It may be good for the economy. It may not be so good for the people who can no longer support themselves because they just lost their minimum wage job to a robot. It may not be good for the people who then get mugged by said hungry person either.
If you are attacked by said unemployed maximized minimum wage person, perhaps you should just beat them with your buggy whip until they back off.
What kind of qualifications are you referring to? A+ certificate? Give me a break. We don't have enough PC Installers in the US? They had to fly in PC Installers because of a worker shortage? I think your going on a pretty big assumption that these guys weren't temp workers in India as well. Do you know for a fact that they had jobs when they returned?
The qualification that in order to get an L1-B, they had to have worked for EFI for 18 months, were presumably already bound by an NDA, wanted to keep their jobs when they got back, and were already familiar with "You will do it this way because this way is the way EFI does things". How long, exactly, do you think it takes for a new employee to get up to speed on company specific policies and procedures for wiring closets and server rooms, particularly for a company that, among other things, sells outsourced compute infrastructure?
Or look at it going the other way... Do you think I'd get a work visa for India if I was a PC Installer that was needed in India because the firm didn't want to sign someone for secrecy reasons?
Nope. I don't. Not without a buttload of hassle, if the intent was a work visa. I think they could send you there, though, and you would be able to do the work anyway because of reciprocity agreements between the U.S. and India. IBM frequently does that sort of thing because technically, you're being paid in the U.S., so it doesn't matter that you're working remotely at an IBM facility somewhere else.
the largest and smartest tank ever designed for the British Army
Surely, instead of spending money on smart tanks, they should have all those former Nokia employees laid off by Microsoft build them feature tanks instead?
PS: I'm still wondering why they need soldiers *inside* then, rather than having them be drive-by-wire, just like airborne drones?
now regret to the point that you're willing to rewrite history
And this is bad how? Its your history. If you post something and a week later you decide it probably shouldn't be public knowledge, who really cares if you take it down? Its not like you (for most values of "you" at least) are the sole historian of an important event or other politically-charged information.
Hell.. its your own page.. does it matter if you just write complete BS in the first place?
You're acting like a social network is a web site. It's not, it's a fabric. If you want to be able to do this type of editing, fine, put up a web page, but don't try to pretend that you posting something that makes you look like an asshole, and then me commenting on it, calling you out for being an asshole, and then you changing the original posting so that it looks like I'm the asshole for engaging in an ad hominim attack, is somehow OK.
What the OP has suggested is more or less the old Usenet, but with a single point of failure for me being able to access the shared history of the gestalt of people who were engaged in the conversation or conversations that resulted in that gestalt in the first place. If I'm connected to you and Bob and Tom and etc., we're not just connected through our freedom of association choices, we're also connected by our shared context and history.
I'm also not sure I'd be comfortable with some types of content showing up in "my feed", particularly content that happens to be illegal in my jurisdiction. I certainly don't want... able to post Nazi propaganda into Germany,...
So don't be friends with people who would do that. And if you don't know about their leanings before they post that shit, you can just de-friend them and delete their rant (see above.)
See above; I can't just erase our shared context from my memory, if I decide Bob is a Nazi after the fact. One of the problems with Facebook is one of things which make it useful: the extended shared social network, where I not only see what you write in a conversation, but because Bob knows you, and you know me, I get to see Bob being an ass because of his association with you. Am I just supposed to "de-friend" everyone? How do I know that I'm seeing Bob because of you, and not Tom? Maybe I'm seeing him because of both you *and* Tom?
I don't have much to say on your third point as it would be wholly dependent on actual implementation as to whether this theoretical distributed service provides "weak" or "strong" links (whatever the hell that means.)
Also keep in mind that Facebook and Twitter are completely different services with completely different purposes. They may have been glommed together under the "social media" category but that's like saying cats and dogs are the same thing because they both fall into the "common pet" category. They have similarities to be sure, but they have far more in the way of differences.
Twitter's links are "strong" because if you "follow" them, you see every little thing they post. Facebook's links are "weak", because if you "follow" someone, you don't necessarily see every little thing they post.
The reason that offline social networks work is because you have transient freedom of association. You have less of that with Facebook, and drastically less of that with Twitter. That's why Twitter is basically a troll-sewer, and Facebook is less of one.
Another reason for the "troll-sewer" effect is that there is no longer term consequence, if you can delete your posts after the fact. By allowing the rewrite of history (discussed earlier), you remove the need for the social lubricants of politeness, civility, and (possibly pretend) rationality, which are required in real-world interactions. Because of that you end up with large amounts of vitriol over things which would have blown over, or whic
Why? The attacking nation would of course have vacines for those of the preferred segments of their society.
It mutates as it reproduces. It's like the rolling codes on your car alarm or garage door opener: vaccination against the previous code won't prevent you getting infected with the new one. This same effect is why you can have the cold or flu more than once in your life.
