Why is it that I'm the dick for not wanting to waste another second on a bad candidate? When the job description explicitly states 10 years experience, excellent command of object oriented programming, well versed in design patterns, etc. etc. When you walk in with your 'Teach yourself visual basic in 21 days' book and a pet project that would make the Daily WTF for a month straight - you're wasting my time in a big way. Especially if you think you are or pretend to be qualified for the job and it takes me 15min or longer to figure it out. Once it's obvious you're an idiot you get a "this isn't the job for you, thanks, bye" - and don't call me a dick if I sound angry.
It's another story if the interview went well but you ultimately went with someone else. By that time you've already developed something of a rapport with the candidate though and would feel compelled to not leave him hanging.
In my experience the "people tossing the bone" were also generally stupid in regards to recognizing technical merit and being able to assess my contribution from an engineering point of view. $12 million sounds fantastic, but I would have to consider the big picture ($12 million bonus over 4 years split 24 ways for a project that generates say $20 million a month I wouldn't be very happy about).
Just knowing that Larry and Sergey are engineers themselves I tend to believe that whatever they decide would be fair from an engineering point of view.
Personally I don't place that much value on the idea, but all of the ideas that make up the solution as a whole. As a software architect myself I think that people are all having great ideas all the time but very few can actually build a solution that works and scales. It's the architect in any project solving most of the problems with their own ideas. Someone had an idea for an internet search engine - brilliant! That idea actually creates problems.. then the engineers begin thinking up ideas to solve those problems. Ideas like page rank and map reduce etc. By the time there is a finished product you can look at all the ideas and the distribution of mindshare thereof and better assess what people deserve the recognition for the accomplishment.
Of course there are non technical ideas and accomplishments as well and the actual reward is more a function of risk than a tally of good ideas - but when it comes down to the money, perspective is often lost to that persuasive green monster. Sorry for rambling but your response made me realize that I sounded like the kind of person who thinks the original idea deserves all the credit.
I agree with you that it is a good relationship between Google and employee where your 20% project is like renting their business and the synergy flourishes - but the rewards are obviously limited as you simply can't be risking much on your paid free time. But if you're financially content then the real reward is seeing the project become successful.. I presume most Google employees are financially content.
What if you really want to make billions? Is Google just not the place for people like that?
You have to compare apples to apples. Of course the market cap for advertising on the internet is higher than vacuum cleaners and video games - that's no secret, and I don't think anybody is wondering why Google generates more revenue than Dyson or iD. Google dominated the search engine scene because they had the best search engine - to argue otherwise is discounting their technical achievements.
wow.. so the page ranking and map reduce algorithms, vectorization of very difficult indexing strategies over a novel data model implemented over a grid of customize linux kernels had nothing to do with it?!
What if your idea is one that would generate revenue other than by advertising? Would Google still back it?..and if they did and it was wildly successful revenue-generating wise would they setup some kind of profit sharing for you or would you just get a bonus and get back to work?
I think I would enjoy my ideas seeing success thanks to Google's infrastructure and marketing power - but is it worth it if all you get is a bonus from what would otherwise change your life forever?
I guess it all depends on those financial rewards you speak of.. and ultimately that comes down to the execs deciding how large a bone to toss you, right? From my personal experience - the people tossing the bone will always undervalue your contribution, and I don't mean 60/40 it's more like 95/5.
Instead of placing the sheet in your scanner maybe you could just hold it up to a camera. It would take a pretty high res camera to decode 256gb in 300dpi circles and squares but maybe 256gb is overkill anyways.
Maybe a good compromise would be something like black and white vertical bars of varying widths - then you could use a simple laser to read it!
The image in the link you provided is very misleading. It would have you believe that the waveform generated from the digital samples has a very jagged edge. In reality the waveform is interpolated smoothly between the available samples and there is very little difference between the 3.
Theoretically, string theory makes testable predictions and that makes the statement 'string theory makes testable predictions' a meta theory without technically fulfilling the requirements to be a theory itself and validates string theory by asserting an infinite regress which allows string theory the theory to ultimately make a testable prediction. Likewise, the statement 'theoretically, string theory makes testable predictions' can be made valid with the meta meta statement: Theoretically, in theory, string theory makes testable predictions.
Finally, all doubt can be laid to rest by validating the meta meta theory with: In theory, theoretically, in theory, string theory makes testable predictions!
ADD is running rampant in America. I think it might have something to do with all the MSG in our food.
