But those 20% are just 20%. You cater to the other 80%.
Brilliant!
Every year, just maintain the features that 80% of the users use, and drop the other 20%. After all, why bother maintaining features that don't cater to the precious 80%?
Strangely, after 5 years you find your company's market share has dropped to just 30% of what it was 5 years ago, and the code base has gotten surprisingly slim....I wonder why that is?
It's not racial discrimination if the employer was referring to his nationality. The context of the conversation was what would be an acceptable salary offer to bring an Indian to the US corporate office.
And this is entirely irrelevant. Employers cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin either.
It certainly is good money for someone — whatever their race — from India, where that same person was earning much less...
So basically you are saying that if a candidate is from India, it is okay to offer them $50,000....but if an equivalent candidate from California applies, they can be offered $60,000? Cause it sounds like this is exactly what happened here...
You don't see an obvious moral and/or legal issue with this?
When Spandow protested, he was himself summarily fired
If Spandow was protesting an illegal act of the company, his suit may very well have merit.
The culture of Finland is very different than the US.
I love how people assume that solutions that work in other countries must be universally applicable. These same people must be a riot when they attempt to use a screwdriver to drive in a nail.
“The neutrons behave as if particle and magnetic property are spatially separated while travelling through the interferometer,”
Is it just me, or does anyone else find that completely freaky? Ok, I kinda get how quantum effects don't really occur in a "location", but at a superimposed potential of different locations....but having different properties measured at different locations just freaks me out...
Yes, the GP is completely wrong. A general purpose sentient mind is always going to be better at corner cases than an automated system.
That being said, I don't believe the majority of accidents are of the type you describe. Most accidents (IMHO) appear to be just careless, inattentive drivers who miss very obvious / easily automated situations.
Yes, if we switch to driverless cars, there will be some accidents that occur that would not have occurred had a human been at the wheel. Just like when we started using air travel for mass transit, there were accidents that would not have occurred via trains.
The question is not whether driverless cars would eliminate all accidents (that's ridiculous), the question is whether the would provide a net benefit to safety, travel times, convenience, etc.
Because of the legalities, the automated cars will drive like grandmas.
Quite possibly true...but it's also quite possible that they would still reduce average trip time. perfect merges at all on-ramps. No need for stop lights / signs. Automatic routing of traffic to use the most optimal routes based on current volumes.
I can see plenty of opportunity for making trips faster while making cars slower.
How do you function without knowing the meaning of common words?
altruism (n): the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
One can be altruistic, and still gain wealth. You may be claiming that he is only funding Gates foundation as this is the best means of producing more wealth, but that would take a severe misunderstanding of investing & economics.
Oh, and still waiting on that evidence that gates's foundation is suppressing local farming....
Of course, you both realize, that it could be both
There may be few women in IT because: a) the female brain is wired differently than the male AND b) the women who are interested, are mocked, ostracized, and outcast
However, I don't believe we should be bending over backwards to ensure the percentages of any group in any field. We should be ensuring that all people have the same opportunities and same encouragement in all fields.
i.e. Vigorously stamp down on (b). Ignore (a). Don't care about the numbers.
Or you could, you know, explain to the client why it's the wrong thing to build, with relevant data to support your argument. And be open to the possibility that (gasp!) you may be wrong, and it is in fact the right thing to build.
But it's much easier for many developers to go stick their head in the sand, madly code a project they know is doomed, then whine to slashdot about their pointy-haired bosses when things don't work out.
However, to get back on topic....yes, it was Oracle's fault. As the sole overseer of the project, if the specs were incomplete, they should have told the client that. If the specs were inconsistent, they should have told the client.
There is no excuse for building software that doesn't work
But do they have to collect tax from a 3rd party company that is, itself, also outsode New York, just because some completely separate partner is in New York?
That would be wrong.
No...they are not required to collect tax from 3rd party companies. They are required to collect tax from customers.
The 3rd party "substantial nexus" argument is that Amazon does enough business with 3rd party companies in New York to be considered to have a presence in New York.