It seems that this all about the financial bottom line. I understand things cost money, but it would nice if there was, for once, more concern about human lives.
Actually, it's not.
Glaxo Smith Klein has said that even if they relax the bio safety level 2 requirements for filling the vaccine vials, after a certain (short) point, they will be converting their production of other vaccines from such diseases as rotavirus, measles, mumps, and rubella.
At that point, we are talking about trading American lives to benefit Liberian lives.
Note that the NewLink vaccine donated by Canada has demonstrated Ebola-like symptoms in many of the people who've been inoculated in Phase I trials, so it's entirely possible Canada Health has been giving those people either the virus or a weakened strain of the virus, and is actually infecting people. Apart from that, they also have the fill rate problem that GSK was complaining about, which would short-sheet supplies of other vaccines.
Instead, they should totally go ahead and implement a travel ban so people sneak into the country with ebola instead of coming through the airports.
How exactly is coming in through the airports with ebola, where you have a nice vector to spread the virus both nationally and internationally, superior to people sneaking into the country with ebola?
I am from China. Assange is from Australia. Those of us who are not from the United States of America tend to have an advantage over those who were born and raised inside America because we were not indoctrinated with the Pledge of Allegiance throughout our childhood (into the teen years) but the Americans do
"The great leader Chairman Mao teaches us; promote physical fitness exercises, and improve people's physical condition. We must always be ready to protect our country."
Note that I first heard this in a U.S. social studies/world history class when I was 14 years old, following normalization of relations with China. And yes, we did the exercises.
Patriotism is not necessarily a bad thing, but to try to claim that it's a U.S. phenomenon because of "The Pledge of Allegiance" is any more indoctrinating than radio broadcasts of physical fitness exercises as part of military readiness is disingenuous.
P.S.: They were off the radio in China for a while, but they are back on the air. This is a daily occurrence in China to this day; The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer practiced in most U.S. schools, although, except in 4 states where it's outlawed, it's generally at the discretion of the school board and/or individual teacher. Most avoid the controversy.
It's not clear to me that it was willful avoidance of paying minimum wage - they had a job to do, they got help from some of their existing employees from overseas, who continued to receive their regular wage (in their regular currency) during the time that they were here
It's almost certainly a violation of immigration law. I assume that these people came to Fremont on visitor visas that don't allow the visa holder to "work". Even if the foreign workers were here on H1s or L1s (which I doubt), they would have been violating the salary requirements for that type of visa.
My understanding from someone familiar with the case is that they were in the U.S. on L1-B visas that had been legally applied for; it's common practice for companies like IBM to pay their existing wage plus a per diem when they send someone to India to train people there, or to otherwise resolve issues in the foreign country.
From what I've been told, this is a misunderstanding on the part of EFI with regard to equivalence between the labor laws that apply in the other direction, and the labor laws that apply in the U.S. not being equivalent. It's why the fine was so low, and it's why only the California minimum wage was enforced in the payout to the workers, and why additional charges were not leveled at EFI by the USCIS.
It's pretty common for many organizations to do this (without the prevailing wage screwup) to avoid having to swear third party contractors or temporary employees to secrecy, without a relatively big carrot/stick to get them to keep their secrets. At least one of the photographs of the aluminum laser cut single piece MacBook case was a result of bringing in outside contractors to put down new carpet squares in the lab in question.
A lot of U.S. people tend to dislike this type of thing because it means that they don't get the temporary job that they can then leverage to get cell phone pictures to sell Engadget and really cash in on the situation, since a temporary position paying prevailing wages for a short term gig isn't going to come anywhere close to matching a $50,000 payday from a tech blog. They also don't believe that the foreign workers deserve to have the jobs they do in their native country, when it could be done for much higher cost in the U.S. by a less qualified American.
I think a lot of the SVC people laid off were people working on Microsoft Products for Apple. Mountain View, at the facility South of the I-101/I-85 interchange, near Moffett Field, were there to do work on Mac OS X products. I you look at the Microsoft job postings, you'll see that almost everyone in APEX is a continuing engineer, and that there are a small number of Objective-C and iOS openings that all appear to be concentrated on front-ending Office 365 on Mac OS X and iPhone, iPod, and iPad, rather than native applications.
I expect this is the non-announcement that Office 2014 for Apple products is going to be nothing more than a front-end wrapper for their subscription products. This somewhat makes sense, given that Apple has been pressuring them on productivity apps on their platforms, and that "good enough" is the enemy of "expensive". If you couple this with Mac OS X *never* having been a tier 1 platform for Office products (where's VB 5, VB.Net, Acces, etc. for Mac OS X?), it was never intended that Apple desktop systems be able to compete with Windows desktop systems in terms of being able to do the same vertical market development using ports from Windows vertical market development. It was an avoidance of cannibalizing the Windows market in that area.
