Don't know if that assertion is accurate. I've played around with several different chipsets for home projects. Both CDMA and GSM varieties. None of these were stamped as Qualcomm. Sure they are a huge player, but...
What Apple is mainly objecting to is the Qualcomm royalty model for use of its patent portfolio. Qualcomm charges a royalty of approximately 3% to 5% based on the *entire wholesale price of the handset unit* (not just the price of the chip that Qualcomm may or maynot have made).
Perhaps one should instead be thankful to be blissfully ignorant of what a Separation Memorandum of Understanding (aka a legal precursor to draft a separation settlement agreement which usually finalized in a divorce agreement). Sometimes life is less complicated when one is ignorant of such things...
>Non-exempt employees can be required to work some overtime,
No one can require you to work. Even in prison, where labor is paid under minimum wage (and that's a supreme court case waiting to happen), they cannot force you to work. The punishment is torture, in the case of prison.
Okay, Non-exempt employees can be required *as part of an implied contract of continued employment* to work some overtime... Basically the law allows for not accepting overtime work requirements as a valid condition of dismissal. Of course nobody can *force* you to work, you can always quit and they can pretty much fire you for any reason (unless it is specifically protected by the law). In fact, I have quit a job before because my employer required overtime (and if I had not quit, I suspect I would have been fired). I know many folks who have done this do and I'm sure this has happened many times to many people over the course of history and apparently for the most part, it is perfectly legal.
Thanks for spreading bullshit!
Always happy to do that on the internet...
Wat. It's like you're giving legal advice on the Internet, complete with citing laws from the Dept of Labor, and then saying "IANAL and I know nothing of employment laws".
People who take legal advice from the internet pretty much get what they pay for, right? Is this your first time reading posts on the internet or "Wat"?
The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.
It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.
Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.
Admittedly, I have limited perspective on this, but I often I observe the *company* treatment is probably better for women and under-represented minorities, but the *co-worker* treatment is probably much worse for women and under-represented minorities. True that a part of the *co-worker* treatment is part of the company culture and that part might be the company's responsibility, but you can't make co-workers treat each other non-awkwardly in situations that aren't strictly business related, and that makes the co-worker treatment situation very difficult to fix within a human generation of time.
I feel that many folks still want companies to function as some sort of in loco parentis as if working a jobs was some sort of extended university stint. That seems like a bit old fashion to me, but I suspect a large number of people feel that since workers are somehow *dependents* of a company, the company owes some responsibility or duty to the employees. Sadly, as in real life not all entities are wired to be parents, even those that actually have children.
On the other hand workplace norms on overwork demands in the tech business (like many other male dominated industries) are probably not very compelling for some populations and that would be also very difficult to fix within a human generation of time as well. We are long past the "puritan" work ethics that launched our industrial age...
Anyone who works on unauthorized personal projects should certainly expect to be subject to firing. But as a supervisor I would make the decision to fire based on what is best for my employer. That depends on a lot of things.
I don't believe in automatic zero tolerance responses. The question for me is whether the company better off booting this guy or disciplining him. Note this intrinsically unfair. Alice is a whiz who gets all of her work done on time and to top quality standards. Bob is a mediocre performer who is easily replaced. So Alice gets a strong talking to and Bob gets the heave-ho, which is unfair to Bob because Alice did exactly the same thing.
But there's a kind of meta-fairness to it. Stray off the straight and narrow and you subject yourself to arbitrary, self-interested reactions.
Now as to Alice, I would (a) remind her that anything she creates on company time belongs to the company (even if we're doing open source -- we get to choose whether the thing is distributed) and (b) that any revenue she derives from it rightly belongs to the company. But again there's no general rule other than maximize the interests of the company. I'll probably insist she shut down the project immediately and turn everything over to the company, but not necessarily. I might choose to turn a blind eye. Or maybe even turn a blind eye until Alice delivers on her big project, then fire her and sue her for the side project revenues if I thought we didn't need her any longer. If loyalty is a two-way street, so is betrayal.
Sure, you may rationalize working on a side project as somehow justified by the fact your employer doesn't pay you what you're really worth, but the grown-up response to that is to find a better job; if you can't, by definition in a market economy you are getting paid at least what you're worth. If you decide to proceed by duplicity, you can't expect kindness or understanding unless you can compel it.
So let me get this straight. In this scenario your are Eve?
By that logic I should fire my company for making me work after hours and weekends on their projects.
That's called quitting... You are free to do that do that if you want to...
If you're an hourly employee, its different. If you are a salaried employee you are paid to do a set of tasks and projects. If you complete those that's really what matters. If I need to work on side project for 20 minutes at 1PM and then need to work on a work project at 2AM it all works out in the end.
Not according to current labor laws. Non-exempt employees can be required to work some overtime, it is just that non-exempt employees have to be paid for it (unlike exempt employee that must be on a salary). Similarly both exempt and non-exempt employees are allowed to refuse to work more than 72 hours a week or when statutory safety time limitations are reached. About the only "real" difference is are the required extra pay for overtime for non-exempt employees and the minimum salary and job duties required to be classified as exempt.
