Now, consider modern pop stars: who can only sing (not play any instruments)
Name Ten.
I just gotta:
Justin Beiber
Selena Gomez
Demi Lovato
Shawn Mendes (although he does strum a guitar and "co-writes")
Kesha (despite claims of writing, it seems pretty clear that she was not the main influence if she had any)
Britney Spears
Whitney Houston
Heart (2nd incarnation)
Rhianna (see below)
Barry Manilow (irony abounds with "I write the songs")
Milli Vanilli (who didn't even sing their own "songs")
There's more than 10 that are various shades of produced singers that did not write their own songs, just off the top of my head. Rhianna is a candidate, as she certainly doesn't write all her own music, and it appears isn't the main driver in the songs she does co-write. I also spread this across several decades, as it's not a new phenomenon and one of those is actually a group that had considerable success on their own prior to going the produced let someone else write the music route.
I happen to have one. It's "ok" but I don't like it much. As for updates, Samsung may be providing updates, but AT&T, for one, stopped at 6.0, provided you're still on their network.
The screen on my new $100 for work android phone looks great, it's very bright, snappy and the battery lasts 2 days.
And what, pray tell, is the screen on your $100 android phone? I'd guess some sort of lower DPI LCD screen?
On my 46inch TV I'd notice a small difference between 1080p and 4k.
On 55-70 inch screens, I definitely notice a difference between an LG 4K OLED and any LCD screen you'd care to name. I haven't gotten to see their 77" $9K screen yet.
On my 6ish inch phone I really don't think I'd notice any difference with an increase in resolution beyond 720x1280.
You probably wouldn't notice much higher DPI beyond a 30% increase in resolution or so, but you certainly would notice a difference between OLED and LCD.
Get your shit together, LG. You make the best 4K OLED TV panels but you can't maintain any consistency for phones? Someone needs to step up and kill Samsung's stranglehold on that market.
I guess it's a different skillset to make phone screens over TV panels. What's funny is that Samsung doesn't make OLED TVs.
The reason for this is, "In a perfect world, people wouldn't do things like this." And, if you point out that this isn't a perfect world, you're lucky if all you get is a dirty look.
The dirty look should be saved for the mirror. In a perfect world, the device handles how fast I type. Period.
And said wastes are toxic in vanishingly small quantities, so it's not some "laugh it off" scenario; the LD50s can be less than a billionth of a gram, let alone the effect threshold. Furthermore, if you actually get a situation of heavy corrosion and leaching of fuel rods, you have the potential for a lot more than just "trace" amounts.... We try to do better with modified bitumen membranes, but when you're talking such long time scales... who the bloody heck knows?
It is a good example of "think of the children!" Mosquito netting is the #1 most effective remedy against malaria and it doesn't have any negative impact on the environment. Note that science has proven DDT has negative impact on the environment at large and some of our bird species are still recovering from it. Your "Science" wants to allow it for this because "think of the children" at least according to that article. No one is arguing that DDT isn't effective against mosquitoes, especially not science. DDT even kills the almost unkillable bedbugs, which are resurging in the US as a problem. Yet we're not advocating a return to using DDT because the costs are too high, you just won't see them tomorrow or next week. That's part of being a first world country, you don't think about just tomorrow or next week, you consider long term impacts and make decisions based on what happens next year, next decade, and possibly even 100+ years from now.
I wonder if the high mortality rate might explain that difference?
The economic solution would give them somewhere to live.
I vote next door to you. All around you. Institutionalizing those that cannot or will not remain on necessary medications after treatment should be institutionalized at least until such a time that a treatment exists that maintains their sanity. Until you personally meet one of these individuals and understand they will not remain "sane" willingly because they prefer to feel "free" instead of "fuzzy" or similar reasoning, even though they know that they're not right when they're "free", you won't really know what you're discussing. Better treatments, drugs, whatever do need to be developed to help these folks, just like we need better treatment options for cancer, old age, and a host of other things.
I'm guessing he's referring to the rabbits handed out as food sources that people keep as pets instead. Of course, that's the exact opposite of what he's proposing.
Well, I don't know about "Science", but science generally is apolitical and has given you the basis for typing this from some armpit somewhere in the world, just like Trump from his gilded office. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to disparage science.
I could have sworn you could maintain it, at least at some time in the past and for a given period of time. However I see from various postings that appears to no longer be true. So be it.
The NDA expires... when you do. (I'll be here all night....)
Anyway point of my ramble is that its not the anthem that's political
The anthem is always political, because it represents patriotism/nationalism/etc. I don't know what's more political at heart than that especially in these times where those things are wielded as weapons.
I guess you didn't read how the Fukushima reactors were built. The pump room was built on what was originally a hill that was removed to make the ground level and pumping easier. Had they not done all this excavation, the pump room would have been at least 9 feet higher and this tsunami would not have flooded the pumps and it is highly likely no cooling system problems would have occurred at all.
