Well, you shouldn't be able to get a doctorate from an accredited research university just on rote learning.
You shouldn't be able to get a master's degree or even a bachelor's either, but programs vary in quality. Now I worked on place where management was keen on Indian H-1Bs, often with master's and occasionally PhDs. The impression I got is that a masters' is much more common in India; I believe it is a prerequisite at some Indian universities for PhD candidates. Anyhow, the quality of those people were all over the place, from everything you could wish for, to one guy who was exactly what you're talking about: he had the UML of the entire Gang of Four book memorized and could give a convincing-sounding chalk talk about any of them, but in fact he just had a prodigious memory. There's no way he should have qualified to *enter* an master's program, much less get out with a degree.
I don't blame Indian culture; I've worked with Indians I'd hire again in a heartbeat. I blame certain US universities that have converted the popularity of masters's degrees with Indians into low quality cash-cow programs -- usually not in CS, but in the fuzzier and less mathematically rigorous "IT" field. If someone came to me with an MS/IT I'd automatically treat it the same as a bachelor's, just from my experience with graduates of such programs. The good people coming out of those programs were good going into them.
It can't back out. That's not how the economics of these deals works. To see why, imagine you're an American manufacturer who suddenly gets an invitation from an obscure Tawianese county to build an essential component of your product there.
Now the only place you've heard of in Taiwan is Taipei, which you vaguely think may be in the north somewhere. A quick consultation of the map shows you that Pingtung county is as far from anywhere you can be in Taiwan and still be on the island.
Now Pingtung is a beautiful place, and no doubt the people there love it, but you have no actual reason to build widgets there. Pingtung is in the middle of nowhere, far from your other facilities and inconvenient to the rest of your supply chain. No amount of freebies offered by the county will change that. So the only way officials can get you on board is to literally make it a no lose proposition for you. That means absolutely no commitment on your part.
Now if you *did* move a lot of your widget production to Pingtung, and if against all probability that actually worked out, you could, at an absolute maximum hire 13,000 people. However that's assuming more success than is likely. The politicians take this figure, and using the old advertising trick announce that you will add "up to" 13,000 jobs. Note that statement would still be true if you added zero jobs; the only way to falsify it is if you were to add more than 13,000 jobs.
Offering companies no-lose deals to publicly consider something that they would never otherwise dream of doing isn't economic planning. It's a PR stunt. That's what you get when you put con-men in office.
There's no indication that anyone at DB actually believed they could win. You can't take a lawyer's public statement as representative of what he's saying to his client or what the client himself thinks.
If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect the people behind this were gambling that they could fly under the radar screen long enough to make a quick buck then close up shop. It's not like it takes a lot of up front investment to throw open source software onto a commodity set top box and then point it at some servers tracking pirated content.
Would you feel better if it were called "carbamide"?
Urea, CO(NH2)2, is a simple organic molecule which, aside from carrying away waste nitrogen from protein metabolism in the human body, has a vast array of industrial applications. Nobody calls marine plywood "urine plywood".
Suppose you could double the efficiency of a solar cell, but it cost you 3x as much. In most cases that would not be a practical choice. Now suppose you could double the collecting area of that cell, but it only cost you 1.1x as much. In some cases that could be a practical choice.
But the point is that things are readily available in China that are only available in limited quantity here.
In engineering, that's what we call a "constraint". You have more constraints if you design something to be manufactured in the US, which means the set of designs which can be made here is a subset of the set of designs that can be made in China.
This is no accident. I was in my 30s when the decision was made essentially to deindustrialize the US by opening up trade with China. We were explicitly told that China would become better at making things while the US would focus on selling services. Under this system, we would get things like incredibly cheap consumer electronics.
It all came from those views we were taught lining up hominids from the most primitive on the left to us on the right. Evolution isn't linear.
Given what we know of Neanderthals now, it's kind of hard to imagine them standing just out of reach of an animal, spear in hand, and thinking, "Well, that's that. I guess I'll just have to starve."
It was a huge lesson for Jobs. The key to a revolutionary product is to make it just revolutionary *enough*, and then sell endless rounds of solid upgrades.