Now how your employer feels about your ability to continue collect a paycheck from them in the future, that is another issue entirely. The most of employment law that doesn't have to do with discrimination mostly just proscribes compensation for work already performed, not the future employment continuation...
Often working on two jobs (esp on salary) can create an implied conflict of interest which in most cases can be considered a "just-cause" reason for termination which would preclude unemployment benefits, although an objection for a specific situation might mitigate that. Either way an employer could fire you (in most at-will employment states). That is why it is always best to get a mutual understanding of the job with your employer up front rather than rely on anecdotal ideas about "salaried" and "hourly" employees.
I recognize that it's silly, however I didn't create the conditions for this silliness - alimony and child support laws did. Before you get up in arms over 'not supporting your kids' bear in mind that by law support only needs to get paid to the woman. What she does with it is largely, or entirely in you're in CA, not their worry. So in essence kids often don't get the support anyway. I estimate on a good day my kids might see $.25 on the dollar.
If you are concerned about your kids not getting support, why not seek full custody? I understand this isn't always feasible (and doesn't totally eliminate alimony), but you gotta do what you gotta do for your kids, right?
OTOH, I realize the not every couple is cut-out for marriage, and probably someday the US will be more like some European countries where getting married is becoming less common (even with kids), but I for one will be sad when that day comes... I know a few couples that did it that way (mostly for marriage tax penalty reasons), but it seems to me that it really puts a big barrier in their relationship to continually have to sign contracts/agreements/documents to remind them of their status and shared responsibilities (kids, mortgage, insurance, etc) year after year. Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic that's gonna get screwed some day, but at least for now, I can enjoy the fiction of assuming most of my fellow men/women would share a general sense of equity and reasonableness. It's a world view that I'd hate to lose. I'd rather just get a prenup/postnup than be reminded year after year...
Let's see, china's moon exploration program is called CLEP.
Trouble, oh we got trouble, Right on the moon! With a capital "T" That rhymes with "C" And that stands for CLEP, That rhymes with "K" And that stands for KLEP, That's stealing the moon! We've surely got trouble!
Gee, without a stent I would be dead since your coronary collapses and without it your heart dies. So I guess I and other stent recipients are alive for some other reason such as __ fill in the blank.
__LUCK__
Unfortunately, a stent is often kind of a stopgap which can be used in some situations to attempt to avoid bypass surgery. Your cardiologist should have told you that stents are primarily inserted to provide symptomatic relief from angina and chest pain related to coronary artery disease and blocked arteries. Medical studies like this one have not shown that they actual reduce the rate of Myocardial Infarction (aka heart attacks).
Also, long term studies of stents show that 35-40% suffer restenosis (a bit better with a drug-eluting stent). The jury is out if a stent will actually save your life in the future or not relative to this risk.
It really doesnt matter what you eat. All diet fads are bullshit.
The important thing is burning off what you consume. Farmer John could eat lots of fat and meat then work the fields for 12 hours, and be thin and healthy. But if Desk Jockey Julie does that she'll weigh 400 pounds and be sick.Common sense.
Swimmer Michael Phelps ate 12,000 calories a day, consisting of fried-egg sandwiches, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions, mayonnaise, coffee, omelets, grits, french toast, powdered sugar, pancakes, pasta, ham, 2,000 calories worth of energy drinks, and pizza.
I'm no doctor, but he seems pretty healthy.
Maybe Michael Phelps' isn't the best example here.
As to the extreme nature of his diet, he's a known pot head and has been diagnosed with ADHD so who knows what part of the calorie consumption is cause and effect (some drugs that are used to treat ADHD are basically stimulants)... As to "health", he also is a recovering alcoholic and likely suffers from Marfan Syndrome...
Of course he does burn a lot of calories, but most people aren't training for the olympics (nor does Mr. Phelps eat that much anymore since '08 and now that he is older, and he never at that much unless he was actively training). Given all that, I don't think he's anywhere near the center of any bell curve that is relevant to other people's metabolism...
Besides, the relationship between weight and calories is complex. What specific foods you eat and the schedule that you consume food can greatly effect this relationship (as with the standard obvious stuff like metabolic rate)...
In the long term, I don't think we need to worry too much about the human population losing the "urge" to socialize. I suspect such negative trait aspects to be bred out of the population gene pool in a few generations...
It may be a few lonely generations for a few folks though, but I'm sure computers will take care of that well enough to bridge the gap...
Plus the most important one - never get divorced as that is the most common setback people will face. My advice to my kids is to only marry someone who makes as much or more than you.
If we apply these rules across the board, basically internet match services will only need 2 criteria: sexual orientation, and monthly salary. They would then only need match those that had equal salary (within some tolerance) and compatible sexual orientation.
I had a similar discussion with a relative of mine the other day that insisted that her kids would need to "marry-up" or she would disown them. My response was how could that possibly work? Why wouldn't your future in-laws cut-off their kids for "marrying-down"? She was not happy with that response.