Imagine if the cops had to give criminals access to their active investigation documents, for instance.
If it's still active and no one is charged, then no, or at best a redacted version removing anything that can identify suspects and possibly victims. In fact, I'd argue that investigations should be known when a victim or incident is known (murder at pub, wreck on highway, vandalism on building, etc) is being investigated but all discussion of potential suspects should be redacted to prevent fake news from spreading. An investigation is not proof, and no one should be unjustly smeared. This obviously is different when a suspect is avoiding apprehension, in that case apprehending the suspect may trump anonymity for the public's safety, but that will happen in rare cases compared to the total.
As long as there are different groups in competition, the side that gives up secrecy will lose.
I'd disagree, in many cases secrecy is overblown and unnecessary. Take the NRA, for example. Their plans et al are well known and scripted. You can almost detail exactly what they'll do before they do it in response to a gun bill. It makes them no less effective nor have they lost because we know what they're going to do. The same can be said for the gun bill supporters, they don't act in secrecy either. They've had an uphill climb, and they've not succeeded in that climb.
A security clearance means that you are (relatively) law-abiding, that you follow rules and procedures, and that you can be trusted not to reveal confidential info.
It actually doesn't mean anything about the first two and the last one is only a part of the story.
Those are qualities many employers look for, but a clearance doesn't say anything as to competence.
I don't think anyone is saying a clearance has any bearing on competence for a particular job. It's obvious a cleared welder would be completely unsuitable for a programmer's job and vice versa.
For all security clearances say, the entire job description could have been unplugging toilets in a DoD bathroom or handing out fliers and other propaganda at conferences.
That could be the entire job description, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it isn't. In my last classified assignment, I worked in a closed area with about 30 other engineers. The cleaning crew came in once a week, after all desks were cleared and whiteboards covered, and was escorted by a cleared member of the team. 30 years ago you may have had secretarial staff with clearances handing out meeting materials and serving refreshments at classified meetings, but I haven't seen that sort of thing in a long, long time. Maybe it still goes on in the military, but as a rule, not a defense contractors.
I've seen job descriptions shorter than that, because you needed a clearance to see the actual description. For me, I once went to an interview where the jobs weren't listed at all. The entire interview started with some distracting questions about your CV's listings and then a whole lot of vetting questions of the types required for clearances of the types that are immediate disqualifiers. Out of the 1000 or so attendees, I think maybe 20 got offers and you had to accept blind. I know not all cleared.
For all security clearances say, the entire job description could have been unplugging toilets in a DoD bathroom or handing out fliers and other propaganda at conferences.
Security clearances are entirely artificial and say nothing about qualification to a handle a job;
You have absolutely no clue what this type of security clearance is about. It absolutely IS a valid qualification for a job, because if I can't trust you to not run over to the competition, then I can't use you no matter what your other qualifications say about you. That you fail to understand this is evident from all your posts. I'm well aware of what goes into a clearance and what the liabilities are. And yes there are significant liabilities to some types/levels, it's not all gravy like you seem to believe.
In today's world, the process of vetting takes significantly longer than it used to, so someone with clearance is a lot more valuable to a company than someone without. Let's say you get a contract that requires you to deliver 10 months work in 12 months. Start with cleared individuals instead of your better than them uncleared star choices, guess which one actually produces a product in 12 months vs maybe starting on the project at 12 months? So yes, once cleared, you are more valuable. It's a time and effort and cost thing to get cleared, and they are basically able to take advantage that you already are vs the uncertainty of clearing an unknown.
Oh, and to add to the list of things that make you less likely to be cleared - are you a "gig economy" participant? Move much? Had a ticket? Had a wreck? Have relatives with health/financial/emotional/mental problems? Yes, the list is long, detailed, and things you might not even mention to your spouse unless pressed like your obsession with Hentai "porn" back in your early college days or your too close roommate "Bob" that keeps showing up a little too chummy in your and your friends FB/Instagram history. TBH, not even sure what they do today wrt to social media, but I'm sure they peel back that entire level of privacy. I certainly would if I were them as it's an additional tool to get a better view of who they're vetting. And in case you're wondering quite a few applicants can't get cleared at all, much less for the levels they apply for. If you're rational you will likely change your position on how valuable an existing clearance is to a prospective employer that needs that requirement for a job position. It's not just a piece of paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, consider modern pop stars: who can only sing (not play any instruments)
Name Ten.
I just gotta:
There's more than 10 that are various shades of produced singers that did not write their own songs, just off the top of my head. Rhianna is a candidate, as she certainly doesn't write all her own music, and it appears isn't the main driver in the songs she does co-write. I also spread this across several decades, as it's not a new phenomenon and one of those is actually a group that had considerable success on their own prior to going the produced let someone else write the music route.
