Correct me if I'm wrong, but this almost sounds like how a car rental company couldn't be charged in connection to a bank robbery even if they rented the car used to the getaway driver.
Depends upon how you are using it as the usages of Facebook ranges all the way from "I'm on it all the time and I update my status every 15 minutes." to "I check it once a week and use it for networking and keeping in touch with people I knew back in school."
Odds are the person that is using Facebook for networking isn't going to be too concerned with having any private information out there because they will likely not have much of it. However, the person that is always updating their status on Facebook might come to be concerned with what is out there as they get older.
I wouldn't be surprised if this works the same way as on some of the blogging sites where people would post a lot of entries when they were young that contained a lot of information that could be used against you if someone Googled your name prior to a job offer. Those types of blogs would suddenly start having less content in them as people went through and hid or deleted information. I would be willing to bet that the same thing will happen to Facebook.
That is true. However, the assumption is that if you have two people with the same job description, then that is two people whom the company thinks is qualified to do that job.
Also, since the H1B program is a government program, then they have to hold to the law of the land which assumes that all of the employees are in fact equal (actual work performance not withstanding) which means that the company must justify laying off employees who were filling a job that they are now requesting a H1B visa for.
Actually, I would have to go back and read the way the law is written, but the Senator has a valid point in regards to this situation. You can't really sit there and lay off a large number of technical people and then say that you can find people those same technical skills to do the job and ask to bring in guest workers from out of the country.
Microsoft might be allowed to layoff who ever they want to, but on the same token the government is able to deny H1B applications from Microsoft as well.
The whole purpose of the H1B program was to bring foreign nationals into the country to work because the company said there weren't enough Americans who could fill the positions. However, if a company is now downsizing then it make sense that if you have a technical position that you need less people for, that the guest workers should be the first ones to be downsized. Logically, you can't claim not being able to find people to fill a position if you just laid off two people qualified for the position.
Well, you still have the issue of modern airframes being completely fly-by-wire. If the plane was using hydraulic or mechanical controls then it should be fine, but anything using fly-by-wire is going to be having issues if the electronics get knocked out.
I just got done reading Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art and would recommend it if you are looking for more information on that area. However, more than anything else, individual task estimates seem to come down to two things: how well the specs are written, and how long it took you to do a similar task in the past. Until you have done something before, it is hard to say how long it will take for you to do it.
I actually have to agree with one of the other poster's comments about how you shouldn't be getting chewed out as well. Interns are expected to be a bit slower than other, experienced employees because they are interns. The individual supervising you should have been giving you helpful advice instead of chewing you out.
However, the question is, for the average user that just needs to do some basic statistics, is it accurate enough? I don't have access to the journal articles, but if the errors are only exposed when you get into large datasets or advanced functions, then odds are the reason that Microsoft hasn't fixed them is because that's not the target audience of Excel and it would take too much work to fix them.
However, the fact that the functions haven't been removed yet either is a bit odd.
I think if they managed to find a flaw in the BD+ implementation of RSA then that would still be a pretty respectable breakthrough. Given the number of systems out there are use their own implementation of the algorithm, if a flaw is present in BD+ then there is a pretty good chance that it is present in the other implementations as well.
It feels like you are trolling a bit, but the same companies that used to pay NASA to put their telecommunication satellites up in orbit would just shift to the newer, cheaper companies that show up with reliable rockets. Manned space flight is a bit more difficult to induce companies to do, but going into orbit around Earth to repair satellites makes sense if it is cheaper than building and sending a new one up. Likewise, going farther than orbit would happen once companies have a financial motive (or enough money to blow) to do so.
A government organization that is focused on pure science is likely going to be better suited to move us farther into space faster than a corporate, profit driven, organization, but that only works if they have the money to do so.
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I thought that the His Dark Materials series (Golden Compass, Subtle Knife, and Amber Spyglass) where a lot more preachy than Narnia was. By the time you get to Amber Spyglass the series is practicably hitting you in the face with the preaching.
