And she would have been the best man in the project, too, if she hadn't died before the start of WWII from radiation poisoning. (I presume she would have emigrated to U.S. to flee Nazi persecution, as many good men in physics and chemistry did.)
And that would be perfectly fine if real-world objects were as iterable as the deliverables of software projects are. The maxim "measure twice, cut once" exists for a reason—it's easy to do things multiple times in software; it's costly and environmentally unsound to do them more than once with real materials.
Here's my question: how much due diligence did they do, ensuring that they are not accidentally catching people selling legit international editions (published by someone properly licensed)? Those exist, and first-sale doctrine in those cases was upheld.
"Flat Earthers" who believe #1 are just pulling your legs. What kind of a crazy person doesn't believe that the Earth is round but believes in Einstein's equivalence principle?
I'm pretty sure YouTube has taken the exact opposite route. You know how so many YouTube creators encourage you to leave comments ("Tell us what you think" at the end of videos)? The ubiquity of such encouragements lead me to think they've been coached to do that, like at CreatorFest or something.
I'd rather blame whoever was on Google+ team. Can you imagine the repercussions if Gmail (or Google Drive) was ever compromised? It's one thing to consent to algorithmic scanning of messages for advertising purposes; it's quite another to have potentially personal and confidential correspondences and documents exposed to malicious actors.
It's useful as a screening tool—just because someone has 3.5+ GPA doesn't mean they will be good fit for the job (they might not have actually earned that grade; they might have earned it at a middle- to low-tier university). But not hiring people who don't at least meet that mark means you are screening out a lot of people who can't function at the level you need them to.
But, alas, the one-percenters you describe aren't going to drive the correlations (also, there are people who don't have that GPA but still "succeed in life", just not in the industries where you see this sort of hiring practice).
P.S. In my hiring role, GPA is the first thing I look at, too (more specifically, grades in specific classes). But in my line of work, course grades are kinda important.
You can have all those things, but if you didn't also have movie millionaires and tech billionaires bidding up real-estate prices, you would still have rock-bottom prices. Maybe regulations don't help, but they are not the driving cause of lack of affordable housing in California—at least around Hollywood and Silicon Valley; you can find plenty of affordable housing "in the middle of nowhere", even in California.
I think it's a matter of cause-and-effect. If you act paranoid because someone is after you, you don't actually have paranoia. However, someone who does have clinical paranoia could have someone who is going after them (further reading: fallacy fallacy).
Slashdot Mirror
And she would have been the best man in the project, too, if she hadn't died before the start of WWII from radiation poisoning. (I presume she would have emigrated to U.S. to flee Nazi persecution, as many good men in physics and chemistry did.)
And that would be perfectly fine if real-world objects were as iterable as the deliverables of software projects are. The maxim "measure twice, cut once" exists for a reason—it's easy to do things multiple times in software; it's costly and environmentally unsound to do them more than once with real materials.
But the Manhattan Project had the most intelligent and capable men of that generation working on it. This is the exact opposite situation.
... that removes spam from Slashdot?
Wouldn't he need some Red Bull first to get his energy up?
#RedBullGivesYouWings
We are no better for having heard your profanity-laden opinion. And yet, I would never advocate that you should be silenced.
Speak for yourself. California literally has a Paradise. (... With apologies to 2018 victims.)
If that's true, then it was a real injustice, anti-democratic (lower-case "d") move to ban Alex Jones.
If that's not true, then there was no real need to ban Alex Jones, and this was a capricious use of power.
For those who would silence^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hshape speech, there are few principled reasons for them to do what they would do.
Clearly, we need a War on Hyperboles. It really boils down to a real need to standardize the English language.
Wouldn't it be easier to have DMV print it on plastic for you?
"Shell" has a different meaning in Windows.
Here's my question: how much due diligence did they do, ensuring that they are not accidentally catching people selling legit international editions (published by someone properly licensed)? Those exist, and first-sale doctrine in those cases was upheld.
Yeah. He's thinking of "Sin of Sodom".
Yes—after all, Republicans weren't "potent" enough to usurp ACA. Again, priorities or impotency.
Why didn't he do anything that Trump or Republicans couldn't undo? Either he didn't have right priorities or he was so ... impotent.
"Flat Earthers" who believe #1 are just pulling your legs. What kind of a crazy person doesn't believe that the Earth is round but believes in Einstein's equivalence principle?
Except the servers have been wiped with a clothe!
I'm pretty sure YouTube has taken the exact opposite route. You know how so many YouTube creators encourage you to leave comments ("Tell us what you think" at the end of videos)? The ubiquity of such encouragements lead me to think they've been coached to do that, like at CreatorFest or something.
It indeed is an oxymoron. If Dilbert cartoons ever taught us anything, it's that no company functions without managers.
I'd rather blame whoever was on Google+ team. Can you imagine the repercussions if Gmail (or Google Drive) was ever compromised? It's one thing to consent to algorithmic scanning of messages for advertising purposes; it's quite another to have potentially personal and confidential correspondences and documents exposed to malicious actors.
It's useful as a screening tool—just because someone has 3.5+ GPA doesn't mean they will be good fit for the job (they might not have actually earned that grade; they might have earned it at a middle- to low-tier university). But not hiring people who don't at least meet that mark means you are screening out a lot of people who can't function at the level you need them to.
But, alas, the one-percenters you describe aren't going to drive the correlations (also, there are people who don't have that GPA but still "succeed in life", just not in the industries where you see this sort of hiring practice).
P.S. In my hiring role, GPA is the first thing I look at, too (more specifically, grades in specific classes). But in my line of work, course grades are kinda important.
Your English is too good to be a surfer dude!
You can have all those things, but if you didn't also have movie millionaires and tech billionaires bidding up real-estate prices, you would still have rock-bottom prices. Maybe regulations don't help, but they are not the driving cause of lack of affordable housing in California—at least around Hollywood and Silicon Valley; you can find plenty of affordable housing "in the middle of nowhere", even in California.
I think it's a matter of cause-and-effect. If you act paranoid because someone is after you, you don't actually have paranoia. However, someone who does have clinical paranoia could have someone who is going after them (further reading: fallacy fallacy).
Except, of course, we are not literally living in the The Man In The High Castle world. This is America (the real one).