Look at it this way: If I go to a New York store and order some widget, and they tell me "Oh, we don't currently have it in stock, but we can ship it in from our warehouse in California", then I pay New York state tax.
Amazon is claiming that if I go to their website and order some widget, and they ship it from their warehouse in California, then I shouldn't have to pay state tax.
You could (sort of) do it by masking the true test.
We're doing a study on eye strain as related to age. Please read these instructions (either screen based or paper instructions), and complete the attached (paper) quiz.
The participant believes the quiz is designed to evoke the eye strain, whereas it's just masking the true test - the instructions.
There are probably better ways to do this, it's the first idea I thought of....
No. What this theory says is that no matter how far up you look on the number scale, you can always find a pair of larger primes that are separated by less than 600. i.e. for any number X you always find primes larger than X that are closer than 600 from each other
In the opposite direction (what is the maximum gap between primes), the gap increases without bound. i.e For any number X you can always find closest primes that are more than X apart.
Here's a proof: Take any number N N! = (N) x (N-1) x (N-2) x...x (3) x (2) x(1) (i.e. N times itself minus 1 times itself minus 2, etc....the factorial of N) N! is not prime...it is divisible by all numbers from 1 to N by definition. N!+2 is not prime...it's divisible by 2 (remember N is divisible by 2 and 2 is divisible by 2) N!+3 is not prime...it's divisible by 3 . . . N!+N is not prime...it's divisible by N.
That means none of the numbers between N!+2 and N!+N are prime, so we have a gap of at least N-2.
This is true for ANY number N, so we can always find a gap as large as we want.
No, that's not the theory at all. The theory does not say there is always a prime within 600 of another (that's simply not true).
The theory says for any number X, there is a pair of primes larger than X within 600 of each other. That pair may be 2 larger than X, 12 larger than X, or 21,515,359 larger than X.
Everything else you said is pretty much spot on though.
As a contrast, homicide rates have sky-rocketed in Sweden since the mid '70ies due to an extremely liberal immigration policy introduced back in 1975.
Strange, cause when I look at the firearm-related homicides for the two countries, I see over double the number of homicides per 100,000 people in Switzerland vs. Sweden.
Yes, Sweden has a slightly higher overall homicide rate (1.0 vs. 0.7 per 100,000), but it would be quite the stretch to deduce that this has anything to do with gun control.
If you come to the conclusion that information is being exchanged after removing all network interfaces, it makes perfect sense to try (it's not exactly hard...) to unplug the laptop, to eliminate a potential hardware backdoor.
No, it does not make "perfect sense". It makes as much sense as removing the DVD drive, as the DVD drive is a known attack vector, and there are DVD's in the room.
What potential hardware backdoor do you speak of? And how would the other PC modulate the power enough to communicate via this backdoor?
To misquote a famous quote: "If that what remains after eliminating the impossible is extraordinarily unlikely, then you've probably screwed up somewhere"
It's far more likely some mistake was made in eliminating other vectors of attack than some insanely unlikely new mechanism has been developed to communicate via a laptop's power cord over house current.
It looks like bad science when they keep fiddling with the numbers to patch up their deficient theories.
Or to put it another way: 1. Scientists come up with theories to explain a phenomenon 2. Test to confirm 3. New observation breaks the theory 4. Theory refined to account for new measurements 5. Goto 2
That doesn't look like bad science at all.
The dark matter thing is stuck at step 2 as it may be either (a) the theory is wrong or (b) dark matter is really really hard to test for.
Science is a process, not a big book of answers. If you want a big book of answers there are any number of religions willing to accommodate you. Just be aware that the answers you get may be (1) vague, (2) contradictory and (3) of limited predictive use.
Slashdot Mirror
Brilliant!
Every year, just maintain the features that 80% of the users use, and drop the other 20%. After all, why bother maintaining features that don't cater to the precious 80%?
Strangely, after 5 years you find your company's market share has dropped to just 30% of what it was 5 years ago, and the code base has gotten surprisingly slim....I wonder why that is?