OK, let's play a game. I'll name a socialist country I'd be happy living in, and you name a fascist one you'd be happy living in. I'll go first: Norway.
Facebook would *never* promote a technology without thoroughly thinking through the implications. They are the pinnacle of corporate social responsibilty...
Come to think of it, that last part may actually be true.
And "natural food" "experts" have financial conflicts of interest too. Poisoning the well is an attractive mode of thinking because it's so darn easy.
This kind of thinking follows a very simple and universally applicable process:
(1) Decide how you feel about the person speaking. (2) If your feeling is good, believe everything he says; if it's bad, disbelieve everything he says.
Conspiracy theories are like crack cocaine; they give you a cheap and easy hit of self-righteous certainty. They are endlessly patchable with more cheap and easy hits.
While the motivations of the speaker are a relevant *factor*, you can't rely on them *totally*. You have to do a little more critical thinking about plausibility. For studies that show the safety of GM foods to be flat-out fraudulent, you need something that has never existed in history but haunts the nightmares of conspiracy theorists: a large and perfectly airtight cabal, involving countless of scientists, technicians, administrators and coordinators, with not a single whistleblower among them.
Now admittedly, if there ever were such a perfect cabal, we'd never know about it. But somehow we *do* "know" about these "conspiracies".
There are a lot of people who are "allergic" to MSG, but despite it's formidable sounding chemical name (monosodium glutamate), it is simply the sodium salt of glutamic acid, one of the most abundant amino acids in the human body, involved in a wide variety of physiological processes. Double blind studies show the Chinese Restaurant Effect is equivalent to a placebo.
Nonetheless I do not doubt for a moment that sensitive individuals experience a variety of food allergy responses after the consume food they *know* might contain MSG. Those responses are the immune system reacting to contaminated foods, and the ability for the brain to be able to trigger such responses makes evolutionary sense.
So our bodies can respond to ontological labels our brains place on the food we eat. It doesn't matter if our gut can't distinguish GMO wheat from traditionally selectively bred wheat, if we know it's there we'll feel it. It's not all in our head, but our head triggers it.
Well, it's bank fraud. The statute also allows for fines of up to a million dollars. It would be excessive to put someone away for thirty years and fine him a million bucks if he defrauded the bank of a couple of hundred bucks, but it might be reasonable in the case of someone who spent years defrauding the bank and raked in millions.
Technically it is not censorship because censorship is the suppression of speech. Punishing someone because of the consequence of the speech is not suppression.
You could argue that it has a chilling effect on speech by others. However it is not *political* censorship. It is censorship in the sense that punishing defamation or criminal threats is "censorship".
Actually, paying for your news is a good first step, although of course you don't believe that news uncritically. If you aren't paying people for the information you're consuming, the people feeding it to you definitely are working for someone else.
While I don't consider the framers semi-divine, as some people seem to, they were men of considerable practical experience and intelligence. They understood the negative aspects of monopoly; since the beneficial effects of patents and copyrights are all *front loaded*, they made a practical compromise by giving creators a monopoly with a *limited period*.
They would not have even recognized the term "intellectual property", a phrase which only came into use in the 1870s and carries the implication of these monopolies being natural rights. It's probably not a coincidence that this was the beginning of the gilded age.
Yes, bosses do come up with schemes that only a non-engineer would think possible. But they shouldn't come up with schemes a competent manager would know is impossible. That's not to say bosses that bad don't exist, but usually their careers stall in middle management.
What we are looking at is something Europe grappled with in the 1840s: the incompetency of hereditary aristocrats. The only new wrinkle here is the use of electronic media to construct a more flattering public image.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you shouldn't be able to get a doctorate from an accredited research university just on rote learning.
You shouldn't be able to get a master's degree or even a bachelor's either, but programs vary in quality. Now I worked on place where management was keen on Indian H-1Bs, often with master's and occasionally PhDs. The impression I got is that a masters' is much more common in India; I believe it is a prerequisite at some Indian universities for PhD candidates. Anyhow, the quality of those people were all over the place, from everything you could wish for, to one guy who was exactly what you're talking about: he had the UML of the entire Gang of Four book memorized and could give a convincing-sounding chalk talk about any of them, but in fact he just had a prodigious memory. There's no way he should have qualified to *enter* an master's program, much less get out with a degree.
