It kind of doesn't work worth crap for bioinformatics or machine learning.
What's so special about a college classroom that you can't learn bioinformatics or machine learning anywhere else?
I suppose, if you were a high IQ person with a good memory and access to a university library normally restricted to registered students of the university, you could learn it on your own in about 3X the amount of time that you'd learn it in a classroom + lab setting, with other students and a number of PhD's to bounce your ideas off of, and to correct any misconceptions you arrived at on your own, before you ended up going down an already studied dead end.
So, in order:
(1) A college classroom will be faster (2) Having access to people who've already learned it is helpful (3) Having access to an environment where other people are trying to learn the same thing is helpful (4) Having access to lab facilities is helpful (5) Having access to data sets on which to operate is helpful (6) Having access to a university library is helpful (7) Having student access to electronic versions of journals is a hell of a lot less expensive than paying for it yourself (8) Having access to compute power you could never afford on your own is helpful
So, the tl/dr answer is: quite a heck of a lot, actually.
It's still theoretical, based on untrustworthy reports by the agencies involved.
However...
"Thomas Drake, an N.S.A. whistleblower who was profiled by Jane Mayer in the magazine, said over the phone that he believes the 2010 breakthrough was possibly more dramatic and may refer to the defeat of 'some of the main-line encryption' algorithms in wide use, like the R.S.A. algorithm or the Advanced Encryption Standard at 256-bit level."
And obviously, if we can do it, we must assume the Chinese and Russians can do it.
And before you ask, no, I do not think it would have been an exhaustive search of the key space, I would in fact suspect a mathematical attack; the details would depend on the PRNG algorithm being used to generate the pad.
I'm an employer who intends to fire someone, but they don't know it yet, and I don't want to clue them into it by bringing in their successor ahead of time, for fear of what their reaction might be, or what they might delete.
I have access to all of their company email, since it's stored on a central server, and I want to know how to turn this stash of email into a set of useful instructions for their successor.
Can anyone help? It's really annoying when there is someone in a critical position that you hate enough that you want to get rid of them, and they hate you enough that you can't trust them to "play nice".
"Should We Expect Attacks When Windows 2003 Support Ends?"
There's a bit of lag between the time Microsoft EOL's a platform, and their interns are able to start turning out exploits to force you to "upgrade" to their next platform in order to keep their revenue stream intact, so you'll have at least a medium sized window before you should start expecting attacks.
As Microsoft gets better at producing exploits for their own operating systems before they announce an EOL event, expect things to improve, and the window to become narrower, to the point where they are able to release exploits the same day as the EOL date.
The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.
The price of a college education is either (A) studying hard and foregoing a lot of jacking around in high school, or (B) or being a great athlete.
Only people who can not get scholarships get student loans.
At this point in time, it is becoming more and more possible to get the equivalent of a university degree without going through the university system, and this is a great thing.
Unless it's accredited, it's not the equivalent. Getting a bunch of certs? Thanks; I'll pass on hiring you, unless you have 20 years experience in the field without the degree. Most companies will pass on hiring you at that point, since then it's clear you are not a "digital native" (code for "we age discriminate, but see, it's legally defensible!").
Technically, you could *always* get the equivalent of a university degree by being an autodidact, unless it was something that required a lot of expensive empirical work, or access to controlled materials (i.e. try becoming an organic chemist that way). But you are out of your mind, if you think anyone is going to treat that work, equivalent though it may be, as an equivalent in a hiring process. A university vouching for you is a hell of a bit different than you vouching for you; if they lie, they lose big financially; if you lie, only your employer loses big financially.
So no: you may want it to be possible, but it's definitely *NOT* possible.
You would think something filling "the online music void" would be, you know, filling it online?
Otherwise, there's still an "online music void", and what these guys are doing is "Download MP3's to your device for you to play locally, just like any other MP3 player". So they may be filling the "get MP3's onto my phone void", but they are certainly not filling the online void, because it's still a void.
