I dunno, but I'd hate to have to drag my yak to the grocery store to trade for supplies. Money is a whole lot more convenient, and doesn't shit the rug, which also is a plus.
That makes no sense. If you're giving two weeks notice you're ONLY doing it to train your replacement. If you do not have any real intention of training your replacement, why bother to actually do work!?? You're outta there!
When negotiating with a new employer about a start date, it's very hard to get a start date far enough in the future to get some time off (esp since you're losing vacation days etc. in the process). If you can get a full month it's a miracle, at least with large employers that have large applicant pools. That two weeks you're extending to your current employer is exceptionally generous and a bit risky (especially since these days your employer will fire you/lay you off on the spot, with no notice and no warning and possibly no severence, because it was convenient to them). If you're going to do it, do it right, otherwise you're not fooling anyone.
At my present employer they will terminate you on the spot if you are going to a competitor (or presumably if you don't tell them where you're going). The natural reaction to this is that people burn all their vacation before they quit, pack up their stuff, back up whatever data they want to back up, and then show up to work to be walked out as soon as they quit. For simply leaving it's between you and your boss but I can't imagine my boss not wanting two weeks of my time to transfer what I'm doing to someone else.
If they lay you off or fire you, you get walked instantly. If they're giving you severance (and they don't always) then you better make sure you don't sign until your personal property is returned. If they're not giving you severance it's time to try to blackmail them, and in most large corporations there's usually something you can use if you have the balls to do it (and if you don't, get some).
There's a lot of bullshit out there, it's all ok unless you get caught. If you get caught make sure that the consequences are paid between you and your employer, not the general public.
Nothing crazy, I think the point was that Kurzweil's napkin math is total bullshit. But then, if you read Kurzweil's article, that's really not the point.
Kurzweil isn't a biologist, he's a computer scientist interested in information theory. The model of the human brain that is interesting to computer scientists has shown value in solving computer science problems, it's explained in introductory texts that this model has no significant relationship to actual biology, except that it is loosely modeled after it. Understanding the brain better may lead also lead to better computer science models which may do Great Things. It seems like an attractive (albeit unproven) theory that our DNA determines the approximate construction of the human brain in terms of how the 22 billion neurons are connected to each other through the 220 Trillion synapses. We know from neural networking theory that the organization of neurons and synapses absolutely affects the utility of the network, and from 50 year old gross anatomy that the brain is not a uniform collection of networks. There is organization and specialization in there. Different parts of the brain appear to have different structures, different types of connectivity and different chemistry. It's present in too many different studied brains to be a coincidence, it pretty much has to be from DNA.
On the other hand, biologists, who believe the structure of the brain is their territory, might argue that DNA is just a blueprint, that much goes in to our physical makeup that isn't preordained, that we're really far from being able to understand how and what parts of the brain are constructed from blueprints and what is the result of "life". It has been proven that chemistry and physical parameters (such as synapse length) impact brain performance, these are things that can't be accounted for with DNA, but which are undoubtedly part of the function of the brain. To them it is clear bullshit that in 20 years we'll understand the evolution of the brain and how it will work, and clearer bullshit that we already understand it and can boil it down to a few million lines of code based on some napkin math about DNA strands. I've never studied more than basic college biology, but the examples given in TFA were pretty clear: they do not know how the DNA itself really works, much less how it fits together to produce a working brain.
I think everyone is making truthy statements (mixed with a lot of crap that has no value, and let's grow up and stop the name calling), but at the end of the day this sounds like a fight for research funding, and maybe Kurzweil is a little bit better at marketing than the author of TFA. I saw a lot of protein folding and tl;dr. Then Kurzweil is all like "OMG IMMORTALITY YOU MORONS" and I was like "GIVE THAT MAN SOME MONEY".
Not if you spent the past 13 years learning math from textbooks written by various educators who think they have a clever new way for teaching math. It's anything but obvious that when an equal sign is used it necessarily means equality, quite often the desired intent is to force the student to solve the given equation before moving on.
If the test writer used "x" or any single letter variable (other than i maybe) I bet you most students would have correctly answered the question because it would be unambiguous that they were being provided an equality.
I'm pretty sure using the parenthesis is what is causing the students to do the wrong thing. I managed to get through electrical engineering with all the differential calculus and the fun excursions that takes, but when I saw 4+3+2=()+2, I believe a perfectly acceptable response might be 4+3+2=(9)+2=11.
Accusing students of not knowing what the equal sign means because they're unable to read minds is not the same as being uneducated. In this world, particularly in math, we have conventions. The convention students are taught is that single letters (i.e. "x") are variables to be solved for. An empty set of parentheses is not one we're taught, but being can-do type students we try to interpret it. One interpretation is "fill in the blank", another may be "what quantity makes this statement true". In elementary school math you will frequently see "fill in the blank" operations like what's in the summary, and the correct answer is to do as 70% of the students do and perform an operation rather than solve for the unknown variable.
Pretty sure it would be hard to live up "undisclosed payments" from your company to a "marketing consultant" with which you had a "close personal relationship". Most of us employees want to oust our bosses over far less.
