How often does this happen? 1/10th of a percent? Let's not make a big deal about a problem that is actually quite small...
Note that somewhere between 500K-1M persons are diagnosed with cancer each year and that ~550,000 die each year from the disease, a conservative estimate of somewhere between 5 and 15 million people are currently diagnosed with and being treated for cancer. If we take your 0.1% as a figure of cancellation, this means that we would have somewhere from 5-15K people who fall under your small problem - and that would be each year. Given that we have just undergone our annual week-long grief-fest for an attack that took only 2740 American lives, perhaps we should take just a little time to worry about things that destroy 2-5 as many lives each year. And, BTW, even though, as you termed it, "Pelosicare" (and, BTW, nice unecessary political troll there) does proscribe denial on pre-existing conditions, it does not proscribe raising rates to unsustainable levels once conditions are diagnosed. Of course, someone like you probably thinks that this is fine.
They're not still using MapReduce for the index. It's still supported in the framework for secondary computations where appropriate, and it's still used in some other Google services, but it's been straight-up replaced for the index. Colossus is not a new improved version of MapReduce, it's a completely different approach to maintaining the index.
Yes. it sounds like they're looking at their data structures as mainly static and propagating changes that result from input changes at each stage of the algorithm. The new changes are then rippled through the system - very dataflow-ish/forward-chaining-ish. If you have a large volume of mostly static data, it makes sense to reconfigure your algorithms in this form. Not only does it take less computational time (as you're only touching/computing items that have changed), but it's simpler to distribute, as the deltas are usually much smaller than the totality of items needed to recompute the output data and untouched data does not need to be moved. Now all they need to do is to postpone prospective forward-chained changes until they're needed to produce an output (or until the system is quiescent) and they should be close to a theoretical optimum as far as performance goes.
Tell that to Matthew Shepherd's family. Or anyone walking towards an abortion clinic, or performing abortions. Or black people in the American South in the 60s.
Now you're trying to tar an entire group with the actions of a radical few. These actions are not typical of most Chris... Oh wait...
But when it comes it Islam, people become cowards. Take the President talking about the Ground Zero Mosque project: 'As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,'... 'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.'
But when it comes to a Christian Church staging a protest: "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans that this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."
Oh I see!!! In the first case, he was defending religious tolerance and, in the second, he was defending religious tolerance. Jeez... that's so hypocritical of him!
Perhaps the 1.29 billion who have never done any harm should simply dismiss this guy as a lunatic and not get their panties all up in a bunch being offended over such a stupid action.
I would assume that the vast majority of the 1.29 billion spoken of here probably aren't getting their panties bunched. However, the few who are are enough to cause massive media stormage and a few of them may be PO'ed enough to go over to join the 0.01 billion who have done harm. I defend the moron's right to do what he's doing. I just question the wisdom - or is that somehow denigrating free speech these days?
Any public figure weighing in against any of these activities should be impeached immediately.
Ummm, no, they should not.
'Freedom' means freedom from opinion as well.
Wrong again, O Great Constitutional Scholar. If you don't want to hear what others are saying, you can always stick your fingers in your ears. You have no constitutional right to be shielded from speech that displeases you.
Those public servants surrendered their right to impune others for their protected speech the moment they were sworn in.
No, they did not. Free speech rights are rights for everyone, including those who have been elected to public office. Public servants should not arrest, imprison, prosecute, or otherwise harass those exercising their free speech rights (and are often called on the carpet by the courts when they attempt to do so), but calling someone a jackass and asking them not to be the same is not disallowed, which is about as far as anyone has gone in this case (and by "this case", I mean the whole Koran burning thing - which I happen to think is a stupid and ridiculous thing done by a rather repulsive fundamentalist publicity seeker masquerading as a preacher) and I would just as vehemently defend the people inveighing against the building of the Muslim Community Center, no matter how stupid their position is.
