On a related note, there is also an infinite number of shapes a manhole cover can have so that it cannot fall into the hole. But don't tell that to the interviewers.
Having asked that question in interviews, I didn't care what you answer d but was interested in how you came up with answers. Answering "so they don't fall in the hole right away is the least best answer.
There are always rare cases where someone is declared legally dead before word reaches their body, sometimes by many years. There will also always be people who voted by mail then die before the election. It's possible the law they were debating was for these sorts of things.
I doubt it. Carter's first election included ballot boxes with votes bundled together by rubber bands. If the county boss wanted you elected you got elected. Voters got their government check abd a filled out ballot at the same time. He went to court to secure his victory. He said it best when asked why he was qualified to oversee elections to identify fraud: 'I ran for election in Georgia.' His book on growing up in rural Georgia is a great read.
Whether cable tv, netflix, or amazon prime, people like to rent their television content by the month, and that isn't really Apple's thing.
They seem to be moving in that direction with the addition of HBO subscriptions to Apple TV. They could renegotiate deals with studios to rent bundles of shows and it Netflix to let people buy Netflix via the App store, for example. If they get enough AppleTV's into the hands of consumers so that they can significantly raise Netflix's subscriber base Netflix may just be willing to cut Apple in on the monthly fee. Alternatively, Apple could negotiate with content owners to create their own AppleFlix and offer a monthly service.
But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.
Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.
Exactly. TV's tend to be a low margins price sensitive business an that just isn't Apple's game. More importantly, virtually all of the advanced features they could build into a TV they could put into AppleTV and carve out the higher margin part of the TV business and leave the display manufacturers to fight it out. In auditor, building features into AppleTV means they can adapt to whatever display technology is popular without having to pick a winner as they would have to if they built a TV and the Apple TV can simply connect to a new display whenever an old one is replaced an thus Apple's connection with the end user is not lost when the TV is upgraded.
Why go into a low margin business where the technology isn't settled and you have no real advantage to be able to charge a premium that you can't already charge with an existing device?
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.
Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."
You can only "move to the center" if you're a third party. If the Democrats move to what was the center (as they keep doing and have kept doing over the last three or four decades), the center moves as a result and they're no longer at it. Worse, their attempt to look less extreme helps their opposition, which now also looks like it's closer to the center.
The Republicans understand this somewhat better, and have drifted to the right, knowing that this, too, moves the center, but moves it rightwards, leaving both parties looking slightly more extreme rather than just the party that's made the move.
What you are describing is the midpoint between party positions which doesn't necessarily represent the center of the voting population. So it's not so much establishing position close to theater sides but going for the sweet spot of the voting public. The other side may attempt to move their as well or move further to their extreme but that should not result in a move in reaction.
And you've never seen the requirement for a #2 pencil? Did you know that the manufacturers who created the #1 pencil were put out of business by the systematic collusion to allow only #2 pencils? #3 pencils, when they were invented, couldn't get a foothold the monopoly was so strong. It's a goddamned racket.;-)
While I appreciate the sarcasm and humor in your post, there is a grain of truth to it. The British used to flood their graphite mines to prevent mining after the quota was met and strictly monitor miners going in and out. It's hard to believe but graphite was considered strategic and the UK had the world's best. There is a good book, called The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance, by Petroski, that details its history.
is that the party that moves to the center and focuses on issues that face most voters, such as the economy, financial security, etc. and doesn't let their lunatic fringe who focus on one issue, that the majority of voters either don't care about or don't agree with, decide what the party stands for will gain support. However, as long as candidates are decided by primaries and millennials don't vote in them the parties will not change. The one thing politicians fear more than lack of money is lack of voter support, and the first time a politician loses a primary because he or she pandered to the fringe of their party in order to win but winds up losing to a more mainstream candidate they will take notice. There is no wake up call like getting your butt whipped in a fight.
