...let me reiterate this: * so in a country with a liberal gun ownership regime, choosing your own method for ordering lenses has to be government-controlled?
So, what's the original problem we were trying to solve?!
Any security organization which relies on a single individual's action or inaction to remain in good standing is simply fairytale. Every good process which involves a human in the loop, should always ensure that at least one more is present to enforce check-and-balance objectives. There is a good reason why all commercial flights have two pilots as a default.
Let me state this: when you see management pointing one single downstream individual for such an event, there are at least TWO levels of management at fault.
First things first: I'm an Eur Ing certified Engineer (practicing and whatever) and hope that people become more conscious about what the fuss is about.
* Society does not (and should not) grant exclusive professional titles and rights for fun, it does so because it protects citizens' life(-state) and property. I guess we would all hope society continues to do so: Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers are meant to help human life.
1) In this particular case, there is no much struggle to consider that this gentleman comes with a case worthy of discussion and he should be heard. If he is registered engineer or not, that's irrelevant per se. The technical case needs to be discussed regardless and I personally believe/bet he has a point.
2) Furthermore, under certain circumstances he could be qualified to be called Engineer - it seems not so in Oregon - and the following is to be examined: https://www.usaopps.com/govern... In that, you may observe that an Oregon address is used as base for "Engineering Services", under his name; oops, that _may_ be regulated! It IS his responsibility to ensure that he is complying with the local law - there is simply no excuse for that, if he is advertising engineering services. fi. building code changes from place to place, there is no excuse for not adhering to it!
3) This is obviously a "negotiation" that went out of hand from both sides; the language below appears appropriate and respectful -not abnormal of a regulatory authority- however between the lines there is some confrontation: https://lintvkoin.files.wordpr... Hey, that's not how to build bridges - pun intended!
The case also highlights that the engineering community could benefit from some norms about how to solicit feedback from both licensed engineers and the wider public, and be held accountable, if there are omissions; there will be something to learn out of all this process. fi. regular car drivers have plenty to confess about near-misses, which COULD and SHOULD shape the opinions within formal traffic engineering bodies.
The discussion is going to be interesting and it's great this takes publicity, because it will force some healthy debate.
So, let's not be too quick to circumvent the lawyers and judges, they are specialists under a protected profession, exactly for that kind of thing;-)
iff it proves to be the case that the same event causes G.W. & G.R.B observations and there is a relationship that connects the speed of the two arrivals, like in an earthquake's P&S waves, this is a whole new tool to trace events in the cosmos, as they occur. Combining with an extra handful of observations points, it would be possible to easily find the source point via triangulation, at distances which are mind-glowing (pun intended!). Good luck with this - literally!
fyi. I've done both EA & sysadmin roles at different times.
This should be the norm for a EA position, who acts more as a consultant in relation to stakeholders' needs. You may ask for your own isolated playground if you need so but, what exactly do you need root access for in this role?
Open Source licenses sometimes happen to be lengthy legal texts, which take a lawyer to get through and even then not sure. Not good. From the brief ones, BSD & MIT are the ones which are both short and tried over time. And best of all, they don't limit YOU about future code usage.
The BSD suffers from fragmentation [x-clause for x in 2..4], therefor MIT wins. Sometimes, it might be beneficial to call it MIT/GPL, to make it clear to GPL folks that you really mean to be GPL-friendly.
This is a good example of what happens when a market is totally unregulated:
* big fish eats small fish; Interestingly, small fish here are the banks, and even smaller fish are the consumers
The remedy to this situation may be to force insurance costs across all transacting parties, so that there is an incentive for liability and correct behaviour. Otherwise, what we have here is banks passing down the risks to consumers, who are little to not able to react and avoid their troubles. Or, you can hope that one day the banks will automatically fix the problem. Oh, boy.
Laissez-faire, in the wild financial west, anyone?!
Last but not least: make sure you see the image of the OP in fractional ways (say, top 10th of the image), along with another person that sees it in the alternative mode. You may come up with surprises.;-)
Although I only actually seek the cheap lottery ticket at the end of a year for the shake of a tradition, I can imagine that playing more often could be a rational act.
