Looks like all the comments are trending this way, and I agree.
The interviewer seems to be looking to "defeat" his interviewees, which is a classic engineer social mistake. This guy likely shouldn't be a hiring manager.
I choose science too! One of the great things about science is that it can quickly conclude hypotheses based on opinion and prejudice. Continuation of such conjectures after solid refutation strips them of any "scientific" inquiry and authority. They are exposed for the pure prejudice they are.
And all members of a society are welcome to respond to such open and public prejudice in any reasonable manner they choose.
As he is also a well-known sexist jerk and research thief, I choose to spurn him. Join me if you agree, don't if you do not.
Absolutely right. It isn't a contest between liberal arts and STEM: it is about building diverse, critical, integrated teams instead of technology monocultures.
Communication, writing, and sociological insight are crucial _additions_ to a hardcore STEM team. As a CTO with an MFA, I can tell you for certain that my arts background has been the key to my success building product cultures and finding the best viable technology paths. But it doesn't mean it is the only way.
Also: read lots of novels. They help you become a better human whatever your degree.
I completely agree. So much of engineering is actually about understanding the problem, so adding more people from the same background will not improve this. I always hire a diverse set of people, and help them work together as a team. While it is crucial to have some solid CS people there, having humanities (especially Library Science, my favorite degree to hire from) helps cut through the groupthink and improves the solution pool, same as hiring both young and old programmers etc.
Also, its more fun.
You can totally get a great job with only technical training, but those "bullshit lib arts requirements" are exactly what will allow all of your colleagues to advance past you. Literature and art are not just "fun": they are part of becoming rich human beings. Others' ability to speak well, and connect with, write to, and understand others will turn them into your bosses fairly quickly.
But if you want a good job, and to stay there forever, technical training is absolutely sufficient.
Agreed. And my least favorite feature of FF3? That "smart" toolbar, that refuses to listen to what I'm typing in preference to its own idea of what i want.
No thanks.
I agree with both of you. Ajax applications should degrade elegantly, or rather the Javascript should "turn on" the AJAX functionality. It should, at the markup level, still operate as a classic web page. If you want Google or sight-impaired users to ever use your site, you've got to put in the time to make it properly.
Just because it may be legal, doesn't mean it isn't censorship. It sounds like you agree with me that it is, only you won't call it that. I don't think its just "up to the customers" either, believing as I do in a bit of regulation of companies who control what are basically public communications (and not similar to your private property church example).
Ok, I understand. But don't think you're not getting tracked because there are no cookies. Anyone who runs a log analysis of their web server collects click-depth by ip address, which is no different. You go somewhere, they register that you've been there. Cookies or server log, I don't see the difference, and I just can't muster up much outrage either way.
To preserve any state (login, for instance) in an essentially stateless mechanism, cookies are the simplest path. Or they could tag the url with your id after you log in, or track your ip, but I really don't see how that's any better. All cookies do is say "there he is again, carrying that value I set earlier."
Why would you upgrade your workplace computers to a pre-release version of essential software? Complain about the release, not the candidates. Submit bugs on candidates.
They're not trying to be an ISP anymore: they're trying to be Yahoo. They are using their user base as an instant audience. It is a significant number of people, enough to pull it off if they all stick around and click through the content. Whether they stick around, however, is up for debate.
This is a very good point. Sudden massive thread creation is an anomalous situation in servers. Usually you create a pool of webserver/database/app threads to serve an expected concurrency level and scale up ahead of increases in use. Thus, this test is not the common case.
I guess I disagree with the idea that Star Wars is campy. Rocky Horror is campy, the TV Batman is campy, but Star Wars is earnest in the extreme. Just because this earnestness is laughable at times, or you see it for ironic reasons, doesn't make it campy. I loved the first movie when I was seven, without _any_ campiness.
I was tempted to heckle the screen myself for this one, simply because it is sooo baaaad. Its heart is altogether in the wrong place to be enjoyed as camp, though.
It depends on what you are doing. I bet there are more people serving up CGI perl than are writing Apache modules. Therefore, the advantages of the former are more important to more people. Might not be as cool, but that's not what he said.
There is a method for this, called DOCTYPE. If you declare your DOCTYPE, than you better stick to what you say you are. If not, be prepared for Quirks Mode. Pages can say how they should be rendered. What other method would there be? Random guessing?
but a quick glance at the rest of the list makes me feel a lot better
I can't say it makes me feel better. What about some privacy advocates? EFF? Most of these are right-wing think tank folks. Looks more like a group that can organize the collection of private information than protect it.