Just because dead people are registered to vote doesn't make it voter fraud (it makes it registration fraud, but that's completely different). Now, if you had dead people actually voting (setting IL aside), then you might have a problem. However, the linked article says:
The US State of Georgia debated a bill on how long a dead person should be allowed to vote. It was the first debate for a guy named Carter who was newly elected to the GA Senate. They settled on three years but I don't think they passed the bill.
In the days since Adam Smith penned his first thoughts on economics, engineers have taken us to the moon, physicists have split the atom, doctors invented antibiotics, philosophers invented human rights, chemists invented plastics, farmers quadrupled the per-acre food yield, programmers invented the internet, and much *much* more.
And economists, always backwards looking, now think that the Q-value might explain past crashes.
and fails to realize there are many differences between the '80's computer industry and the automotive industry. The computer industry suffered a massive shift because the computer was redefined from big iron to box on a desk. Standardization on one dominant OS changed the structure of the industry and what was important to a consumer. As long as your box ran Windows you didn't care who made it, beyond basic things such as cost, reliability, and perhaps upgradability. The hardware became a commodity and the manufacturers became less important. Cars, OTOH, are more than an OS in the dashboard and the manufacturers control the dashboard. Unlike computer manufactures they can still dictate what goes in their and sell the car on things beside "it runs CarPlay!!! OMG!!!" No one buys a Mustang, Camaro or Corvette for what is in the dash; nor do they buy a minivan for the dash either (beyond perhaps the ability to play videos to keep the rugrats quit on trips). manufacturers can and will differentiate their products, unlike computer manufacturers. They can even offer a choice of dashOS or put in what ever becomes the standard. Even industry attempts to standardize components , such as the DIN for radio size, have largely failed to drive standardization as a number manufacturers have gone to proprietary busses and dash cutouts in their cars. Computer manufacturers had to run Windows (says he who has used Apple products since the old Apple ][) and once they did that their box was very little different form anyone else's in the same price / spec range.
A better comparison would be to look at what is standardized on cars and vital to the car being useful, much as an OS is to a computer; i.e the fuel. Right now, hydrocarbon based rules is the one common denominator between most cars on the road. If Tesla could spark a movement to electrics and offer the same or better convince as current rules then the comparison to the 80's computer industry would make some sense; in that manufacturers who fail to find a way to differentiate their product will face significant challenges remaining relevant. Given that car manufacturers have a large number of years of experience doing just that I doubt even a shift to electric power will cause major upheavals in who actually builds cars, and something as trivial as an in dash OS will not even cause much of a hiccup. All the dashOS will do is decide who gets some royalty payments.
That would suck as a parent, particularly if your life experience back in India is that the best guy from a the equivalent second-tier-public-school has a worse career then their equivalent of Harvard.
Exactly. They are operating under beliefs that are not correct in a different context, not getting into Harvard means you are stuck in a second tier future. Personally, I'd hire someone who graduated in top 20% of a state school over someone in the bottom half of Harvard.
If web sites can't find a way to pay for the content and hosting then they eventually will go away. The consensus on/. seems to be "paywalls and ads are bad and screw those that use them I have a right to ad free and free access to content..." The problem isn't so much ads as the intrusive nature of some and their increasing use as malware delivery mechanisms. pop ups, self starting, animated ads are a real nuisance and worthy of blocking, as are tracking cookies etc. The advertising industry needs to find a way around that that doesn't annoy users because, while ad blocking users are probably a small fraction of all users currently, as things get worse more and more users will block ads. Whisk they are at it, they need to fix the problem that if I do see an ad I am interested in if I leave the page and come back the ad is no longer there.
Most Affirmative Action programs that have survived the court system look at the "whole student," so that a kid from a school system that has no AP classes doesn't get penalized for not having those classes, particularly compared to the kid whose Mom got them above 4.0 by refusing to let little Timmy take anything but the 5 AP classes offered his senior year. They look at the numbers, but they are allowed to consider the fact that, yes, little Timmy has GPA and test scores in the top 4%, but compared to his actual peers at $50k a year Prep Schools he's more like 12th percentile. OTOH Billy Bob from West Virginia was top in his class, spent time doing things that look shitty on a college resume (like hunting and car races), and he still got a test score in the top 5%.
