Engineering jobs are offshored (and subsidized) much more extensively than visual effects artists. The number of engineers in the world dwarfs the number of visual effects artists by at least 1000x to 1. Offshore STEM work is subsidized by foreign governments. I wonder if this can lead to tariffs on works thus derived overseas. iPad tariff, anyone?
1) Without a measure of goodness there is no way to determine "best", "worst" or even "better" or "worse". 2) The previous can be reversed to determine actual measure of goodness given a valuation of "best" or such.
It sounds like MTA director is about revenue, so good for him. He is not, however, qualified to make good decisions for startups in Silicon Valley. If he was, then he would be making Billions at Facebook instead of Pennies in civil service.
Perhaps he could investigate the root causes that drive the decisions, things like huge costs, poor infrastructure, and a low-quality work environment - and address those to get the start-ups back into downtown/old-town/urban restoration.
So it runs slower, and its open. This sounds like a honeypot server. Is there end-to-end encryption or is this an invitation built to enhance informed oppression?
They don't like wikileaks, or its peers. They also track things like visits to cryptome. They look for risk by people who go to sites that teach the substance of the anarchists cookbook. There are "finger-prints" or eigenvectors of site visitation that they associate with higher and lower risk. If you visit sites a,b, and c, then you are just a harmless teenager making a prank. If you visit sites a, b, not-c, and d, then you might be a threat.
You aren't suprised that the evil empire doesn't like that Snowden aired its laundry, are you? This is the entirely expectable reactive reaction to attempt to "close the barn door". These folks have not read "Godel, Escher, Bach" and understood that the system of themselves is a "sufficiently complex one" and there are axiomatic holes. Either they have to refute the fundamentals of the fundamentals of mathematics - things that drive why 1+1 actually equals 2, or they have to deny they are sufficiently complex, or they have to have a non-lawyers approach to the problem. Their boss and his appointees are lawyers - they can't step outside that box, so they can't actually plug the holes, but they can make a plausible case before a jury of technical idiots that the holes are closed. Sad. Expectable.
A better question is the cadence of the next disclosure. There is a cyclicity to the phenomena. They haven't asked why, because they haven't spent much time looking at cyclicity.
And yet these folks are given trillions of dollars and tasked with the responsibility of keeping the world a good place and making it a better, healthier, more life-full place. Irony. That right there, is irony.
it is the beginning of AI-science, not the end of human science.
Science requires testable, provable, repeatable. If a human cannot understand the proof then he cannot participate in the science. This is likely to be referred to as an "early" version of machine-exclusive science.
Nothing is random. Humans are crap at random. Makes me wonder why we think we are intelligent. We are good clocks - that makes our thought mechanistic.
We are consistent. So the "get someone elses version of normal and play it yourself" is really a good way to hide. When tested against computers which make okay random, or some advanced/expensive stuff that makes actual random this approach makes us look nearly exactly like a real human.
Instead of looking like a needle in a haystack - and needles look nothing like hay - it either makes our activity look like a piece of hay in a haystack, or turns the haystack into a needlestack. Either way - isolating an individual is exceptionally harder.
I read through about 75% of it. It is not a great read. It takes a lot of time to get to a little meat.
It relies on "social pressure" to stop conspicuous spending. Lets see that work for real in womens shoes and I might believe it possible. Otherwise there is a substantial bit of anthropology that the author is hand-waving his way past.
Reproductively speaking, the minimum cost of reproduction is much smaller for the male than the female. For the female the time-cost is 40 weeks, while for the male it can be around 4 minutes. That is a 100,000 to one ratio. Although females have oestrus cycle times that are 9x less frequent than optimal cycle-times for males, this does not establish a reproductive cost equality.
This high asymmetry in cost drives different general normative behaviors.Game theory says that when the costs are so asymmetric, and so much larger, then you will see radically different optimal strategies. For women they have a huge vested interest in maximizing the input the man gives - they are selective in partners, and selective in frequency. This also drives a strange phenomena of "Costly but worthless gifts facilitating courtship". (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...)