Obviously, I could be wrong, but when working at Apple, I visited the Office developers there several times to deal with OS and kernel related issues; the only place they seem to be willing to hire Objective-C people seems to be Redmond or Bellevue, and it appears to be for things like Skype development, not office; the APEX jobs appear to be remaining in Mountain View at present, and greatly scaled back.
I believe the actual concern is that with a long enough snippet, people lose interest, and instead of driving traffic to the web site, you actually detract from the traffic that gets sent to the site.
This was a concern for U.S. newspapers as well, a few years back, but given that most of their content is syndicated off the AP newswire, or by United Press International, or by Reuters, or some other wire service, there's very little left of value in a paper that's failing to do journalism, and therefore isn't creating content that a clone of everyone else's content.
Straight out of Donald Knuth volume 3: Sorting and Searching; at 85% fill, a perfect hash starts degrading in performance.
The basis of the Berkeley Fast File System warn level was an 85% fill on the disk, which the filesystem effectively hashed data allocations onto. As people started getting larger and larger disks, they began to be concerned about "wasted space" in the free reserve, and moved the warnings down to 10%, then 8%, and so on.
This is what the OP is suggesting (again) for very large disks, but without something like an LFS and a background defragger, fundamentally, most FS implementations performance still starts to drop of a 85%+ fill. Background defraggers/"cleaner daemons" have their own performance issues (e.g. like Garbage Collectors, they tend to run at the worst possible times, as in when you are putting performance pressure on the system already).
But as Ken Thompson said: "The steady state of disks is full".
The problem is that if you are hosting the content on your own server, you have ultimate revisionist control of what you've said in the past, and now regret to the point that you're willing to rewrite history. In the limit, there's always the "off" switch if you want to duck out on the responsibility for what you've said.
I'm also not sure I'd be comfortable with some types of content showing up in "my feed", particularly content that happens to be illegal in my jurisdiction. I certainly don't want some anarcho-syndicalist tearing down all of the political borders because he thinks he should be able to post Nazi propaganda into Germany, or some other radical element deciding that I should have to hear his manifesto.
Right now we are seeing the problem with this with the whole "GamerGate" fiasco with Twitter because Twitter has strong distribution links for all their content (unlike Facebook). People who want to be seen, heard, and use social networking for self-promotion, or for a cheap way to send out coupons to their followers appreciate the strong links in Twitter, and complain bitterly about the less strong links in Facebook. Sometimes having the ability to self-damp these things is not altogether bad.
A decade, even half a decade, ago, Cisco was greatly admired for their ability to acquire without attrition. When a company acquired another company, you usually saw 10-12% attrition in the first 6 months, after the pay-for-stay for key personnel expired, and another 8-10% at the end of 12 months. That meant that between 18% and 22% of what you just bought had walked out your door in your first year.
Cisco's numbers were 2% and 5% for 6 and 12 months, respectively. Cisco knew how to do an "acquihire", and keep the talent that it bought the company for, and in acquisitions which weren't simply talent plays, it knew how to do that too.
It seems that this expertise has been lost along the way, or that in one of these annual "transformations", something broke. Either way, with the way they are acting like IBM Global Services these days, or perhaps the post acquisition EDA or post-divestiture Agilent, they are unlikely to be able to repeat their past successes in acquisition, since the trust has been lost.
Which is really a shame, since they were the envy of the entire tech industry for their capability in this regard, not just Silicon Valley. We used to have meetings at IBM about how we could possibly do what they did, with the numbers they got, and thus avoid killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Similar meeting took place at Apple, particularly prior to the acquisition of P.A. Semi (and much of the team deserted Apple for places like Google anyway, after the lockout handcuffs were removed so that the people who were there prior to the acquisition could cash out and skedaddle.
It's interesting what they are becoming, because it's not the old Cisco; it most resembles, if I had to pick a company and an era, the post Carly Fiorina H.P.; here's hoping it doesn't turn out the same for them, and that they can correct their course before the rudder falls off entirely.
Except that the school *did* tell the parents. (Probably while telling them that their kid is suspended.) And the parents grounded their little bundle-of-joy for a week, so obviously they agree at some level that their kid's a little shit.
Where they dropped the ball is that Little Timmy didn't have to go over to this kid's house and apologize to her face.
Ah yes. Making the asshole tormentor show up at her house to intimidate by his presence in person. That has generally fixed all my problems, knowing that the bully knows where I live, so as soon as the parents are not constantly riding herd on the little asshole, he and a couple of his friends can break into the house, shit on a plate, write a note, and leave it in the fridge.
