typically pits candidates against a whiteboard without access to reference material -- a scenario working programmers say is demoralizing and an unrealistic test of actual ability
If you're an expert pianist, you ought to be able to reproduce a simple tune on the piano, by ear and blindfolded. If you're an expert skier, you can ski backward and ski on one ski. If you're an expert chess player, you should be able to memorize any chess board at a glance. If you're an expert mathematician, you should be able to do simple integrals without reference tables. Those are not skills that you need, they are skills experts simply can't avoid acquiring as part of working in a field for many years.
Likewise, if you're an expert programmer, you should be able to write bubble sort on the whiteboard without a web search. If you're an expert Python programmer, you should have worked enough with strings so that you don't need to look up trivial functions anymore. Those skills are indicators of your experience, not specific job requirements.
(Personally, I wouldn't ask a candidate about bubble sort because that's so trivial as to be insulting.)
Hello. Effective 3/28, we will no longer support connections to the AIM network via this method. If you wish to use the free consumer AIM product, we invite you to visit http://www.aim.com/ for more information.
That is, all they are announcing is that they are discontinuing some protocol, not that they are discontinuing support for all third party clients.
The headline is typical of the fake news outrage machine: "Some people in group X are affected by Y" turns into "People in group X are affected by Y", which then morphs into "Y decides to screw over everybody in group X because Y is evil!"
Republicans are more interested in their candidates being religious than being literate,
I'm an independent and an atheist, but I'm coming around to this point of view myself. The record of Christianity on violence and oppression is not good in absolute terms, but it is a lot better than the record of atheists, socialists, or progressives.
It's a reasonable concern that if companies were to, say, start bringing asteroids into earth orbit for mining that there would be adequate safety precautions in place.
Yes, we should put adequate precautions in place so that crazy people don't start dropping rocks on populated areas, and the foremost precaution should be to stop the US government from having any control over rocks in space.
Our national debt is largely due to entitlements and Keynesian stimulus programs. You might call those "FUD sales tactics" ("if we are not spending this money, you'll die in the gutter", "if we don't give this money to large private corporations, the economy is going to crash"), but a more apt description would be that they are Democratic and progressive vote buying and crony capitalism.
Unfortunately, Wu's understanding of the rest of those books is even more deficient than her understanding of the physics involved (and described in the books) of launching rocks from the moon.
Wrong again. Current made a lot of money, and Gore sold it at a huge profit.
Current TV was a financial failure, and Gore made his money by selling it to a Qatari prince. His Apple stock, incidentally, came from him being put on their boards of directors, also because of his name recognition.
Conservatives really do hate people who succeed without cheating! I guess it makes them feel like they can't keep up when the playing field is level.
Al Gore was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he made his fame and fortune as a politician; and afterwards, he translated his political power into financial success.
Your idea that this is "succeeding without cheating" just shows how morally bankrupt, economically ignorant, and hypocritical you are.
I don't have any real issues with someone getting rich after they leave govt office, as you stated. As someone else mentioned once, it just means they're smart, right?
Al Capone was smart. Joseph Stalin was smart. Hitler and Goebbels were smart. Getting money and power through being smart is not intrinsically a good thing.
Getting money and power through voluntary exchanges is a good thing; often the people who do that happen to be smart, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
I read through some of the comments on this story, and I couldn't help but notice there were quite a few that related Gore's politics and finance. None gave him any credit at all for financial acumen.
Financial acumen? Gore got rich the same way Clinton did: by translating his political power, political advocacy, and connections into money.
If you get rich legally before you enter politics, that shows that you can succeed by producing stuff people want. If you get rich after you leave high government office, it strongly suggests that you are a corrupt fraud. Gore clearly did the latter.
I did say what I mean: I made a general comment about the distinction between "establishing rights" and the granting of powers. Nowhere in my comment did I say anything about the ruling itself. Apparently, you simply can't read.
This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops.
And I wasn't commenting on the ruling, I was commenting on the language.
The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like,
No, what I don't like is the notion of "rights" that need to be "established". Even the attorney for the plaintiffs uses the language involving "clearrly established rights".
Qualified immunity is not about requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate their rights before they can sue the government over infringements of those rights.