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
I'm advocate of some types of net neutrality, but that's not the problem here.
IF ISPs force Netflix/Amazon/Apple to pay more for internet, it would likely enable more competition as other companies might be in a better position to charge enough to survive (now the price of Netfix/Amazon is so low as to make low-cost disruption uneconomical).
However, this is not a likely outcome of deregulation. It is more likely is that Netflix/Amazon will use their market position to purchase monopolies on capacity from ISPs making the capacity unavailable to potential competitors. For example, zero-rating Netflix/Amazon would make it very compelling to use Netflix/Amazon vs some competing service that would count against your monthly data cap. This is the problem that needs some form of net neutrality to solve. But simply making them title II common carriers isn't the answer either...
He is an engineer. But he didn't say he's a registered/ unregistered / official/ unofficial/ practicing / not practicing / civil / electrical / software / science / industrial / computer / oregon / out of state engineer.
Also, if "declaring yourself an engineer is a violation of the regulations in most states", engineer visitors are surely fined and kicked out when they have to answer "what are you working as?" at the boundary gate.
This is just another stupid case. Whoever has more money will win this.
The relevant statute in Oregon is listed below. Simply by verbal claim implying you are a registered profession engineer, you appear to be violating the statute...
672.007 Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping. For purposes of ORS 672.002 to 672.325:
(1) A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.
Back in my youth (about 30 years ago), one day the company I worked for made all of us change our business cards from "engineer" to "technician" because of these laws. My dad (a civil engineer) somehow convinced me to take the FE/EIT and prep for the PE exam even though my job didn't require it because in his world I got my degree in engineering and well dammit, he wanted to call his son an engineer.
FWIW that whole licencing experience was bunk for computer engineering. At the time, the exam for electronic engineering specialty wasn't up to date at all (mostly 3-phase power, pentode amplifier questions) and completely irrelevant for computer engineering (except for a couple Fortran programming questions). Of course the exams are more updated now and include computer engineering, but I suspect they are still not remotely "current".
To top things off, even after I "passed" the FE/EIT, I then discovered that my university was unaccredited** and the "pass" was actually a conditional pass which required me apprenticing for 6 years before being allowed to call myself an Engineer in Training and to sit for the PE exam. Since nobody in my company was a licensed engineer that certainly wasn't gonna happen. So I immediately dropped that whole idea of becoming a professional engineer just to put it on my business card and never looked back. I just call myself a computer architect (to the horror of my father) and that's that...
**I didn't graduate from a diploma mill, I graduated from a student mill (called Caltech) which is sorta accredited, but apparently not accredited enough for ABET...
If I'm going to spend extra just to keep money in the country, I'd rather it be taxed from me and redistributed as welfare rather than charged as a premium on products handled by a make-work project.
With welfare you're not enriching the already-rich at the top of the corporate structure, so you're giving much more efficiently to the people who need it.
That's an argument for a high-tariff structure (aka protectionist) economy. Basically raise the price of products so you no longer have an incentive to buy imports unless they aren't available locally. If you are fine with that type of economy, that's another way to go... Seems like we are headed that direction as countries are abandoning free trade agreements recently...
Since we're all human, I don't really have a problem with leveling the playing field, so long as it happens slowly enough it doesn't disrupt my life on noticeable timescales.
History has shown that disruptions like this occur on noticeable timescales.
In North America in the 1980's, the Japanese car disruption happened on a very short timescale and directly displaced 185,000 automotive jobs between June 1981 and November 1982 (not counting the indirect jobs lost because of the economic multiplier effect) before things began to stabilize. A voluntary trade restraint was negotiated between Japan and the US and of course Japan started manufacturing of cars in North America which contributed to the stabilization of the employment situation and return to '70's level of automobile industry employment (and of course it's been in a much slower decline since then).
Of course maybe for a short while, your life will be isolated from this type of disruption, but you might consider your neighbor that loses their livelihood is as human as someone across the globe, so I would think they also deserve some small amount of consideration too, right? Maybe you might give a few seconds pause about that the next time you bypass the middle-man companies to buy direct from China using Ali-Express... At least Walmart keeps a few folks gainfully employed locally (and that is a very low bar)... Who knows, maybe that local person is the parent of a schoolmate of your kids (or your friend's kid, if you don't have any kids). Aren't they human too?
The missing piece of this article is that China is dumping a lot of money into developing thorium nuclear power. In comparison, Uranium is expensive, hard to dispose of, way too radioactive, and terribly inefficient.
In the meantime, overcapacity, cost overruns due to mounting safety requirements*** have delayed China's near term nuclear efforts. Maybe their future Thorium nuclear endeavors will go more smoothly...
It's good to have optimism about new things, but sometimes thorium cheerleaders seem to have unwarranted optimism given the issues surrounding nuclear projects in the short history of nuclear power.
**Isn't that department headed by Rick Perry who as a candidate wanted to eliminate that department, but apparently couldn't remember it's name...