Also... I assume they aren't paying the original copyright holders for this, they're just pirating the music, right? There's no way you are legally getting music for $0.10, unless it's being locally produced and distributed.
A president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office in a matter of hours if the men required to do the job were not cowards and villains.
So basically, you are saying that it wouldn't happen.;)
As a technicality;
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:
"...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
But of course, that just means he has to do the impeachable offense, then pardon himself, BEFORE it becomes a "case of impeachment".
Of course, issuing executive orders, even massively unpopular ones is arguably not grounds for impeachment in any case;
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Like the 1952 seizure of the steel mills by Harry Truman, they'd probably have to have someone with standing take a given executive order to court and have it make its way to the supreme court, which would generally take a couple of years, unless the court wanted to be activist about things because it offended them, as well.
Everybody expect free services. Nobody want to pay for anything, and they all expect privacy. Maybe it's time to wake up. Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple are not charities, they are for-profit companies. They must find way to monetize their users' data.
Technically, there is no "must" there. They must find a way to monetize their users in order to remain in business, and yes, this often involves monetization through advertising. But non-targeted advertising, while less valuable than targeted, still has a non-zero value. Targeting is just a means of maximizing the profits that they will be getting from their advertisers.
Is the article implying that there IS a way to protect our privacy? How?
(1) Hack the company's servers (2) Delete the data they have collected (3) Hope the do not detect the intrusion before their rolling backups overwrite their pervious backups which include your data (4) ??? (5) Profit!
Not that this is really recommended; they are bigger than you, legally speaking.
Re:It's been pretty strongly demonstrated...
on
Everyone Hates Harvard
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Brilliant riposte. Not.
Sending the navy without funding to come back: Theodore Roosevelt, 1905, Dominican Republic
Federalization of the National Guard to quell civil unrest: Dwight Eisenhower, September 24th 1957, Federalization of the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the integration of Central High School
Federalization of the National Guard to quell civil unrest: Lyndon Johnson, March 20, 1965, Federalization of Alabama National Guard to supervise the march from Selma to Montgomery
Executive orders used by fiat:
1793, George Washington, first executive order regarding U.S. Citizens and the War between England and France 1861, Abraham Lincoln, suspension of John Merryman's right of Habeas Corpus, detainment in Fort McHenry Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 3,522 executive orders modifying everything from tax to works agencies
====(first order was on first day in office for a 4 day bank closure ans restructuring of the financial system) 1952, Harry Truman, Siezure of the nations steel mills to prevent a strike (later rejected as unconstitutional, but purpose already served) Early 2002, George Bush, NSA authorization for domestic wire tapping Early 2009, Barack Obama, Closure of Gitmo scheduled 2011, Barack Obama, Closure of Gitmo executive order revoked by executive order 2012, Barack Obama, Tougher regulation of Greenhouse gasses 2012, Barack Obama, Changes to deportation policy 2012, Barack Obama, Education and employment for returning troops (various), Barack Obama, freezing of foreign assets belonging to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria 2014, Barack Obama, prohibition on federal contractors discriminating against LGBT, and against discrimination in federal employment as well
Clinton aide Paul Begala told The New York Times: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool.". This was in response to the 1998 Whitewater scandal making it impossible for Clinton to move legislation through the Republican controlled congress. So he didn't; instead, he issued executive orders.
There have also been some rumblings about Obama raising taxes via executive order:
Since Obama has been lame duck (he is in his second term), there's really nothing, other than the threat of impeachment, from pretty well doing whatever the hell he wants, in terms of executive orders and military orders. And as I noted, that threat has no teeth; it's not like anything he does is going to prevent him getting reelected, so it's not like he has to care about that.
There's also the little fact that he rescinded the Gitmo closure order in 2011 -- in other words, he has no intention of keeping that campaign promise to the American people (nor, really, should he, since extraterritoriality is legally useful to the U.S. in many instances where what the U.S. is doing would be refused to be hosted by another country at one of the black sites).