I'm not saying anything about qualified immunity or the merits of the case. I am admonishing people to stop talking about "infringements of rights". Americans aren't European peasants.
The key word in what you said is "the government". According to the dissent (and the majority also agrees on this point), the government violated the guy's rights.
Again, you are not listening: I'm objecting to the notion and language that Americans have specific rights that can be violated. That is a view of justice and the law that applies to European peasants, it is not what we have in the US. In the US, citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised. This has nothing to do with the specific outcome of the case, nor with whether police, the judges, or you are misusing the language; in fact, the lawyers for the plaintiff themselves are misusing language in their complaint. Once you talk about "establishing rights" of citizens, you have already submitted yourself to an all-powerful state, and whether you win specific cases doesn't matter anymore.
Judge: II + II = III ooloorie: No, damn it! 2 + 1 is 3 you fucking idiot! If you use Roman numerals, you may get the right result for small numbers, but you can't do complex science or engineering that way.
You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with the details or the outcome of the case, but the reasoning. Under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
at which point the plaintiff must demonstrate the officials' actions violated "clearly established" law.
My point is that the court reasoned as if the plaintiff needed to "clearly establish a right"; under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
- wrote Turner was not unlawfully arrested and that the majority opinion from the Texas-based appeals court jumped the gun to declare a First Amendment right here because one "is not clearly established."
Under the US Constitution, you don't have to "clearly establish rights"; rather, the government has to clearly establish that it has been granted certain powers by the people.
It's vague and arbitrary rules without clear enforcement that screw over the American public, and that's what this looks like. This looks more like an FCC power grab and possibly even a way for the FCC to shield ISPs against legal claims.
If your ISP leaks your information, you should be able to hold them responsible in court (if need be, via a class action lawsuit). That's far better than FCC rulemaking.
The data security rule requires ISPs and phone companies to take "reasonable" steps to protect customers' information -- such as Social Security numbers, financial and health information, and Web browsing data -- from theft and data breaches.
That sounds like a very pro-consumer rule, doesn't it? Except, it really isn't, because "reasonable" is pretty arbitrary, and so is FCC enforcement. More likely than not, such a rule is simply an excuse for ISPs to say "we took reasonable steps, so if something happened anyway, we're not liable".
It would be far better if people whose information has been leaked or mishandled could simply sue for damages and hold ISPs liable in court.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're an expert pianist, you ought to be able to reproduce a simple tune on the piano, by ear and blindfolded. If you're an expert skier, you can ski backward and ski on one ski. If you're an expert chess player, you should be able to memorize any chess board at a glance. If you're an expert mathematician, you should be able to do simple integrals without reference tables. Those are not skills that you need, they are skills experts simply can't avoid acquiring as part of working in a field for many years.
Likewise, if you're an expert programmer, you should be able to write bubble sort on the whiteboard without a web search. If you're an expert Python programmer, you should have worked enough with strings so that you don't need to look up trivial functions anymore. Those skills are indicators of your experience, not specific job requirements.
(Personally, I wouldn't ask a candidate about bubble sort because that's so trivial as to be insulting.)
Twitter has never made a profit. They have lost $2 billion in 10 years.
Twitter is a weird mix of money-losing leftist propaganda machine and pyramid scheme. It's not a business that makes rational decisions.
Well, you're probably the expert on 4chan, but it isn't bleeding money at anywhere near the same rate as Twitter.
I would guess that a 10% increase in performance in 3 months is probably actually a little behind the curve.
GPUs are used extensively in artificial intelligence, physics, and other applications these days.
Even for computer graphics, you need that kind of power for VR and for high quality physics simulations.
Also, the big difference between the 1080 and the 1080 Ti is probably not the modest increase in speed, but the extra memory.
That is, all they are announcing is that they are discontinuing some protocol, not that they are discontinuing support for all third party clients.
The headline is typical of the fake news outrage machine: "Some people in group X are affected by Y" turns into "People in group X are affected by Y", which then morphs into "Y decides to screw over everybody in group X because Y is evil!"
I'm an independent and an atheist, but I'm coming around to this point of view myself. The record of Christianity on violence and oppression is not good in absolute terms, but it is a lot better than the record of atheists, socialists, or progressives.