Some people don't count as human beings, and despite the best efforts of their parents to program them to be human beings, the little psychopaths are unfixable. Yeah, that's also politically incorrect in this day and age where the fault is always external to the human exhibiting the bad behaviour.
Not to mention checking to make damned sure that the site was down. If Timmy had sprayed graffiti all over a house, you wouldn't ground him, but figure "nah, he doesn't need to actually clean it up", right?
You don't need to be computer literate to verify that paint is gone from a wall and/or painted over. You keep assuming that the parents are not only computer literate, that they are *more* computer literate than little Timmy, such that little Timmy couldn't pull a fast one on the old parents.
That's just not the case, in the majority of circumstances.
How about we first focus on the dangerous rouge states with large confirmed nuclear arsenals and the better part of a century of history of stirring up trouble all over the world. I'm speaking of the US of course.
If by "stirring up trouble", you mean "not allowing Arab countries who deny the right of Israel to exist as a nation-state to destroy Israel without giving Israel aid", how about we don't, and they instead just agree to quit shooting at Israel, and Israel agrees to quit shooting back?
Maybe not according to the recent work done in epigenetics. Of course, everything is open to both corroboration and interpretation.
The problems with taking this article to mean what Lamarckism people would dearly love for it to mean are:
(1) It applies to memories, not to morphological traits; Lamarckism is specific to inherited morphological traits on the basis of environmental pressures.
(2) "it may give the sheen of respetability" - a "sheen" is not the same thing as actually being respectable, and "may" is not the same as "does".
Come back with a multigenerational study that demonstrates a change in morphology (such as those Dr. John Legler was attempting, and failed to demonstrate, with Chelodina Longicolis in the early 1980's), and we can perhaps revisit the subject.
"They didn't control access to the computers in such a way as to prevent this kind of usage by students. In the case of an adult in the same situation, the school is guilty of, at a bare minimum, presenting an attractive nuisance in the form of a computer that could be used for this."
Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
No more ridiculous than blaming the parents, who were at work at the time, for what their kid was doing in the school.
It's interesting that the school, acting in loco parentis - "in place of the parent" isn't responsible, but the parents somehow are because they aren't remote mind-controlling their xyy asshole of an offspring.
Hey, if it was good enough for Columbus and the European powers in their colonization of America and Australia, "send robots first" is surely good enough for our colonization efforts for the moon and Mars...
There's a big difference between Columbus and space exploration. Columbus was going to a place with air, water, and life. It was already self-sustaining. Space is a much harsher mistress than the West Indies.
Are you sure there's going to be air, water, and life, after you sail off the edge of the world?
It turns out he *ended up* in a place with air, water, and life, but it's not true that there was a guarantee that that's where he was headed when he left port. When he got there, he actually assumed (incorrectly) that he'd gotten to a different place with air, water, and life than he actually ended up going to.
The point is that there was a risk of losing all three ships and their entire crews.
Throwing a colony onto the moon is much less of a problem than, say Mars, but given that people are willing to go to Mars, even knowing ahead of time that it's a one way trip, and that they'll get (at most) six months science out of it before they die there, should tell you something: your obsession with safety, and NASAs obsession with safety, is not shared by everyone.
If you want to send robots, fine: by all means, pay for it yourself. Or if you're so good at robotics, throw up a couple dozen robot factories in Detroit where land is pretty damn cheap, do a bunch of product manufacturing, and have the robots pay their own way. If you want to send people, and make it permanent, however, I'm happy to chip in on it.
" send autonomous robots to various locations in space to create infrastructure using local resources with advanced manufacturing technology, such as 3D printing"
So we send robots to terraform and prepare a new habitat for humans. Eventually, after many years, the robots send us a message that says "Everything is ready. We are waiting to meet you all for dinner."
Anyone see a problem with this?
Hey, if it was good enough for Columbus and the European powers in their colonization of America and Australia, "send robots first" is surely good enough for our colonization efforts for the moon and Mars...
If you want to understand if the school should be blamed, ask yourself, would the school be blamed if the person was an adult? No. Of course not, that would be silly. The School had as much to do with the activity as the ISP serving the school.
They didn't control access to the computers in such a way as to prevent this kind of usage by students. In the case of an adult in the same situation, the school is guilty of, at a bare minimum, presenting an attractive nuisance in the form of a computer that could be used for this.
But this is all hemming and hawing about "how can we blame someone other than the kid for the actions of the kid?", which is pretty stupid on the face of it. In any other bullying situation, such as assault and battery, you don't blame the parents; you send the kid to juvie, and they get to go to school there, with all of the other genetic sociopaths.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be good for the economy. It may not be so good for the people who can no longer support themselves because they just lost their minimum wage job to a robot. It may not be good for the people who then get mugged by said hungry person either.
If you are attacked by said unemployed maximized minimum wage person, perhaps you should just beat them with your buggy whip until they back off.
