Someone who isn't a programmer, but is taking a 12-week bootcamp to become a "software engineer" by learning javascript is not going to be setting up internet and cellphone infrastructure. At least not WORKING internet and cellphone structure.
You're right that I'm looking for a career. Having said that, a non-profit job would be fine. (as long as it paid a living wage for the bay area) (I know)
In other words, forget it.
""The CS degree for the 21st century" So you're going to Hackreactor for training? BwahHaHaHa...
Become a Software Engineer.
You’ll begin Hack Reactor with a feeling of excitement and anticipation. Twelve weeks later, you’ll follow the footsteps of our trailblazing alumni, taking the methodologies and best practices you perfected at our coding bootcamp to your next job. We’ve built world class software engineering curriculum and programming courses. However, Hack Reactor is, above all else, a world-class learning environment.
Total Tuition
$17,780
There are three types of lies:
1. Lies others tell you
2. Lies you tell others,
3. Lies you tell yourself.
You've been conned (#1). Time to stop conning yourself (#3).
No, you cannot become a "software engineer" in 12 weeks. You'll just be another webmonkey.
They can then search for advice on farming and healthcare, and use the information to feed the people that aren't dying as quickly any more.
Farming is a local enterprise. It varies greatly across the planet, based on things like land, local weather conditions, and what's available. They're more likely to get proper info from other farmers who are successful rather than from some 1st-world blog.
And healthcare advice? If there are no doctors available locally, then they won't be able to implement the solution to "You have appendicitis." Or maybe they can learn to remove the appendix by watching some youtube videos? And reading some web pages to make their own home-brew penicillin?
Sure it's been used for stuff, but it hasn't helped us crack nuclear fusion for instance, one of its often hyped goals.
At one point they'll need a nuclear fusion reactor to power the "next big thing in supercomputers", so someone working at some non-cutting-edge compute facility will figure it out so that they can get the grant money for that "next big thing in supercomputers." It's all about funding:-)
The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.
A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.
Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.
Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.
Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.
The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical unders
While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty.
No, just like the judge will instruct the jury that your refusal to testify on your own behalf is not to be considered in the juror's evaluation of whether someone is guilty or not. If a prosecutor tries to argue that, they're going to get their knuckles rapped in front of the jury, not exactly helping their case, and possibly causing a mistrial.
And then there's this. The judge in question confirms that he was the judge in the "Photocopier Lie Detector", which snopes.com dismisses because they asked the wrong police department whether it had happened or not. It took place in Warminster Township, Bucks County, which would account for the Radnor police chief's denial.
More here, including the confusion of jurisdictions that led most to conclude it was an urban legend.
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction? From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Define "lie". (kudos to Bill Clinton for this one).
Certainly, if this individual has not properly identified themselves ("posing as a federal law enforcement officer applicant"), you are under no LEGAL obligation to tell them the truth.
Or do you think that you have to tell the truth all the time. How did it go when you answered "Does this dress make me look fat?" or "Do you think my sister is prettier than me?"
If he lied to the agent when he said the polygraph can be beaten, charge him with fraud (good luck with that). If what he was saying was the truth...
Escape velocity is about 3 feet a second, or 2.2 mph. That's not even a brisk walk, so if there were a human in a spacesuit hanging around, they could get it (and themselves) up to escape velocity if they could avoid first sending themselves (and the probe) into orbit instead.
What annoys me a bit, though, is that I'm probably born too early to be able to download my consciousness into a machine during my lifetime, so I won't see what the future brings.:(
Don't worry, once your brain dies, so does your consciousness. Even if you could "copy" your consciousness into a machine just before your physical body died, you would still cease to exist upon death. All that would be left is an echo, a simulacrum of what you used to be, not a continuation of your self.
I think a lot of people would be willing to settle for that, when compared to the alternative. Besides, your "self-aware persona" isn't in continuous existence from the day you were born until the day you die. People fall asleep all the time. We just take these interruptions in our existence as normal.
Who you are is in constant flux - you're not exactly the same person you were yeterday, never mind 10 years ago, or when you were a kid. The alternative would be a "50 First Dates" existence.
Evolution is still happening. There was no humanity a million years ago, and there won't be one in another million.
We have dogs, but wolves still exist. We have "homo sapiens", but neanderthals still exist (just watch Jerry Springer for proof). Coelacanths are still swimming around, when they were believed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago.
