Or alternatively you were hired because someone doesn't want to fix the mess they made.
Or they need someone to fill out the body count.
Or they like your attitude.
Or they ran out of people to sexually harrass.
And speculation gets us nowhere. The question is what to do. And as always, the answer is go to management with facts and info, and keep your employer aware, assuming you work for a contractor employment service.
You can't just bail for no reason. If you are the scapegoat, it should be obvious, just not immediately. Listening to ignorant cynics just because they are at +5 May delay you from furthering your career. With more info, we might agree you are the scapegoat, but only you can tell right now.
Before this research, it was demonstrably faster at some things, and slower at things a quantum computer is not good at. So they did exactly what you expect.
Even better, at least one group of smart people was fooled, and it took a group from UC Berkeley and IBM's Watson Research Lab to show a plausible classical algo. If it is fraud, it is well executed. That makes me believe they actually do have a crappy quantum computer, or believe they do.
And, with an actual product, people are hammering on it in ways that will prompt quant research into being able to prove or disprove how it works. Fraud or not, its a boon to everyone who didn't pay for it directly.
The prof is simply not jumping to conclusions. Doesn't mean anyone in particular is or is not involved. Presumably the researchers he contacted know enough to say if this did not look like the NSA job. The quantum insert looks like they don't need hosting in Asia, where these attacks were hosted. NSA ate not the only people who have heard of LinkedIn, and it is the obvious attack vector for people who use it. It could be fricken anyone, and pointing to one party in particular is just click bait given the facts. If you have more info beyond that link, let us know how it lines up with the info linked elsewhere in these comments and you will actually deserve a +5.
Since I found comedians live tweeting the super bowl, my opinion has changed. Brands ill never buy setting up punchline after punchline, and since I have ota only, it costs no more than the internet connection I already have.
It's worth the price to the advertisers, and worth the price to me.
They wouldn't pay for it if it somehow didn't make sense. Budweiser and coca cola for example, they basically have to put in an appearance. They went with the feel good spots because they aren't going to be the talk of the town without something groundbreaking. And it is hard to do that every year. But they paid just to show up, because it is worth it to just be a part of the game.
Most of these are not the commercials that get you out shopping. They just want to be with you when you do.
Ever wonder why a single brand with over 50% market share advertises? Not to increase share or convert the remainder, necessarily. But it is still worth the cost.
Rethink your argument. The computers are already in the schools, with a margin of error, so no cost to anyone. If you are thinking of homework, these courses are not going to have kids writing working code outside of the classroom until at least halfway through, and then so minimally that access won't be an issue.
Are you going to send kids home with an ide and install instructions? No. Either you get a tablet, or you use what's in the computer lab.
The rest of your argument assumes that we push students into a course of study rather than a single elective (or core requirement).
Give it some more consideration now, and see if you change your opinion, or at least more strongly defend it.
I was underwhelmed, but it was clear and concise, and it wasn't obviously mangled for page views the way I'm used to. I might read it again instead of the next politics article for that reason.
Switched to VOIP at work. Immediately I lost the cues I use in lieu of body language, and cutting into a conversation went from a graceful maneuver to a bludgeoning due to a tiny extra delay. Was this a poor implementation, or par for the course? Can we expect better clarity from VoIP or more muffled sounds as I heard? Loss of dynamic range, audio compression, transmission, and some form of noise gate or raised floor made me half as effective as I should have been, and I worked remotely so I needed that edge I lost. Are things different now?
Unexpected, certainly. But how does one make the jump to freaky? Bodies in a ravine, avalanche, icbm testing, and hypothermia can explain every oddity, and with some uncommon yet mundane events it could be further simplified. I don't claim to have an explanation of exactly what happened, but multiple plausible scenarios exist. Being between missle testing and a nuclear facility during active testing might make for a freaky experience, but third party descriptions lose that perspective. I guess with your last bullet I could see how it could be freaky, the rest is just extra ordinary.
"a desktop that sits on top of GNOME technology, such as GNOME3, Cinnamon, Mate, or Unity" from the reader poll linked roughly adds up to the numbers quoted, so there is no paradox. Especially since the numbers are apparently meta numbers since they only approximate what was written. That means the author is an idiot and your explanation of what the author meant is completely wrong since it is clear that the author started with some very basic misunderstandings that you most likely did not start with.
If you feel like being a pedant, consider that it was closed until released. Or, do you want to argue about whether software with an open source license, that sits on a disk inaccessible to anyone but the author, is open? I understood that the code was released with an open license. Finding that it is just patches does not significantly deviate from that meaning, certainly not enough to deserve bold.