The most archaic, currently used, globally useful, non-worthless gift that can be given is not gold, diamonds, cash, or camels - it is footwear. If any commodity is hard-wired into female brains through the selective processes of 10,000+ years of recorded history of civilization it is a candidate such as this.
If your "social pressure" to stop "conspicuous spending" can actually apply to womens footwear, then it has substance. Don't just stop sales, show that the desire has been resolved. It has not been resolved in Europe - this means that the fundamental forces are still extensively at work in that culture. It also means that the Star Trek economy, while worth considering, is still a work of fiction.
It worked in the 1960's, but it is unlikely to work now.
They can detect the "random" activity, and isolate it. You are not making the right fog, and they have ways to see through it.
A better way would be some protocol that works like bitcoins to share someone elses anonymized queries, and makes you look exactly like them for a little while, then switches it up. They might "poison the well" but if even a medium sample of people is using the method, it will make a fog that makes automated clustering and classification substantially less meaningful. Something that randomly clicks into google ads might also interfere with classification, by fogging the google classification of you. The two "bucketings" are both read by NSA, but google doesn't get to read what the NSA does, and at least publicly has an interest in appearing to resist being informative for things like targeted executions of American citizens without due process of law.
You have lots of faith in politicians, it seems. While they believe they are qualified to make the best decisions for you, decisions in your best interests, they are not actually working in your best interests. They are working in their best interests.
There are some consistent political agendas. If you watch the news, nationwide, across nations, then you can see it. Immunization. Stopping population growth. They are common. What are the common trends in weight? What is on the horizon?
Politicians are great at addressing root causes behind why fat people become obese, right? They are qualified to provide help, to change the fundamentals, right? No. It isn't their area of expertise. It isn't their expertise, but it is their interest. What makes it the area of their interest? Why are they putting tax money into solving that particular problem? If it were an actual solution, there would be a company that makes money from doing it. Texts are so cheap they are nearly free. Imagine a business that was paid real money for something that was effectively free. It is a great business model if it worked. There is a fundamental economic reality behind why it isn't a business - it doesn't work. Fat people (and I'm overweight, I'm the target audience) pay millions a year because they don't want to be fat - go ask Jenny Craig. It is a huge industry, taking money from fat people after convincing them that you can make them human again.
It is weight-ist. Opt in or not, it is a stupid politician being weight-ist.
How secure are text messages? How about the vendor? Are they securing the information? This is medical information. This associates particular medical conditions with a phone number and a persons identity. Is it secure? No way. It is broadcast unencrypted publicly. People are unable to get jobs because of weight. They are considered higher medical risk, and so get less pay for the same job. If you sign up for that list, it is going to go into a HR database somewhere and, God-forbid you ever lose the weight, it is going to be considered against you in the future. It has legal and ethical implications, career spanning implications, that the politicians likely didn't consider.
In my personal opinion there is a lot of junk out there that is not worth its price. I really don't want to know about the Justin Bieber sex tape, and the world isn't a better place for anyone knowing that.
The few places that seem to do great work, in my personal opinion, work that has value worth paying the price for, include the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, sometimes the New Yorker, and then peer-reviewed published journals. I look through many abstracts free and then select the papers relevant to my work or interests and can have my work pay for access to them.
I think that the model of "associated press", where one organization provides 95% of the nations news, is effectively a monopoly. There is a profound lack of journalistic integrity because the journalistic marketplace and the fundamental value of the discipline are both compromised. The value of journalism in the eyes of the public has plummeted in the last 30 years. If someone said the LA times or the Arizona republic is closing shop, all the news they carried would be carried elsewhere. The same stories would be there. An honest modern-day Clark Kent would never be a reporter, because journalism is not the freedom creating and empowering enterprise that it was at the birth of that comic book hero.