So now you have examples of everything on my list.
Just across the river is Boston University, a really excellent institution with a strong research focus and really great graduates, ranked #42 by US News. Its endowment per student is 1/25th of Harvard's.
Perhaps they should start turning out students capable of making large amounts of money, such their endowments grow faster.
It's been pretty strongly demonstrated that a sitting president can pretty much do anything they want, regardless of congress, simply by issuing executive orders, or by ordering the military to do something (or nothing).
Want to close Gitmo? Order the soldiers out.
Want to get out of a war? Order the soldiers out.
Want to change the tax code? Issue an executive order.
Want to change how schools operate? Issue an executive order.
Want to integrate schools over the objection of the governor of the state? Federalize the national guard and do it by force.
Want to make a show of force to European involvement in the western hemisphere, but congress won't fund it? Order the navy to South America, and then let congress decide to pay for the fuel to bring them back (or not).
Want to stop riots in Baltimore or Ferguson? Federalize and send in that state's national guard. (And if you think the state government has to ask or approve this:
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State"
"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"
"Air and Army National Guard can specifically be called into Federal service in case of invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute Federal law with active forces"
So no.)
Sitting Presidents have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for; they may unilaterally do a hell of a lot of things. They may have to face impeachment charges after the fact, but this close to the next election, there's really nothing congress can do about it; the next elected president automatically pardons any crimes of their predecessor; this is traditional, and a president probably depends on this as part of running for office. It's a gentleman's agreement that goes back to the early 1800's.
Any mess he has not addressed via executive order or via his position as commander in chief is *his mess*.
There is a minor recruiting benefit, only to "go".
WHY SWIFT IS NOT BENEFICIAL:
Internally, Apple doesn't write a lot of Apps; they might, eventually, convert some of their existing large applications, like Pages or Mail.App, over to Swift; these will largely end up being rewrites. So while knowing Swift might make you better able to get a job at a software house targeting Apple's platforms, it's unlikely to be meaningful in getting a job at Apple.
On the other hand, one benefit to Apple is that if Swift is not strongly used internally, the demand for App developers is unlikely to hire away Apple engineers out from under Apple, which was a big issue with the Objective C "brain drain" when iPhone and other apps took off. One of the things that Apple did, for example, was not let registered developers who were also Apple employees, take App programming classes held by Apple, for a period of six months after they started offering them to non-Apple employees. So there is an "anti-recruiting away of Apple employees" benefit to Apple.
WHY GO IS BENEFICIAL:
The recruiting benefit of "go" is clearer, although even with gccgo, go is not very portable to non-Linux platforms, despite its claimed platform support (for example, the standard libraries *still* have some serious compatibility issues on Mac OS X, despite the fact that almost every Google employee has an Apple laptop).
One thing that companies like to hire is young people; on the theory that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", someone who knows "go" is a lot more likely to be younger, rather than older. It's not valid due to the theory, but it is nevertheless valid enough that you can pretty much use it as something of an age filter, and legally get away with doing do.
Another thing it means is that you're willing to learn new things; a surprising number of people aren't. If you got into software engineering for the money, and you are just using it as a "paycheck continuation program", instead of actually being passionate about it, it's unlikely that you've bothered to take the time to learn "go".
These are relatively minor benefits, since it doesn't take that long to learn a new language well enough to work in it pretty extensively; so training is not really a benefit, as the article claims.
You miss the point; earthquakes were virtually unheard of in Oklahoma until fracking.
You miss the point: they weren't "unheard of" because they didn't happen (check the USGS historical records); they were "unheard of" because they largely went unremarked and unreported, because the numbers were not "scary large" enough to be newsworthy on a slow day, and because they didn't have a controversial issue, like fracking, to hang them on as an advocacy/controversy tactic.
Why can't Google just ship an OpenJDK build for ARM instead of screwing around with breaking the portability contract of the byte code?