***The same cost overruns that have basically pushed Toshiba near bankruptcy and Areva towards a french government bailout
In most bay area locales, Section 8 housing is basically unavailable for new applicants. Wait lists are estimated to be greater than 8-10 years or simply closed to new applicants until further notice because of essentially unbounded wait times and basically zero new section 8 housing inventory.
AFAIKT, the increases of these income threshold numbers only serve to keep a small amount of existing people (the vanishingly small fraction of the 17,000 total served by section 8 with reasonable jobs near the limit) from being kicked out of Section 8 housing simply by getting cost of living raises at work and forced to fend on their own...
Basically, section 8 is totally broken in the bay area and is a non-factor in housing. This adjustment doesn't really do anything either way to change this...
Now, you can argue that some other CEO would have done better, or that the main reason for Yahoo!'s success under her tenure was the decision to invest in Alibaba, made by her predecessor, but speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive, and she decided to stay with that investment.
I think you may have forgotten the details of this event where she sold 1/2 of their Alibaba shares to provide the funding for the turn-around attempt.
She also tried hard to create a tax-free sell/spinoff the rest of the Alibaba investment to Yahoo investors via an ill fated Aabaco manuever, but that didn't happen and what resulted in the end was Yahoo itself was sold off to Verizon leaving the shares Altaba (aka RemainCo which is Yahoo's remaining investments in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan essentially forever tied together in a under-performing tracking stock).
Meanwhile, the uncertainty of this ill-fated tax-free spin-off attempt clobbered most of the remaining value for shareholders until the sale. I'm not so sure this whole episode qualifies as a success under most metrics...
A better outcome (maybe it could be called successful) would be if she had executed the Aabaco tax-free sell/spinoff of the Alibaba shares to investors something that she didn't pull the trigger on even though most tax advisers thought it would work and provide the best stockholder value.
Sorry Bram, but you are missing the point. Hashing is used in bitcoin precisely because it is useless. It can't be faked, and it can't be stored for later. It is an irrevocable commitment right now.
I wish you luck with monetizing distributed storage, or decentralized distribution, or whatever your new project ends up as. But the design of bitcoin is not a programming challenge for you to solve. It is a carefully interlocked design, made by someone (or some people) who has (or have) a far beyond average understanding of money and cryptography. Many people with less insight have attempted to "improve" things, and all have failed.
Well, I'm not defending Bram on his quest, but I would say that based on this presentation at least he seems to know enough to know that he doesn't know how to do it yet (which is one step above those that don't even know what they don't know yet)...
It all may be a failure in the end, but at least there is a germ of an idea in there (which is more than I can say for most snake oil).
A "right" decision is generally a function of perspective. Most people (including CEOs) make "right" decisions most of the time, but the reward function under which they evaluate "right" is not at all what you might expect and generally has very little to do with vendors, customers, employees, or shareholders.
If you are making money from it, yes, that is one reason why reading services for the blind are specifically exempted from infringement.
That is a bit of a simplification. Reading services for the blind operate under an very narrow extension of the fair use of copyrights. Under current copyright rules, reading services for the blind must be sponsored by an authorized organization (basically a non-profit or governmental agency specializing in providing access to people with disabilities) and these services are specifically restricted to non-dramatic literary or educational works and can they only be produced in a format which is exclusively for use by people with disabilities.
That means citizen jane can't just read the latest best seller fiction book and put it on a pod-cast under the guise of providing a reading service for the blind.
That is like saying commentary is a derivative work. Sure, just copying a subtitle file would be derivative, but watching a movie, and writing a subtitle file from your interpretation of how best to translate it is fair use.
IANAL, but although it might be true that watching a movie and writing a essay in another language that describes the movie completely in strict time-order might be fair use, but structuring your translation as a sub-title and synchronizing the sub-tiles back to the original audio-visual work (or simply replacing the sub-titles that came with that audio-visual work) will probably make it a derivative work under the law. Legally, part of the copyright of a movie is the synchronization between the audio and the video (and/or the sub-titles and the video) and it would be pretty hard to argue that independently developed sub-tiles aren't somehow derivative of the original audio-visual synchronization of the work which is (sadly) one the the elements of a movie protected by copyright law...
So... use recursion to output the Nth iteration of Fibonacci. I'd argue that recursion isn't particularly efficient for that, especially if you don't store partial results. "Simplest" one is fib(n)=fib(n-1)+fib(n-2) fib(0)=fib(1)=1... but this could easily overflow the stack.
Or, you can code your Fibonacci function so your compiler can eliminate the tail recursion... Or not... your choice;^)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know if that assertion is accurate. I've played around with several different chipsets for home projects. Both CDMA and GSM varieties. None of these were stamped as Qualcomm. Sure they are a huge player, but...