Billy Bob could be taught to be the smartest man in the country.
You have pointe out the fundamental flaw with their argument; namely grades and test scores alone do not the student, nor college, make. If that were the case all schools would have to do is rank students based on their test score and grades and start going down the list until they fill up the class. SATs are important to schools because it impacts rankings, and thus applications; Harvard doesn't have to worry about it as much since they're well, Harvard. Getting a diverse class adds more to the college experience than having all the top scorers. Students bring their experiences with them and you learn from each other as well as form the professors. Thus, a whole person approach is a better one than grades and SATs alone.
That means some folks will get in with less impressive academic credentials but offer something more in another area; and thus were a better admissions choice. Of course, some people think grades aSAT alone should be the determinant. When I was in grad school we'd have admissions events for prospective applicants and I'd always hear "I got a near perfect GMAT and have a 4.0 undergrad so I should be a shoo-in for admission, right?" Sorry, but we have 600 GMATs and 2.0 undergrads who are great classmates because they are interesting and bring things to the table that you won't, based on their experiences. Guess what, they do fine in the class room as well. You, OTOH, don't pass the airline seat test so I'll be sure to remember your name when I see your application and simply toss it into the ding pile.
I wonder how much of the SAT / grades is a cultural thing; when people come from countries where grades and entrance exam scores pretty much dictate what school you will attend and thus expect the same principles to apply in US college admissions?
That's mindlessly bitter. First off, the internet has a frontier still... the deep web or dark web or whatever they want to call it is entirely unregulated... you can go to it right now and buy heroine with bitcoins or something if you want.
Certainly, as when civilization arrive she frontier gets pushed farther and farther away.
Also not when I say internet I don't mean it in the strict technical sense of the backbone that the web and other services use, but the vast ecosystem that has grown up around it.
Second, how does something die because civilization arrives?
I didn't say the internet died, I said That internet died - the one where companies weren't trying to get your information to market to you, where you could still advertising something for sale on USENET, send it off and actually get a check in the mail in payment. It was a different internet because gaining access wasn't as easy as signing up with an ISP, except in September when the newbies would get trolled until they caught on. Once there was money to be made a whole new group of people began using the net and its character changed forever. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just different an the old, original intent dies just like the wild west died once the ranchers and farmers and merchants arrived to stake their claims.
Much like the second and subsequent waves of settles in the US west changed it, the arrival of AOL and eternal September marked the beginning of significant changes in the internet.
As time went on, things that use to be ubiquitous, such as USENET, have been replaced to a large extent by the web. The terms hacker and trolling have taken on far more sinister meanings than their original ones.
So in the end, the explosive growth and arrival of commerce change dates internet into a far different place than it was even twenty years ago.
Your entire post makes no sense. I'm sitting here rereading it trying to find some redeemable thought you're trying to express and... there does not appear to be one. You're conflating concepts that don't mean the same thing and saying things that are patiently false.
Help me out here. Restate your position so it makes some sense.
Whatever happened to the fight for net neutrality?
Net neutrality is only good when it does what we want, not when it prevents someone from doing what we want, such as blocking ads. It's like copyright, bad when used to prevent freely copying copyrighted works, good when it forces someone to comply with the GPL.
Seriously, that is a common behavior. Just look at the small government Republicans that want the government to step in to force others to do things they view as right but to bug roff when someone wants it to stop them from dong what they want. Swap small government Republicans for liberal Democrats or any other group and you get the same result.
Their whole push is antithetical to the whole nature of the internet in the first place. Whomever is pushing this is doubtless someone that doesn't understand the internet at all. And that means they're incompetent to make these choices and shouldn't be in a position of power in the first place. Just boot those fools out and try again.
That internet died long ago. Just as with anything, the pioneers are pushed out once civilization arrives and starts paving streets, building stores and throwing up billboards.