It's only fiction because the snooper's charter was stopped. If they did have access to all data everywhere, solving crimes would be a lot more like the fiction.
Calling this stupid and unbelievable is an unforgivable journalistic error, as it speaks directly to a large part of the population, being those who enjoy the crime dramas. It is classic understanding of the intended audience, and gives a lot of information concisely.
Modernizing the law will give access to more data and solve more crimes, and that is both what he said and a true statement.
Note, I am not supporting his side. Just pointing out that mischaracterizing comments is not helping.
Sounds like you are not using the correct tools and environment, which makes debugging harder. And using that same setup to read news with a coding environment is just stupid. I don't read news with my development database or web server, so why would I risk infecting my development environment from known malware vectors of even legit advertising? You conclude with "horrible language", but your comments support "horrible programmers" all the way around. I'm making no defense here, only pointing out that your opinion is not based on objective consideration. Were it otherwise, you would support your conclusion better, naturally.
For underpowered CPU setups, removing the overhead of a translation layer offers speedups of 50%. For gpu bottlenecks, 2%. That tells me the translation layer is badly designed, badly implemented, or both, and probably impossible to significantly boost. For people who want an alternative, at least this gives benchmarks for improvement. And meanwhile a better user experience. It can't be bad unless AMD drops standards in favor of mantle. Bad for developers who want cross support, but the ones who will spend the time can afford it. A triple A title with a post release patch pretty much supports the effort, and now they have talent and code to bake it in if needed.
No, don't cue them. Tell them to shut the fuck up. And you shut the fuck up too. The sooner this idea goes away the better everyone is. And you posting it unprovoked, for no reason other than showing off your badge of stupidity, is not helping. Mod us both off topic, please.
This regulation is post secondary education. I'm not sure that fraud is an issue, but it makes sense to crack down on the diploma mills and degree purchasing, and this happens to fall under those laws. Fraud would be taken care of by fraud laws, not by the regulations in question. Promising jobs at Google probably is not covered by these regulations, depending on the wording of course. Otherwise, you have a point that in general new laws shouldn't be special cases of existing laws, but that is irrelevant here.
Science does not take anecdotes. Someone has to be interested enough to do the simulation, have funding to support it, and time in the schedule. And, this is only a suggestion that decline can be uninvolved, not that it is. Put simply, your surprise is rooted in not understanding how science works, or perhaps forgetting momentarily. Old people know lots of true things and lots of untrue things, and we don't have researchers lining up to see which ones are which. A few yes, but not enough.
"Work on your skills" is a crutch used by people who think PowerPoint users have time and resources to do so. And, possibly do not understand that the target audience considers you unprepared if you did not put time into making some slides, or don't happen to have a slide deck for reference. Sometimes, it is so deep in the culture that the best presenter ever could not avoid PowerPoint, if only as a record that something was done.
The headline and summary are about shutting them down. The article says both sides are working towards compliance. I was going to post the same quote, but not to show my badge of uninformed cynicism like you. Since this was created by California law, much as someone thinks it unnecessary, it is state law. And working for compliance instead of shuttering these camps is a good thing. California has piles of referendum votes, so if they think regulation is not needed they can get this stricken.
Meanwhile, this is a reasonable quote from someone charged with enforcing the law. Feel free to inform me why the sarcasm to which I responded was based in something other than the illusion of wisdom that disillusionment brings?
Teaching to the test may apply to those 40 and under, leaving a significant population out of your ideas. And critical thinking is not really an option until the mid teen years, so the window of opportunity for grade school is very limited. Not sure there is a solution to that when only the minority would benefit from such education. And, even if they were taught the best way possible, environment can restore them to pristine automatons easily, if it feels comfortable, as in family and friends. Were we better thinkers when math was memorizing multiplication tables? If we did provide a course in critical thinking, would everyone then have the political background you say is required to form the model you suggest? Is it possible to give everyone both critical thinking and political background, and still have basic reading and consumer level math skills? I'm guessing you will say yes and remain ignorant about things like illiteracy rates which show the current education does not "take" for large numbers of people, yet you want more crammed in, and think it will make a difference.
Does it change anything to know that actual judicial judges have decided the program and actions are not legal? News on this very site to that effect. I assume it was a hastily added link, and they would be happy to correct it. On the other side, threatpost is supporting its point by linking to itself. Even if they were the right links, I would not put much faith in it without confirmation.
Slashdot Mirror
Or alternatively you were hired because someone doesn't want to fix the mess they made.
Or they need someone to fill out the body count.
Or they like your attitude.
Or they ran out of people to sexually harrass.
And speculation gets us nowhere. The question is what to do. And as always, the answer is go to management with facts and info, and keep your employer aware, assuming you work for a contractor employment service.