Who's to say that whatever is next along the evolutionary line might not want to keep us around, both as a genetic reservoir, and because we're interesting?
And even if you don't believe in a certain course of action, more than 99% of people simply won't oppose the wisdom of the crowd / authority / whatever. Going along to get along appears to be an inherent trait of humans - and one that explains everything from Nazi death camps to the mortgage scams to "My country right or wrong".
Pity they didn't send Bruce Willis with. What with all his previous experience. Would have been a win-win.
I nominate Justin Bieber instead. The last 10 years out of sight, one-way mission... now that's a win-win. Throw in the Kardashians, and we could probably crowd-fund it.
What's interesting is that it's marketed as a "PlayStation" product when they could have tied their television service to, you know, the televisions that they are known for.
Do people even buy Sony TVs any more? Well, the stats say some do, but nowhere near Samsung and LGs numbers. Go into any big box store and the Sony TVs are positioned like the 2nd tier products they are.
Brianna Wu claimed in a Huffpost video interview to be a former journalist. She also claimed to have trained as a lawyer. Then she went on to rant about how web sites have a legal responsibility to review all users' comments or be held legally liable. No word yet on whether she's sued twitter over users posts (which, contrary to Wu's claims, the Communications Decency Act, section 230, specifically provides hosts such as Twitter a safe harbor from any such nonsense).
Either it's about ethics in journalism, or it's about two women who did stuff you don't like.
There are ethical concerns in journalism. There are ethical concerns about Wu, who claims to have been a journalist with legal training, lying both about her experience and what the law really says. I don't particularly like it when anyone does it, but hiding behind the claims of being a SJW? Or being attacked for supposedly being a feminist? Would a feminist try to create a game with all the characters looking like they were drawn by horny boys for horny boys?
I'm not buying it any more. We've been trolled! And yes, reviewers who agree to an embargo have already given up any claim of "independent journalism" when the only reason for the embargo is an economic one - to sucker as many suckers as possible into making a sucker bet on the quality of a game that sucks.
Being good at IT and the written word is a huge advantage.
If you're writing about fortune tellers, the plural of medium is mediums. If you're writing about a channel of communications or expression, the plural is media.:-)
But really, 12 hours a day is 60 hours a week. 60 hours a week chained to a computer? Been there, done that, glad my daughters made more sensible choices (especially given how fungible IT workers are nowadays in the eyes and minds of the PHBs).
I still haven't seen conclusive evidence that they make learning any easier or better.
I've seen studies that have shown that they interfere with learning, but none (that weren't sponsored by someone trying to sell stuff) that showed they improved learning.
Unless they're burning the software into ROMs, it IS downloadable to the device, hence covered by the term "downloadable computer software for use as a graphical user interface... database management", because a PoS needs to have a GUI and to interface with a database.
And even if they're developing on the target tablet, they still have to move the final image to each tablet (unless they do a make on each one individually, which I can't see them doing).
I'm not a fan of gnome since they screwed up, but they do have a valid point.
If you have specific requirements, and a vary large pool of mostly unqualified people, it should be very quick to weed out most of the chaff. For example, if you ask them to write a c function to do something, and they start coding it in java and saying "you should really do it this way instead"... "Gone in 60 Seconds" isn't just a movie.
So yes, if 97% of the interviewees are crap (150 out of 5,000) the initial weeding out should proceed very quickly. 10 per hour, 60 per day... easily less than 6 months to screen 5,000 for the 150 you're looking for.
I guess that's the difference between having HR do interviews and people who actually write code... coders cut to the chase a lot quicker and aren't hesitant to say "Sorry, suivant, next!" whereas HR will be polite and not ask the hard questions because they don't know enough to ask the hard questions or evaluate the answers.
Slashdot Mirror
JavaScript includes Java
No wonder you posted that garbage anonymously.
Someone who isn't a programmer, but is taking a 12-week bootcamp to become a "software engineer" by learning javascript is not going to be setting up internet and cellphone infrastructure. At least not WORKING internet and cellphone structure.
You're right that I'm looking for a career. Having said that, a non-profit job would be fine. (as long as it paid a living wage for the bay area) (I know)
In other words, forget it.
""The CS degree for the 21st century" So you're going to Hackreactor for training? BwahHaHaHa ...
Become a Software Engineer.