Telecom companies had better learn already that with the advent of the Internet, their trade is to sell dumb pipes, competing with the others over the price of that service; the good times when they could milk their customers for “value added services” is over.
They've never been in the dumb pipe business, and never will be, at least not as long as they can avoid that. They're in the business of making money off of whatever data flows through their pipe and will always look for ways to increase that revenue; wether it's charging for faster delivery of content or getting a cut of ad revenue. That becomes more critical as content companies seek to find ways to sell content to consumers beyond the traditional cable model and start competing more directly with cable subscriptions. If they ever truly became a dumb pipe they'd either jack up rates or simply let that business wither or simply exit it as it becomes a low margin business.
are targeted to a specific audience. What is best depends on the audience. A manual aimed at a programmer may be written differently than one targeted at an end user, for example. While the basic content may be the same (examples, definitions, explanation of menus, etc.) how they are presented and in what detail may be very different. the main problem I see with manuals is they are often written by someone who may be a good programmer but has no idea who the audience is or what they need; which results in an end product that fails to meet the needs of the audience.
Noncompete is different from nonsolicit. If a couple of them had just left A123, no problem. But when they recruited other top talent after signing a nonsolicit agreement - lawsuit.
Most of the non-solicits I've seen prevent you from pursuing current customers, although not from them contacting you. As for not soliciting current employees, a recruiter can insulate you from that problem pretty easily.
It's obvious that the A123 employees left of their own accord. A123 doesn't hold any exclusive rights to those folks unless their under contract. If these folks were "at will" employees then by all means if a new deal comes along they should go. All of this begs the point that Apple shouldn't be paying a dime to A123 in this case. Employees are not slaves and it's time to get out of the mindset that they are pawns that can be traded or kept at the whim of some task master.
Exactly. It's called employment at will. Revenue down? Layoff staff? Can't pay your bills? Sorry, not my problem. Better job offer? Leave company. Can't complete important projects? Sorry, not my problem. Absent an enforceable non-compete it works both ways.
Domestic and Canada. I've flown to Toronto from LaGuardia.
Joking about the 51st state aside, IIRC international flights pre-clear coming in and are subject to the 1500 mile rule as well. Since you go from LGA to YYZ you do Canadian customs. If you go the other way, unless things have changed, you would clear US Customs in Canada. So I was incorrect to state domestic only, a more correct statement would be domestic within 1500 mile rule except for special exceptions and international outbound with the 1500 mile rule and international inbound that pre-clear.
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note, there is also an infinite number of shapes a manhole cover can have so that it cannot fall into the hole. But don't tell that to the interviewers.
Having asked that question in interviews, I didn't care what you answer d but was interested in how you came up with answers. Answering "so they don't fall in the hole right away is the least best answer.
There are always rare cases where someone is declared legally dead before word reaches their body, sometimes by many years. There will also always be people who voted by mail then die before the election. It's possible the law they were debating was for these sorts of things.
I doubt it. Carter's first election included ballot boxes with votes bundled together by rubber bands. If the county boss wanted you elected you got elected. Voters got their government check abd a filled out ballot at the same time. He went to court to secure his victory. He said it best when asked why he was qualified to oversee elections to identify fraud: 'I ran for election in Georgia.' His book on growing up in rural Georgia is a great read.
Whether cable tv, netflix, or amazon prime, people like to rent their television content by the month, and that isn't really Apple's thing.
They seem to be moving in that direction with the addition of HBO subscriptions to Apple TV. They could renegotiate deals with studios to rent bundles of shows and it Netflix to let people buy Netflix via the App store, for example. If they get enough AppleTV's into the hands of consumers so that they can significantly raise Netflix's subscriber base Netflix may just be willing to cut Apple in on the monthly fee. Alternatively, Apple could negotiate with content owners to create their own AppleFlix and offer a monthly service.