There simply isn't much need for philosophy when the facts of Nature are quite clear to us now, clear enough at any rate to eliminate all possibilities of any gods existing in objective reality.
Alright, I'm not sure if you are trying to have a serious discussion, if you are trolling right now, or if we are talking in two separate directions. Sorry if that offends you, but I've never really encountered anyone that says that philosophy is not needed anymore due to the laws of nature being understood. Too many fields, such as ethics, use philosophy as a base upon which to start working. Also, going back to the original comment of mine, the whole thing was a gedankenexperiment as an example in which a higher deity would not be subject to the laws of nature as we know them to be. Gedankenexperiment's, by their very nature, do not have to be able to test their claims.
I missed nothing. This has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with simple facts of nature. Proven facts of nature. Proven laws of nature. It is these laws that inform us about the rest.
Sorry if I confused you, but I was talking philosophy since my original comment several levels up.
Any "higher being" as you put it would be required to play by some rules of some sort of physics otherwise said being could not exist. Oh wait, the religious nut jobs do in fact claim he (god) is immaterial and thus doesn't exist! They actually do say that their god doesn't exist! Kinda funny when you think about their round about logic.
I regret to say it, but I think you might have missed the point of my argument as I was merely trying to provide an example of how science isn't necessarily suitable to solve a philosophical argument. Additionally, as you note, a higher being would be subject to the rules of some sort of physics; but, the point of my argument was that the higher being would not necessarily be subject to the same physics that we would be subject to.
There is no outside of the universe for the universe includes all that exists! Doh!
Yes, you can prove that you are NOT living in a simulation now. Think about it and test your thinking against that harshest of mistresses, Objective Reality for Mother Nature always is the final judge and more often than not overrules our pathetic ability to think.
It's so easy to believe rather than think. That is the major problem that people have, the inability to distinguish when they are believing something as opposed to when they are actually thinking rationally beyond belief and that those thoughts have any correlation to objective reality in any way.
I disagree with your assessment that you can conclusively prove that you aren't living in a simulation, this is a subject that tends to enjoy debate in philosophy and Wikiepdia has a good jumping off spot for it in their Simulated Reality article. However, even if you are living in a simulated reality, the better question is always going to be along the lines of "If you are, what impact would it have?" If it were to be proven right now that this is all a simulation, outside of the questions of "Who, how, and why?" what impact would it have; likely, not much as you would still be subject to all of the rules of the simulation and life would still go on as it has for as long as you have known it to be going on.
Wasting my mod points to say this, but since these arguments always seem to pop up in these types of discussions, here goes.
Omniscience isn't possible given the speed of "c".
The same goes for omnipresence and omnipotence.
Omnipotence also violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The list goes on and on and on. So many scientific theories and laws of mother nature provide direct testable evidence that no gods are possible in objective reality.
These arguments against any sort of higher being such as a god are flawed since they assume that such a being is required to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Without getting into theology you can counter this with an example of a programmer and a simulation. For the programmer, it is possible to write a simulation in such a way that the inhabits of the simulation are unaware that they are in a simulation and subject to the rules of the simulation; think of something along the lines of Conway's Game of Life. Since the programmer is outside of the simulation it is possible for them to see everything that is going on in the simulation and assuming that they are intelligent enough to know the fine details of the simulation they can even predict the long term outcomes (omniscience). Likewise, depending upon on how their view into the simulation is designed, they can even see everything that is going on (omnipresence). Being able to do multiple things at once is a bit trickier, but since they wrote the simulation, there is no rule against them using agents that they control to interact with the simulation. From the perspective of someone with in the simulation, these agents would all appear to be the same entity.
Anyways, this likely isn't the best counter example, but I'm just trying to point out the fact that the existence of a god or gods cannot be disproven solely by the application of our own understanding of the laws of nature.
Alright, I went and did a bit more reading on the subject and it looks like you are right. However, it seems that I was thinking about some of the papers that use quantum computers as an oracle machine that would allow for polynomial time solutions. But those papers start to trend outside of my knowledge base - anyone have recommendations on papers and books in this area?