What Apple is mainly objecting to is the Qualcomm royalty model for use of its patent portfolio. Qualcomm charges a royalty of approximately 3% to 5% based on the *entire wholesale price of the handset unit* (not just the price of the chip that Qualcomm may or maynot have made).
if must be hard to be so uneducated
It must be hard to have a typing disability... ;^P
Perhaps one should instead be thankful to be blissfully ignorant of what a Separation Memorandum of Understanding (aka a legal precursor to draft a separation settlement agreement which usually finalized in a divorce agreement). Sometimes life is less complicated when one is ignorant of such things...
>Non-exempt employees can be required to work some overtime,
No one can require you to work. Even in prison, where labor is paid under minimum wage (and that's a supreme court case waiting to happen), they cannot force you to work. The punishment is torture, in the case of prison.
Okay, Non-exempt employees can be required *as part of an implied contract of continued employment* to work some overtime...
Basically the law allows for not accepting overtime work requirements as a valid condition of dismissal. Of course nobody can *force* you to work, you can always quit and they can pretty much fire you for any reason (unless it is specifically protected by the law). In fact, I have quit a job before because my employer required overtime (and if I had not quit, I suspect I would have been fired). I know many folks who have done this do and I'm sure this has happened many times to many people over the course of history and apparently for the most part, it is perfectly legal.
Thanks for spreading bullshit!
Always happy to do that on the internet...
Wat. It's like you're giving legal advice on the Internet, complete with citing laws from the Dept of Labor, and then saying "IANAL and I know nothing of employment laws".
People who take legal advice from the internet pretty much get what they pay for, right? Is this your first time reading posts on the internet or "Wat"?
The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.
If that reason is given more often by women and minorities then it is whites and men... perhaps companies ARE mistreating women and minorities which WOULD make it the company's fault.
It's possible that those groups just "perceive" mistreatment more often, or they could actually be being mistreated more.
Being the perennial centrist, on-the-fence person that I am- I don't know which is the real reason.
Admittedly, I have limited perspective on this, but I often I observe the *company* treatment is probably better for women and under-represented minorities, but the *co-worker* treatment is probably much worse for women and under-represented minorities. True that a part of the *co-worker* treatment is part of the company culture and that part might be the company's responsibility, but you can't make co-workers treat each other non-awkwardly in situations that aren't strictly business related, and that makes the co-worker treatment situation very difficult to fix within a human generation of time.
I feel that many folks still want companies to function as some sort of in loco parentis as if working a jobs was some sort of extended university stint. That seems like a bit old fashion to me, but I suspect a large number of people feel that since workers are somehow *dependents* of a company, the company owes some responsibility or duty to the employees. Sadly, as in real life not all entities are wired to be parents, even those that actually have children.
On the other hand workplace norms on overwork demands in the tech business (like many other male dominated industries) are probably not very compelling for some populations and that would be also very difficult to fix within a human generation of time as well. We are long past the "puritan" work ethics that launched our industrial age...
Anyone who works on unauthorized personal projects should certainly expect to be subject to firing. But as a supervisor I would make the decision to fire based on what is best for my employer. That depends on a lot of things.
I don't believe in automatic zero tolerance responses. The question for me is whether the company better off booting this guy or disciplining him. Note this intrinsically unfair. Alice is a whiz who gets all of her work done on time and to top quality standards. Bob is a mediocre performer who is easily replaced. So Alice gets a strong talking to and Bob gets the heave-ho, which is unfair to Bob because Alice did exactly the same thing.
But there's a kind of meta-fairness to it. Stray off the straight and narrow and you subject yourself to arbitrary, self-interested reactions.
Now as to Alice, I would (a) remind her that anything she creates on company time belongs to the company (even if we're doing open source -- we get to choose whether the thing is distributed) and (b) that any revenue she derives from it rightly belongs to the company. But again there's no general rule other than maximize the interests of the company. I'll probably insist she shut down the project immediately and turn everything over to the company, but not necessarily. I might choose to turn a blind eye. Or maybe even turn a blind eye until Alice delivers on her big project, then fire her and sue her for the side project revenues if I thought we didn't need her any longer. If loyalty is a two-way street, so is betrayal.
Sure, you may rationalize working on a side project as somehow justified by the fact your employer doesn't pay you what you're really worth, but the grown-up response to that is to find a better job; if you can't, by definition in a market economy you are getting paid at least what you're worth. If you decide to proceed by duplicity, you can't expect kindness or understanding unless you can compel it.
So let me get this straight. In this scenario your are Eve?
By that logic I should fire my company for making me work after hours and weekends on their projects.
That's called quitting... You are free to do that do that if you want to...
If you're an hourly employee, its different. If you are a salaried employee you are paid to do a set of tasks and projects. If you complete those that's really what matters. If I need to work on side project for 20 minutes at 1PM and then need to work on a work project at 2AM it all works out in the end.
Not according to current labor laws. Non-exempt employees can be required to work some overtime, it is just that non-exempt employees have to be paid for it (unlike exempt employee that must be on a salary). Similarly both exempt and non-exempt employees are allowed to refuse to work more than 72 hours a week or when statutory safety time limitations are reached. About the only "real" difference is are the required extra pay for overtime for non-exempt employees and the minimum salary and job duties required to be classified as exempt.