What kind of qualifications are you referring to? A+ certificate? Give me a break. We don't have enough PC Installers in the US? They had to fly in PC Installers because of a worker shortage? I think your going on a pretty big assumption that these guys weren't temp workers in India as well. Do you know for a fact that they had jobs when they returned?
The qualification that in order to get an L1-B, they had to have worked for EFI for 18 months, were presumably already bound by an NDA, wanted to keep their jobs when they got back, and were already familiar with "You will do it this way because this way is the way EFI does things". How long, exactly, do you think it takes for a new employee to get up to speed on company specific policies and procedures for wiring closets and server rooms, particularly for a company that, among other things, sells outsourced compute infrastructure?
Or look at it going the other way... Do you think I'd get a work visa for India if I was a PC Installer that was needed in India because the firm didn't want to sign someone for secrecy reasons?
Nope. I don't. Not without a buttload of hassle, if the intent was a work visa. I think they could send you there, though, and you would be able to do the work anyway because of reciprocity agreements between the U.S. and India. IBM frequently does that sort of thing because technically, you're being paid in the U.S., so it doesn't matter that you're working remotely at an IBM facility somewhere else.
From TFA:
the largest and smartest tank ever designed for the British Army
Surely, instead of spending money on smart tanks, they should have all those former Nokia employees laid off by Microsoft build them feature tanks instead?
PS: I'm still wondering why they need soldiers *inside* then, rather than having them be drive-by-wire, just like airborne drones?
now regret to the point that you're willing to rewrite history
And this is bad how? Its your history. If you post something and a week later you decide it probably shouldn't be public knowledge, who really cares if you take it down? Its not like you (for most values of "you" at least) are the sole historian of an important event or other politically-charged information.
Hell.. its your own page.. does it matter if you just write complete BS in the first place?
You're acting like a social network is a web site. It's not, it's a fabric. If you want to be able to do this type of editing, fine, put up a web page, but don't try to pretend that you posting something that makes you look like an asshole, and then me commenting on it, calling you out for being an asshole, and then you changing the original posting so that it looks like I'm the asshole for engaging in an ad hominim attack, is somehow OK.
What the OP has suggested is more or less the old Usenet, but with a single point of failure for me being able to access the shared history of the gestalt of people who were engaged in the conversation or conversations that resulted in that gestalt in the first place. If I'm connected to you and Bob and Tom and etc., we're not just connected through our freedom of association choices, we're also connected by our shared context and history.
I'm also not sure I'd be comfortable with some types of content showing up in "my feed", particularly content that happens to be illegal in my jurisdiction. I certainly don't want ... able to post Nazi propaganda into Germany, ...
So don't be friends with people who would do that. And if you don't know about their leanings before they post that shit, you can just de-friend them and delete their rant (see above.)
See above; I can't just erase our shared context from my memory, if I decide Bob is a Nazi after the fact. One of the problems with Facebook is one of things which make it useful: the extended shared social network, where I not only see what you write in a conversation, but because Bob knows you, and you know me, I get to see Bob being an ass because of his association with you. Am I just supposed to "de-friend" everyone? How do I know that I'm seeing Bob because of you, and not Tom? Maybe I'm seeing him because of both you *and* Tom?
I don't have much to say on your third point as it would be wholly dependent on actual implementation as to whether this theoretical distributed service provides "weak" or "strong" links (whatever the hell that means.)
Also keep in mind that Facebook and Twitter are completely different services with completely different purposes. They may have been glommed together under the "social media" category but that's like saying cats and dogs are the same thing because they both fall into the "common pet" category. They have similarities to be sure, but they have far more in the way of differences.
Twitter's links are "strong" because if you "follow" them, you see every little thing they post. Facebook's links are "weak", because if you "follow" someone, you don't necessarily see every little thing they post.
The reason that offline social networks work is because you have transient freedom of association. You have less of that with Facebook, and drastically less of that with Twitter. That's why Twitter is basically a troll-sewer, and Facebook is less of one.
Another reason for the "troll-sewer" effect is that there is no longer term consequence, if you can delete your posts after the fact. By allowing the rewrite of history (discussed earlier), you remove the need for the social lubricants of politeness, civility, and (possibly pretend) rationality, which are required in real-world interactions. Because of that you end up with large amounts of vitriol over things which would have blown over, or whic
Why? The attacking nation would of course have vacines for those of the preferred segments of their society.
It mutates as it reproduces. It's like the rolling codes on your car alarm or garage door opener: vaccination against the previous code won't prevent you getting infected with the new one. This same effect is why you can have the cold or flu more than once in your life.
It seems that this all about the financial bottom line. I understand things cost money, but it would nice if there was, for once, more concern about human lives.
Actually, it's not.