I don't like it when people equate free-market developments with more freedom, openness, or globalization. China is an excellent example in showing that (somewhat) free-markets do not necessarily lead to more freedom. They are developing a yuppie class which is quite happy to make money, buy Luis Vuitton bags, and stay quiet. Hardly an opening up. Meanwhile the countryside is falling into greater poverty, corruption, and control.
If it is following any example, it is that of the plutocratic Arab oil states. Not the west. All the Party cares about is maintaining power and making money.
Well, one could argue that Occam's razor favors atheism, since it favors the fewest suppositions. Postulating God to explain complex events inserts an equally complex entity into the explanation. So, the argument goes, the scientific view would favor atheism. This reasoning would not favor Wiccan beliefs.
No different, but there is a much bigger pattern of such action with Bush, and the consequences (ie, increased mercury levels, global warming) are much, much worse. Sometimes not, though: I for one enjoy the new creationist pamphlets at the Grand Canyon. They're a hoot. But science it ain't.
You are totally correct in saying that science cannot answer many technological and political questions. Endangered species, stem cell research, abortion, cloning: these are ethical questions. Science can only contribute fact.
However, there is one thing which science is fantastic at. All worthy science must be reproducible and disputable. This is what makes it science. Because of this, it doesn't matter what the biases of the scientists are. This is the breakthrough that made positivist science paramount.
Don't trust scientists, but do trust the scientific process, because it doesn't trust anyone.
I think people got in a stir over this because it is not the first case of this administration pushing facts around, and pushing scientists around. They seem to like science's authoritative voice, but not the multiple voices it turns out to actually be.
Look, there are all sorts of groups that have agendas. That does not mean, a priori, that everything they say is bullshit. UCS is pretty well respected, and you just blow them off 'cause you disagree with their political perspective. That's why I posted that reference to the pundits Bush has been paying off: they too just pile on anyone who disagrees with Bush. Relax, man, and have a real political discussion, instead of just assuming liberals are such monsters. Discuss the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like all the comments are trending this way, and I agree. The interviewer seems to be looking to "defeat" his interviewees, which is a classic engineer social mistake. This guy likely shouldn't be a hiring manager.
I choose science too! One of the great things about science is that it can quickly conclude hypotheses based on opinion and prejudice. Continuation of such conjectures after solid refutation strips them of any "scientific" inquiry and authority. They are exposed for the pure prejudice they are.
And all members of a society are welcome to respond to such open and public prejudice in any reasonable manner they choose.
As he is also a well-known sexist jerk and research thief, I choose to spurn him. Join me if you agree, don't if you do not.
Absolutely right. It isn't a contest between liberal arts and STEM: it is about building diverse, critical, integrated teams instead of technology monocultures. Communication, writing, and sociological insight are crucial _additions_ to a hardcore STEM team. As a CTO with an MFA, I can tell you for certain that my arts background has been the key to my success building product cultures and finding the best viable technology paths. But it doesn't mean it is the only way. Also: read lots of novels. They help you become a better human whatever your degree.
I completely agree. So much of engineering is actually about understanding the problem, so adding more people from the same background will not improve this. I always hire a diverse set of people, and help them work together as a team. While it is crucial to have some solid CS people there, having humanities (especially Library Science, my favorite degree to hire from) helps cut through the groupthink and improves the solution pool, same as hiring both young and old programmers etc. Also, its more fun.
You can totally get a great job with only technical training, but those "bullshit lib arts requirements" are exactly what will allow all of your colleagues to advance past you. Literature and art are not just "fun": they are part of becoming rich human beings. Others' ability to speak well, and connect with, write to, and understand others will turn them into your bosses fairly quickly. But if you want a good job, and to stay there forever, technical training is absolutely sufficient.
Agreed. And my least favorite feature of FF3? That "smart" toolbar, that refuses to listen to what I'm typing in preference to its own idea of what i want. No thanks.
I agree with both of you. Ajax applications should degrade elegantly, or rather the Javascript should "turn on" the AJAX functionality. It should, at the markup level, still operate as a classic web page. If you want Google or sight-impaired users to ever use your site, you've got to put in the time to make it properly.
Just because it may be legal, doesn't mean it isn't censorship. It sounds like you agree with me that it is, only you won't call it that. I don't think its just "up to the customers" either, believing as I do in a bit of regulation of companies who control what are basically public communications (and not similar to your private property church example).