If they were still in the field seven years after the dot-com bubble burst and were qualified enough to stay employed in the field during that time, how can you call them "dot com bubblers"? I am seeing many good resumes (i.e., worth talking to, good employment history) for every position I can post (which are few and far between). Either you're relying on your HR department to do too much work for you (resulting in over-filtering), or you're being way too picky.
Let companies keep more of what they earn and they'll feel more comfortable hiring people, it's that simple.
Ummm, it's not that simple. In general, corporate earnings have been improving since Q1 2010 (when the "official" recession ended). Targeted business tax cuts were instituted in 2009 as part of the stimulus package. There are still not robust increases in hiring. If you look at financial reports for companies that are having increases in earnings you find that these corporations are either (a) hoarding cash, (b) using extra cash for acquisitions, or (c) instituting share buyback programs. None of these things "hire workers". In fact, choice (b) often depresses employment, as redundancies are eliminated in the merged entities. Nor is there any indication that lowering the tax rates further at this point would encourage corporations to hire more workers, either theoretically or empirically.
Do you actually observe the economy and research these things, or do you just get your talking points from Glenn Beck?
Re:Easy to make qualifications that nobody can mee
on
Tech Sector Slow To Hire
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
hey're already employed and fairly happy. If you want to get them to uproot and move to your company, your HR department is going to have to offer more than the standard "kinda above average" salary and "competitive" benefits.
Not necessarily sure about the "fairly happy". It may also be that in an insecure economy, the devil you know (and have experience with that might save you from a layoff) is better than the devil you don't. Either way, your solution is correct - a risk premium in salary or benefits are in order.
Don't worry! She'll pay it back in service as California's next Senator!!! I can't wait until she starts outsourcing citizen positions to India - we could cut Social Security and Medicare payments by 70%! Go, Carly!!!!!
With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.
If Libertarians can say that even minimal contribution to the commonweal via taxation is theft, why can't the Socialist say that the minimization of contribution via taxation is theft from the commonweal? I am sorry that the Libertarians made the discourse so vehement rather than rational, but it was their school who promoted this emotional meme to the point that rational discourse became impossible.
Happiness is something you should have the liberty to pursue. It's not something which should be given to people by the government.
Why not? Assuming that an external entity (government or otherwise) could grant one "happiness" (caveats about actual ability of doing so and different individuals' definitions of same being applied, etc.), why would you not want this external entity to do so? Is your Puritan streak so strong that you would deny your fellow citizens happiness because they were not the ones providing it for themselves? Would their happiness somehow be suspect because they were not the ones providing the means for the same? Do you also deny the right of children to be happy because their parents provide the resources for them to be happy rather than their own labors (I hear that coal mining is good for this)? If the external entity were a religion, with no cost to you, would you still deny these people their "unearned happiness"?
The main reason that I ask is because your opinion seems to be based on a knee-jerk anti-government bias rather than a sound philosophical reasoning about this issue. It makes you sound rather mean-spirited too, because your latter comments sound as if you derive much of your happiness from a belief that there is an inherent moral superiority in those who can provide enough income for their own happiness over those who cannot - you, being able to do so, are morally superior to those who cannot and, thus, you are happier due to your feeling of moral superiority. To this, I will only say that it is a small man who derives his happiness from the misfortune of others, just as it is a small man who envies those who have more than him.
There's no maybe about it. Of course, Steve was correct. Chairman Steve is always correct. People who don't believe this should report at the nearest re-education camp (or Apple store, whichever is closer).
A very good analogy, but I think glass blower is even better.
A young potter makes a beautiful vases, one that customers clamor for, but they frequently explode in the kiln.
Same way, but with the annealing oven in glass.
Later on they realize how much time they have wasted and begin to respect the limitations of their medium and re-think the whole process. Finally, they begin to redefine their old ideas; show off the aesthetics they desired earlier with the craftsmanship they developed.
And then they become Dale Chihuly, having his workshop turn out bunches of overpriced, mass-produced crap.
HR's the only one with the buzzword matching filter, and lord help any IT department that lets HR do the actual hiring!