Glaxo Smith Klein has said that even if they relax the bio safety level 2 requirements for filling the vaccine vials, after a certain (short) point, they will be converting their production of other vaccines from such diseases as rotavirus, measles, mumps, and rubella.
At that point, we are talking about trading American lives to benefit Liberian lives.
Note that the NewLink vaccine donated by Canada has demonstrated Ebola-like symptoms in many of the people who've been inoculated in Phase I trials, so it's entirely possible Canada Health has been giving those people either the virus or a weakened strain of the virus, and is actually infecting people. Apart from that, they also have the fill rate problem that GSK was complaining about, which would short-sheet supplies of other vaccines.
Instead, they should totally go ahead and implement a travel ban so people sneak into the country with ebola instead of coming through the airports.
How exactly is coming in through the airports with ebola, where you have a nice vector to spread the virus both nationally and internationally, superior to people sneaking into the country with ebola?
I am from China. Assange is from Australia. Those of us who are not from the United States of America tend to have an advantage over those who were born and raised inside America because we were not indoctrinated with the Pledge of Allegiance throughout our childhood (into the teen years) but the Americans do
No, you had alternate indoctrination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"The great leader Chairman Mao teaches us; promote physical fitness exercises, and improve people's physical condition. We must always be ready to protect our country."
Note that I first heard this in a U.S. social studies/world history class when I was 14 years old, following normalization of relations with China. And yes, we did the exercises.
Patriotism is not necessarily a bad thing, but to try to claim that it's a U.S. phenomenon because of "The Pledge of Allegiance" is any more indoctrinating than radio broadcasts of physical fitness exercises as part of military readiness is disingenuous.
P.S.: They were off the radio in China for a while, but they are back on the air. This is a daily occurrence in China to this day; The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer practiced in most U.S. schools, although, except in 4 states where it's outlawed, it's generally at the discretion of the school board and/or individual teacher. Most avoid the controversy.
It's almost certainly a violation of immigration law. I assume that these people came to Fremont on visitor visas that don't allow the visa holder to "work". Even if the foreign workers were here on H1s or L1s (which I doubt), they would have been violating the salary requirements for that type of visa.
My understanding from someone familiar with the case is that they were in the U.S. on L1-B visas that had been legally applied for; it's common practice for companies like IBM to pay their existing wage plus a per diem when they send someone to India to train people there, or to otherwise resolve issues in the foreign country.
From what I've been told, this is a misunderstanding on the part of EFI with regard to equivalence between the labor laws that apply in the other direction, and the labor laws that apply in the U.S. not being equivalent. It's why the fine was so low, and it's why only the California minimum wage was enforced in the payout to the workers, and why additional charges were not leveled at EFI by the USCIS.
It's pretty common for many organizations to do this (without the prevailing wage screwup) to avoid having to swear third party contractors or temporary employees to secrecy, without a relatively big carrot/stick to get them to keep their secrets. At least one of the photographs of the aluminum laser cut single piece MacBook case was a result of bringing in outside contractors to put down new carpet squares in the lab in question.
A lot of U.S. people tend to dislike this type of thing because it means that they don't get the temporary job that they can then leverage to get cell phone pictures to sell Engadget and really cash in on the situation, since a temporary position paying prevailing wages for a short term gig isn't going to come anywhere close to matching a $50,000 payday from a tech blog. They also don't believe that the foreign workers deserve to have the jobs they do in their native country, when it could be done for much higher cost in the U.S. by a less qualified American.
I think a lot of the SVC people laid off were people working on Microsoft Products for Apple. Mountain View, at the facility South of the I-101/I-85 interchange, near Moffett Field, were there to do work on Mac OS X products. I you look at the Microsoft job postings, you'll see that almost everyone in APEX is a continuing engineer, and that there are a small number of Objective-C and iOS openings that all appear to be concentrated on front-ending Office 365 on Mac OS X and iPhone, iPod, and iPad, rather than native applications.
I expect this is the non-announcement that Office 2014 for Apple products is going to be nothing more than a front-end wrapper for their subscription products. This somewhat makes sense, given that Apple has been pressuring them on productivity apps on their platforms, and that "good enough" is the enemy of "expensive". If you couple this with Mac OS X *never* having been a tier 1 platform for Office products (where's VB 5, VB.Net, Acces, etc. for Mac OS X?), it was never intended that Apple desktop systems be able to compete with Windows desktop systems in terms of being able to do the same vertical market development using ports from Windows vertical market development. It was an avoidance of cannibalizing the Windows market in that area.
Obviously, I could be wrong, but when working at Apple, I visited the Office developers there several times to deal with OS and kernel related issues; the only place they seem to be willing to hire Objective-C people seems to be Redmond or Bellevue, and it appears to be for things like Skype development, not office; the APEX jobs appear to be remaining in Mountain View at present, and greatly scaled back.