What's scary is the kids who used to hang out at the park now hang out on facebook.
That would be scary. Nowadays, those around here hang out on Instagram and Snapchat, although that statement may be a week out of date.
The laugh moment was. "We are a Agile shop. We will get to that change by the end of 2018 ". Can you say they do not know what AGILE MEANS?
"Agile" shop is just another way of saying "failure waiting to happen" shop.
LG's OLEDs phone screens appear to have numerous issues, not just burn in. Their TVs do not have these issues.
I happen to have one. It's "ok" but I don't like it much. As for updates, Samsung may be providing updates, but AT&T, for one, stopped at 6.0, provided you're still on their network.
The screen on my new $100 for work android phone looks great, it's very bright, snappy and the battery lasts 2 days.
And what, pray tell, is the screen on your $100 android phone? I'd guess some sort of lower DPI LCD screen?
On my 46inch TV I'd notice a small difference between 1080p and 4k.
On 55-70 inch screens, I definitely notice a difference between an LG 4K OLED and any LCD screen you'd care to name. I haven't gotten to see their 77" $9K screen yet.
On my 6ish inch phone I really don't think I'd notice any difference with an increase in resolution beyond 720x1280.
You probably wouldn't notice much higher DPI beyond a 30% increase in resolution or so, but you certainly would notice a difference between OLED and LCD.
TBH, QLED does appear to be better than regular LED, but that's like choosing between being crapped on by an elephant or a hippo.
LED has significant challenges that tech likely cannot overcome, at least not easily nor cost effectively.
Check Walmart.
Get your shit together, LG. You make the best 4K OLED TV panels but you can't maintain any consistency for phones? Someone needs to step up and kill Samsung's stranglehold on that market.
I guess it's a different skillset to make phone screens over TV panels. What's funny is that Samsung doesn't make OLED TVs.
I think it's funny that they expect the OLED screen to be cheap. It's probably the single most expensive thing on the phone.
That $129 iPhone SE is a pretty good deal. Cheaper than AppleCare on that iPhone X.
The reason for this is, "In a perfect world, people wouldn't do things like this." And, if you point out that this isn't a perfect world, you're lucky if all you get is a dirty look.
The dirty look should be saved for the mirror. In a perfect world, the device handles how fast I type. Period.
And said wastes are toxic in vanishingly small quantities, so it's not some "laugh it off" scenario; the LD50s can be less than a billionth of a gram, let alone the effect threshold. Furthermore, if you actually get a situation of heavy corrosion and leaching of fuel rods, you have the potential for a lot more than just "trace" amounts.... We try to do better with modified bitumen membranes, but when you're talking such long time scales... who the bloody heck knows?
I think we can answer that last question empirically.
The AC is right. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04... DDT is the good example of this.
It is a good example of "think of the children!" Mosquito netting is the #1 most effective remedy against malaria and it doesn't have any negative impact on the environment. Note that science has proven DDT has negative impact on the environment at large and some of our bird species are still recovering from it. Your "Science" wants to allow it for this because "think of the children" at least according to that article. No one is arguing that DDT isn't effective against mosquitoes, especially not science. DDT even kills the almost unkillable bedbugs, which are resurging in the US as a problem. Yet we're not advocating a return to using DDT because the costs are too high, you just won't see them tomorrow or next week. That's part of being a first world country, you don't think about just tomorrow or next week, you consider long term impacts and make decisions based on what happens next year, next decade, and possibly even 100+ years from now.
There is less mental illness in primitive societies.
I wonder if the high mortality rate might explain that difference?
The economic solution would give them somewhere to live.
I vote next door to you. All around you. Institutionalizing those that cannot or will not remain on necessary medications after treatment should be institutionalized at least until such a time that a treatment exists that maintains their sanity. Until you personally meet one of these individuals and understand they will not remain "sane" willingly because they prefer to feel "free" instead of "fuzzy" or similar reasoning, even though they know that they're not right when they're "free", you won't really know what you're discussing. Better treatments, drugs, whatever do need to be developed to help these folks, just like we need better treatment options for cancer, old age, and a host of other things.
I'm guessing he's referring to the rabbits handed out as food sources that people keep as pets instead. Of course, that's the exact opposite of what he's proposing.
Well, I don't know about "Science", but science generally is apolitical and has given you the basis for typing this from some armpit somewhere in the world, just like Trump from his gilded office. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to disparage science.
I could have sworn you could maintain it, at least at some time in the past and for a given period of time. However I see from various postings that appears to no longer be true. So be it.
The NDA expires... when you do. (I'll be here all night....)
Anyway point of my ramble is that its not the anthem that's political
The anthem is always political, because it represents patriotism/nationalism/etc. I don't know what's more political at heart than that especially in these times where those things are wielded as weapons.