For the same reason that they went with Dalvik, and the same reason their libc is derived from BSD libc (Bionic), instead of GLibc: to get out from under the license, and allow, indisputably, commercial code for which source code is not provided, and to (effectively) technologically, rather than merely legally, indemnify developers, in order to attract commercial developers to the platform.
Oracle has tried to get a piece of Android on and off for years, the same way it tried to get a piece of Linux, and the same way it bought out MySQL and the BSD dbm libraries, when they couldn't legally raise their hand against them.
So in layman's terms... the SFLC want the Supreme to refuse to hear the case, because they think that the copying of a trivial function, difficult to implement in any other embodiment, allows a "thin end of the wedge" argument in favor of GPL'ing everything on Android.
They specifically cite the Lotus v. Borland case in support of this.
They specifically avoid citing the Ashton Tate v. Fox Software case, because doing so would contradict their claims, and weaken the argument that the Supreme court should hear the case.
Clearly, someone needs to file an Amicus brief citing Ashton Tate v. Fox Software, and suggest that the brief needs to be heard.
The question is whether the hormonal level modifications are beneficial or not. Obviously, *cooking* the placenta would denature the proteins involved, so the way it's typically practiced among modern humans (which involves cooking) is clearly not beneficial, other than as a source of nutrients and heavy metals.
Slashdot Mirror
What's so special about a college classroom that you can't learn bioinformatics or machine learning anywhere else?
I suppose, if you were a high IQ person with a good memory and access to a university library normally restricted to registered students of the university, you could learn it on your own in about 3X the amount of time that you'd learn it in a classroom + lab setting, with other students and a number of PhD's to bounce your ideas off of, and to correct any misconceptions you arrived at on your own, before you ended up going down an already studied dead end.
So, in order:
(1) A college classroom will be faster
(2) Having access to people who've already learned it is helpful
(3) Having access to an environment where other people are trying to learn the same thing is helpful
(4) Having access to lab facilities is helpful
(5) Having access to data sets on which to operate is helpful
(6) Having access to a university library is helpful
(7) Having student access to electronic versions of journals is a hell of a lot less expensive than paying for it yourself
(8) Having access to compute power you could never afford on your own is helpful
So, the tl/dr answer is: quite a heck of a lot, actually.
"...and they would retrain them..."
Yeah. Mostly for blue collar jobs which no longer exist.
On the job training works great, if you are going to be bending pipe or running a lathe.
It kind of doesn't work worth crap for bioinformatics or machine learning.
It's still theoretical, based on untrustworthy reports by the agencies involved.
However...
"Thomas Drake, an N.S.A. whistleblower who was profiled by Jane Mayer in the magazine, said over the phone that he believes the 2010 breakthrough was possibly more dramatic and may refer to the defeat of 'some of the main-line encryption' algorithms in wide use, like the R.S.A. algorithm or the Advanced Encryption Standard at 256-bit level."
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/...
And obviously, if we can do it, we must assume the Chinese and Russians can do it.
And before you ask, no, I do not think it would have been an exhaustive search of the key space, I would in fact suspect a mathematical attack; the details would depend on the PRNG algorithm being used to generate the pad.
Even if he used 256 bit encryption, if he used a phrase that was too small, then, dummy.
Can someone please pick my ass up off the floor? I seem to have laughed it off over someone thinking 256 bit encryption is still meaningful... thanks!
Yep, that's what we need: more intolerant religion in our lives. Fortunately, we have had Jesux for a number of years now.
Heretic! I demand you run Jesuix instead!
Let's turn the question around!
Hi.
I'm an employer who intends to fire someone, but they don't know it yet, and I don't want to clue them into it by bringing in their successor ahead of time, for fear of what their reaction might be, or what they might delete.
I have access to all of their company email, since it's stored on a central server, and I want to know how to turn this stash of email into a set of useful instructions for their successor.
Can anyone help? It's really annoying when there is someone in a critical position that you hate enough that you want to get rid of them, and they hate you enough that you can't trust them to "play nice".