It's not racial discrimination if the employer was referring to his nationality. The context of the conversation was what would be an acceptable salary offer to bring an Indian to the US corporate office.
And this is entirely irrelevant. Employers cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin either.
So basically you are saying that if a candidate is from India, it is okay to offer them $50,000....but if an equivalent candidate from California applies, they can be offered $60,000? Cause it sounds like this is exactly what happened here...
You don't see an obvious moral and/or legal issue with this?
If Spandow was protesting an illegal act of the company, his suit may very well have merit.
And most importantly:
The culture of Finland is very different than the US.
I love how people assume that solutions that work in other countries must be universally applicable. These same people must be a riot when they attempt to use a screwdriver to drive in a nail.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find that completely freaky? Ok, I kinda get how quantum effects don't really occur in a "location", but at a superimposed potential of different locations....but having different properties measured at different locations just freaks me out...
Yes, the GP is completely wrong. A general purpose sentient mind is always going to be better at corner cases than an automated system.
That being said, I don't believe the majority of accidents are of the type you describe. Most accidents (IMHO) appear to be just careless, inattentive drivers who miss very obvious / easily automated situations.
Yes, if we switch to driverless cars, there will be some accidents that occur that would not have occurred had a human been at the wheel. Just like when we started using air travel for mass transit, there were accidents that would not have occurred via trains.
The question is not whether driverless cars would eliminate all accidents (that's ridiculous), the question is whether the would provide a net benefit to safety, travel times, convenience, etc.
Quite possibly true...but it's also quite possible that they would still reduce average trip time.
perfect merges at all on-ramps.
No need for stop lights / signs.
Automatic routing of traffic to use the most optimal routes based on current volumes.
I can see plenty of opportunity for making trips faster while making cars slower.
How do you function without knowing the meaning of common words?
altruism (n): the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
One can be altruistic, and still gain wealth. You may be claiming that he is only funding Gates foundation as this is the best means of producing more wealth, but that would take a severe misunderstanding of investing & economics.
Oh, and still waiting on that evidence that gates's foundation is suppressing local farming....
Neither do anecdotes.
Of course, you both realize, that it could be both
There may be few women in IT because:
a) the female brain is wired differently than the male
AND
b) the women who are interested, are mocked, ostracized, and outcast
However, I don't believe we should be bending over backwards to ensure the percentages of any group in any field. We should be ensuring that all people have the same opportunities and same encouragement in all fields.
i.e. Vigorously stamp down on (b). Ignore (a). Don't care about the numbers.
Or you could, you know, explain to the client why it's the wrong thing to build, with relevant data to support your argument. And be open to the possibility that (gasp!) you may be wrong, and it is in fact the right thing to build.
But it's much easier for many developers to go stick their head in the sand, madly code a project they know is doomed, then whine to slashdot about their pointy-haired bosses when things don't work out.
However, to get back on topic....yes, it was Oracle's fault. As the sole overseer of the project, if the specs were incomplete, they should have told the client that. If the specs were inconsistent, they should have told the client.
There is no excuse for building software that doesn't work
No...they are not required to collect tax from 3rd party companies. They are required to collect tax from customers.
The 3rd party "substantial nexus" argument is that Amazon does enough business with 3rd party companies in New York to be considered to have a presence in New York.
Look at it this way: If I go to a New York store and order some widget, and they tell me "Oh, we don't currently have it in stock, but we can ship it in from our warehouse in California", then I pay New York state tax.
Amazon is claiming that if I go to their website and order some widget, and they ship it from their warehouse in California, then I shouldn't have to pay state tax.
I fail to see the difference.
I disagree. Eat them all.
Wolves eat deer. Lions eat zebras. Homo sapiens eats everything.
Why would we hold ourselves to an objectively different standard than every other carnivore/omnivore on the planet?
You could (sort of) do it by masking the true test.