When I consider the Economist, for example, nobody has equivalent depth or quality. Psychology today is also not bad. All of the *daily or *times - 90% of their content is not original. To me that means that 90% of their content is not valuable.
Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.
I saw silicon (and FPGA) built around NN in the mid 1990's. The first NN's used for computation were published in the 1960's.
The only novel part of this is the "true to biology" part of the topology.
I would be impressed if it could make a better video card - if the paradigm of "neuromorphic" was competitive vs. the current material implemented in silicon.
I was thinking about the movie where the NSA could spread a virus through the power supply. I was also jus thinking how security researchers just found a virus that could spread by sound over disconnencted systems. I then also realized that certain types of power supplies have consistent bad acoustic behavior - I can hear their caps.
Putting this together makes for a worm that on the PC checks the nature of the power supply, and can spread to phones/tablets/other PC by the power supply.
One or two good EMP's and 99.95% of the e-books are gone forever. Floppy discs and CD-rom's last a few decades, perhaps. Paper lasts ~500 years or so. One of these three is much more resilient to disaster than the other two.
I could see this being useful for a high-school variation on the Johns Hopkins undergraduate spaghetti bridge contest. http://www.jhu.edu/virtlab/spa...
Yes this is pre-secondary education, but these kids could make a bridge of popsicle sticks and elmers - they get the fundamentals.
They should be given a budget of "plastic weight" for a makerbot fabricated bridge. This would add things like "dispense speed" and such to the overall bridge, but the manufacturing would be consistent across all bridges. It would also allow something a spaghetti bridge contest could not allow: measurement of uncertainty by replication. You could exactly replicate a bridge and determine not only a single sample of its performance but its mean and variance.
I think statistical design of experiments is amazingly accessible - I could have understood it in 3rd grade - but it is not taught there. It is the (THE) fundamental course for science... all of science. Nobody is teaching it to third graders and they should be. A maker-space in a public school, especially accessible to science teachers - would be highly valuable for hands-on practice in something like statistical design of experiments.
Ideas like "central tendency" and "spreading tendency" are accessible to a kid with a slingshot. If they can shoot a slingshot they can understand the idea. If they can be made to practice the idea early, that can be very empowering for STEM careers later.
Yes, I am commenting on my comment. I just really am inspired by the utility of this idea.
I could imagine a knex (or make-it-yourself *nex) being very common in such a place. Also glues. And tapes. Not just scotch - there are dozens of breeds of tapes because they each do something important well.
Maker spaces are inexpensive. Their capital cost is low. Given your audience, it can be lower than conventional, because you might use less resources. Maker spaces are about self-teaching, and research. How do you do . Maker spaces engage the community, and are about people in different "groups" interacting. Diversity in action - not about institutionalized anything, just those who can do no matter what they look like - its about making, not race/age/social-status/et cetera.
Maker spaces are about teaching. Those who can, both do and teach. Peers mastering and teaching others one on one, or in a larger quasi-formal setting. How do I do x? How do I do it safely? How do I do it in a way that stages me to be able to do the next thing? Don't just stand me on the shoulders of a giant, let me walk a ramp between shoulders of successively larger giants until one day I find that I am one of them and I have somehow, by doing what I love, been a giant whose shoulders others have walked.
Making is several things at once. Software, programming, electronics prototyping, CAD, hardware...
Books are critical. How do I program in Python, Javascript, assembler, or on this particular widget. How do I solder, sew, or saw this piece of stuff into the shape that I wanted? What software does it take to make the STL file, to put into the makerbot to make a cutie mark for Twilight Sparkle? What if I want to make a 3d picture of myself - how do I do that? What about making my own mini-strandbeest?
I see arduino, robotics, computer programming, makerbots, origami, kits, knitting/macrame/quilting, kites rockets and LED lights as very "typically makerspace" materials. Books on all of those subject are welcome.
How to make your own notebook is important. Teaching documentation of the process is important for makers/inventors/engineers. We learn more when we capture what we did and we think about how to make it better.