I believe the actual concern is that with a long enough snippet, people lose interest, and instead of driving traffic to the web site, you actually detract from the traffic that gets sent to the site.
This was a concern for U.S. newspapers as well, a few years back, but given that most of their content is syndicated off the AP newswire, or by United Press International, or by Reuters, or some other wire service, there's very little left of value in a paper that's failing to do journalism, and therefore isn't creating content that a clone of everyone else's content.
The actual number you are looking for is 85%.
Straight out of Donald Knuth volume 3: Sorting and Searching; at 85% fill, a perfect hash starts degrading in performance.
The basis of the Berkeley Fast File System warn level was an 85% fill on the disk, which the filesystem effectively hashed data allocations onto. As people started getting larger and larger disks, they began to be concerned about "wasted space" in the free reserve, and moved the warnings down to 10%, then 8%, and so on.
This is what the OP is suggesting (again) for very large disks, but without something like an LFS and a background defragger, fundamentally, most FS implementations performance still starts to drop of a 85%+ fill. Background defraggers/"cleaner daemons" have their own performance issues (e.g. like Garbage Collectors, they tend to run at the worst possible times, as in when you are putting performance pressure on the system already).
But as Ken Thompson said: "The steady state of disks is full".
Distributed social networks won't work.
The problem is that if you are hosting the content on your own server, you have ultimate revisionist control of what you've said in the past, and now regret to the point that you're willing to rewrite history. In the limit, there's always the "off" switch if you want to duck out on the responsibility for what you've said.
I'm also not sure I'd be comfortable with some types of content showing up in "my feed", particularly content that happens to be illegal in my jurisdiction. I certainly don't want some anarcho-syndicalist tearing down all of the political borders because he thinks he should be able to post Nazi propaganda into Germany, or some other radical element deciding that I should have to hear his manifesto.
Right now we are seeing the problem with this with the whole "GamerGate" fiasco with Twitter because Twitter has strong distribution links for all their content (unlike Facebook). People who want to be seen, heard, and use social networking for self-promotion, or for a cheap way to send out coupons to their followers appreciate the strong links in Twitter, and complain bitterly about the less strong links in Facebook. Sometimes having the ability to self-damp these things is not altogether bad.
Court's judgement, not Google's.
Quit offloading the responsibility for your censorship onto a third party. KTHXBAI.
sudo apt-get remove pulseaudio
It'll never touch your settings again!
Also, it's incredibly poorly designed, and they won't take patches that fix things.
It's interesting what Cisco is becoming.
A decade, even half a decade, ago, Cisco was greatly admired for their ability to acquire without attrition. When a company acquired another company, you usually saw 10-12% attrition in the first 6 months, after the pay-for-stay for key personnel expired, and another 8-10% at the end of 12 months. That meant that between 18% and 22% of what you just bought had walked out your door in your first year.
Cisco's numbers were 2% and 5% for 6 and 12 months, respectively. Cisco knew how to do an "acquihire", and keep the talent that it bought the company for, and in acquisitions which weren't simply talent plays, it knew how to do that too.
It seems that this expertise has been lost along the way, or that in one of these annual "transformations", something broke. Either way, with the way they are acting like IBM Global Services these days, or perhaps the post acquisition EDA or post-divestiture Agilent, they are unlikely to be able to repeat their past successes in acquisition, since the trust has been lost.
Which is really a shame, since they were the envy of the entire tech industry for their capability in this regard, not just Silicon Valley. We used to have meetings at IBM about how we could possibly do what they did, with the numbers they got, and thus avoid killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Similar meeting took place at Apple, particularly prior to the acquisition of P.A. Semi (and much of the team deserted Apple for places like Google anyway, after the lockout handcuffs were removed so that the people who were there prior to the acquisition could cash out and skedaddle.
It's interesting what they are becoming, because it's not the old Cisco; it most resembles, if I had to pick a company and an era, the post Carly Fiorina H.P.; here's hoping it doesn't turn out the same for them, and that they can correct their course before the rudder falls off entirely.
Except that the school *did* tell the parents. (Probably while telling them that their kid is suspended.) And the parents grounded their little bundle-of-joy for a week, so obviously they agree at some level that their kid's a little shit.
Where they dropped the ball is that Little Timmy didn't have to go over to this kid's house and apologize to her face.
Ah yes. Making the asshole tormentor show up at her house to intimidate by his presence in person. That has generally fixed all my problems, knowing that the bully knows where I live, so as soon as the parents are not constantly riding herd on the little asshole, he and a couple of his friends can break into the house, shit on a plate, write a note, and leave it in the fridge.
