which is an exponential growth rate of 19.73%, so close enough to 20% for conversational purposes.
Sites like metacritic for games or rottentomatoes for movies tend to provide the most usable results for me. The contrasting reviewer types and ability see at least some negative comments really help sort out the worst choices.
On the scale we're talking (megawatts and gigawatts), there are no practical solutions at this time.
Pumped water works, but it has the problem of needing a large storage area that's protected from evaporation. You run into the same kinds of constraints and complaints as when building a hydro facility.
One that fell within the range of "acceptable", I imagine.
You can never be 100% sure there are zero civilians there, and some level of collateral damage is within the bounds of reason. Example, you have 45 terrorists in the building plus some random civilian, that's a legit target. (obviously sucks for the random civilian) On the other hand if you have 45 civilians and one terrorist that is not an acceptable target, you'll just have to wait for a better shot. Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure, it's hard to quantify exactly but I'd want to weight it heavily towards being pretty darn sure of hitting valid targets almost exclusively.
I'm bitching less about the morality of it (my opinion is clearly that it is wrong), but the sheer stupidity of it. We're fighting an ideology that is created by our actions.
I don't think we created it, but some of our actions certainly feed the problem. That's one of the difficulties in using the military to fight asymmetric wars they're just not the optimum tool for the job.
You are right that the deliberateness of the act can definitely be contrasted to the indifference in the American counterpart, which would be firing missiles into houses full of people to kill a single guy, watching from a remotely piloted armed surveillance platform as they burned, with not a single picture of the charred bodies of children appearing on American media sources.
As with many things context matters. Did the launching forces know that there were civilians on site before ordering the strike? If so, what ratio of collateral damage was expected? There is no such thing as a sanitary war where no civilians are ever harmed, that is especially true in cases of asymmetric warfare like that of the U.S. vs. Islamic Terrorists. This is made even more complicated as the opposing force routinely uses civilians as shields knowing that we are reluctant to cause civilian casualties. This is a clear violation of the laws of war.
Pearl Harbor, the attack on the U.S.S Liberty, 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings all fall under this category.
I think you'd have a hard time proving that either Pearl Harbor or 9/11 were false flag attacks. They were most certainly carried out by the parties in question and they didn't work for the US Government. You could possibly make an argument that the government displayed willful ignorance and allowed them to occur on purpose, but that's not the same thing as a false flag attack.
Actually yes, that would qualify, though the word is massacred. Since those cities were not military targets, couldn't really fight back, contained lots of civilians and were attacked solely to cause damage to enemy morale then yes I'd describe that as a massacre. Given the context the decision was made in though I'd argue that it was still more humane than the alternative though which was conventional invasion. That would of resulting in civilian casualties at least an order of magnitude higher (if not two).
Warthogs are awesome, as a Marine we loved those things. The Air Force just doesn't seem to like close air support anymore, apparently it's not glamorous enough or something.
So, in essence-- Marketing Drones said "There's a 5% difference between male interest and female interest in computing! We need to market to the male demographic to capture those 5% extra potential sales!" Industry execs said "OK!"--- Girls see all the boy-oriented computer commercials, get discouraged and or turned off by the flagrantly selective depiction, conclude that computers are for boys, and boom-- as the next generation hits the market, HUGE disparity between computer interest between the genders.
Maybe, but in that scenario the disparity should have started out small and grown over time. My anecdotal experience suggests that is not what happened, number of women at the Commodore 64 pizza party of 300 = 0. The C64 was the first practical & affordable computer you could own as a home user (circa early 1980s), the disparity shouldn't have been fully developed yet if your marketing theory is correct. My theory is that guys, especially betas, are just more likely to obsess about weird hobbies (model trains, collecting postage stamps, early computers, etc.) since they have less social access.
As horrible as it is, this is what happens during a war.