But they couldn't have differentiated themselves. The television market is highly competitive, with intense pressure driving manufacturers to minimum margins. For Apple to justify a price premium, they would have needed some sort of compelling features to differentiate it from every other television, and it seems that they weren't confident that they could do that.
Many of the things that differentiate them with other products (excellent build quality/fit and finish and the benefits of their vertical integration) don't really apply to a TV. You don't tend to notice build quality on something like a TV that you never really handle directly, and there isn't a huge amount to be gained in terms of vertical integration with a television versus connecting an external device by HDMI.
Exactly. TV's tend to be a low margins price sensitive business an that just isn't Apple's game. More importantly, virtually all of the advanced features they could build into a TV they could put into AppleTV and carve out the higher margin part of the TV business and leave the display manufacturers to fight it out. In auditor, building features into AppleTV means they can adapt to whatever display technology is popular without having to pick a winner as they would have to if they built a TV and the Apple TV can simply connect to a new display whenever an old one is replaced an thus Apple's connection with the end user is not lost when the TV is upgraded.
Why go into a low margin business where the technology isn't settled and you have no real advantage to be able to charge a premium that you can't already charge with an existing device?
I agree except there's no need for a human dispatcher.
True but the dispatch function is still down. the process is the same just how it is done changes with technology.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, some of these regulations are clear attempts to just protect the taxi industry from new models. On the other hand, some of the regulations (like having some basic insurance to cover if things go wrong) are pretty reasonable. On the gripping hand, both Uber and Lyft are both just blatantly ignoring regulations in many jurisdictions, and whether or not one thinks the laws should be there, it is hard to think that having cheaper car services is such a compellingly necessary service that it can morally or ethically justify ignoring laws.
If you wish to speak of morals and ethics, perhaps you should review the existing structure and their pricing model first.
There's a reason we have a compelling argument for competition here, and it's not because they have cooler looking cars.
There certainly is a compelling argument for competition, as there is for proper regulation. So when one looks at the existing structure the question becomes what parts of it need to be applicable to new entrants providing the same service, i.e a ride for hire? Uber et. al. are merely a modification of the existing call a taxi on a phone model and thus should be subject to similar regulatory oversight. You contact a dispatcher, they send an independent contractor to pick you up and take you to a location for a fee. They may not have a medallion on their car and may or may not own the car but the end result is the same - a ride to a location in exchange for money.
Of course the existing companies are fighting tooth and nail becasue there is a lot of money at stake. In locations where medallions are scarce people can have hundred of thousands of dollars tied up in medallions, the medallion may be the most valuable thing the company or individual owns. Uber threatens that by putting cars on the road, thus threatening to overcome the artificially constrained supply of cabs and make owning a medallion necessary and thus lowering the value of existing medallions. So one can expect the medallion owners, as well as those who lend money to people to buy them, to fight back. Interestingly enough a medallion is one expensive item that is tailored to people with poor or no credit, since as one lender put it "If they don't pay all I have to do is pry the medallion off of the hood. I can then resell it but they can no longer drive so they'll do anything needed to make their payments."
You can only "move to the center" if you're a third party. If the Democrats move to what was the center (as they keep doing and have kept doing over the last three or four decades), the center moves as a result and they're no longer at it. Worse, their attempt to look less extreme helps their opposition, which now also looks like it's closer to the center.
The Republicans understand this somewhat better, and have drifted to the right, knowing that this, too, moves the center, but moves it rightwards, leaving both parties looking slightly more extreme rather than just the party that's made the move.
What you are describing is the midpoint between party positions which doesn't necessarily represent the center of the voting population. So it's not so much establishing position close to theater sides but going for the sweet spot of the voting public. The other side may attempt to move their as well or move further to their extreme but that should not result in a move in reaction.