You can't just bail for no reason. If you are the scapegoat, it should be obvious, just not immediately. Listening to ignorant cynics just because they are at +5 May delay you from furthering your career. With more info, we might agree you are the scapegoat, but only you can tell right now.
Before this research, it was demonstrably faster at some things, and slower at things a quantum computer is not good at. So they did exactly what you expect.
Even better, at least one group of smart people was fooled, and it took a group from UC Berkeley and IBM's Watson Research Lab to show a plausible classical algo. If it is fraud, it is well executed. That makes me believe they actually do have a crappy quantum computer, or believe they do.
And, with an actual product, people are hammering on it in ways that will prompt quant research into being able to prove or disprove how it works. Fraud or not, its a boon to everyone who didn't pay for it directly.
The prof is simply not jumping to conclusions. Doesn't mean anyone in particular is or is not involved.
Presumably the researchers he contacted know enough to say if this did not look like the NSA job. The quantum insert looks like they don't need hosting in Asia, where these attacks were hosted.
NSA ate not the only people who have heard of LinkedIn, and it is the obvious attack vector for people who use it. It could be fricken anyone, and pointing to one party in particular is just click bait given the facts. If you have more info beyond that link, let us know how it lines up with the info linked elsewhere in these comments and you will actually deserve a +5.
I did not realize there was such a thing as pedantry of counterfeiting. I stand corrected, hats off to you good sir or madam.
Be fair.
Shit has never lied to me so I would comment about shit lying to me. So your metaphor falls apart right there.
Since I found comedians live tweeting the super bowl, my opinion has changed. Brands ill never buy setting up punchline after punchline, and since I have ota only, it costs no more than the internet connection I already have.
It's worth the price to the advertisers, and worth the price to me.
They wouldn't pay for it if it somehow didn't make sense. Budweiser and coca cola for example, they basically have to put in an appearance. They went with the feel good spots because they aren't going to be the talk of the town without something groundbreaking. And it is hard to do that every year. But they paid just to show up, because it is worth it to just be a part of the game.
Most of these are not the commercials that get you out shopping. They just want to be with you when you do.
Ever wonder why a single brand with over 50% market share advertises? Not to increase share or convert the remainder, necessarily. But it is still worth the cost.
I like how you and Billy Gates above came to completely opposite conclusions. Can the two of you fight it out and let us know who won?
One or both of you is obviously hiding something, so out with it.
Rethink your argument. The computers are already in the schools, with a margin of error, so no cost to anyone. If you are thinking of homework, these courses are not going to have kids writing working code outside of the classroom until at least halfway through, and then so minimally that access won't be an issue.
Are you going to send kids home with an ide and install instructions? No. Either you get a tablet, or you use what's in the computer lab.
The rest of your argument assumes that we push students into a course of study rather than a single elective (or core requirement).
Give it some more consideration now, and see if you change your opinion, or at least more strongly defend it.
I was underwhelmed, but it was clear and concise, and it wasn't obviously mangled for page views the way I'm used to. I might read it again instead of the next politics article for that reason.
Switched to VOIP at work. Immediately I lost the cues I use in lieu of body language, and cutting into a conversation went from a graceful maneuver to a bludgeoning due to a tiny extra delay.
Was this a poor implementation, or par for the course? Can we expect better clarity from VoIP or more muffled sounds as I heard? Loss of dynamic range, audio compression, transmission, and some form of noise gate or raised floor made me half as effective as I should have been, and I worked remotely so I needed that edge I lost.
Are things different now?
Unexpected, certainly. But how does one make the jump to freaky? Bodies in a ravine, avalanche, icbm testing, and hypothermia can explain every oddity, and with some uncommon yet mundane events it could be further simplified.
I don't claim to have an explanation of exactly what happened, but multiple plausible scenarios exist.
Being between missle testing and a nuclear facility during active testing might make for a freaky experience, but third party descriptions lose that perspective.
I guess with your last bullet I could see how it could be freaky, the rest is just extra ordinary.
"a desktop that sits on top of GNOME technology, such as GNOME3, Cinnamon, Mate, or Unity" from the reader poll linked roughly adds up to the numbers quoted, so there is no paradox. Especially since the numbers are apparently meta numbers since they only approximate what was written.
That means the author is an idiot and your explanation of what the author meant is completely wrong since it is clear that the author started with some very basic misunderstandings that you most likely did not start with.
If you feel like being a pedant, consider that it was closed until released.
Or, do you want to argue about whether software with an open source license, that sits on a disk inaccessible to anyone but the author, is open?