It's so bad almost everyone I talk to on a daily basis doesn't hear a word I say. It's like I'm not speaking english and they're just talking at me about what they think I said or what they think I think. It could also have something to do with their deeply rooted arrogance that causes them to stop reading after the first few sentences and think something like, "what an idiot", then presumptuously answer a question that if they'd read your entire email would be obviously only part of the question or have nothing to do with the real problem.
Next time you write an email to an American try this: - Disarm his raging ego up front with a "Thank you so much" or "You've been incredibly helpful" - Try to anticipate his presumptions and deflect them up front by stating them yourself - Leave out all the bullshit (right then, you know, bobs your uncle, horses for courses) - Don't sign or end your email in anyway. This will keep him from peripherally seeing that he's almost read the whole thing.
I think what he meant is that AI is not the path to new intelligence. At the basis of all this singularity stuff is the assumption that we can synthesize human intelligence and then go beyond what humans are capable of simply by scaling up the design.
The flaw is the assumption that the human brain is scalable architecture. The OP also seems to be suggesting that intelligence itself is not something that can scale so to speak.
As usual, Wikipedia provides a neutral point of view. However, the mysterious deaths of all those people involved sure look suspicious.
I think the mission should have prioritized irrefutable proof of their success. They could've accomplished this by leaving something behind that was visible from earth. Perhaps a larger flag or a beacon.
This becomes a problem once you take that step and declare that your soul is something that can be duplicated. If I am the network of neurons in my brain and nothing more, then I can be copied.
If a teleporter were to scan my neural network, create a copy, and destroy the original. Would I still be alive?
From anyone else's perspective I was teleported and am alive and well. But my perspective ended at that 'destroy' part. So who really occupies the copy that was made?
Same paradox with being frozen to death. When the body is re-animated, is it really me?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that I'm the dick for not wanting to waste another second on a bad candidate? When the job description explicitly states 10 years experience, excellent command of object oriented programming, well versed in design patterns, etc. etc. When you walk in with your 'Teach yourself visual basic in 21 days' book and a pet project that would make the Daily WTF for a month straight - you're wasting my time in a big way. Especially if you think you are or pretend to be qualified for the job and it takes me 15min or longer to figure it out. Once it's obvious you're an idiot you get a "this isn't the job for you, thanks, bye" - and don't call me a dick if I sound angry.
It's another story if the interview went well but you ultimately went with someone else. By that time you've already developed something of a rapport with the candidate though and would feel compelled to not leave him hanging.
I thought any number divided by zero = infinity
I can't hand you -1 oranges either
that'd be taking one of my oranges
ORDER BY adcost DESC
The is a stop word and will most likely be excluded from your search term.
In my experience the "people tossing the bone" were also generally stupid in regards to recognizing technical merit and being able to assess my contribution from an engineering point of view. $12 million sounds fantastic, but I would have to consider the big picture ($12 million bonus over 4 years split 24 ways for a project that generates say $20 million a month I wouldn't be very happy about).
Just knowing that Larry and Sergey are engineers themselves I tend to believe that whatever they decide would be fair from an engineering point of view.
Personally I don't place that much value on the idea, but all of the ideas that make up the solution as a whole. As a software architect myself I think that people are all having great ideas all the time but very few can actually build a solution that works and scales. It's the architect in any project solving most of the problems with their own ideas. Someone had an idea for an internet search engine - brilliant! That idea actually creates problems.. then the engineers begin thinking up ideas to solve those problems. Ideas like page rank and map reduce etc. By the time there is a finished product you can look at all the ideas and the distribution of mindshare thereof and better assess what people deserve the recognition for the accomplishment.
Of course there are non technical ideas and accomplishments as well and the actual reward is more a function of risk than a tally of good ideas - but when it comes down to the money, perspective is often lost to that persuasive green monster. Sorry for rambling but your response made me realize that I sounded like the kind of person who thinks the original idea deserves all the credit.
I agree with you that it is a good relationship between Google and employee where your 20% project is like renting their business and the synergy flourishes - but the rewards are obviously limited as you simply can't be risking much on your paid free time. But if you're financially content then the real reward is seeing the project become successful.. I presume most Google employees are financially content.
What if you really want to make billions? Is Google just not the place for people like that?
You have to compare apples to apples. Of course the market cap for advertising on the internet is higher than vacuum cleaners and video games - that's no secret, and I don't think anybody is wondering why Google generates more revenue than Dyson or iD. Google dominated the search engine scene because they had the best search engine - to argue otherwise is discounting their technical achievements.
wow.. so the page ranking and map reduce algorithms, vectorization of very difficult indexing strategies over a novel data model implemented over a grid of customize linux kernels had nothing to do with it?!