And you've never seen the requirement for a #2 pencil? Did you know that the manufacturers who created the #1 pencil were put out of business by the systematic collusion to allow only #2 pencils? #3 pencils, when they were invented, couldn't get a foothold the monopoly was so strong. It's a goddamned racket. ;-)
While I appreciate the sarcasm and humor in your post, there is a grain of truth to it. The British used to flood their graphite mines to prevent mining after the quota was met and strictly monitor miners going in and out. It's hard to believe but graphite was considered strategic and the UK had the world's best. There is a good book, called The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance, by Petroski, that details its history.
is that the party that moves to the center and focuses on issues that face most voters, such as the economy, financial security, etc. and doesn't let their lunatic fringe who focus on one issue, that the majority of voters either don't care about or don't agree with, decide what the party stands for will gain support. However, as long as candidates are decided by primaries and millennials don't vote in them the parties will not change. The one thing politicians fear more than lack of money is lack of voter support, and the first time a politician loses a primary because he or she pandered to the fringe of their party in order to win but winds up losing to a more mainstream candidate they will take notice. There is no wake up call like getting your butt whipped in a fight.
Just because dead people are registered to vote doesn't make it voter fraud (it makes it registration fraud, but that's completely different). Now, if you had dead people actually voting (setting IL aside), then you might have a problem. However, the linked article says:
The US State of Georgia debated a bill on how long a dead person should be allowed to vote. It was the first debate for a guy named Carter who was newly elected to the GA Senate. They settled on three years but I don't think they passed the bill.
member of United States Congress and House of Representatives ... collected wisdom
you could fit the resulting tome on a 3x5 card and still have 15 square inches of white space...
In the days since Adam Smith penned his first thoughts on economics, engineers have taken us to the moon, physicists have split the atom, doctors invented antibiotics, philosophers invented human rights, chemists invented plastics, farmers quadrupled the per-acre food yield, programmers invented the internet, and much *much* more.
And economists, always backwards looking, now think that the Q-value might explain past crashes.
What a world we live in!
\
Well, an economist did invent Marxism...
and fails to realize there are many differences between the '80's computer industry and the automotive industry. The computer industry suffered a massive shift because the computer was redefined from big iron to box on a desk. Standardization on one dominant OS changed the structure of the industry and what was important to a consumer. As long as your box ran Windows you didn't care who made it, beyond basic things such as cost, reliability, and perhaps upgradability. The hardware became a commodity and the manufacturers became less important. Cars, OTOH, are more than an OS in the dashboard and the manufacturers control the dashboard. Unlike computer manufactures they can still dictate what goes in their and sell the car on things beside "it runs CarPlay!!! OMG!!!" No one buys a Mustang, Camaro or Corvette for what is in the dash; nor do they buy a minivan for the dash either (beyond perhaps the ability to play videos to keep the rugrats quit on trips). manufacturers can and will differentiate their products, unlike computer manufacturers. They can even offer a choice of dashOS or put in what ever becomes the standard. Even industry attempts to standardize components , such as the DIN for radio size, have largely failed to drive standardization as a number manufacturers have gone to proprietary busses and dash cutouts in their cars. Computer manufacturers had to run Windows (says he who has used Apple products since the old Apple ][) and once they did that their box was very little different form anyone else's in the same price / spec range.
A better comparison would be to look at what is standardized on cars and vital to the car being useful, much as an OS is to a computer; i.e the fuel. Right now, hydrocarbon based rules is the one common denominator between most cars on the road. If Tesla could spark a movement to electrics and offer the same or better convince as current rules then the comparison to the 80's computer industry would make some sense; in that manufacturers who fail to find a way to differentiate their product will face significant challenges remaining relevant. Given that car manufacturers have a large number of years of experience doing just that I doubt even a shift to electric power will cause major upheavals in who actually builds cars, and something as trivial as an in dash OS will not even cause much of a hiccup. All the dashOS will do is decide who gets some royalty payments.
That would suck as a parent, particularly if your life experience back in India is that the best guy from a the equivalent second-tier-public-school has a worse career then their equivalent of Harvard.
Exactly. They are operating under beliefs that are not correct in a different context, not getting into Harvard means you are stuck in a second tier future. Personally, I'd hire someone who graduated in top 20% of a state school over someone in the bottom half of Harvard.