Does that about sum up the actual situation?
"Should We Expect Attacks When Windows 2003 Support Ends?"
There's a bit of lag between the time Microsoft EOL's a platform, and their interns are able to start turning out exploits to force you to "upgrade" to their next platform in order to keep their revenue stream intact, so you'll have at least a medium sized window before you should start expecting attacks.
As Microsoft gets better at producing exploits for their own operating systems before they announce an EOL event, expect things to improve, and the window to become narrower, to the point where they are able to release exploits the same day as the EOL date.
"blurs the lines between programs and documents"
Yeah. So do Word macro viruses and Outlook email exploits.
The price of a college education -- let's just say 4-year bachelor's degree -- isn't the problem. Rather, it is a symptom of both the ability to get a large student loan, and desire for a traditional, 4-year degree.
The price of a college education is either (A) studying hard and foregoing a lot of jacking around in high school, or (B) or being a great athlete.
Only people who can not get scholarships get student loans.
At this point in time, it is becoming more and more possible to get the equivalent of a university degree without going through the university system, and this is a great thing.
Unless it's accredited, it's not the equivalent. Getting a bunch of certs? Thanks; I'll pass on hiring you, unless you have 20 years experience in the field without the degree. Most companies will pass on hiring you at that point, since then it's clear you are not a "digital native" (code for "we age discriminate, but see, it's legally defensible!").
Technically, you could *always* get the equivalent of a university degree by being an autodidact, unless it was something that required a lot of expensive empirical work, or access to controlled materials (i.e. try becoming an organic chemist that way). But you are out of your mind, if you think anyone is going to treat that work, equivalent though it may be, as an equivalent in a hiring process. A university vouching for you is a hell of a bit different than you vouching for you; if they lie, they lose big financially; if you lie, only your employer loses big financially.
So no: you may want it to be possible, but it's definitely *NOT* possible.
You would think something filling "the online music void" would be, you know, filling it online?
Otherwise, there's still an "online music void", and what these guys are doing is "Download MP3's to your device for you to play locally, just like any other MP3 player". So they may be filling the "get MP3's onto my phone void", but they are certainly not filling the online void, because it's still a void.
Also... I assume they aren't paying the original copyright holders for this, they're just pirating the music, right? There's no way you are legally getting music for $0.10, unless it's being locally produced and distributed.
You're holding it wrong.
Téléchargeurs
é
A president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office in a matter of hours if the men required to do the job were not cowards and villains.
So basically, you are saying that it wouldn't happen. ;)
As a technicality;
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:
"...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
But of course, that just means he has to do the impeachable offense, then pardon himself, BEFORE it becomes a "case of impeachment".
Of course, issuing executive orders, even massively unpopular ones is arguably not grounds for impeachment in any case;
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Like the 1952 seizure of the steel mills by Harry Truman, they'd probably have to have someone with standing take a given executive order to court and have it make its way to the supreme court, which would generally take a couple of years, unless the court wanted to be activist about things because it offended them, as well.
If you want to preserve your privacy, then DON'T PUT PICTURES OF YOUR COCK ONLINE!
As we discovered in the John Oliver interview with Edward Snowden, it's the NSA's job to put pictures of your cock online, not yours!
Everybody expect free services. Nobody want to pay for anything, and they all expect privacy. Maybe it's time to wake up. Facebook, Google, Amazon or Apple are not charities, they are for-profit companies. They must find way to monetize their users' data.
Technically, there is no "must" there. They must find a way to monetize their users in order to remain in business, and yes, this often involves monetization through advertising. But non-targeted advertising, while less valuable than targeted, still has a non-zero value. Targeting is just a means of maximizing the profits that they will be getting from their advertisers.
Is the article implying that there IS a way to protect our privacy? How?
(1) Hack the company's servers
(2) Delete the data they have collected
(3) Hope the do not detect the intrusion before their rolling backups overwrite their pervious backups which include your data
(4) ???