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I've been in this business over thirty years now and have never seen an HR department that had any say whatsoever in hiring. They can tell you what salary ranges you can pay a person based on title, they can help you verify previous employment, but I've never seen one that has final approval authority - in every case, that lies with the hiring manager and people higher up the food chain. Granted HR is fun to bash, because they hold the keys to the matching algorithm, but if you have a big enough network as a manager, you never have people go through the filter anyway. I'm serious when I ask if this is actually an issue anywhere - that HR makes hiring decisions? Because I've never seen it.
It's just amusing that a person who once went in front of Congress to protest against the colorization of The Three Stooges is one of the biggest film revisionists of all time at this point.
His position was absolutely consistent. His protest against colorizing the Stooges was correct - you don't mess with the classics (To those that object to the usage of The Stooges and "classic" in the same breath, I ask which you would rather see, "Three Little Pigskins" - also starring a very young Lucille Ball - or "Star Wars Episode I: The Coming of the Trade War"? And besides, if you do object, you're probably a woman.) Of course, recognizing his own stuff as the schlock it is, he's perfectly free to make any changes he wants in it. I think a cross-dressing Jabba the Hutt would be nice for the next "Director's Edition", don't you think?
The thing is that you don't actually need a Ku-band dish - you can just place a multiband feedhorn assembly like this on the larger dish and use it for whichever band you want. I figure if you're going to pay for the rotation equipment to shove around a 3m dish (which you'll need to get maximum use of the C-Band facilities) another couple hundred for a fancy switchable feedhorn plus appropriate LNBs isn't going to be out of your price range.
In particular the problem is that a significant percentage of new nurses can't get hired because there are policy (and regulatory? dunno) reasons that you can't have too high a percentage of staff being new graduates, due to their lack of experience.
This is not a regulatory issue. It is entirely policy-driven. Why? Insurance rates go down based on the mean-time of experience at an institution. More inexperienced personnel = higher insurance rates.
God, I love our heath care system. It's so much better than anyone else's in the world - at least with respect to the number of people who are able to make money from it...
And the open source model is gradually showing people that they don't have to pay $$$ for good quality software.
I'd dispute this somewhat. Sure, mundane, run-of-the-mill stuff has been nailed. But OSS stuff can still have a lot of rough edges (see just about any Linux audio app for an example). And I still can't find apps in particular categories from open source (i.e., accounting, audio production, etc.) that work as well as various proprietary packages. This is why I still pay money for some packages.
The one good thing that OSS has done is to lower the egregious margins on some product categories (namely, OSes, system/utility programs, etc.), but contrary to popular opinion, neither OSS or Google have taken a significant bite out of MS Office revenues. In addition, Apple has built a very nice living on a partially proprietary stack. So, all-in-all, I'd say that the impact of OSS on computers has been somewhat muted. And it's pretty much been a no-op on newer platforms (like phones, tablets, etc.) where most customers pay a manufacturer's app store for software that runs within their walled garden.
In 1996, the US Congress decided to sell off the strategic reserve and the consequence was that the market was swelled with cheap helium because its price was not determined by the market.
Uh, what? If the helium was sold and not given away, bled into the atmosphere, or some other odd thing done to it, the price was determined by the market. You may question the wisdom of putting it all on the market at the same time and getting a lower price for it than if you doled it out bit-by-bit, but I think the market did fine in determining the price in a glutted market.
This is the problem when you get experts in one field (in this case physics) talking about things in other fields, like economics - quite often, they are no better informed then any other layman. If the government buys and/or sells something on the open market, it's part of the market, umkayyy? And you don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to understand this. The fact that this was wrapped up in a nasty little bit of anti-government sentiment makes it clear that Richardson was more interested in scoring political points than enlightening the public.
Slashdot Mirror
We know that Mbaba Mwana Waresa exists! We have beer as proof!
How often does this happen? 1/10th of a percent? Let's not make a big deal about a problem that is actually quite small...