If web sites can't find a way to pay for the content and hosting then they eventually will go away. The consensus on /. seems to be "paywalls and ads are bad and screw those that use them I have a right to ad free and free access to content..." The problem isn't so much ads as the intrusive nature of some and their increasing use as malware delivery mechanisms. pop ups, self starting, animated ads are a real nuisance and worthy of blocking, as are tracking cookies etc. The advertising industry needs to find a way around that that doesn't annoy users because, while ad blocking users are probably a small fraction of all users currently, as things get worse more and more users will block ads. Whisk they are at it, they need to fix the problem that if I do see an ad I am interested in if I leave the page and come back the ad is no longer there.
Most Affirmative Action programs that have survived the court system look at the "whole student," so that a kid from a school system that has no AP classes doesn't get penalized for not having those classes, particularly compared to the kid whose Mom got them above 4.0 by refusing to let little Timmy take anything but the 5 AP classes offered his senior year. They look at the numbers, but they are allowed to consider the fact that, yes, little Timmy has GPA and test scores in the top 4%, but compared to his actual peers at $50k a year Prep Schools he's more like 12th percentile. OTOH Billy Bob from West Virginia was top in his class, spent time doing things that look shitty on a college resume (like hunting and car races), and he still got a test score in the top 5%.
Billy Bob could be taught to be the smartest man in the country.
You have pointe out the fundamental flaw with their argument; namely grades and test scores alone do not the student, nor college, make. If that were the case all schools would have to do is rank students based on their test score and grades and start going down the list until they fill up the class. SATs are important to schools because it impacts rankings, and thus applications; Harvard doesn't have to worry about it as much since they're well, Harvard. Getting a diverse class adds more to the college experience than having all the top scorers. Students bring their experiences with them and you learn from each other as well as form the professors. Thus, a whole person approach is a better one than grades and SATs alone.
That means some folks will get in with less impressive academic credentials but offer something more in another area; and thus were a better admissions choice. Of course, some people think grades aSAT alone should be the determinant. When I was in grad school we'd have admissions events for prospective applicants and I'd always hear "I got a near perfect GMAT and have a 4.0 undergrad so I should be a shoo-in for admission, right?" Sorry, but we have 600 GMATs and 2.0 undergrads who are great classmates because they are interesting and bring things to the table that you won't, based on their experiences. Guess what, they do fine in the class room as well. You, OTOH, don't pass the airline seat test so I'll be sure to remember your name when I see your application and simply toss it into the ding pile.
I wonder how much of the SAT / grades is a cultural thing; when people come from countries where grades and entrance exam scores pretty much dictate what school you will attend and thus expect the same principles to apply in US college admissions?
That's mindlessly bitter. First off, the internet has a frontier still... the deep web or dark web or whatever they want to call it is entirely unregulated... you can go to it right now and buy heroine with bitcoins or something if you want.
Certainly, as when civilization arrive she frontier gets pushed farther and farther away.
Also not when I say internet I don't mean it in the strict technical sense of the backbone that the web and other services use, but the vast ecosystem that has grown up around it.
Second, how does something die because civilization arrives?
I didn't say the internet died, I said That internet died - the one where companies weren't trying to get your information to market to you, where you could still advertising something for sale on USENET, send it off and actually get a check in the mail in payment. It was a different internet because gaining access wasn't as easy as signing up with an ISP, except in September when the newbies would get trolled until they caught on. Once there was money to be made a whole new group of people began using the net and its character changed forever. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just different an the old, original intent dies just like the wild west died once the ranchers and farmers and merchants arrived to stake their claims.
Much like the second and subsequent waves of settles in the US west changed it, the arrival of AOL and eternal September marked the beginning of significant changes in the internet.
As time went on, things that use to be ubiquitous, such as USENET, have been replaced to a large extent by the web. The terms hacker and trolling have taken on far more sinister meanings than their original ones.
