In this case the more qualified candidate for the needs of the company is getting paid more, as it should be.
He's a "fresh college grad", in other words he's completely and utterly worthless. There is no such thing as a qualified college grad, not in IT, not in any other (professional) industry. Not that this is something shocking or anything; college gives you the skills to learn to do your job, nothing more.
This sounds like a simple case of someone's nephew getting the right buzzword on his resume.
But no amount of general experience will make up for not having the skills his position and company needs you to know.
This could be true, if the skills in question were along the lines of "5 years experience working with X" not "I took a class in X".
Yes we do. We have a whole branch of science concerning the matter.
Sure we do, it's just that so far they have not come up with anything concrete. Oh, they've done lots of work poking around the edges, but the main question is still pretty much the same - what is intelligence? Perhaps "not the faintest beginnings" was a little strong, I'll rephrase as "have not made consistent progress towards" understanding intelligence.
Which is precisely why I asked: the grandparent post sounds suspiciously like semi-mystical pseudophilosophy that gets thrown around because people don't actually want to know how their minds work and prefer to think them as magical.
Which is fair, and a lot of people do like to think that way, but there is a difference between not wanting to and admitting that we don't (yet).
No, but you can throw data at a sufficiently complex machine and expect it to learn. That's how humans acquire their initial working knowledge of the world.
Sure, but it's the "sufficiently complex" part that's the problem, so far we're working with trivially simple ones.
Or, 75 years from now, we do discover a practically unlimited free energy source, which makes all previous technological advancements laughable in comparison.
You're trying to quantify the unknown. That typically doesn't work well.
Looking at the sweep of physics over the 20th century, it seems like most of the really big breakthroughs were achieved using tools that by today's standards were laughably primitive.
Doesn't that sort of imply that widespread application of discoveries made today will be seen when today's tools are considered laughably primitive?
Until bankers and high-frequency traders discover a Unified Field Theory
To be fair, they probably would, if they took a few weeks off from making massive stacks of cash. If you don't think that's where many of the most talented "big boys" are, you're deluding yourself out of some naive sense of misplaced idealism.
Horsepower? Sure, I've never cared much about that (most cars are "good enough" for my needs). Handling and "design", though? Not so much. Somehow I can't picture handling being less important than dicking around on twitter, or whatever.
Someone better invent a new format fast, else how am I going to pay for Star Wars again next year? (That's after the Blu-ray Remastered and Blu-ray Collectors' editions, of course).
The fact that I couldn't pull the drive or that corruption might take things down doesn't concern me too much because if I wasn't using Btrfs I'd be using Ext4 and I wouldn't imagine it would be any better.
Corruption-wise Ext4 better as hell be better than Btrfs, since it was released as stable over two years ago.
so the entire genome is only 850,000,000 bytes which is 810.6MB
You'd have to include the sequencing data, not just the final call: a single Solexa run generates about 1TB of data (if memory serves) and you need a couple of those for a full human genome at some reasonable coverage.
And it was sort of implied that you're doing something useful with the data, not just sticking it on a thumb drive, which means (relatively) expensive SAN disk space, which is still in the dollars per GB area (including backup costs). The paper I mentioned was making the case for using "cloud" computing for genomic data, so it's very much about these day-to-day operational costs, not abstract "how much sequence can I fit on a floppy" type questions.
Of course at this point sequencing is still more expensive than storage (by about 1000x, given the above numbers), the paper was just pointing out the trend that, while storage costs have been following Moore's law for a few decades now, over the last 6 years sequencing cost has been dropping by half every 5 months. Obviously that's unlikely to hold long-term, it's just a cute extrapolation.
By contrast, when sequencing of the genome of Dr. James Watson (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) was completed in 2007, it had taken two years and cost US$1 million.
Yeah, but nowadays it can be done in a few hours and costs under $10,000. May as well say that the Human Genome Project took 13 years and cost $3 billion - true, but not very relevant.
And we're well on-track for sub-$1,000 genomes in a year or two (without any new breakthrough technologies); which is basically "good enough" for research purposes. As Lincoln Stein pointed out in a recent paper, we're already almost at the point where it costs less to sequence a base pair than it does to store it for computational analysis.
very few widely utilized end-user applications are able to actually utilize DNSSEC
Good thing you managed to work "utilize" in there twice. The first one doesn't even really make sense grammatically, but hey, it sounds much more sophisticated.
The unusual thing with Mass Effect compared with every film which has explored the same theme, is that you make the choice, you can then see the effects of your actions and if that way inclined you can see what would have happened had you done something different.
I'm pretty sure I've read a choose-your-own-adventure Goosebumps that explored similar territory.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case the more qualified candidate for the needs of the company is getting paid more, as it should be.
He's a "fresh college grad", in other words he's completely and utterly worthless. There is no such thing as a qualified college grad, not in IT, not in any other (professional) industry. Not that this is something shocking or anything; college gives you the skills to learn to do your job, nothing more.
This sounds like a simple case of someone's nephew getting the right buzzword on his resume.
But no amount of general experience will make up for not having the skills his position and company needs you to know.
This could be true, if the skills in question were along the lines of "5 years experience working with X" not "I took a class in X".
But is it guaranteed to be random?
Yes we do. We have a whole branch of science concerning the matter.
Sure we do, it's just that so far they have not come up with anything concrete. Oh, they've done lots of work poking around the edges, but the main question is still pretty much the same - what is intelligence? Perhaps "not the faintest beginnings" was a little strong, I'll rephrase as "have not made consistent progress towards" understanding intelligence.