(5) Profit!
Not that this is really recommended; they are bigger than you, legally speaking.
Brilliant riposte. Not.
Sending the navy without funding to come back: Theodore Roosevelt, 1905, Dominican Republic
Federalization of the National Guard to quell civil unrest: Dwight Eisenhower, September 24th 1957, Federalization of the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the integration of Central High School
Federalization of the National Guard to quell civil unrest: Lyndon Johnson, March 20, 1965, Federalization of Alabama National Guard to supervise the march from Selma to Montgomery
Executive orders used by fiat:
1793, George Washington, first executive order regarding U.S. Citizens and the War between England and France
1861, Abraham Lincoln, suspension of John Merryman's right of Habeas Corpus, detainment in Fort McHenry
Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 3,522 executive orders modifying everything from tax to works agencies
====(first order was on first day in office for a 4 day bank closure ans restructuring of the financial system)
1952, Harry Truman, Siezure of the nations steel mills to prevent a strike (later rejected as unconstitutional, but purpose already served)
Early 2002, George Bush, NSA authorization for domestic wire tapping
Early 2009, Barack Obama, Closure of Gitmo scheduled
2011, Barack Obama, Closure of Gitmo executive order revoked by executive order
2012, Barack Obama, Tougher regulation of Greenhouse gasses
2012, Barack Obama, Changes to deportation policy
2012, Barack Obama, Education and employment for returning troops
(various), Barack Obama, freezing of foreign assets belonging to Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria
2014, Barack Obama, prohibition on federal contractors discriminating against LGBT, and against discrimination in federal employment as well
Clinton aide Paul Begala told The New York Times: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kind of cool.". This was in response to the 1998 Whitewater scandal making it impossible for Clinton to move legislation through the Republican controlled congress. So he didn't; instead, he issued executive orders.
There have also been some rumblings about Obama raising taxes via executive order:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...
Since Obama has been lame duck (he is in his second term), there's really nothing, other than the threat of impeachment, from pretty well doing whatever the hell he wants, in terms of executive orders and military orders. And as I noted, that threat has no teeth; it's not like anything he does is going to prevent him getting reelected, so it's not like he has to care about that.
There's also the little fact that he rescinded the Gitmo closure order in 2011 -- in other words, he has no intention of keeping that campaign promise to the American people (nor, really, should he, since extraterritoriality is legally useful to the U.S. in many instances where what the U.S. is doing would be refused to be hosted by another country at one of the black sites).
So now you have examples of everything on my list.
I think it is you who need to "grow the fuck up".
Just across the river is Boston University, a really excellent institution with a strong research focus and really great graduates, ranked #42 by US News. Its endowment per student is 1/25th of Harvard's.
Perhaps they should start turning out students capable of making large amounts of money, such their endowments grow faster.
It's been pretty strongly demonstrated that a sitting president can pretty much do anything they want, regardless of congress, simply by issuing executive orders, or by ordering the military to do something (or nothing).
Want to close Gitmo? Order the soldiers out.
Want to get out of a war? Order the soldiers out.
Want to change the tax code? Issue an executive order.
Want to change how schools operate? Issue an executive order.
Want to integrate schools over the objection of the governor of the state? Federalize the national guard and do it by force.
Want to make a show of force to European involvement in the western hemisphere, but congress won't fund it? Order the navy to South America, and then let congress decide to pay for the fuel to bring them back (or not).
Want to stop riots in Baltimore or Ferguson? Federalize and send in that state's national guard.
(And if you think the state government has to ask or approve this:
"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellion make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State"
"The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy"
"Air and Army National Guard can specifically be called into Federal service in case of invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute Federal law with active forces"
So no.)
Sitting Presidents have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for; they may unilaterally do a hell of a lot of things. They may have to face impeachment charges after the fact, but this close to the next election, there's really nothing congress can do about it; the next elected president automatically pardons any crimes of their predecessor; this is traditional, and a president probably depends on this as part of running for office. It's a gentleman's agreement that goes back to the early 1800's.