So in the end, the explosive growth and arrival of commerce change dates internet into a far different place than it was even twenty years ago.
Your entire post makes no sense. I'm sitting here rereading it trying to find some redeemable thought you're trying to express and... there does not appear to be one. You're conflating concepts that don't mean the same thing and saying things that are patiently false.
Help me out here. Restate your position so it makes some sense.
Hope that helps. HAND
Whatever happened to the fight for net neutrality?
Net neutrality is only good when it does what we want, not when it prevents someone from doing what we want, such as blocking ads. It's like copyright, bad when used to prevent freely copying copyrighted works, good when it forces someone to comply with the GPL.
Seriously, that is a common behavior. Just look at the small government Republicans that want the government to step in to force others to do things they view as right but to bug roff when someone wants it to stop them from dong what they want. Swap small government Republicans for liberal Democrats or any other group and you get the same result.
Their whole push is antithetical to the whole nature of the internet in the first place. Whomever is pushing this is doubtless someone that doesn't understand the internet at all. And that means they're incompetent to make these choices and shouldn't be in a position of power in the first place. Just boot those fools out and try again.
That internet died long ago. Just as with anything, the pioneers are pushed out once civilization arrives and starts paving streets, building stores and throwing up billboards.
Telecom companies had better learn already that with the advent of the Internet, their trade is to sell dumb pipes, competing with the others over the price of that service; the good times when they could milk their customers for “value added services” is over.
They've never been in the dumb pipe business, and never will be, at least not as long as they can avoid that. They're in the business of making money off of whatever data flows through their pipe and will always look for ways to increase that revenue; wether it's charging for faster delivery of content or getting a cut of ad revenue. That becomes more critical as content companies seek to find ways to sell content to consumers beyond the traditional cable model and start competing more directly with cable subscriptions. If they ever truly became a dumb pipe they'd either jack up rates or simply let that business wither or simply exit it as it becomes a low margin business.
Incorrect, and arrogant. It IS hard to write well, it is a skill, it can be learned, and not many in the tech community have it.
"It isn't hard to code well, it just takes time" - said no writer, ever.
Anything is easy if you've never done it.
are targeted to a specific audience. What is best depends on the audience. A manual aimed at a programmer may be written differently than one targeted at an end user, for example. While the basic content may be the same (examples, definitions, explanation of menus, etc.) how they are presented and in what detail may be very different. the main problem I see with manuals is they are often written by someone who may be a good programmer but has no idea who the audience is or what they need; which results in an end product that fails to meet the needs of the audience.
Noncompete is different from nonsolicit. If a couple of them had just left A123, no problem. But when they recruited other top talent after signing a nonsolicit agreement - lawsuit.
Most of the non-solicits I've seen prevent you from pursuing current customers, although not from them contacting you. As for not soliciting current employees, a recruiter can insulate you from that problem pretty easily.
It's obvious that the A123 employees left of their own accord. A123 doesn't hold any exclusive rights to those folks unless their under contract. If these folks were "at will" employees then by all means if a new deal comes along they should go. All of this begs the point that Apple shouldn't be paying a dime to A123 in this case. Employees are not slaves and it's time to get out of the mindset that they are pawns that can be traded or kept at the whim of some task master.
Exactly. It's called employment at will. Revenue down? Layoff staff? Can't pay your bills? Sorry, not my problem. Better job offer? Leave company. Can't complete important projects? Sorry, not my problem. Absent an enforceable non-compete it works both ways.
Domestic and Canada. I've flown to Toronto from LaGuardia.
Joking about the 51st state aside, IIRC international flights pre-clear coming in and are subject to the 1500 mile rule as well. Since you go from LGA to YYZ you do Canadian customs. If you go the other way, unless things have changed, you would clear US Customs in Canada. So I was incorrect to state domestic only, a more correct statement would be domestic within 1500 mile rule except for special exceptions and international outbound with the 1500 mile rule and international inbound that pre-clear.