Note that somewhere between 500K-1M persons are diagnosed with cancer each year and that ~550,000 die each year from the disease, a conservative estimate of somewhere between 5 and 15 million people are currently diagnosed with and being treated for cancer. If we take your 0.1% as a figure of cancellation, this means that we would have somewhere from 5-15K people who fall under your small problem - and that would be each year. Given that we have just undergone our annual week-long grief-fest for an attack that took only 2740 American lives, perhaps we should take just a little time to worry about things that destroy 2-5 as many lives each year. And, BTW, even though, as you termed it, "Pelosicare" (and, BTW, nice unecessary political troll there) does proscribe denial on pre-existing conditions, it does not proscribe raising rates to unsustainable levels once conditions are diagnosed. Of course, someone like you probably thinks that this is fine.
They're not still using MapReduce for the index. It's still supported in the framework for secondary computations where appropriate, and it's still used in some other Google services, but it's been straight-up replaced for the index. Colossus is not a new improved version of MapReduce, it's a completely different approach to maintaining the index.
Yes. it sounds like they're looking at their data structures as mainly static and propagating changes that result from input changes at each stage of the algorithm. The new changes are then rippled through the system - very dataflow-ish/forward-chaining-ish. If you have a large volume of mostly static data, it makes sense to reconfigure your algorithms in this form. Not only does it take less computational time (as you're only touching/computing items that have changed), but it's simpler to distribute, as the deltas are usually much smaller than the totality of items needed to recompute the output data and untouched data does not need to be moved. Now all they need to do is to postpone prospective forward-chained changes until they're needed to produce an output (or until the system is quiescent) and they should be close to a theoretical optimum as far as performance goes.
Tell that to Matthew Shepherd's family. Or anyone walking towards an abortion clinic, or performing abortions. Or black people in the American South in the 60s.
Now you're trying to tar an entire group with the actions of a radical few. These actions are not typical of most Chris... Oh wait...
But when it comes it Islam, people become cowards. Take the President talking about the Ground Zero Mosque project: 'As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,' ... 'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.'
But when it comes to a Christian Church staging a protest: "If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans that this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."
Oh I see!!! In the first case, he was defending religious tolerance and, in the second, he was defending religious tolerance. Jeez... that's so hypocritical of him!
Perhaps the 1.29 billion who have never done any harm should simply dismiss this guy as a lunatic and not get their panties all up in a bunch being offended over such a stupid action.
I would assume that the vast majority of the 1.29 billion spoken of here probably aren't getting their panties bunched. However, the few who are are enough to cause massive media stormage and a few of them may be PO'ed enough to go over to join the 0.01 billion who have done harm. I defend the moron's right to do what he's doing. I just question the wisdom - or is that somehow denigrating free speech these days?
What's your solution?
Never get involved in a land war in Asia?
Clearly, Canada has a world-wide reputation for being oppressive, right?
Of course, but we're rethinking this stance due to your teams' dismal performances in the NHL lately.
Any public figure weighing in against any of these activities should be impeached immediately.
Ummm, no, they should not.
'Freedom' means freedom from opinion as well.
Wrong again, O Great Constitutional Scholar. If you don't want to hear what others are saying, you can always stick your fingers in your ears. You have no constitutional right to be shielded from speech that displeases you.
Those public servants surrendered their right to impune others for their protected speech the moment they were sworn in.
No, they did not. Free speech rights are rights for everyone, including those who have been elected to public office. Public servants should not arrest, imprison, prosecute, or otherwise harass those exercising their free speech rights (and are often called on the carpet by the courts when they attempt to do so), but calling someone a jackass and asking them not to be the same is not disallowed, which is about as far as anyone has gone in this case (and by "this case", I mean the whole Koran burning thing - which I happen to think is a stupid and ridiculous thing done by a rather repulsive fundamentalist publicity seeker masquerading as a preacher) and I would just as vehemently defend the people inveighing against the building of the Muslim Community Center, no matter how stupid their position is.
... and they have a ready supply of serfs to keep them that way.
And since they might eventually run out, they're always making more!