Engaging the modern "buzz" is a common past-time. Deconstruct the new i-thing and make one yourself, even if it has 1% of the actual function and 1% of the cost. What will I find if I take this apart? How do I put this valuable thing together, or make my own that does a passable job?
It is a requirement for any large matrix inversion to run efficiently, and large matrix inversion is the fundamentals behind all big science computes including what goes on at national labs. Though I do not know what the code is, I strongly suspect that this is the single code, likely from a Fortran library, that has run most on the biggest supercomputers on the planet.
The dump is going to be where folks of the future mine to find out about our daily lives. Such information would be a virtual treasure-trove for posterity. We just need to properly wrap it to give it the best chance of survival.
It is not like folks today are using it.
Would be better if the data was actually online, though it isn't.
The dump is going to be where folks of the future mine to find out about our daily lives. Such information would be a virtual treasure-trove for posterity. We just need to properly wrap it to give it the best chance of survival.
It is not like folks today are using it.
Would be better if the data was actually online, though it isn't.
Firing based on pointing out illegal or unethical behavior is called "retaliation" and has substantial penalties associated with the lawsuits. Being unethical to someone who calls you to be ethical - that is a higher-order unethical behavior.
Examine the H1b visa process. It makes HR become customized to "virtual slavery" and devaluing workers. I would be surprised if all companies who use the H1b visa as aggressively as google/microsoft/cisco/etc... are not as discriminatory. You are talking about the people who authored the engineering price fixing that is currently under class-action lawsuit. If they are going to price-fix the wages of "white American counterparts" then it is unsurprising that they also are wage fixing their Indian counterparts.
Slashdot Mirror
Engineering jobs are offshored (and subsidized) much more extensively than visual effects artists. The number of engineers in the world dwarfs the number of visual effects artists by at least 1000x to 1. Offshore STEM work is subsidized by foreign governments. I wonder if this can lead to tariffs on works thus derived overseas. iPad tariff, anyone?
1) Without a measure of goodness there is no way to determine "best", "worst" or even "better" or "worse".
2) The previous can be reversed to determine actual measure of goodness given a valuation of "best" or such.
It sounds like MTA director is about revenue, so good for him. He is not, however, qualified to make good decisions for startups in Silicon Valley. If he was, then he would be making Billions at Facebook instead of Pennies in civil service.
Perhaps he could investigate the root causes that drive the decisions, things like huge costs, poor infrastructure, and a low-quality work environment - and address those to get the start-ups back into downtown/old-town/urban restoration.
So it runs slower, and its open. This sounds like a honeypot server. Is there end-to-end encryption or is this an invitation built to enhance informed oppression?
They make that money - because they can.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
They don't like wikileaks, or its peers. They also track things like visits to cryptome. They look for risk by people who go to sites that teach the substance of the anarchists cookbook. There are "finger-prints" or eigenvectors of site visitation that they associate with higher and lower risk. If you visit sites a,b, and c, then you are just a harmless teenager making a prank. If you visit sites a, b, not-c, and d, then you might be a threat.
You aren't suprised that the evil empire doesn't like that Snowden aired its laundry, are you? This is the entirely expectable reactive reaction to attempt to "close the barn door". These folks have not read "Godel, Escher, Bach" and understood that the system of themselves is a "sufficiently complex one" and there are axiomatic holes. Either they have to refute the fundamentals of the fundamentals of mathematics - things that drive why 1+1 actually equals 2, or they have to deny they are sufficiently complex, or they have to have a non-lawyers approach to the problem. Their boss and his appointees are lawyers - they can't step outside that box, so they can't actually plug the holes, but they can make a plausible case before a jury of technical idiots that the holes are closed. Sad. Expectable.
A better question is the cadence of the next disclosure. There is a cyclicity to the phenomena. They haven't asked why, because they haven't spent much time looking at cyclicity.