Now how your employer feels about your ability to continue collect a paycheck from them in the future, that is another issue entirely. The most of employment law that doesn't have to do with discrimination mostly just proscribes compensation for work already performed, not the future employment continuation...
Often working on two jobs (esp on salary) can create an implied conflict of interest which in most cases can be considered a "just-cause" reason for termination which would preclude unemployment benefits, although an objection for a specific situation might mitigate that. Either way an employer could fire you (in most at-will employment states). That is why it is always best to get a mutual understanding of the job with your employer up front rather than rely on anecdotal ideas about "salaried" and "hourly" employees.
I recognize that it's silly, however I didn't create the conditions for this silliness - alimony and child support laws did. Before you get up in arms over 'not supporting your kids' bear in mind that by law support only needs to get paid to the woman. What she does with it is largely, or entirely in you're in CA, not their worry. So in essence kids often don't get the support anyway. I estimate on a good day my kids might see $.25 on the dollar.
If you are concerned about your kids not getting support, why not seek full custody? I understand this isn't always feasible (and doesn't totally eliminate alimony), but you gotta do what you gotta do for your kids, right?
OTOH, I realize the not every couple is cut-out for marriage, and probably someday the US will be more like some European countries where getting married is becoming less common (even with kids), but I for one will be sad when that day comes... I know a few couples that did it that way (mostly for marriage tax penalty reasons), but it seems to me that it really puts a big barrier in their relationship to continually have to sign contracts/agreements/documents to remind them of their status and shared responsibilities (kids, mortgage, insurance, etc) year after year. Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic that's gonna get screwed some day, but at least for now, I can enjoy the fiction of assuming most of my fellow men/women would share a general sense of equity and reasonableness. It's a world view that I'd hate to lose. I'd rather just get a prenup/postnup than be reminded year after year...
Let's see, china's moon exploration program is called CLEP.
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right on the moon!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "C"
And that stands for CLEP,
That rhymes with "K"
And that stands for KLEP,
That's stealing the moon!
We've surely got trouble!
Gee, without a stent I would be dead since your coronary collapses and without it your heart dies.
So I guess I and other stent recipients are alive for some other reason such as __ fill in the blank.
__LUCK__
Unfortunately, a stent is often kind of a stopgap which can be used in some situations to attempt to avoid bypass surgery. Your cardiologist should have told you that stents are primarily inserted to provide symptomatic relief from angina and chest pain related to coronary artery disease and blocked arteries. Medical studies like this one have not shown that they actual reduce the rate of Myocardial Infarction (aka heart attacks).
Also, long term studies of stents show that 35-40% suffer restenosis (a bit better with a drug-eluting stent). The jury is out if a stent will actually save your life in the future or not relative to this risk.
It really doesnt matter what you eat. All diet fads are bullshit.
The important thing is burning off what you consume. Farmer John could eat lots of fat and meat then work the fields for 12 hours, and be thin and healthy. But if Desk Jockey Julie does that she'll weigh 400 pounds and be sick.Common sense.
Swimmer Michael Phelps ate 12,000 calories a day, consisting of fried-egg sandwiches, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions, mayonnaise, coffee, omelets, grits, french toast, powdered sugar, pancakes, pasta, ham, 2,000 calories worth of energy drinks, and pizza.
I'm no doctor, but he seems pretty healthy.
Maybe Michael Phelps' isn't the best example here.
As to the extreme nature of his diet, he's a known pot head and has been diagnosed with ADHD so who knows what part of the calorie consumption is cause and effect (some drugs that are used to treat ADHD are basically stimulants)... As to "health", he also is a recovering alcoholic and likely suffers from Marfan Syndrome...
Of course he does burn a lot of calories, but most people aren't training for the olympics (nor does Mr. Phelps eat that much anymore since '08 and now that he is older, and he never at that much unless he was actively training). Given all that, I don't think he's anywhere near the center of any bell curve that is relevant to other people's metabolism...
Besides, the relationship between weight and calories is complex. What specific foods you eat and the schedule that you consume food can greatly effect this relationship (as with the standard obvious stuff like metabolic rate)...
In the long term, I don't think we need to worry too much about the human population losing the "urge" to socialize. I suspect such negative trait aspects to be bred out of the population gene pool in a few generations...
It may be a few lonely generations for a few folks though, but I'm sure computers will take care of that well enough to bridge the gap...
Plus the most important one - never get divorced as that is the most common setback people will face. My advice to my kids is to only marry someone who makes as much or more than you.
If we apply these rules across the board, basically internet match services will only need 2 criteria: sexual orientation, and monthly salary. They would then only need match those that had equal salary (within some tolerance) and compatible sexual orientation.
I had a similar discussion with a relative of mine the other day that insisted that her kids would need to "marry-up" or she would disown them. My response was how could that possibly work? Why wouldn't your future in-laws cut-off their kids for "marrying-down"? She was not happy with that response.