If they were still in the field seven years after the dot-com bubble burst and were qualified enough to stay employed in the field during that time, how can you call them "dot com bubblers"? I am seeing many good resumes (i.e., worth talking to, good employment history) for every position I can post (which are few and far between). Either you're relying on your HR department to do too much work for you (resulting in over-filtering), or you're being way too picky.
Let companies keep more of what they earn and they'll feel more comfortable hiring people, it's that simple.
Ummm, it's not that simple. In general, corporate earnings have been improving since Q1 2010 (when the "official" recession ended). Targeted business tax cuts were instituted in 2009 as part of the stimulus package. There are still not robust increases in hiring. If you look at financial reports for companies that are having increases in earnings you find that these corporations are either (a) hoarding cash, (b) using extra cash for acquisitions, or (c) instituting share buyback programs. None of these things "hire workers". In fact, choice (b) often depresses employment, as redundancies are eliminated in the merged entities. Nor is there any indication that lowering the tax rates further at this point would encourage corporations to hire more workers, either theoretically or empirically.
Do you actually observe the economy and research these things, or do you just get your talking points from Glenn Beck?
hey're already employed and fairly happy. If you want to get them to uproot and move to your company, your HR department is going to have to offer more than the standard "kinda above average" salary and "competitive" benefits.
Not necessarily sure about the "fairly happy". It may also be that in an insecure economy, the devil you know (and have experience with that might save you from a layoff) is better than the devil you don't. Either way, your solution is correct - a risk premium in salary or benefits are in order.
Wikipedia has a lousy handle on C. If you don't see this, your adherence to the idea of Wikipedia is blinding you to the reality of Wikipedia.
In addition, the vetting of initial information so that people can make minor changes at a later time is pretty bad, too.
Someone tell Carly she owes us.
Don't worry! She'll pay it back in service as California's next Senator!!! I can't wait until she starts outsourcing citizen positions to India - we could cut Social Security and Medicare payments by 70%! Go, Carly!!!!!
With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.
If Libertarians can say that even minimal contribution to the commonweal via taxation is theft, why can't the Socialist say that the minimization of contribution via taxation is theft from the commonweal? I am sorry that the Libertarians made the discourse so vehement rather than rational, but it was their school who promoted this emotional meme to the point that rational discourse became impossible.
Happiness is something you should have the liberty to pursue. It's not something which should be given to people by the government.
Why not? Assuming that an external entity (government or otherwise) could grant one "happiness" (caveats about actual ability of doing so and different individuals' definitions of same being applied, etc.), why would you not want this external entity to do so? Is your Puritan streak so strong that you would deny your fellow citizens happiness because they were not the ones providing it for themselves? Would their happiness somehow be suspect because they were not the ones providing the means for the same? Do you also deny the right of children to be happy because their parents provide the resources for them to be happy rather than their own labors (I hear that coal mining is good for this)? If the external entity were a religion, with no cost to you, would you still deny these people their "unearned happiness"?
The main reason that I ask is because your opinion seems to be based on a knee-jerk anti-government bias rather than a sound philosophical reasoning about this issue. It makes you sound rather mean-spirited too, because your latter comments sound as if you derive much of your happiness from a belief that there is an inherent moral superiority in those who can provide enough income for their own happiness over those who cannot - you, being able to do so, are morally superior to those who cannot and, thus, you are happier due to your feeling of moral superiority. To this, I will only say that it is a small man who derives his happiness from the misfortune of others, just as it is a small man who envies those who have more than him.
There's no maybe about it. Of course, Steve was correct. Chairman Steve is always correct. People who don't believe this should report at the nearest re-education camp (or Apple store, whichever is closer).
Honestly, potter comes to mind.
A very good analogy, but I think glass blower is even better.
A young potter makes a beautiful vases, one that customers clamor for, but they frequently explode in the kiln.
Same way, but with the annealing oven in glass.
Later on they realize how much time they have wasted and begin to respect the limitations of their medium and re-think the whole process. Finally, they begin to redefine their old ideas; show off the aesthetics they desired earlier with the craftsmanship they developed.