And yet these folks are given trillions of dollars and tasked with the responsibility of keeping the world a good place and making it a better, healthier, more life-full place. Irony. That right there, is irony.
it is the beginning of AI-science, not the end of human science.
Science requires testable, provable, repeatable. If a human cannot understand the proof then he cannot participate in the science. This is likely to be referred to as an "early" version of machine-exclusive science.
Nothing is random. Humans are crap at random. Makes me wonder why we think we are intelligent. We are good clocks - that makes our thought mechanistic.
We are consistent. So the "get someone elses version of normal and play it yourself" is really a good way to hide. When tested against computers which make okay random, or some advanced/expensive stuff that makes actual random this approach makes us look nearly exactly like a real human.
Instead of looking like a needle in a haystack - and needles look nothing like hay - it either makes our activity look like a piece of hay in a haystack, or turns the haystack into a needlestack. Either way - isolating an individual is exceptionally harder.
I read through about 75% of it. It is not a great read. It takes a lot of time to get to a little meat.
It relies on "social pressure" to stop conspicuous spending. Lets see that work for real in womens shoes and I might believe it possible. Otherwise there is a substantial bit of anthropology that the author is hand-waving his way past.
Reproductively speaking, the minimum cost of reproduction is much smaller for the male than the female. For the female the time-cost is 40 weeks, while for the male it can be around 4 minutes. That is a 100,000 to one ratio. Although females have oestrus cycle times that are 9x less frequent than optimal cycle-times for males, this does not establish a reproductive cost equality.
This high asymmetry in cost drives different general normative behaviors.Game theory says that when the costs are so asymmetric, and so much larger, then you will see radically different optimal strategies. For women they have a huge vested interest in maximizing the input the man gives - they are selective in partners, and selective in frequency. This also drives a strange phenomena of "Costly but worthless gifts facilitating courtship". (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...)
The most archaic, currently used, globally useful, non-worthless gift that can be given is not gold, diamonds, cash, or camels - it is footwear. If any commodity is hard-wired into female brains through the selective processes of 10,000+ years of recorded history of civilization it is a candidate such as this.
If your "social pressure" to stop "conspicuous spending" can actually apply to womens footwear, then it has substance. Don't just stop sales, show that the desire has been resolved. It has not been resolved in Europe - this means that the fundamental forces are still extensively at work in that culture. It also means that the Star Trek economy, while worth considering, is still a work of fiction.
Best regards.
It worked in the 1960's, but it is unlikely to work now.
They can detect the "random" activity, and isolate it. You are not making the right fog, and they have ways to see through it.
A better way would be some protocol that works like bitcoins to share someone elses anonymized queries, and makes you look exactly like them for a little while, then switches it up. They might "poison the well" but if even a medium sample of people is using the method, it will make a fog that makes automated clustering and classification substantially less meaningful. Something that randomly clicks into google ads might also interfere with classification, by fogging the google classification of you. The two "bucketings" are both read by NSA, but google doesn't get to read what the NSA does, and at least publicly has an interest in appearing to resist being informative for things like targeted executions of American citizens without due process of law.
You have lots of faith in politicians, it seems. While they believe they are qualified to make the best decisions for you, decisions in your best interests, they are not actually working in your best interests. They are working in their best interests.
There are some consistent political agendas. If you watch the news, nationwide, across nations, then you can see it. Immunization. Stopping population growth. They are common. What are the common trends in weight? What is on the horizon?
Politicians are great at addressing root causes behind why fat people become obese, right? They are qualified to provide help, to change the fundamentals, right? No. It isn't their area of expertise. It isn't their expertise, but it is their interest. What makes it the area of their interest? Why are they putting tax money into solving that particular problem? If it were an actual solution, there would be a company that makes money from doing it. Texts are so cheap they are nearly free. Imagine a business that was paid real money for something that was effectively free. It is a great business model if it worked. There is a fundamental economic reality behind why it isn't a business - it doesn't work. Fat people (and I'm overweight, I'm the target audience) pay millions a year because they don't want to be fat - go ask Jenny Craig. It is a huge industry, taking money from fat people after convincing them that you can make them human again.