Ok, I understand. But don't think you're not getting tracked because there are no cookies. Anyone who runs a log analysis of their web server collects click-depth by ip address, which is no different. You go somewhere, they register that you've been there. Cookies or server log, I don't see the difference, and I just can't muster up much outrage either way.
To preserve any state (login, for instance) in an essentially stateless mechanism, cookies are the simplest path. Or they could tag the url with your id after you log in, or track your ip, but I really don't see how that's any better. All cookies do is say "there he is again, carrying that value I set earlier."
Why would you upgrade your workplace computers to a pre-release version of essential software? Complain about the release, not the candidates. Submit bugs on candidates.
They're not trying to be an ISP anymore: they're trying to be Yahoo. They are using their user base as an instant audience. It is a significant number of people, enough to pull it off if they all stick around and click through the content. Whether they stick around, however, is up for debate.
This is a very good point. Sudden massive thread creation is an anomalous situation in servers. Usually you create a pool of webserver/database/app threads to serve an expected concurrency level and scale up ahead of increases in use. Thus, this test is not the common case.
I guess I disagree with the idea that Star Wars is campy. Rocky Horror is campy, the TV Batman is campy, but Star Wars is earnest in the extreme. Just because this earnestness is laughable at times, or you see it for ironic reasons, doesn't make it campy. I loved the first movie when I was seven, without _any_ campiness.
I was tempted to heckle the screen myself for this one, simply because it is sooo baaaad. Its heart is altogether in the wrong place to be enjoyed as camp, though.
It depends on what you are doing. I bet there are more people serving up CGI perl than are writing Apache modules. Therefore, the advantages of the former are more important to more people. Might not be as cool, but that's not what he said.
There is a method for this, called DOCTYPE. If you declare your DOCTYPE, than you better stick to what you say you are. If not, be prepared for Quirks Mode. Pages can say how they should be rendered. What other method would there be? Random guessing?
corporations have no power that isn't given to them by choices consumers make
Just a for instancebut a quick glance at the rest of the list makes me feel a lot better
I can't say it makes me feel better. What about some privacy advocates? EFF? Most of these are right-wing think tank folks. Looks more like a group that can organize the collection of private information than protect it.
I have to assume you were kidding...
I don't like it when people equate free-market developments with more freedom, openness, or globalization. China is an excellent example in showing that (somewhat) free-markets do not necessarily lead to more freedom. They are developing a yuppie class which is quite happy to make money, buy Luis Vuitton bags, and stay quiet. Hardly an opening up. Meanwhile the countryside is falling into greater poverty, corruption, and control. If it is following any example, it is that of the plutocratic Arab oil states. Not the west. All the Party cares about is maintaining power and making money.
"Try not. Do or do not, there is no try"
I think it was Yoda.
Well, one could argue that Occam's razor favors atheism, since it favors the fewest suppositions. Postulating God to explain complex events inserts an equally complex entity into the explanation. So, the argument goes, the scientific view would favor atheism. This reasoning would not favor Wiccan beliefs.
No different, but there is a much bigger pattern of such action with Bush, and the consequences (ie, increased mercury levels, global warming) are much, much worse. Sometimes not, though: I for one enjoy the new creationist pamphlets at the Grand Canyon. They're a hoot. But science it ain't.
You are totally correct in saying that science cannot answer many technological and political questions. Endangered species, stem cell research, abortion, cloning: these are ethical questions. Science can only contribute fact.
However, there is one thing which science is fantastic at. All worthy science must be reproducible and disputable. This is what makes it science. Because of this, it doesn't matter what the biases of the scientists are. This is the breakthrough that made positivist science paramount.
Don't trust scientists, but do trust the scientific process, because it doesn't trust anyone.
I think people got in a stir over this because it is not the first case of this administration pushing facts around, and pushing scientists around. They seem to like science's authoritative voice, but not the multiple voices it turns out to actually be.
Look, there are all sorts of groups that have agendas. That does not mean, a priori, that everything they say is bullshit. UCS is pretty well respected, and you just blow them off 'cause you disagree with their political perspective. That's why I posted that reference to the pundits Bush has been paying off: they too just pile on anyone who disagrees with Bush. Relax, man, and have a real political discussion, instead of just assuming liberals are such monsters. Discuss the issue.
Wow. Did you get paid to post that?