Which is precisely why I asked: the grandparent post sounds suspiciously like semi-mystical pseudophilosophy that gets thrown around because people don't actually want to know how their minds work and prefer to think them as magical.
Which is fair, and a lot of people do like to think that way, but there is a difference between not wanting to and admitting that we don't (yet).
No, but you can throw data at a sufficiently complex machine and expect it to learn. That's how humans acquire their initial working knowledge of the world.
Sure, but it's the "sufficiently complex" part that's the problem, so far we're working with trivially simple ones.
Well, he isn't a Muslim
Not that he know of, anyway.
Meaning what, exactly speaking? What is this "cogito" you're talking about and how does it differ from "mere" data processing?
We don't know. We don't have even the faintest beginnings of a "theory of intelligence".
Which doesn't mean that you can just ignore it, start throwing data at simplistic machines and expect (strong) AI to just happen.
Or, 75 years from now, we do discover a practically unlimited free energy source, which makes all previous technological advancements laughable in comparison.
You're trying to quantify the unknown. That typically doesn't work well.
Looking at the sweep of physics over the 20th century, it seems like most of the really big breakthroughs were achieved using tools that by today's standards were laughably primitive.
Doesn't that sort of imply that widespread application of discoveries made today will be seen when today's tools are considered laughably primitive?
If there actually is a Higgs Boson
Wait, so you're saying that if the Higgs doesn't exist, we have more than one hope of finding it?
Until bankers and high-frequency traders discover a Unified Field Theory
To be fair, they probably would, if they took a few weeks off from making massive stacks of cash. If you don't think that's where many of the most talented "big boys" are, you're deluding yourself out of some naive sense of misplaced idealism.
Why thank you, Only Ethical Person on the Internet - whatever would we do without your guidance?
Horsepower? Sure, I've never cared much about that (most cars are "good enough" for my needs). Handling and "design", though? Not so much. Somehow I can't picture handling being less important than dicking around on twitter, or whatever.
Now why do I think that we're way more likely to see the latter than the former?
Someone better invent a new format fast, else how am I going to pay for Star Wars again next year? (That's after the Blu-ray Remastered and Blu-ray Collectors' editions, of course).
It's not about feedback, no matter how much it vibrates (or buzzes, or whatever) typing on a flat surface is an ergonomic nightmare.
The entire user-base of the Internet actually includes a significant number of people with clue.
Based on what?
The fact that I couldn't pull the drive or that corruption might take things down doesn't concern me too much because if I wasn't using Btrfs I'd be using Ext4 and I wouldn't imagine it would be any better.
Corruption-wise Ext4 better as hell be better than Btrfs, since it was released as stable over two years ago.
Compare to the cost of buying the SuperBowel in order to sell millions per minute TV commercials.
That does sound like the source of most advertising content.
So, why exactly does everyone need a distributed source control system? Just because anything distributed is automatically cooler?
Also, yeah, having the users report bugs directly in the bug database is just stupid.
so the entire genome is only 850,000,000 bytes which is 810.6MB
You'd have to include the sequencing data, not just the final call: a single Solexa run generates about 1TB of data (if memory serves) and you need a couple of those for a full human genome at some reasonable coverage.
And it was sort of implied that you're doing something useful with the data, not just sticking it on a thumb drive, which means (relatively) expensive SAN disk space, which is still in the dollars per GB area (including backup costs). The paper I mentioned was making the case for using "cloud" computing for genomic data, so it's very much about these day-to-day operational costs, not abstract "how much sequence can I fit on a floppy" type questions.
Of course at this point sequencing is still more expensive than storage (by about 1000x, given the above numbers), the paper was just pointing out the trend that, while storage costs have been following Moore's law for a few decades now, over the last 6 years sequencing cost has been dropping by half every 5 months. Obviously that's unlikely to hold long-term, it's just a cute extrapolation.
UK doesn't use paper notes. We use cotton and linen rag instead.
Those are also called paper - if it's made out of pressed fibers, it's paper. And, indeed, apparently bank notes are usually made of cotton paper.
By contrast, when sequencing of the genome of Dr. James Watson (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) was completed in 2007, it had taken two years and cost US$1 million.
Yeah, but nowadays it can be done in a few hours and costs under $10,000. May as well say that the Human Genome Project took 13 years and cost $3 billion - true, but not very relevant.
And we're well on-track for sub-$1,000 genomes in a year or two (without any new breakthrough technologies); which is basically "good enough" for research purposes. As Lincoln Stein pointed out in a recent paper, we're already almost at the point where it costs less to sequence a base pair than it does to store it for computational analysis.
very few widely utilized end-user applications are able to actually utilize DNSSEC
Good thing you managed to work "utilize" in there twice. The first one doesn't even really make sense grammatically, but hey, it sounds much more sophisticated.
SG:U is more like Farscape than BSG.
I take it you've never actually seen Farscape?
Both seem pretty similar to me.
But there's a world of difference!
The unusual thing with Mass Effect compared with every film which has explored the same theme, is that you make the choice, you can then see the effects of your actions and if that way inclined you can see what would have happened had you done something different.
I'm pretty sure I've read a choose-your-own-adventure Goosebumps that explored similar territory.
there was an underlying theme of good versus evil within the character.
Ah, good versus evil, how profound. Did they by any chance choose the motif of broken mirrors to show the protagonist's fragmented self?