Some people don't count as human beings, and despite the best efforts of their parents to program them to be human beings, the little psychopaths are unfixable. Yeah, that's also politically incorrect in this day and age where the fault is always external to the human exhibiting the bad behaviour.
Not to mention checking to make damned sure that the site was down. If Timmy had sprayed graffiti all over a house, you wouldn't ground him, but figure "nah, he doesn't need to actually clean it up", right?
You don't need to be computer literate to verify that paint is gone from a wall and/or painted over. You keep assuming that the parents are not only computer literate, that they are *more* computer literate than little Timmy, such that little Timmy couldn't pull a fast one on the old parents.
That's just not the case, in the majority of circumstances.
How about we first focus on the dangerous rouge states with large confirmed nuclear arsenals and the better part of a century of history of stirring up trouble all over the world. I'm speaking of the US of course.
If by "stirring up trouble", you mean "not allowing Arab countries who deny the right of Israel to exist as a nation-state to destroy Israel without giving Israel aid", how about we don't, and they instead just agree to quit shooting at Israel, and Israel agrees to quit shooting back?
And Lamarckism is still thought impossible
Maybe not according to the recent work done in epigenetics. Of course, everything is open to both corroboration and interpretation.
The problems with taking this article to mean what Lamarckism people would dearly love for it to mean are:
(1) It applies to memories, not to morphological traits; Lamarckism is specific to inherited morphological traits on the basis of environmental pressures.
(2) "it may give the sheen of respetability" - a "sheen" is not the same thing as actually being respectable, and "may" is not the same as "does".
Come back with a multigenerational study that demonstrates a change in morphology (such as those Dr. John Legler was attempting, and failed to demonstrate, with Chelodina Longicolis in the early 1980's), and we can perhaps revisit the subject.
Lamarckism was once thought impossible and now we have epigenetics.
And Lamarckism is still thought impossible.
"They didn't control access to the computers in such a way as to prevent this kind of usage by students. In the case of an adult in the same situation, the school is guilty of, at a bare minimum, presenting an attractive nuisance in the form of a computer that could be used for this."
Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
No more ridiculous than blaming the parents, who were at work at the time, for what their kid was doing in the school.
It's interesting that the school, acting in loco parentis - "in place of the parent" isn't responsible, but the parents somehow are because they aren't remote mind-controlling their xyy asshole of an offspring.
Hey, if it was good enough for Columbus and the European powers in their colonization of America and Australia, "send robots first" is surely good enough for our colonization efforts for the moon and Mars...
There's a big difference between Columbus and space exploration. Columbus was going to a place with air, water, and life. It was already self-sustaining. Space is a much harsher mistress than the West Indies.
Are you sure there's going to be air, water, and life, after you sail off the edge of the world?
It turns out he *ended up* in a place with air, water, and life, but it's not true that there was a guarantee that that's where he was headed when he left port. When he got there, he actually assumed (incorrectly) that he'd gotten to a different place with air, water, and life than he actually ended up going to.
The point is that there was a risk of losing all three ships and their entire crews.
Throwing a colony onto the moon is much less of a problem than, say Mars, but given that people are willing to go to Mars, even knowing ahead of time that it's a one way trip, and that they'll get (at most) six months science out of it before they die there, should tell you something: your obsession with safety, and NASAs obsession with safety, is not shared by everyone.
If you want to send robots, fine: by all means, pay for it yourself. Or if you're so good at robotics, throw up a couple dozen robot factories in Detroit where land is pretty damn cheap, do a bunch of product manufacturing, and have the robots pay their own way. If you want to send people, and make it permanent, however, I'm happy to chip in on it.
We get *this* planet civilized first...?
I think we'd happily ship you off to Somalia or Iraq to help with that...
" send autonomous robots to various locations in space to create infrastructure using local resources with advanced manufacturing technology, such as 3D printing"
So we send robots to terraform and prepare a new habitat for humans.
Eventually, after many years, the robots send us a message that says "Everything is ready. We are waiting to meet you all for dinner."
Anyone see a problem with this?
Hey, if it was good enough for Columbus and the European powers in their colonization of America and Australia, "send robots first" is surely good enough for our colonization efforts for the moon and Mars...
If you want to understand if the school should be blamed, ask yourself, would the school be blamed if the person was an adult? No. Of course not, that would be silly. The School had as much to do with the activity as the ISP serving the school.
They didn't control access to the computers in such a way as to prevent this kind of usage by students. In the case of an adult in the same situation, the school is guilty of, at a bare minimum, presenting an attractive nuisance in the form of a computer that could be used for this.
But this is all hemming and hawing about "how can we blame someone other than the kid for the actions of the kid?", which is pretty stupid on the face of it. In any other bullying situation, such as assault and battery, you don't blame the parents; you send the kid to juvie, and they get to go to school there, with all of the other genetic sociopaths.