I don't blame Indian culture; I've worked with Indians I'd hire again in a heartbeat. I blame certain US universities that have converted the popularity of masters's degrees with Indians into low quality cash-cow programs -- usually not in CS, but in the fuzzier and less mathematically rigorous "IT" field. If someone came to me with an MS/IT I'd automatically treat it the same as a bachelor's, just from my experience with graduates of such programs. The good people coming out of those programs were good going into them.
It can't back out. That's not how the economics of these deals works. To see why, imagine you're an American manufacturer who suddenly gets an invitation from an obscure Tawianese county to build an essential component of your product there.
Now the only place you've heard of in Taiwan is Taipei, which you vaguely think may be in the north somewhere. A quick consultation of the map shows you that Pingtung county is as far from anywhere you can be in Taiwan and still be on the island.
Now Pingtung is a beautiful place, and no doubt the people there love it, but you have no actual reason to build widgets there. Pingtung is in the middle of nowhere, far from your other facilities and inconvenient to the rest of your supply chain. No amount of freebies offered by the county will change that. So the only way officials can get you on board is to literally make it a no lose proposition for you. That means absolutely no commitment on your part.
Now if you *did* move a lot of your widget production to Pingtung, and if against all probability that actually worked out, you could, at an absolute maximum hire 13,000 people. However that's assuming more success than is likely. The politicians take this figure, and using the old advertising trick announce that you will add "up to" 13,000 jobs. Note that statement would still be true if you added zero jobs; the only way to falsify it is if you were to add more than 13,000 jobs.
Offering companies no-lose deals to publicly consider something that they would never otherwise dream of doing isn't economic planning. It's a PR stunt. That's what you get when you put con-men in office.
There's no indication that anyone at DB actually believed they could win. You can't take a lawyer's public statement as representative of what he's saying to his client or what the client himself thinks.
If I were to hazard a guess, I suspect the people behind this were gambling that they could fly under the radar screen long enough to make a quick buck then close up shop. It's not like it takes a lot of up front investment to throw open source software onto a commodity set top box and then point it at some servers tracking pirated content.
Would you feel better if it were called "carbamide"?
Urea, CO(NH2)2, is a simple organic molecule which, aside from carrying away waste nitrogen from protein metabolism in the human body, has a vast array of industrial applications. Nobody calls marine plywood "urine plywood".
Suppose you could double the efficiency of a solar cell, but it cost you 3x as much. In most cases that would not be a practical choice. Now suppose you could double the collecting area of that cell, but it only cost you 1.1x as much. In some cases that could be a practical choice.
But the point is that things are readily available in China that are only available in limited quantity here.
In engineering, that's what we call a "constraint". You have more constraints if you design something to be manufactured in the US, which means the set of designs which can be made here is a subset of the set of designs that can be made in China.
This is no accident. I was in my 30s when the decision was made essentially to deindustrialize the US by opening up trade with China. We were explicitly told that China would become better at making things while the US would focus on selling services. Under this system, we would get things like incredibly cheap consumer electronics.
Yes, but it does tell us something about microdosing (e.g. it's not just placebo), and exactly where on the dosage curve various effects kick in.
This not only tells us something about *LSD*, it also tells us stuff about the brain. So once again no, scientists are not actually stupid.
It all came from those views we were taught lining up hominids from the most primitive on the left to us on the right. Evolution isn't linear.
Given what we know of Neanderthals now, it's kind of hard to imagine them standing just out of reach of an animal, spear in hand, and thinking, "Well, that's that. I guess I'll just have to starve."
Get with the program. White supremacists are claiming that Neanderthal ancestry is what makes the white "race" superior these days.
It was a huge lesson for Jobs. The key to a revolutionary product is to make it just revolutionary *enough*, and then sell endless rounds of solid upgrades.
OK, let's play a game. I'll name a socialist country I'd be happy living in, and you name a fascist one you'd be happy living in. I'll go first: Norway.