Under the premise of risk diversification [1] there should be a buying incentive, however low, for a high-risk act of huge potential pay-off. A lottery ticket stands normally little chance to make you rich, yet the rewards are potentially higher than most other every day rational acts (studying, working, saving money etc). A single win can reward more than a lifetime's earnings, or at least it happens so in quite a few well publicised cases. That's why the "first ticket" may just make sense.
Judicium: the rationalised *frequency* of buying lottery tickets is a low number, however it is NOT zero, for any rational player; Math included ! If somebody has been enough of a geek to calculate rationalised lottery playing (on GDP per capita per country basis?), kindly follow this up!
And for the record: "Death is a tax on people who do not play life"
I happen to have both an Engineering degree and a postgraduate degree in relation to (Computer) Science Education; These are all good baggage to have, however after 100s of technical trainings assignments I can testify that nothing beats to be committed to the task of helping others through knowledge. It requires both self-reflection on how we learn and beyond average self-investment in gently pushing others through conceptual leaps and mental barriers.
If teaching was teachable, then who taught the first teacher? and we may add: and who certified whom first as expert in education?;-)
...the universe is not expanding, but the observers instead are in an "apparent shrinking" process, which is only manifesting itself in the form of current observations? Does that fly in the face of what is presently known?
Don't shoot the messenger, there is no physicist anywhere around here, just a thought challenger;-)
I may testify that it is called Pythagorean merely because of the path via which the theory's proof got popularised in the western world. No more no less. This does not make any other discovery paths any less or more important, just parallel efforts (and Chinese are certain to have had many parallel discoveries).
However, when somebody comes to contest the ordering and aetiology of events he better comes with proof about it; that kind of proof is yet lacking or weak at best. The ancient greek world tends to get much of the credit, merely because the birth and death dates (years) of any people involved, innovators and story-tellers alike, tend to be well-defined or well-bound and as such allow for refutable statements, which is good ground for efforts to reconstruct scientific history. This certainly does not cancel the importance of any discoveries happening in co-developing cultures, yet let's remind that it took centuries back then for ideas to propagate around.
When we build distributed systems, the need to setup a distributed consensus algorithm is appearing in front of us, time and again. Leslie Lamport (of LaTeX & Time-Clocks fame) came up with a novel algorithm during early 90s about to solve this is a very competitive way (Paxos is its name). Sadly, the algorithm remained shunned for a number of years, due to rejection via the very same channel in which it was eventually published many years later. If you realise the immediate practical impact of that algorithm and what an 8 years delay means in the world of CS, and the cost putting all these together, the result is staggering and sobering at the same time.
So, yes, let's now all peer-review this statement: "peer-review systems are imperfect and provide no guarantee for any certain quality result".
Peer review is merely a compromise to increase throughput of papers, which are relatively median and more easily digestible, because this is what keeps the academia salary system in good lubrication. It provides no level of assurance that the most impactful paper gets noticed first, neither that it receives sufficient feedback in order to improve upon original concepts. In sort, human intellect won't be easily replaced via a procedural setup, yet.
...relevant... as in: "nearly each pixel of your screen while reading this is rendered via either C, C++ or something that is written or compiled in C and derivatives".
Or, better, find an agent who can act on your behalf and provide for both, against some reasonable cost. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, unless you really need to.
Slashdot Mirror
... that would pretty much sum up the announcement!
...let me reiterate this:
* so in a country with a liberal gun ownership regime, choosing your own method for ordering lenses has to be government-controlled?
So, what's the original problem we were trying to solve?!
bollocks. Yes, that.
Any security organization which relies on a single individual's action or inaction to remain in good standing is simply fairytale.
Every good process which involves a human in the loop, should always ensure that at least one more is present to enforce check-and-balance objectives.
There is a good reason why all commercial flights have two pilots as a default.
Let me state this: when you see management pointing one single downstream individual for such an event, there are at least TWO levels of management at fault.
Salvation Army? here you go:
http://www.arrl.org/news/salva...
First things first: I'm an Eur Ing certified Engineer (practicing and whatever) and hope that people become more conscious about what the fuss is about.
* Society does not (and should not) grant exclusive professional titles and rights for fun, it does so because it protects citizens' life(-state) and property.
I guess we would all hope society continues to do so: Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers are meant to help human life.