TDP is not the maximum possible power dissipation of an IC, that would be the absolute max power dissipation (which is often inferred). No one designs to that number because it's outrageous. TDP is generally the design-to power rating which hardware & system vendors design their cooling solutions to. I worked with a thermal engineer who came here from a different industry who designed to the max power dissipation, the heat sink weighs 25-30 pounds. It's pretty awesome.
Typically TDP is not expected to be exceeded in most practical situations. However we're all wary of, and often create utilities for the "thermal virus": that insipid piece of software that manages to well exceed the TDP for significant amounts of time. You won't find anyone who designs to the absolute power, but most of us leave some overhead on TDP, and test to it carefully. For do-it-yourself chassis, people often go to exotic means to provide crazy airflow or cooling solutions that large PC manufacturers couldn't justify (although they often screw up on power supplies, since it's much harder to understand without a scope and a lot of EE knowledge).
Probably can't happen, the parallel computing model is very different than the model you use in applications today. It's still evolving, but I doubt you will ever be in a position where you can write code as you do now and have it use and benefit from GPU hardware out of the gates.
No that would be opening the bra strap with her facing you. Popping the strap is generally considered clumsy, but a sign of someone who maybe spent his points everywhere but wis or dex.
Because apple spends so much time trying to convince us they're our friends, that the inflated price tag is because they do much better engineering, and generally snobbing anything else. For them to censor unbiased analysis of their product is inexcusable. They should be on their board either explaining why the consumer reports article is incorrect, or apologizing profusely (replacing the overpriced and broken hardware people have).
I'm not sure what's more insulting, the implication that young homosexual boys are sexually confused, or implying that homosexuals find Prince attractive. Note I didn't say ANY of them, others added that bias for me.
I meant sexually confused, as in "not sure if they've been shot, fucked or snake bit". I don't remember this as being that uncommon, particularly of boys who had a lot of sisters or primarily female friends.
My last motherboard from Fry's also died with a popped cap and leaking fluid. This only goes to show that Dell tends to overuse foreign design services, not that they're necessarily malignantly evil.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, but I'd hate to have to drag my yak to the grocery store to trade for supplies. Money is a whole lot more convenient, and doesn't shit the rug, which also is a plus.
That makes no sense. If you're giving two weeks notice you're ONLY doing it to train your replacement. If you do not have any real intention of training your replacement, why bother to actually do work!?? You're outta there!
When negotiating with a new employer about a start date, it's very hard to get a start date far enough in the future to get some time off (esp since you're losing vacation days etc. in the process). If you can get a full month it's a miracle, at least with large employers that have large applicant pools. That two weeks you're extending to your current employer is exceptionally generous and a bit risky (especially since these days your employer will fire you/lay you off on the spot, with no notice and no warning and possibly no severence, because it was convenient to them). If you're going to do it, do it right, otherwise you're not fooling anyone.
At my present employer they will terminate you on the spot if you are going to a competitor (or presumably if you don't tell them where you're going). The natural reaction to this is that people burn all their vacation before they quit, pack up their stuff, back up whatever data they want to back up, and then show up to work to be walked out as soon as they quit. For simply leaving it's between you and your boss but I can't imagine my boss not wanting two weeks of my time to transfer what I'm doing to someone else.
If they lay you off or fire you, you get walked instantly. If they're giving you severance (and they don't always) then you better make sure you don't sign until your personal property is returned. If they're not giving you severance it's time to try to blackmail them, and in most large corporations there's usually something you can use if you have the balls to do it (and if you don't, get some).
There's a lot of bullshit out there, it's all ok unless you get caught. If you get caught make sure that the consequences are paid between you and your employer, not the general public.
Nothing crazy, I think the point was that Kurzweil's napkin math is total bullshit. But then, if you read Kurzweil's article, that's really not the point.
Kurzweil isn't a biologist, he's a computer scientist interested in information theory. The model of the human brain that is interesting to computer scientists has shown value in solving computer science problems, it's explained in introductory texts that this model has no significant relationship to actual biology, except that it is loosely modeled after it. Understanding the brain better may lead also lead to better computer science models which may do Great Things. It seems like an attractive (albeit unproven) theory that our DNA determines the approximate construction of the human brain in terms of how the 22 billion neurons are connected to each other through the 220 Trillion synapses. We know from neural networking theory that the organization of neurons and synapses absolutely affects the utility of the network, and from 50 year old gross anatomy that the brain is not a uniform collection of networks. There is organization and specialization in there. Different parts of the brain appear to have different structures, different types of connectivity and different chemistry. It's present in too many different studied brains to be a coincidence, it pretty much has to be from DNA.