It is weight-ist. Opt in or not, it is a stupid politician being weight-ist.
How secure are text messages? How about the vendor? Are they securing the information? This is medical information. This associates particular medical conditions with a phone number and a persons identity. Is it secure? No way. It is broadcast unencrypted publicly. People are unable to get jobs because of weight. They are considered higher medical risk, and so get less pay for the same job. If you sign up for that list, it is going to go into a HR database somewhere and, God-forbid you ever lose the weight, it is going to be considered against you in the future. It has legal and ethical implications, career spanning implications, that the politicians likely didn't consider.
I'm sure you didn't consider those either.
In my personal opinion there is a lot of junk out there that is not worth its price. I really don't want to know about the Justin Bieber sex tape, and the world isn't a better place for anyone knowing that.
The few places that seem to do great work, in my personal opinion, work that has value worth paying the price for, include the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, sometimes the New Yorker, and then peer-reviewed published journals. I look through many abstracts free and then select the papers relevant to my work or interests and can have my work pay for access to them.
I think that the model of "associated press", where one organization provides 95% of the nations news, is effectively a monopoly. There is a profound lack of journalistic integrity because the journalistic marketplace and the fundamental value of the discipline are both compromised. The value of journalism in the eyes of the public has plummeted in the last 30 years. If someone said the LA times or the Arizona republic is closing shop, all the news they carried would be carried elsewhere. The same stories would be there. An honest modern-day Clark Kent would never be a reporter, because journalism is not the freedom creating and empowering enterprise that it was at the birth of that comic book hero.
When I consider the Economist, for example, nobody has equivalent depth or quality. Psychology today is also not bad. All of the *daily or *times - 90% of their content is not original. To me that means that 90% of their content is not valuable.
Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.
I saw silicon (and FPGA) built around NN in the mid 1990's. The first NN's used for computation were published in the 1960's.
The only novel part of this is the "true to biology" part of the topology.
I would be impressed if it could make a better video card - if the paradigm of "neuromorphic" was competitive vs. the current material implemented in silicon.
I was thinking about the movie where the NSA could spread a virus through the power supply.
I was also jus thinking how security researchers just found a virus that could spread by sound over disconnencted systems.
I then also realized that certain types of power supplies have consistent bad acoustic behavior - I can hear their caps.
Putting this together makes for a worm that on the PC checks the nature of the power supply, and can spread to phones/tablets/other PC by the power supply.
[1] http://www.extremetech.com/com...
[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt02...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
One or two good EMP's and 99.95% of the e-books are gone forever. Floppy discs and CD-rom's last a few decades, perhaps. Paper lasts ~500 years or so.
One of these three is much more resilient to disaster than the other two.
I could see this being useful for a high-school variation on the Johns Hopkins undergraduate spaghetti bridge contest.
http://www.jhu.edu/virtlab/spa...
Yes this is pre-secondary education, but these kids could make a bridge of popsicle sticks and elmers - they get the fundamentals.
They should be given a budget of "plastic weight" for a makerbot fabricated bridge. This would add things like "dispense speed" and such to the overall bridge, but the manufacturing would be consistent across all bridges. It would also allow something a spaghetti bridge contest could not allow: measurement of uncertainty by replication. You could exactly replicate a bridge and determine not only a single sample of its performance but its mean and variance.
I think statistical design of experiments is amazingly accessible - I could have understood it in 3rd grade - but it is not taught there. It is the (THE) fundamental course for science ... all of science. Nobody is teaching it to third graders and they should be. A maker-space in a public school, especially accessible to science teachers - would be highly valuable for hands-on practice in something like statistical design of experiments.
Ideas like "central tendency" and "spreading tendency" are accessible to a kid with a slingshot. If they can shoot a slingshot they can understand the idea. If they can be made to practice the idea early, that can be very empowering for STEM careers later.