1)
In this particular case, there is no much struggle to consider that this gentleman comes with a case worthy of discussion and he should be heard.
If he is registered engineer or not, that's irrelevant per se. The technical case needs to be discussed regardless and I personally believe/bet he has a point.
2)
Furthermore, under certain circumstances he could be qualified to be called Engineer - it seems not so in Oregon - and the following is to be examined:
https://www.usaopps.com/govern...
In that, you may observe that an Oregon address is used as base for "Engineering Services", under his name; oops, that _may_ be regulated!
It IS his responsibility to ensure that he is complying with the local law - there is simply no excuse for that, if he is advertising engineering services.
fi. building code changes from place to place, there is no excuse for not adhering to it!
3)
This is obviously a "negotiation" that went out of hand from both sides;
the language below appears appropriate and respectful -not abnormal of a regulatory authority- however between the lines there is some confrontation:
https://lintvkoin.files.wordpr...
Hey, that's not how to build bridges - pun intended!
The case also highlights that the engineering community could benefit from some norms about how to solicit feedback from both licensed engineers and the wider public, and be held accountable, if there are omissions; there will be something to learn out of all this process.
fi. regular car drivers have plenty to confess about near-misses, which COULD and SHOULD shape the opinions within formal traffic engineering bodies.
The discussion is going to be interesting and it's great this takes publicity, because it will force some healthy debate.
So, let's not be too quick to circumvent the lawyers and judges, they are specialists under a protected profession, exactly for that kind of thing ;-)
wow, this is super interesting.
iff it proves to be the case that the same event causes G.W. & G.R.B observations and there is a relationship that connects the speed of the two arrivals,
like in an earthquake's P&S waves, this is a whole new tool to trace events in the cosmos, as they occur. Combining with an extra handful of observations points,
it would be possible to easily find the source point via triangulation, at distances which are mind-glowing (pun intended!). Good luck with this - literally!
... to troll together straight in the source?!
Yes, THIS.
"Sorry, my memory has failed me. What are you going to do? will you fire me? ;-)"
That clause is so ridiculous, that this kind of response would make even the judge chuckle with content!
fyi. I've done both EA & sysadmin roles at different times.
This should be the norm for a EA position, who acts more as a consultant in relation to stakeholders' needs.
You may ask for your own isolated playground if you need so but, what exactly do you need root access for in this role?
Why exactly skip the, intentionally slower, "sudo" step?
Open Source licenses sometimes happen to be lengthy legal texts, which take a lawyer to get through and even then not sure. Not good.
From the brief ones, BSD & MIT are the ones which are both short and tried over time. And best of all, they don't limit YOU about future code usage.
The BSD suffers from fragmentation [x-clause for x in 2..4], therefor MIT wins.
Sometimes, it might be beneficial to call it MIT/GPL, to make it clear to GPL folks that you really mean to be GPL-friendly.
This is a good example of what happens when a market is totally unregulated:
* big fish eats small fish; Interestingly, small fish here are the banks, and even smaller fish are the consumers
The remedy to this situation may be to force insurance costs across all transacting parties, so that there is an incentive for liability and correct behaviour.
Otherwise, what we have here is banks passing down the risks to consumers, who are little to not able to react and avoid their troubles.
Or, you can hope that one day the banks will automatically fix the problem. Oh, boy.
Laissez-faire, in the wild financial west, anyone?!
The eye pupil is known to exhibit interesting behaviour at times,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
one notable being photic reflex (which also affects a quarter of a population)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
IMHO, human vision is still incompletely understood at whole population (global) level,
with all sorts of exceptions and special trade-off cases being documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://discovermagazine.com/20... ### check this one!
Finally, let's not forget, that it is well known that manly colour vocabulary is 4-bit, while females have true colour sets ;-O
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...
http://io9.com/5919311/some-wo...
https://www.google.be/search?r...
Last but not least: make sure you see the image of the OP in fractional ways (say, top 10th of the image), ;-)
along with another person that sees it in the alternative mode. You may come up with surprises.
Try Confluence; you should be able to to obtain a 10$ - 10 user licence, very cheap entry cost. Give it a shot, it may do the job for you.