Yeah everyone's Netflix, Amazon, Apple and/or other internet costs are going to go up. Because ISP's are going to force them to pay more for the same bandwidth.
But this will somehow increase competition, because a lot more internet providers are about to come into your area. Because somehow this was holding them back...
I'm advocate of some types of net neutrality, but that's not the problem here.
IF ISPs force Netflix/Amazon/Apple to pay more for internet, it would likely enable more competition as other companies might be in a better position to charge enough to survive (now the price of Netfix/Amazon is so low as to make low-cost disruption uneconomical).
However, this is not a likely outcome of deregulation. It is more likely is that Netflix/Amazon will use their market position to purchase monopolies on capacity from ISPs making the capacity unavailable to potential competitors. For example, zero-rating Netflix/Amazon would make it very compelling to use Netflix/Amazon vs some competing service that would count against your monthly data cap. This is the problem that needs some form of net neutrality to solve. But simply making them title II common carriers isn't the answer either...
He is an engineer. But he didn't say he's a registered/ unregistered / official/ unofficial/ practicing / not practicing / civil / electrical / software / science / industrial / computer / oregon / out of state engineer.
Also, if "declaring yourself an engineer is a violation of the regulations in most states", engineer visitors are surely fined and kicked out when they have to answer "what are you working as?" at the boundary gate.
This is just another stupid case. Whoever has more money will win this.
The relevant statute in Oregon is listed below. Simply by verbal claim implying you are a registered profession engineer, you appear to be violating the statute...
672.007 Acts constituting practice of engineering, land surveying or photogrammetric mapping. For purposes of ORS 672.002 to 672.325:
(1) A person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.
Back in my youth (about 30 years ago), one day the company I worked for made all of us change our business cards from "engineer" to "technician" because of these laws. My dad (a civil engineer) somehow convinced me to take the FE/EIT and prep for the PE exam even though my job didn't require it because in his world I got my degree in engineering and well dammit, he wanted to call his son an engineer.
FWIW that whole licencing experience was bunk for computer engineering. At the time, the exam for electronic engineering specialty wasn't up to date at all (mostly 3-phase power, pentode amplifier questions) and completely irrelevant for computer engineering (except for a couple Fortran programming questions). Of course the exams are more updated now and include computer engineering, but I suspect they are still not remotely "current".
To top things off, even after I "passed" the FE/EIT, I then discovered that my university was unaccredited** and the "pass" was actually a conditional pass which required me apprenticing for 6 years before being allowed to call myself an Engineer in Training and to sit for the PE exam. Since nobody in my company was a licensed engineer that certainly wasn't gonna happen. So I immediately dropped that whole idea of becoming a professional engineer just to put it on my business card and never looked back. I just call myself a computer architect (to the horror of my father) and that's that...
**I didn't graduate from a diploma mill, I graduated from a student mill (called Caltech) which is sorta accredited, but apparently not accredited enough for ABET ...
If I'm going to spend extra just to keep money in the country, I'd rather it be taxed from me and redistributed as welfare rather than charged as a premium on products handled by a make-work project.
With welfare you're not enriching the already-rich at the top of the corporate structure, so you're giving much more efficiently to the people who need it.
That's an argument for a high-tariff structure (aka protectionist) economy. Basically raise the price of products so you no longer have an incentive to buy imports unless they aren't available locally. If you are fine with that type of economy, that's another way to go... Seems like we are headed that direction as countries are abandoning free trade agreements recently...
Since we're all human, I don't really have a problem with leveling the playing field, so long as it happens slowly enough it doesn't disrupt my life on noticeable timescales.
History has shown that disruptions like this occur on noticeable timescales.
In North America in the 1980's, the Japanese car disruption happened on a very short timescale and directly displaced 185,000 automotive jobs between June 1981 and November 1982 (not counting the indirect jobs lost because of the economic multiplier effect) before things began to stabilize. A voluntary trade restraint was negotiated between Japan and the US and of course Japan started manufacturing of cars in North America which contributed to the stabilization of the employment situation and return to '70's level of automobile industry employment (and of course it's been in a much slower decline since then).
Of course maybe for a short while, your life will be isolated from this type of disruption, but you might consider your neighbor that loses their livelihood is as human as someone across the globe, so I would think they also deserve some small amount of consideration too, right? Maybe you might give a few seconds pause about that the next time you bypass the middle-man companies to buy direct from China using Ali-Express... At least Walmart keeps a few folks gainfully employed locally (and that is a very low bar)... Who knows, maybe that local person is the parent of a schoolmate of your kids (or your friend's kid, if you don't have any kids). Aren't they human too?
The missing piece of this article is that China is dumping a lot of money into developing thorium nuclear power. In comparison, Uranium is expensive, hard to dispose of, way too radioactive, and terribly inefficient.
You mean the one that the US Dept of Energy** is helping them build because they can't convince the US government to fund it?
In the meantime, overcapacity, cost overruns due to mounting safety requirements*** have delayed China's near term nuclear efforts. Maybe their future Thorium nuclear endeavors will go more smoothly...