You’ll begin Hack Reactor with a feeling of excitement and anticipation. Twelve weeks later, you’ll follow the footsteps of our trailblazing alumni, taking the methodologies and best practices you perfected at our coding bootcamp to your next job. We’ve built world class software engineering curriculum and programming courses. However, Hack Reactor is, above all else, a world-class learning environment.
Total Tuition
$17,780
There are three types of lies:
1. Lies others tell you
2. Lies you tell others,
3. Lies you tell yourself.
You've been conned (#1). Time to stop conning yourself (#3).
No, you cannot become a "software engineer" in 12 weeks. You'll just be another webmonkey.
They can then search for advice on farming and healthcare, and use the information to feed the people that aren't dying as quickly any more.
Farming is a local enterprise. It varies greatly across the planet, based on things like land, local weather conditions, and what's available. They're more likely to get proper info from other farmers who are successful rather than from some 1st-world blog.
And healthcare advice? If there are no doctors available locally, then they won't be able to implement the solution to "You have appendicitis." Or maybe they can learn to remove the appendix by watching some youtube videos? And reading some web pages to make their own home-brew penicillin?
Sure it's been used for stuff, but it hasn't helped us crack nuclear fusion for instance, one of its often hyped goals.
At one point they'll need a nuclear fusion reactor to power the "next big thing in supercomputers", so someone working at some non-cutting-edge compute facility will figure it out so that they can get the grant money for that "next big thing in supercomputers." It's all about funding :-)
It's about 70 percent accurate, which is more than any other method.
The American Psychological Association disagrees with you.
The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.
A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.
Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.
Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.
Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.
The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical unders
While surely you can refuse the polygraph the prosecutor can use your "refusal" as an argument to a jury that you are guilty.
No, just like the judge will instruct the jury that your refusal to testify on your own behalf is not to be considered in the juror's evaluation of whether someone is guilty or not. If a prosecutor tries to argue that, they're going to get their knuckles rapped in front of the jury, not exactly helping their case, and possibly causing a mistrial.
And then there's this. The judge in question confirms that he was the judge in the "Photocopier Lie Detector", which snopes.com dismisses because they asked the wrong police department whether it had happened or not. It took place in Warminster Township, Bucks County, which would account for the Radnor police chief's denial.
More here, including the confusion of jurisdictions that led most to conclude it was an urban legend.
Hey, he could always offer to take a lie detector test :-)
If he passes "no, I never met this person before in my life." then it throws all those other lie detector tests in doubt.
If he fails, then it shows, not a conspiracy to beat a lie detector test, but a fraud on consumers.
Either way, polygraphs are not always the appropriate solution, and any claim otherwise is stupid.
Your laws are ridiculous.
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction? From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Define "lie". (kudos to Bill Clinton for this one).
Certainly, if this individual has not properly identified themselves ("posing as a federal law enforcement officer applicant"), you are under no LEGAL obligation to tell them the truth.
Or do you think that you have to tell the truth all the time. How did it go when you answered "Does this dress make me look fat?" or "Do you think my sister is prettier than me?"
If he lied to the agent when he said the polygraph can be beaten, charge him with fraud (good luck with that). If what he was saying was the truth ...
he lander is still pretty massive (about a metric tonne)
You're off by an order of magnitude. The lander is still pretty massive (about a metric tonne)
The lander has a mass of 97.9 kg. That's 215.8 pounds.
Escape velocity is about 3 feet a second, or 2.2 mph. That's not even a brisk walk, so if there were a human in a spacesuit hanging around, they could get it (and themselves) up to escape velocity if they could avoid first sending themselves (and the probe) into orbit instead.
What annoys me a bit, though, is that I'm probably born too early to be able to download my consciousness into a machine during my lifetime, so I won't see what the future brings. :(
Don't worry, once your brain dies, so does your consciousness. Even if you could "copy" your consciousness into a machine just before your physical body died, you would still cease to exist upon death. All that would be left is an echo, a simulacrum of what you used to be, not a continuation of your self.
I think a lot of people would be willing to settle for that, when compared to the alternative. Besides, your "self-aware persona" isn't in continuous existence from the day you were born until the day you die. People fall asleep all the time. We just take these interruptions in our existence as normal.
Who you are is in constant flux - you're not exactly the same person you were yeterday, never mind 10 years ago, or when you were a kid. The alternative would be a "50 First Dates" existence.