And then they become Dale Chihuly, having his workshop turn out bunches of overpriced, mass-produced crap.
HR's the only one with the buzzword matching filter, and lord help any IT department that lets HR do the actual hiring!
Perhaps I'm lucky, but I've been in this business over thirty years now and have never seen an HR department that had any say whatsoever in hiring. They can tell you what salary ranges you can pay a person based on title, they can help you verify previous employment, but I've never seen one that has final approval authority - in every case, that lies with the hiring manager and people higher up the food chain. Granted HR is fun to bash, because they hold the keys to the matching algorithm, but if you have a big enough network as a manager, you never have people go through the filter anyway. I'm serious when I ask if this is actually an issue anywhere - that HR makes hiring decisions? Because I've never seen it.
It's just amusing that a person who once went in front of Congress to protest against the colorization of The Three Stooges is one of the biggest film revisionists of all time at this point.
His position was absolutely consistent. His protest against colorizing the Stooges was correct - you don't mess with the classics (To those that object to the usage of The Stooges and "classic" in the same breath, I ask which you would rather see, "Three Little Pigskins" - also starring a very young Lucille Ball - or "Star Wars Episode I: The Coming of the Trade War"? And besides, if you do object, you're probably a woman.) Of course, recognizing his own stuff as the schlock it is, he's perfectly free to make any changes he wants in it. I think a cross-dressing Jabba the Hutt would be nice for the next "Director's Edition", don't you think?
The thing is that you don't actually need a Ku-band dish - you can just place a multiband feedhorn assembly like this on the larger dish and use it for whichever band you want. I figure if you're going to pay for the rotation equipment to shove around a 3m dish (which you'll need to get maximum use of the C-Band facilities) another couple hundred for a fancy switchable feedhorn plus appropriate LNBs isn't going to be out of your price range.
In particular the problem is that a significant percentage of new nurses can't get hired because there are policy (and regulatory? dunno) reasons that you can't have too high a percentage of staff being new graduates, due to their lack of experience.
This is not a regulatory issue. It is entirely policy-driven. Why? Insurance rates go down based on the mean-time of experience at an institution. More inexperienced personnel = higher insurance rates.
God, I love our heath care system. It's so much better than anyone else's in the world - at least with respect to the number of people who are able to make money from it...
And the open source model is gradually showing people that they don't have to pay $$$ for good quality software.
I'd dispute this somewhat. Sure, mundane, run-of-the-mill stuff has been nailed. But OSS stuff can still have a lot of rough edges (see just about any Linux audio app for an example). And I still can't find apps in particular categories from open source (i.e., accounting, audio production, etc.) that work as well as various proprietary packages. This is why I still pay money for some packages.
The one good thing that OSS has done is to lower the egregious margins on some product categories (namely, OSes, system/utility programs, etc.), but contrary to popular opinion, neither OSS or Google have taken a significant bite out of MS Office revenues. In addition, Apple has built a very nice living on a partially proprietary stack. So, all-in-all, I'd say that the impact of OSS on computers has been somewhat muted. And it's pretty much been a no-op on newer platforms (like phones, tablets, etc.) where most customers pay a manufacturer's app store for software that runs within their walled garden.
In 1996, the US Congress decided to sell off the strategic reserve and the consequence was that the market was swelled with cheap helium because its price was not determined by the market.
Uh, what? If the helium was sold and not given away, bled into the atmosphere, or some other odd thing done to it, the price was determined by the market. You may question the wisdom of putting it all on the market at the same time and getting a lower price for it than if you doled it out bit-by-bit, but I think the market did fine in determining the price in a glutted market.
This is the problem when you get experts in one field (in this case physics) talking about things in other fields, like economics - quite often, they are no better informed then any other layman. If the government buys and/or sells something on the open market, it's part of the market, umkayyy? And you don't need to be a Nobel Laureate to understand this. The fact that this was wrapped up in a nasty little bit of anti-government sentiment makes it clear that Richardson was more interested in scoring political points than enlightening the public.