On the other hand, biologists, who believe the structure of the brain is their territory, might argue that DNA is just a blueprint, that much goes in to our physical makeup that isn't preordained, that we're really far from being able to understand how and what parts of the brain are constructed from blueprints and what is the result of "life". It has been proven that chemistry and physical parameters (such as synapse length) impact brain performance, these are things that can't be accounted for with DNA, but which are undoubtedly part of the function of the brain. To them it is clear bullshit that in 20 years we'll understand the evolution of the brain and how it will work, and clearer bullshit that we already understand it and can boil it down to a few million lines of code based on some napkin math about DNA strands. I've never studied more than basic college biology, but the examples given in TFA were pretty clear: they do not know how the DNA itself really works, much less how it fits together to produce a working brain.
I think everyone is making truthy statements (mixed with a lot of crap that has no value, and let's grow up and stop the name calling), but at the end of the day this sounds like a fight for research funding, and maybe Kurzweil is a little bit better at marketing than the author of TFA. I saw a lot of protein folding and tl;dr. Then Kurzweil is all like "OMG IMMORTALITY YOU MORONS" and I was like "GIVE THAT MAN SOME MONEY".
Not if you spent the past 13 years learning math from textbooks written by various educators who think they have a clever new way for teaching math. It's anything but obvious that when an equal sign is used it necessarily means equality, quite often the desired intent is to force the student to solve the given equation before moving on.
If the test writer used "x" or any single letter variable (other than i maybe) I bet you most students would have correctly answered the question because it would be unambiguous that they were being provided an equality.
I'm pretty sure using the parenthesis is what is causing the students to do the wrong thing. I managed to get through electrical engineering with all the differential calculus and the fun excursions that takes, but when I saw 4+3+2=()+2, I believe a perfectly acceptable response might be 4+3+2=(9)+2=11.
Accusing students of not knowing what the equal sign means because they're unable to read minds is not the same as being uneducated. In this world, particularly in math, we have conventions. The convention students are taught is that single letters (i.e. "x") are variables to be solved for. An empty set of parentheses is not one we're taught, but being can-do type students we try to interpret it. One interpretation is "fill in the blank", another may be "what quantity makes this statement true". In elementary school math you will frequently see "fill in the blank" operations like what's in the summary, and the correct answer is to do as 70% of the students do and perform an operation rather than solve for the unknown variable.
Pretty sure it would be hard to live up "undisclosed payments" from your company to a "marketing consultant" with which you had a "close personal relationship". Most of us employees want to oust our bosses over far less.
TDP is not the maximum possible power dissipation of an IC, that would be the absolute max power dissipation (which is often inferred). No one designs to that number because it's outrageous. TDP is generally the design-to power rating which hardware & system vendors design their cooling solutions to. I worked with a thermal engineer who came here from a different industry who designed to the max power dissipation, the heat sink weighs 25-30 pounds. It's pretty awesome.
Typically TDP is not expected to be exceeded in most practical situations. However we're all wary of, and often create utilities for the "thermal virus": that insipid piece of software that manages to well exceed the TDP for significant amounts of time. You won't find anyone who designs to the absolute power, but most of us leave some overhead on TDP, and test to it carefully. For do-it-yourself chassis, people often go to exotic means to provide crazy airflow or cooling solutions that large PC manufacturers couldn't justify (although they often screw up on power supplies, since it's much harder to understand without a scope and a lot of EE knowledge).
Where I work, we call them "Spreadsheet Engineers". They are the perpetual bane of REAL engineers.
We all know that once the ring goes on the finger, our libido stops cold.
Probably can't happen, the parallel computing model is very different than the model you use in applications today. It's still evolving, but I doubt you will ever be in a position where you can write code as you do now and have it use and benefit from GPU hardware out of the gates.
CUDA or OpenCL is how they do it.
The analysis is wrong twice a year too.
That doesn't make it a troll. Comparing evil communist china with current US practices I think is an exceptionally valid and frightening thing to do.
Duh.
No that would be opening the bra strap with her facing you. Popping the strap is generally considered clumsy, but a sign of someone who maybe spent his points everywhere but wis or dex.
Because apple spends so much time trying to convince us they're our friends, that the inflated price tag is because they do much better engineering, and generally snobbing anything else. For them to censor unbiased analysis of their product is inexcusable. They should be on their board either explaining why the consumer reports article is incorrect, or apologizing profusely (replacing the overpriced and broken hardware people have).
You have to be careful about biting the hand that feeds you, even if it repeatedly punches you in the face while doing so.
I'm not sure what's more insulting, the implication that young homosexual boys are sexually confused, or implying that homosexuals find Prince attractive. Note I didn't say ANY of them, others added that bias for me.
I meant sexually confused, as in "not sure if they've been shot, fucked or snake bit". I don't remember this as being that uncommon, particularly of boys who had a lot of sisters or primarily female friends.
Prince was only hip with love stricken teenage girls and sexually confused young boys.
My last motherboard from Fry's also died with a popped cap and leaking fluid. This only goes to show that Dell tends to overuse foreign design services, not that they're necessarily malignantly evil.
No, with her you just assume she's drinking, use the GPS to locate her and well..you're never wrong.
Not every researcher asking for money is altruistic. Doubt is good.
Damn our minimum wages, safe working conditions, evironmental laws and employee protection laws!
Works fine near as I can tell.