Evolution is still happening. There was no humanity a million years ago, and there won't be one in another million.
We have dogs, but wolves still exist. We have "homo sapiens", but neanderthals still exist (just watch Jerry Springer for proof). Coelacanths are still swimming around, when they were believed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago.
Who's to say that whatever is next along the evolutionary line might not want to keep us around, both as a genetic reservoir, and because we're interesting?
And even if you don't believe in a certain course of action, more than 99% of people simply won't oppose the wisdom of the crowd / authority / whatever. Going along to get along appears to be an inherent trait of humans - and one that explains everything from Nazi death camps to the mortgage scams to "My country right or wrong".
Pity they didn't send Bruce Willis with. What with all his previous experience. Would have been a win-win.
I nominate Justin Bieber instead. The last 10 years out of sight, one-way mission ... now that's a win-win. Throw in the Kardashians, and we could probably crowd-fund it.
What's interesting is that it's marketed as a "PlayStation" product when they could have tied their television service to, you know, the televisions that they are known for.
Do people even buy Sony TVs any more? Well, the stats say some do, but nowhere near Samsung and LGs numbers. Go into any big box store and the Sony TVs are positioned like the 2nd tier products they are.
As someone else pointed out to me a few days ago, "Where does it say 'News for nerds. Stuff that matters"?
And SJWs have had their 15 minutes, everyone else now thinks "Nothing to see here" when they see one ...
A reviewer should be required to play AND finish the game
Do you have any idea how much time it takes to finish some games? SimCity 2k, for example?
Either it's about ethics in journalism, or it's about two women who did stuff you don't like.
There are ethical concerns in journalism. There are ethical concerns about Wu, who claims to have been a journalist with legal training, lying both about her experience and what the law really says. I don't particularly like it when anyone does it, but hiding behind the claims of being a SJW? Or being attacked for supposedly being a feminist? Would a feminist try to create a game with all the characters looking like they were drawn by horny boys for horny boys?
I'm not buying it any more. We've been trolled! And yes, reviewers who agree to an embargo have already given up any claim of "independent journalism" when the only reason for the embargo is an economic one - to sucker as many suckers as possible into making a sucker bet on the quality of a game that sucks.
What a strange comment.
What a strange reply ...
"a number of medium"
... and ...
Being good at IT and the written word is a huge advantage.
If you're writing about fortune tellers, the plural of medium is mediums. If you're writing about a channel of communications or expression, the plural is media. :-)
But really, 12 hours a day is 60 hours a week. 60 hours a week chained to a computer? Been there, done that, glad my daughters made more sensible choices (especially given how fungible IT workers are nowadays in the eyes and minds of the PHBs).
I spend 8 to 12 hrs a working day on the computer, he will probably follow that path.
That is SO sad.
Will he be emigrating to India so he can afford to live on what "any sort of computer skilz" will pay when he's older?
I still haven't seen conclusive evidence that they make learning any easier or better.
I've seen studies that have shown that they interfere with learning, but none (that weren't sponsored by someone trying to sell stuff) that showed they improved learning.
The TRADEMARK is for downloadable software. So, no patent discussion necessary.
Playing dead is the insane option, contrary to popular wisdom.
Unless they're burning the software into ROMs, it IS downloadable to the device, hence covered by the term "downloadable computer software for use as a graphical user interface ... database management", because a PoS needs to have a GUI and to interface with a database.
And even if they're developing on the target tablet, they still have to move the final image to each tablet (unless they do a make on each one individually, which I can't see them doing).
I'm not a fan of gnome since they screwed up, but they do have a valid point.
If you have specific requirements, and a vary large pool of mostly unqualified people, it should be very quick to weed out most of the chaff. For example, if you ask them to write a c function to do something, and they start coding it in java and saying "you should really do it this way instead" ... "Gone in 60 Seconds" isn't just a movie.
So yes, if 97% of the interviewees are crap (150 out of 5,000) the initial weeding out should proceed very quickly. 10 per hour, 60 per day ... easily less than 6 months to screen 5,000 for the 150 you're looking for.
I guess that's the difference between having HR do interviews and people who actually write code ... coders cut to the chase a lot quicker and aren't hesitant to say "Sorry, suivant, next!" whereas HR will be polite and not ask the hard questions because they don't know enough to ask the hard questions or evaluate the answers.