It's good to have optimism about new things, but sometimes thorium cheerleaders seem to have unwarranted optimism given the issues surrounding nuclear projects in the short history of nuclear power.
**Isn't that department headed by Rick Perry who as a candidate wanted to eliminate that department, but apparently couldn't remember it's name...
***The same cost overruns that have basically pushed Toshiba near bankruptcy and Areva towards a french government bailout
The actual number is of little consequence most.
In most bay area locales, Section 8 housing is basically unavailable for new applicants. Wait lists are estimated to be greater than 8-10 years or simply closed to new applicants until further notice because of essentially unbounded wait times and basically zero new section 8 housing inventory.
AFAIKT, the increases of these income threshold numbers only serve to keep a small amount of existing people (the vanishingly small fraction of the 17,000 total served by section 8 with reasonable jobs near the limit) from being kicked out of Section 8 housing simply by getting cost of living raises at work and forced to fend on their own...
Basically, section 8 is totally broken in the bay area and is a non-factor in housing. This adjustment doesn't really do anything either way to change this...
Now, you can argue that some other CEO would have done better, or that the main reason for Yahoo!'s success under her tenure was the decision to invest in Alibaba, made by her predecessor, but speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive, and she decided to stay with that investment.
I think you may have forgotten the details of this event where she sold 1/2 of their Alibaba shares to provide the funding for the turn-around attempt.
She also tried hard to create a tax-free sell/spinoff the rest of the Alibaba investment to Yahoo investors via an ill fated Aabaco manuever, but that didn't happen and what resulted in the end was Yahoo itself was sold off to Verizon leaving the shares Altaba (aka RemainCo which is Yahoo's remaining investments in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan essentially forever tied together in a under-performing tracking stock).
Meanwhile, the uncertainty of this ill-fated tax-free spin-off attempt clobbered most of the remaining value for shareholders until the sale. I'm not so sure this whole episode qualifies as a success under most metrics...
A better outcome (maybe it could be called successful) would be if she had executed the Aabaco tax-free sell/spinoff of the Alibaba shares to investors something that she didn't pull the trigger on even though most tax advisers thought it would work and provide the best stockholder value.
Sorry Bram, but you are missing the point. Hashing is used in bitcoin precisely because it is useless. It can't be faked, and it can't be stored for later. It is an irrevocable commitment right now.
I wish you luck with monetizing distributed storage, or decentralized distribution, or whatever your new project ends up as. But the design of bitcoin is not a programming challenge for you to solve. It is a carefully interlocked design, made by someone (or some people) who has (or have) a far beyond average understanding of money and cryptography. Many people with less insight have attempted to "improve" things, and all have failed.
Well, I'm not defending Bram on his quest, but I would say that based on this presentation at least he seems to know enough to know that he doesn't know how to do it yet (which is one step above those that don't even know what they don't know yet)...
It all may be a failure in the end, but at least there is a germ of an idea in there (which is more than I can say for most snake oil).
A "right" decision is generally a function of perspective. Most people (including CEOs) make "right" decisions most of the time, but the reward function under which they evaluate "right" is not at all what you might expect and generally has very little to do with vendors, customers, employees, or shareholders.
Sadly, to the winner go the spoils...
If you are making money from it, yes, that is one reason why reading services for the blind are specifically exempted from infringement.
That is a bit of a simplification. Reading services for the blind operate under an very narrow extension of the fair use of copyrights. Under current copyright rules, reading services for the blind must be sponsored by an authorized organization (basically a non-profit or governmental agency specializing in providing access to people with disabilities) and these services are specifically restricted to non-dramatic literary or educational works and can they only be produced in a format which is exclusively for use by people with disabilities.
That means citizen jane can't just read the latest best seller fiction book and put it on a pod-cast under the guise of providing a reading service for the blind.
That is like saying commentary is a derivative work. Sure, just copying a subtitle file would be derivative, but watching a movie, and writing a subtitle file from your interpretation of how best to translate it is fair use.
IANAL, but although it might be true that watching a movie and writing a essay in another language that describes the movie completely in strict time-order might be fair use, but structuring your translation as a sub-title and synchronizing the sub-tiles back to the original audio-visual work (or simply replacing the sub-titles that came with that audio-visual work) will probably make it a derivative work under the law. Legally, part of the copyright of a movie is the synchronization between the audio and the video (and/or the sub-titles and the video) and it would be pretty hard to argue that independently developed sub-tiles aren't somehow derivative of the original audio-visual synchronization of the work which is (sadly) one the the elements of a movie protected by copyright law...
Like described in this /. story back in 2014...
So... use recursion to output the Nth iteration of Fibonacci. I'd argue that recursion isn't particularly efficient for that, especially if you don't store partial results.
"Simplest" one is fib(n)=fib(n-1)+fib(n-2) fib(0)=fib(1)=1... but this could easily overflow the stack.
Or, you can code your Fibonacci function so your compiler can eliminate the tail recursion... Or not... your choice ;^)