What if your idea is one that would generate revenue other than by advertising? ..and if they did and it was wildly successful revenue-generating wise would they setup some kind of profit sharing for you or would you just get a bonus and get back to work?
Would Google still back it?
I think I would enjoy my ideas seeing success thanks to Google's infrastructure and marketing power - but is it worth it if all you get is a bonus from what would otherwise change your life forever?
I guess it all depends on those financial rewards you speak of.. and ultimately that comes down to the execs deciding how large a bone to toss you, right? From my personal experience - the people tossing the bone will always undervalue your contribution, and I don't mean 60/40 it's more like 95/5.
Instead of placing the sheet in your scanner maybe you could just hold it up to a camera. It would take a pretty high res camera to decode 256gb in 300dpi circles and squares but maybe 256gb is overkill anyways.
Maybe a good compromise would be something like black and white vertical bars of varying widths - then you could use a simple laser to read it!
I know the trend is single socket multi core but with the gpu embedded dual and quad sockets instead of sli!
The image in the link you provided is very misleading. It would have you believe that the waveform generated from the digital samples has a very jagged edge. In reality the waveform is interpolated smoothly between the available samples and there is very little difference between the 3.
Theoretically, string theory makes testable predictions and that makes the statement 'string theory makes testable predictions' a meta theory without technically fulfilling the requirements to be a theory itself and validates string theory by asserting an infinite regress which allows string theory the theory to ultimately make a testable prediction. Likewise, the statement 'theoretically, string theory makes testable predictions' can be made valid with the meta meta statement: Theoretically, in theory, string theory makes testable predictions.
Finally, all doubt can be laid to rest by validating the meta meta theory with:
In theory, theoretically, in theory, string theory makes testable predictions!
that direct link to a 56mb file (for 17 seconds of footage!) will be the most expensive part of the project
The architecture for this is summed up in an image with 3 circles - I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
2 hours?r ary/es-nweb.html
it took me 20 seconds to google for and find a complete web server in under 200 lines of code
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/eserver/lib
ADD is running rampant in America. I think it might have something to do with all the MSG in our food.
It's so bad almost everyone I talk to on a daily basis doesn't hear a word I say. It's like I'm not speaking english and they're just talking at me about what they think I said or what they think I think. It could also have something to do with their deeply rooted arrogance that causes them to stop reading after the first few sentences and think something like, "what an idiot", then presumptuously answer a question that if they'd read your entire email would be obviously only part of the question or have nothing to do with the real problem.
Next time you write an email to an American try this:
- Disarm his raging ego up front with a "Thank you so much" or "You've been incredibly helpful"
- Try to anticipate his presumptions and deflect them up front by stating them yourself
- Leave out all the bullshit (right then, you know, bobs your uncle, horses for courses)
- Don't sign or end your email in anyway. This will keep him from peripherally seeing that he's almost read the whole thing.
Smart, Pretty, Monogamous
Isn't Intermediate Language in .NET stack based?
Try a Sam Adams Summer Ale.
It's a seasonal brew only available til august.
Of course you need to try our micro brews - Gordon Biersch, Karl Strauss, BJ's etc. Checkout http://www.beertown.org/ to find one near you.
Correction, all Anheuser Busch beers taste like carbonated water.
Samuel Adams is a fine American beer.
I think what he meant is that AI is not the path to new intelligence. At the basis of all this singularity stuff is the assumption that we can synthesize human intelligence and then go beyond what humans are capable of simply by scaling up the design.
The flaw is the assumption that the human brain is scalable architecture. The OP also seems to be suggesting that intelligence itself is not something that can scale so to speak.
I haven't a clue about the sherlock bits.
As usual, Wikipedia provides a neutral point of view. However, the mysterious deaths of all those people involved sure look suspicious.
I think the mission should have prioritized irrefutable proof of their success. They could've accomplished this by leaving something behind that was visible from earth. Perhaps a larger flag or a beacon.
It's easy to make impressive statements like that when you know nobody will be around to prove you wrong!
This becomes a problem once you take that step and declare that your soul is something that can be duplicated. If I am the network of neurons in my brain and nothing more, then I can be copied.
If a teleporter were to scan my neural network, create a copy, and destroy the original. Would I still be alive?
From anyone else's perspective I was teleported and am alive and well. But my perspective ended at that 'destroy' part. So who really occupies the copy that was made?
Same paradox with being frozen to death. When the body is re-animated, is it really me?