In the middle ages and classical period sure, nowadays not so much. Yes, horrible things happen in wartime, the firebombing of Dresden, the Bataan death march, the Mai Lai Massacre, but for the most part we've given up on terror tactics used in ages past. It's been a long time since a western power crucified 10,000 people for rebellion (AD 70). The Spanish inquisition burned people at the stake in the 16th century but I don't think that can be described as warfare.
The CIA probably did worse things in 2002-2003, and the U.S. government is not prosecuting.
The CIA did some pretty horrible things that I'm not comfortable with, but to the best of my knowledge none of them compare with sticking someone in a cage and burning them alive.
Slashdot Mirror
Do this and you will be successful.
What mythical company completes the business requirements before the project begins?
I usually tell them "If I knew everything you couldn't afford me."
I actually like asking those kinds of questions. I look at the resume for a skill they say they know, then ask the most basic question I can think of about that subject. For example "I see here you say that you have experience with Cisco Networking equipment, please describe how you'd login to a switch and elevate your permissions". If you can't answer that off the top of your head, you've never worked with Cisco equipment (or it's been so long that your experience is probably worthless). For database work then yeah a select statement is a good choice.
I thought the job of a project manager was just to make up project schedules in MS Project and run around and bug people to see what their progress on each step is.
That's probably about as true as saying that the job of a developer is to do typing things on a computer so that in future it might do something you want.
The consensus view was that Fascism wasn't such a hot idea, why do they keep trying to re-implement it?
That appeared to add zero value to the conversation. Unless perhaps you're being pendantic and asserting that the growth rate itself isn't exponential since it's flat. (which is true but irrelevant to the growth of the revenues)
So they publicly admitted to committing a federal crime, I'm sure criminal prosecutions will be following swiftly then? Oh wait sorry, I forgot that the law only applies to little people.
Check your shirt tag and your jeans. Where were they made? Vietnam? Thailand? How about the device you used to type this empty platitude? What was the wage of the person that built it? Stop bitching about capitalists; you are one.
Actually to use the correct terminology that would just be a matter of domestic labor benefiting from the exploitation of foreign labor. In order to be a capitalist you would need to own shares in the clothing manufacturer, of course many people do that sort of thing through their 401k but that's not what you were talking about.
If he were speaking correctly he'd say "There was less of a free market since 1913" which would be correct, while "There was less capitalism since 1913" would not be.
Show me a company that _only_ reports financial data every T=100 years and I'll bow to your wisdom. Companies report annually, all of them. They are required to do so in fact, so using the Government mandated "T=1" the term "exponential" is absolutely false.
Ok, I'm genuinely curious, how does that have anything to do with it?
If you start with a company revenue of 100 at T=0 then:
1) In additive growth: T0=100, T1=120, T2=140, T3=160
2) In exponential growth: T0=100, T1=120, T2=144, T3=1.728
Merely reporting at intervals of T(n) where n=1 per year doesn't turn #2 into #1. According to their latest 10-K filing their revenue for the last three years was (in millions):
2012 46,039
2013 55,519
2014 66,001
Which is an exponential growth rate of 19.73%, so close enough to 20% for conversational purposes.
Sites like metacritic for games or rottentomatoes for movies tend to provide the most usable results for me. The contrasting reviewer types and ability see at least some negative comments really help sort out the worst choices.
Alcohol should be considered more of a vital substrate than a food group.
The answer is conservation and population control, not escalation of generation.
Please report to your local population control incineration facility for immediate processing. Remember, it's good for the environment!
On the scale we're talking (megawatts and gigawatts), there are no practical solutions at this time.
Pumped water works, but it has the problem of needing a large storage area that's protected from evaporation. You run into the same kinds of constraints and complaints as when building a hydro facility.
Now that I want to see. It's doable with sufficient martial arts training but not nearly as easy as just being big.
Railguns are currently way too heavy for aircraft. They can barely shoehorn them into ships.
One that fell within the range of "acceptable", I imagine.