Yes, I am commenting on my comment. I just really am inspired by the utility of this idea.
I could imagine a knex (or make-it-yourself *nex) being very common in such a place. Also glues. And tapes. Not just scotch - there are dozens of breeds of tapes because they each do something important well.
Maker spaces are inexpensive. Their capital cost is low. Given your audience, it can be lower than conventional, because you might use less resources.
Maker spaces are about self-teaching, and research. How do you do .
Maker spaces engage the community, and are about people in different "groups" interacting. Diversity in action - not about institutionalized anything, just those who can do no matter what they look like - its about making, not race/age/social-status/et cetera.
Maker spaces are about teaching. Those who can, both do and teach. Peers mastering and teaching others one on one, or in a larger quasi-formal setting. How do I do x? How do I do it safely? How do I do it in a way that stages me to be able to do the next thing? Don't just stand me on the shoulders of a giant, let me walk a ramp between shoulders of successively larger giants until one day I find that I am one of them and I have somehow, by doing what I love, been a giant whose shoulders others have walked.
Making is several things at once. Software, programming, electronics prototyping, CAD, hardware ...
Books are critical. How do I program in Python, Javascript, assembler, or on this particular widget.
How do I solder, sew, or saw this piece of stuff into the shape that I wanted? What software does it take to make the STL file, to put into the makerbot to make a cutie mark for Twilight Sparkle? What if I want to make a 3d picture of myself - how do I do that? What about making my own mini-strandbeest?
I see arduino, robotics, computer programming, makerbots, origami, kits, knitting/macrame/quilting, kites rockets and LED lights as very "typically makerspace" materials. Books on all of those subject are welcome.
How to make your own notebook is important. Teaching documentation of the process is important for makers/inventors/engineers. We learn more when we capture what we did and we think about how to make it better.
Engaging the modern "buzz" is a common past-time. Deconstruct the new i-thing and make one yourself, even if it has 1% of the actual function and 1% of the cost. What will I find if I take this apart? How do I put this valuable thing together, or make my own that does a passable job?
Here are some links.
http://makerspace.com/
http://www.heatsynclabs.org/
http://gangplankhq.com/labs/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://3dprintingindustry.com/...
It is a requirement for any large matrix inversion to run efficiently, and large matrix inversion is the fundamentals behind all big science computes including what goes on at national labs. Though I do not know what the code is, I strongly suspect that this is the single code, likely from a Fortran library, that has run most on the biggest supercomputers on the planet.
You didn't just tell Russia that it can't use international law, did you. Are you really daring Lawyers to not be able to do something using the law??
First post in Rot13? Not entirely informative. Also not first.
The dump is going to be where folks of the future mine to find out about our daily lives. Such information would be a virtual treasure-trove for posterity. We just need to properly wrap it to give it the best chance of survival.
It is not like folks today are using it.
Would be better if the data was actually online, though it isn't.
The dump is going to be where folks of the future mine to find out about our daily lives. Such information would be a virtual treasure-trove for posterity. We just need to properly wrap it to give it the best chance of survival.
It is not like folks today are using it.
Would be better if the data was actually online, though it isn't.
Firing based on pointing out illegal or unethical behavior is called "retaliation" and has substantial penalties associated with the lawsuits. Being unethical to someone who calls you to be ethical - that is a higher-order unethical behavior.
Examine the H1b visa process. It makes HR become customized to "virtual slavery" and devaluing workers. I would be surprised if all companies who use the H1b visa as aggressively as google/microsoft/cisco/etc... are not as discriminatory. You are talking about the people who authored the engineering price fixing that is currently under class-action lawsuit. If they are going to price-fix the wages of "white American counterparts" then it is unsurprising that they also are wage fixing their Indian counterparts.
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/Case-Center/Apple-Google-Silicon-Valley-No-Cold-Calling-Anti-Poaching-Lawsuit.shtml