We're doing a study on eye strain as related to age. Please read these instructions (either screen based or paper instructions), and complete the attached (paper) quiz.
The participant believes the quiz is designed to evoke the eye strain, whereas it's just masking the true test - the instructions.
There are probably better ways to do this, it's the first idea I thought of....
No.
What this theory says is that no matter how far up you look on the number scale, you can always find a pair of larger primes that are separated by less than 600.
i.e. for any number X you always find primes larger than X that are closer than 600 from each other
In the opposite direction (what is the maximum gap between primes), the gap increases without bound.
i.e
For any number X you can always find closest primes that are more than X apart.
Here's a proof:
Take any number N
N! = (N) x (N-1) x (N-2) x...x (3) x (2) x(1) (i.e. N times itself minus 1 times itself minus 2, etc....the factorial of N)
N! is not prime...it is divisible by all numbers from 1 to N by definition.
N!+2 is not prime...it's divisible by 2 (remember N is divisible by 2 and 2 is divisible by 2)
N!+3 is not prime...it's divisible by 3
.
.
.
N!+N is not prime...it's divisible by N.
That means none of the numbers between N!+2 and N!+N are prime, so we have a gap of at least N-2.
This is true for ANY number N, so we can always find a gap as large as we want.
No, that's not the theory at all. The theory does not say there is always a prime within 600 of another (that's simply not true).
The theory says for any number X, there is a pair of primes larger than X within 600 of each other. That pair may be 2 larger than X, 12 larger than X, or 21,515,359 larger than X.
Everything else you said is pretty much spot on though.
No, that's not the theory at all....
The theory is that no matter how high you look, you can always find 2 prime numbers within 600 of each other.
i.e. For any number X, there exists a pair of prime numbers Y, Z where Z>X and Y>X and Z-Y600
It's entirely possible that having found Y,Z, there are no other primes anywhere near those two.
Flunked kindergarten, didn't you? You know, the part about working and playing well with others.
As a person, I won't even respond to your "points" since:
a) You don't appear to have one
and
b) You're an asshole.
Please, stay off the interwebs. We're all full up on jerks here.
No. 169 million standard cubic meters of Helium are extracted per year.
Helium is not produced.
A shielded faraday cage is obviously a faraday cage inside a faraday cage.
A strongly shielded faraday cage is a faraday cage inside a strongly shielded faraday cage.
Turtles.
Strange, cause when I look at the firearm-related homicides for the two countries, I see over double the number of homicides per 100,000 people in Switzerland vs. Sweden.
Yes, Sweden has a slightly higher overall homicide rate (1.0 vs. 0.7 per 100,000), but it would be quite the stretch to deduce that this has anything to do with gun control.
Given that the USA outspends Sweden on health, but the life expectancy is lower, the outspending by USA is a bad thing.
Given that Swedish adults outperform American adults on standardized tests, the outspending by Sweden on education appears justified.
No, it does not make "perfect sense". It makes as much sense as removing the DVD drive, as the DVD drive is a known attack vector, and there are DVD's in the room.
What potential hardware backdoor do you speak of? And how would the other PC modulate the power enough to communicate via this backdoor?
To misquote a famous quote:
"If that what remains after eliminating the impossible is extraordinarily unlikely, then you've probably screwed up somewhere"
It's far more likely some mistake was made in eliminating other vectors of attack than some insanely unlikely new mechanism has been developed to communicate via a laptop's power cord over house current.
Or to put it another way:
1. Scientists come up with theories to explain a phenomenon
2. Test to confirm
3. New observation breaks the theory
4. Theory refined to account for new measurements
5. Goto 2
That doesn't look like bad science at all.
The dark matter thing is stuck at step 2 as it may be either (a) the theory is wrong or (b) dark matter is really really hard to test for.
Science is a process, not a big book of answers. If you want a big book of answers there are any number of religions willing to accommodate you. Just be aware that the answers you get may be (1) vague, (2) contradictory and (3) of limited predictive use.
Yeah, well Ned Stark thought that too and look were he ended up.