I understood that the code was released with an open license. Finding that it is just patches does not significantly deviate from that meaning, certainly not enough to deserve bold.
It's only fiction because the snooper's charter was stopped. If they did have access to all data everywhere, solving crimes would be a lot more like the fiction.
Calling this stupid and unbelievable is an unforgivable journalistic error, as it speaks directly to a large part of the population, being those who enjoy the crime dramas. It is classic understanding of the intended audience, and gives a lot of information concisely.
Modernizing the law will give access to more data and solve more crimes, and that is both what he said and a true statement.
Note, I am not supporting his side. Just pointing out that mischaracterizing comments is not helping.
Sounds like you are not using the correct tools and environment, which makes debugging harder. And using that same setup to read news with a coding environment is just stupid. I don't read news with my development database or web server, so why would I risk infecting my development environment from known malware vectors of even legit advertising?
You conclude with "horrible language", but your comments support "horrible programmers" all the way around.
I'm making no defense here, only pointing out that your opinion is not based on objective consideration. Were it otherwise, you would support your conclusion better, naturally.
For underpowered CPU setups, removing the overhead of a translation layer offers speedups of 50%. For gpu bottlenecks, 2%.
That tells me the translation layer is badly designed, badly implemented, or both, and probably impossible to significantly boost. For people who want an alternative, at least this gives benchmarks for improvement. And meanwhile a better user experience.
It can't be bad unless AMD drops standards in favor of mantle. Bad for developers who want cross support, but the ones who will spend the time can afford it. A triple A title with a post release patch pretty much supports the effort, and now they have talent and code to bake it in if needed.
No, don't cue them. Tell them to shut the fuck up. And you shut the fuck up too. The sooner this idea goes away the better everyone is. And you posting it unprovoked, for no reason other than showing off your badge of stupidity, is not helping.
Mod us both off topic, please.
If they fall under the definition of post secondary education by California law, yes. Otherwise, no. That was simple.
This regulation is post secondary education. I'm not sure that fraud is an issue, but it makes sense to crack down on the diploma mills and degree purchasing, and this happens to fall under those laws.
Fraud would be taken care of by fraud laws, not by the regulations in question. Promising jobs at Google probably is not covered by these regulations, depending on the wording of course.
Otherwise, you have a point that in general new laws shouldn't be special cases of existing laws, but that is irrelevant here.
Science does not take anecdotes. Someone has to be interested enough to do the simulation, have funding to support it, and time in the schedule.
And, this is only a suggestion that decline can be uninvolved, not that it is.
Put simply, your surprise is rooted in not understanding how science works, or perhaps forgetting momentarily.
Old people know lots of true things and lots of untrue things, and we don't have researchers lining up to see which ones are which. A few yes, but not enough.
"Work on your skills" is a crutch used by people who think PowerPoint users have time and resources to do so. And, possibly do not understand that the target audience considers you unprepared if you did not put time into making some slides, or don't happen to have a slide deck for reference.
Sometimes, it is so deep in the culture that the best presenter ever could not avoid PowerPoint, if only as a record that something was done.
The headline and summary are about shutting them down. The article says both sides are working towards compliance.
I was going to post the same quote, but not to show my badge of uninformed cynicism like you. Since this was created by California law, much as someone thinks it unnecessary, it is state law. And working for compliance instead of shuttering these camps is a good thing.
California has piles of referendum votes, so if they think regulation is not needed they can get this stricken.
Meanwhile, this is a reasonable quote from someone charged with enforcing the law. Feel free to inform me why the sarcasm to which I responded was based in something other than the illusion of wisdom that disillusionment brings?
Teaching to the test may apply to those 40 and under, leaving a significant population out of your ideas.
And critical thinking is not really an option until the mid teen years, so the window of opportunity for grade school is very limited. Not sure there is a solution to that when only the minority would benefit from such education.
And, even if they were taught the best way possible, environment can restore them to pristine automatons easily, if it feels comfortable, as in family and friends.
Were we better thinkers when math was memorizing multiplication tables?
If we did provide a course in critical thinking, would everyone then have the political background you say is required to form the model you suggest?
Is it possible to give everyone both critical thinking and political background, and still have basic reading and consumer level math skills? I'm guessing you will say yes and remain ignorant about things like illiteracy rates which show the current education does not "take" for large numbers of people, yet you want more crammed in, and think it will make a difference.
Does it change anything to know that actual judicial judges have decided the program and actions are not legal? News on this very site to that effect. I assume it was a hastily added link, and they would be happy to correct it.
On the other side, threatpost is supporting its point by linking to itself. Even if they were the right links, I would not put much faith in it without confirmation.