For engineers, I wish it was possible to setup confluence v3, because it actually had a wiki markup language that worked great and did not suck!
Although I only actually seek the cheap lottery ticket at the end of a year for the shake of a tradition, I can imagine that playing more often could be a rational act.
Under the premise of risk diversification [1] there should be a buying incentive, however low, for a high-risk act of huge potential pay-off. A lottery ticket stands normally little chance to make you rich, yet the rewards are potentially higher than most other every day rational acts (studying, working, saving money etc). A single win can reward more than a lifetime's earnings, or at least it happens so in quite a few well publicised cases. That's why the "first ticket" may just make sense.
Judicium: the rationalised *frequency* of buying lottery tickets is a low number, however it is NOT zero, for any rational player; Math included !
If somebody has been enough of a geek to calculate rationalised lottery playing (on GDP per capita per country basis?), kindly follow this up!
And for the record: "Death is a tax on people who do not play life"
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
...some people @ EU parliament are doing their job just finely right
It should have been called perhaps earlier, that's the only thing to consider at this point.
Couldn't agree more.
I happen to have both an Engineering degree and a postgraduate degree in relation to (Computer) Science Education; These are all good baggage to have, however after 100s of technical trainings assignments I can testify that nothing beats to be committed to the task of helping others through knowledge. It requires both self-reflection on how we learn and beyond average self-investment in gently pushing others through conceptual leaps and mental barriers.
If teaching was teachable, then who taught the first teacher? ;-)
and we may add: and who certified whom first as expert in education?
...the universe is not expanding, but the observers instead are in an "apparent shrinking" process, which is only manifesting itself in the form of current observations?
Does that fly in the face of what is presently known?
Don't shoot the messenger, there is no physicist anywhere around here, just a thought challenger ;-)
Indeed.
I may testify that it is called Pythagorean merely because of the path via which the theory's proof got popularised in the western world. No more no less.
This does not make any other discovery paths any less or more important, just parallel efforts (and Chinese are certain to have had many parallel discoveries).
However, when somebody comes to contest the ordering and aetiology of events he better comes with proof about it; that kind of proof is yet lacking or weak at best.
The ancient greek world tends to get much of the credit, merely because the birth and death dates (years) of any people involved, innovators and story-tellers alike, tend to be well-defined or well-bound and as such allow for refutable statements, which is good ground for efforts to reconstruct scientific history. This certainly does not cancel the importance of any discoveries happening in co-developing cultures, yet let's remind that it took centuries back then for ideas to propagate around.
...is when we can watch the watchers;
Let's explain this: 2-way circuits, where watched and watcher are in total symmetry in an unambiguous way.
Ah, right. What would you think of peer-reviewers who clap their hands for an article critical of peer-review process? Who's going to pay for this? ;-)
Well, yes.
When we build distributed systems, the need to setup a distributed consensus algorithm is appearing in front of us, time and again. Leslie Lamport (of LaTeX & Time-Clocks fame) came up with a novel algorithm during early 90s about to solve this is a very competitive way (Paxos is its name). Sadly, the algorithm remained shunned for a number of years, due to rejection via the very same channel in which it was eventually published many years later. If you realise the immediate practical impact of that algorithm and what an 8 years delay means in the world of CS, and the cost putting all these together, the result is staggering and sobering at the same time.
So, yes, let's now all peer-review this statement: "peer-review systems are imperfect and provide no guarantee for any certain quality result".
Peer review is merely a compromise to increase throughput of papers, which are relatively median and more easily digestible, because this is what keeps the academia salary system in good lubrication. It provides no level of assurance that the most impactful paper gets noticed first, neither that it receives sufficient feedback in order to improve upon original concepts. In sort, human intellect won't be easily replaced via a procedural setup, yet.
Indeed, it sounds as ambitious and coherent as `X`!!!
...relevant... as in:
"nearly each pixel of your screen while reading this is rendered via either C, C++ or something that is written or compiled in C and derivatives".
That makes it sufficiently relevant, doesn't it?
Or, better, find an agent who can act on your behalf and provide for both, against some reasonable cost.
There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, unless you really need to.
hm... something interesting might be going on with email... in that case, google-plus-me, we are not all that much hidden in cyberspace!