You can never be 100% sure there are zero civilians there, and some level of collateral damage is within the bounds of reason. Example, you have 45 terrorists in the building plus some random civilian, that's a legit target. (obviously sucks for the random civilian) On the other hand if you have 45 civilians and one terrorist that is not an acceptable target, you'll just have to wait for a better shot. Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure, it's hard to quantify exactly but I'd want to weight it heavily towards being pretty darn sure of hitting valid targets almost exclusively.
I'm bitching less about the morality of it (my opinion is clearly that it is wrong), but the sheer stupidity of it. We're fighting an ideology that is created by our actions.
I don't think we created it, but some of our actions certainly feed the problem. That's one of the difficulties in using the military to fight asymmetric wars they're just not the optimum tool for the job.
Some prisoners in the US were waterboarded hundreds of times.
That's pretty horrible and not something I approve of. That qualifies as torture in my book.
You are right that the deliberateness of the act can definitely be contrasted to the indifference in the American counterpart, which would be firing missiles into houses full of people to kill a single guy, watching from a remotely piloted armed surveillance platform as they burned, with not a single picture of the charred bodies of children appearing on American media sources.
As with many things context matters. Did the launching forces know that there were civilians on site before ordering the strike? If so, what ratio of collateral damage was expected? There is no such thing as a sanitary war where no civilians are ever harmed, that is especially true in cases of asymmetric warfare like that of the U.S. vs. Islamic Terrorists. This is made even more complicated as the opposing force routinely uses civilians as shields knowing that we are reluctant to cause civilian casualties. This is a clear violation of the laws of war.
Pearl Harbor, the attack on the U.S.S Liberty, 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings all fall under this category.
I think you'd have a hard time proving that either Pearl Harbor or 9/11 were false flag attacks. They were most certainly carried out by the parties in question and they didn't work for the US Government. You could possibly make an argument that the government displayed willful ignorance and allowed them to occur on purpose, but that's not the same thing as a false flag attack.
Actually yes, that would qualify, though the word is massacred. Since those cities were not military targets, couldn't really fight back, contained lots of civilians and were attacked solely to cause damage to enemy morale then yes I'd describe that as a massacre. Given the context the decision was made in though I'd argue that it was still more humane than the alternative though which was conventional invasion. That would of resulting in civilian casualties at least an order of magnitude higher (if not two).
Warthogs are awesome, as a Marine we loved those things. The Air Force just doesn't seem to like close air support anymore, apparently it's not glamorous enough or something.
So, in essence-- Marketing Drones said "There's a 5% difference between male interest and female interest in computing! We need to market to the male demographic to capture those 5% extra potential sales!" Industry execs said "OK!"--- Girls see all the boy-oriented computer commercials, get discouraged and or turned off by the flagrantly selective depiction, conclude that computers are for boys, and boom-- as the next generation hits the market, HUGE disparity between computer interest between the genders.
Maybe, but in that scenario the disparity should have started out small and grown over time. My anecdotal experience suggests that is not what happened, number of women at the Commodore 64 pizza party of 300 = 0. The C64 was the first practical & affordable computer you could own as a home user (circa early 1980s), the disparity shouldn't have been fully developed yet if your marketing theory is correct. My theory is that guys, especially betas, are just more likely to obsess about weird hobbies (model trains, collecting postage stamps, early computers, etc.) since they have less social access.
As horrible as it is, this is what happens during a war.
In the middle ages and classical period sure, nowadays not so much. Yes, horrible things happen in wartime, the firebombing of Dresden, the Bataan death march, the Mai Lai Massacre, but for the most part we've given up on terror tactics used in ages past. It's been a long time since a western power crucified 10,000 people for rebellion (AD 70). The Spanish inquisition burned people at the stake in the 16th century but I don't think that can be described as warfare.
The CIA probably did worse things in 2002-2003, and the U.S. government is not prosecuting.
The CIA did some pretty horrible things that I'm not comfortable with, but to the best of my knowledge none of them compare with sticking someone in a cage and burning them alive.