Any mess he has not addressed via executive order or via his position as commander in chief is *his mess*.
There is a minor recruiting benefit, only to "go".
WHY SWIFT IS NOT BENEFICIAL:
Internally, Apple doesn't write a lot of Apps; they might, eventually, convert some of their existing large applications, like Pages or Mail.App, over to Swift; these will largely end up being rewrites. So while knowing Swift might make you better able to get a job at a software house targeting Apple's platforms, it's unlikely to be meaningful in getting a job at Apple.
On the other hand, one benefit to Apple is that if Swift is not strongly used internally, the demand for App developers is unlikely to hire away Apple engineers out from under Apple, which was a big issue with the Objective C "brain drain" when iPhone and other apps took off. One of the things that Apple did, for example, was not let registered developers who were also Apple employees, take App programming classes held by Apple, for a period of six months after they started offering them to non-Apple employees. So there is an "anti-recruiting away of Apple employees" benefit to Apple.
WHY GO IS BENEFICIAL:
The recruiting benefit of "go" is clearer, although even with gccgo, go is not very portable to non-Linux platforms, despite its claimed platform support (for example, the standard libraries *still* have some serious compatibility issues on Mac OS X, despite the fact that almost every Google employee has an Apple laptop).
One thing that companies like to hire is young people; on the theory that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks", someone who knows "go" is a lot more likely to be younger, rather than older. It's not valid due to the theory, but it is nevertheless valid enough that you can pretty much use it as something of an age filter, and legally get away with doing do.
Another thing it means is that you're willing to learn new things; a surprising number of people aren't. If you got into software engineering for the money, and you are just using it as a "paycheck continuation program", instead of actually being passionate about it, it's unlikely that you've bothered to take the time to learn "go".
These are relatively minor benefits, since it doesn't take that long to learn a new language well enough to work in it pretty extensively; so training is not really a benefit, as the article claims.
Seriously? They absolutely would not hire me because I have practical experience which blacklists me from being hired by them.
OK, totally.
They have second stringers, at best.
You miss the point; earthquakes were virtually unheard of in Oklahoma until fracking.
You miss the point: they weren't "unheard of" because they didn't happen (check the USGS historical records); they were "unheard of" because they largely went unremarked and unreported, because the numbers were not "scary large" enough to be newsworthy on a slow day, and because they didn't have a controversial issue, like fracking, to hang them on as an advocacy/controversy tactic.
Why can't Google just ship an OpenJDK build for ARM instead of screwing around with breaking the portability contract of the byte code?
For the same reason that they went with Dalvik, and the same reason their libc is derived from BSD libc (Bionic), instead of GLibc: to get out from under the license, and allow, indisputably, commercial code for which source code is not provided, and to (effectively) technologically, rather than merely legally, indemnify developers, in order to attract commercial developers to the platform.
Oracle has tried to get a piece of Android on and off for years, the same way it tried to get a piece of Linux, and the same way it bought out MySQL and the BSD dbm libraries, when they couldn't legally raise their hand against them.
So in layman's terms... the SFLC want the Supreme to refuse to hear the case, because they think that the copying of a trivial function, difficult to implement in any other embodiment, allows a "thin end of the wedge" argument in favor of GPL'ing everything on Android.
They specifically cite the Lotus v. Borland case in support of this.
They specifically avoid citing the Ashton Tate v. Fox Software case, because doing so would contradict their claims, and weaken the argument that the Supreme court should hear the case.
Clearly, someone needs to file an Amicus brief citing Ashton Tate v. Fox Software, and suggest that the brief needs to be heard.
Actually it has some medical effects.
The question is whether the hormonal level modifications are beneficial or not. Obviously, *cooking* the placenta would denature the proteins involved, so the way it's typically practiced among modern humans (which involves cooking) is clearly not beneficial, other than as a source of nutrients and heavy metals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...