Facebook would *never* promote a technology without thoroughly thinking through the implications. They are the pinnacle of corporate social responsibilty...
Come to think of it, that last part may actually be true.
I'm not sure what you mean by the fuel being dangerous. Isn't the point that the reactor breeds a small quantity of plutonium from unenriched uranium?
No. Can nuclear plants be *designed* to withstand human mistakes? Possibly.
And "natural food" "experts" have financial conflicts of interest too. Poisoning the well is an attractive mode of thinking because it's so darn easy.
This kind of thinking follows a very simple and universally applicable process:
(1) Decide how you feel about the person speaking.
(2) If your feeling is good, believe everything he says; if it's bad, disbelieve everything he says.
Conspiracy theories are like crack cocaine; they give you a cheap and easy hit of self-righteous certainty. They are endlessly patchable with more cheap and easy hits.
While the motivations of the speaker are a relevant *factor*, you can't rely on them *totally*. You have to do a little more critical thinking about plausibility. For studies that show the safety of GM foods to be flat-out fraudulent, you need something that has never existed in history but haunts the nightmares of conspiracy theorists: a large and perfectly airtight cabal, involving countless of scientists, technicians, administrators and coordinators, with not a single whistleblower among them.
Now admittedly, if there ever were such a perfect cabal, we'd never know about it. But somehow we *do* "know" about these "conspiracies".
There are a lot of people who are "allergic" to MSG, but despite it's formidable sounding chemical name (monosodium glutamate), it is simply the sodium salt of glutamic acid, one of the most abundant amino acids in the human body, involved in a wide variety of physiological processes. Double blind studies show the Chinese Restaurant Effect is equivalent to a placebo.
Nonetheless I do not doubt for a moment that sensitive individuals experience a variety of food allergy responses after the consume food they *know* might contain MSG. Those responses are the immune system reacting to contaminated foods, and the ability for the brain to be able to trigger such responses makes evolutionary sense.
So our bodies can respond to ontological labels our brains place on the food we eat. It doesn't matter if our gut can't distinguish GMO wheat from traditionally selectively bred wheat, if we know it's there we'll feel it. It's not all in our head, but our head triggers it.
Well, it's bank fraud. The statute also allows for fines of up to a million dollars. It would be excessive to put someone away for thirty years and fine him a million bucks if he defrauded the bank of a couple of hundred bucks, but it might be reasonable in the case of someone who spent years defrauding the bank and raked in millions.
No.
Technically it is not censorship because censorship is the suppression of speech. Punishing someone because of the consequence of the speech is not suppression.
You could argue that it has a chilling effect on speech by others. However it is not *political* censorship. It is censorship in the sense that punishing defamation or criminal threats is "censorship".
I'm sure these folks don't care, because, like Assange, they're trolls.
Now trolls with shortened life expectancy.
Actually, paying for your news is a good first step, although of course you don't believe that news uncritically. If you aren't paying people for the information you're consuming, the people feeding it to you definitely are working for someone else.
Well, anyone who has sources they can cite, for a start.
Here's a handy tip for distinguishing between truth and lies. They both come with a price, but truth demands its payment up front.
While I don't consider the framers semi-divine, as some people seem to, they were men of considerable practical experience and intelligence. They understood the negative aspects of monopoly; since the beneficial effects of patents and copyrights are all *front loaded*, they made a practical compromise by giving creators a monopoly with a *limited period*.
They would not have even recognized the term "intellectual property", a phrase which only came into use in the 1870s and carries the implication of these monopolies being natural rights. It's probably not a coincidence that this was the beginning of the gilded age.
Every property in the history of cities have roofs. Should we build one of those over the country?
I don't think the border wall is immoral. It's just stupid.
Yes, bosses do come up with schemes that only a non-engineer would think possible. But they shouldn't come up with schemes a competent manager would know is impossible. That's not to say bosses that bad don't exist, but usually their careers stall in middle management.
What we are looking at is something Europe grappled with in the 1840s: the incompetency of hereditary aristocrats. The only new wrinkle here is the use of electronic media to construct a more flattering public image.