Well, let's see. Who keeps dropping shit on people to kill them? Oh, right, the US government. A bomb every 20 minutes, from the Nobel Peace Prize winner.. And drone killings everywhere.
Yes, we should put adequate precautions in place so that crazy people don't start dropping rocks on populated areas, and the foremost precaution should be to stop the US government from having any control over rocks in space.
Our national debt is largely due to entitlements and Keynesian stimulus programs. You might call those "FUD sales tactics" ("if we are not spending this money, you'll die in the gutter", "if we don't give this money to large private corporations, the economy is going to crash"), but a more apt description would be that they are Democratic and progressive vote buying and crony capitalism.
Unfortunately, Wu's understanding of the rest of those books is even more deficient than her understanding of the physics involved (and described in the books) of launching rocks from the moon.
Such incidents are better handled by civil lawsuits.
I said no such thing. What I said was: "Getting money and power through voluntary exchanges is a good thing"
That is, Trump got rich in the market (good), while Gore and Clinton got rich through being politicians (bad).
So who won the race? Where can I buy a fully self-driving car?
Current TV was a financial failure, and Gore made his money by selling it to a Qatari prince. His Apple stock, incidentally, came from him being put on their boards of directors, also because of his name recognition.
Al Gore was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he made his fame and fortune as a politician; and afterwards, he translated his political power into financial success.
Your idea that this is "succeeding without cheating" just shows how morally bankrupt, economically ignorant, and hypocritical you are.
Current TV was a commercial failure. Gore bet on his government connections, his name recognition, and a big influx of money from foreign dictators.
Yes, indeed. Crooked politicians like Gore for example.
Al Capone was smart. Joseph Stalin was smart. Hitler and Goebbels were smart. Getting money and power through being smart is not intrinsically a good thing.
Getting money and power through voluntary exchanges is a good thing; often the people who do that happen to be smart, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Financial acumen? Gore got rich the same way Clinton did: by translating his political power, political advocacy, and connections into money.
If you get rich legally before you enter politics, that shows that you can succeed by producing stuff people want. If you get rich after you leave high government office, it strongly suggests that you are a corrupt fraud. Gore clearly did the latter.
I did say what I mean: I made a general comment about the distinction between "establishing rights" and the granting of powers. Nowhere in my comment did I say anything about the ruling itself. Apparently, you simply can't read.
And I wasn't commenting on the ruling, I was commenting on the language.
No, what I don't like is the notion of "rights" that need to be "established". Even the attorney for the plaintiffs uses the language involving "clearrly established rights".
I'm not saying anything about qualified immunity or the merits of the case. I am admonishing people to stop talking about "infringements of rights". Americans aren't European peasants.
Again, you are not listening: I'm objecting to the notion and language that Americans have specific rights that can be violated. That is a view of justice and the law that applies to European peasants, it is not what we have in the US. In the US, citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised. This has nothing to do with the specific outcome of the case, nor with whether police, the judges, or you are misusing the language; in fact, the lawyers for the plaintiff themselves are misusing language in their complaint. Once you talk about "establishing rights" of citizens, you have already submitted yourself to an all-powerful state, and whether you win specific cases doesn't matter anymore.
FTFY.
You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with the details or the outcome of the case, but the reasoning. Under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
My point is that the court reasoned as if the plaintiff needed to "clearly establish a right"; under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
Under the US Constitution, you don't have to "clearly establish rights"; rather, the government has to clearly establish that it has been granted certain powers by the people.
It's vague and arbitrary rules without clear enforcement that screw over the American public, and that's what this looks like. This looks more like an FCC power grab and possibly even a way for the FCC to shield ISPs against legal claims.
If your ISP leaks your information, you should be able to hold them responsible in court (if need be, via a class action lawsuit). That's far better than FCC rulemaking.
That sounds like a very pro-consumer rule, doesn't it? Except, it really isn't, because "reasonable" is pretty arbitrary, and so is FCC enforcement. More likely than not, such a rule is simply an excuse for ISPs to say "we took reasonable steps, so if something happened anyway, we're not liable".
It would be far better if people whose information has been leaked or mishandled could simply sue for damages and hold ISPs liable in court.