So what's the story? That Facebook wants to be more sane,
Not at all, it's that FB has found a new way to squeeze cash out of what it was offering as a product.
I guess you didn't read how the Fukushima reactors were built. The pump room was built on what was originally a hill that was removed to make the ground level and pumping easier. Had they not done all this excavation, the pump room would have been at least 9 feet higher and this tsunami would not have flooded the pumps and it is highly likely no cooling system problems would have occurred at all.
Imagine if the cops had to give criminals access to their active investigation documents, for instance.
If it's still active and no one is charged, then no, or at best a redacted version removing anything that can identify suspects and possibly victims. In fact, I'd argue that investigations should be known when a victim or incident is known (murder at pub, wreck on highway, vandalism on building, etc) is being investigated but all discussion of potential suspects should be redacted to prevent fake news from spreading. An investigation is not proof, and no one should be unjustly smeared. This obviously is different when a suspect is avoiding apprehension, in that case apprehending the suspect may trump anonymity for the public's safety, but that will happen in rare cases compared to the total.
As long as there are different groups in competition, the side that gives up secrecy will lose.
I'd disagree, in many cases secrecy is overblown and unnecessary. Take the NRA, for example. Their plans et al are well known and scripted. You can almost detail exactly what they'll do before they do it in response to a gun bill. It makes them no less effective nor have they lost because we know what they're going to do. The same can be said for the gun bill supporters, they don't act in secrecy either. They've had an uphill climb, and they've not succeeded in that climb.
A security clearance means that you are (relatively) law-abiding, that you follow rules and procedures, and that you can be trusted not to reveal confidential info.
It actually doesn't mean anything about the first two and the last one is only a part of the story.
Those are qualities many employers look for, but a clearance doesn't say anything as to competence.
I don't think anyone is saying a clearance has any bearing on competence for a particular job. It's obvious a cleared welder would be completely unsuitable for a programmer's job and vice versa.
For all security clearances say, the entire job description could have been unplugging toilets in a DoD bathroom or handing out fliers and other propaganda at conferences.
That could be the entire job description, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it isn't. In my last classified assignment, I worked in a closed area with about 30 other engineers. The cleaning crew came in once a week, after all desks were cleared and whiteboards covered, and was escorted by a cleared member of the team. 30 years ago you may have had secretarial staff with clearances handing out meeting materials and serving refreshments at classified meetings, but I haven't seen that sort of thing in a long, long time. Maybe it still goes on in the military, but as a rule, not a defense contractors.
I've seen job descriptions shorter than that, because you needed a clearance to see the actual description. For me, I once went to an interview where the jobs weren't listed at all. The entire interview started with some distracting questions about your CV's listings and then a whole lot of vetting questions of the types required for clearances of the types that are immediate disqualifiers. Out of the 1000 or so attendees, I think maybe 20 got offers and you had to accept blind. I know not all cleared.
For all security clearances say, the entire job description could have been unplugging toilets in a DoD bathroom or handing out fliers and other propaganda at conferences.
Security clearances are entirely artificial and say nothing about qualification to a handle a job;
You have absolutely no clue what this type of security clearance is about. It absolutely IS a valid qualification for a job, because if I can't trust you to not run over to the competition, then I can't use you no matter what your other qualifications say about you. That you fail to understand this is evident from all your posts. I'm well aware of what goes into a clearance and what the liabilities are. And yes there are significant liabilities to some types/levels, it's not all gravy like you seem to believe.
In today's world, the process of vetting takes significantly longer than it used to, so someone with clearance is a lot more valuable to a company than someone without. Let's say you get a contract that requires you to deliver 10 months work in 12 months. Start with cleared individuals instead of your better than them uncleared star choices, guess which one actually produces a product in 12 months vs maybe starting on the project at 12 months? So yes, once cleared, you are more valuable. It's a time and effort and cost thing to get cleared, and they are basically able to take advantage that you already are vs the uncertainty of clearing an unknown.
Oh, and to add to the list of things that make you less likely to be cleared - are you a "gig economy" participant? Move much? Had a ticket? Had a wreck? Have relatives with health/financial/emotional/mental problems? Yes, the list is long, detailed, and things you might not even mention to your spouse unless pressed like your obsession with Hentai "porn" back in your early college days or your too close roommate "Bob" that keeps showing up a little too chummy in your and your friends FB/Instagram history. TBH, not even sure what they do today wrt to social media, but I'm sure they peel back that entire level of privacy. I certainly would if I were them as it's an additional tool to get a better view of who they're vetting. And in case you're wondering quite a few applicants can't get cleared at all, much less for the levels they apply for. If you're rational you will likely change your position on how valuable an existing clearance is to a prospective employer that needs that requirement for a job position. It's not just a piece of paper.