If I remember my theory correctly, then any of the NP-Complete problems would most likely be solvable in polynomial time using quantum computers. A couple of the problems have more obvious military uses than others; for example, the knapsack problem would allow for the optimization of logistics and it looks like there is already a quantum algorithm of knapsack problem.
You still need a convent way of reading them, right now Kindle is still much better than a laptop. However, if someone were to come out with a product like Kindle but with access to the Google Library then they might have a killer app.
Most likely it is corporate-crippleware. My computer takes about 3 minutes to boot from cold to the Windows desktop, but because of all of the "utilities" that are loading and doing stuff, there is another ten minutes before the machine is actually usable.
The article explains everything towards the end of it - apparently the laws in California are setup in such a way that anyone not in exempted fields working more than 40 hours a week are required to be paid overtime.
Perhaps this is a bit of a naive question, but how come there isn't a way to weave the fibers together? Most cotton fibers are only about 1 - 6cm but we are able to weave them together, or is the comparison not even valid?
The first Fable wasn't bad, just over hyped. As far as RPGs go it was actually pretty good. There were some interesting ideas in it as well that just didn't see a proper execution. If Fable II is what the fist one was intended to be then it should be a pretty good game.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this almost sounds like how a car rental company couldn't be charged in connection to a bank robbery even if they rented the car used to the getaway driver.
Depends upon how you are using it as the usages of Facebook ranges all the way from "I'm on it all the time and I update my status every 15 minutes." to "I check it once a week and use it for networking and keeping in touch with people I knew back in school."
Odds are the person that is using Facebook for networking isn't going to be too concerned with having any private information out there because they will likely not have much of it. However, the person that is always updating their status on Facebook might come to be concerned with what is out there as they get older.
I wouldn't be surprised if this works the same way as on some of the blogging sites where people would post a lot of entries when they were young that contained a lot of information that could be used against you if someone Googled your name prior to a job offer. Those types of blogs would suddenly start having less content in them as people went through and hid or deleted information. I would be willing to bet that the same thing will happen to Facebook.
So, that would be never then?
That is true. However, the assumption is that if you have two people with the same job description, then that is two people whom the company thinks is qualified to do that job.
Also, since the H1B program is a government program, then they have to hold to the law of the land which assumes that all of the employees are in fact equal (actual work performance not withstanding) which means that the company must justify laying off employees who were filling a job that they are now requesting a H1B visa for.
Actually, I would have to go back and read the way the law is written, but the Senator has a valid point in regards to this situation. You can't really sit there and lay off a large number of technical people and then say that you can find people those same technical skills to do the job and ask to bring in guest workers from out of the country.
Microsoft might be allowed to layoff who ever they want to, but on the same token the government is able to deny H1B applications from Microsoft as well.
The whole purpose of the H1B program was to bring foreign nationals into the country to work because the company said there weren't enough Americans who could fill the positions. However, if a company is now downsizing then it make sense that if you have a technical position that you need less people for, that the guest workers should be the first ones to be downsized. Logically, you can't claim not being able to find people to fill a position if you just laid off two people qualified for the position.
Well, you still have the issue of modern airframes being completely fly-by-wire. If the plane was using hydraulic or mechanical controls then it should be fine, but anything using fly-by-wire is going to be having issues if the electronics get knocked out.
I just got done reading Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art and would recommend it if you are looking for more information on that area. However, more than anything else, individual task estimates seem to come down to two things: how well the specs are written, and how long it took you to do a similar task in the past. Until you have done something before, it is hard to say how long it will take for you to do it.
I actually have to agree with one of the other poster's comments about how you shouldn't be getting chewed out as well. Interns are expected to be a bit slower than other, experienced employees because they are interns. The individual supervising you should have been giving you helpful advice instead of chewing you out.
However, the question is, for the average user that just needs to do some basic statistics, is it accurate enough? I don't have access to the journal articles, but if the errors are only exposed when you get into large datasets or advanced functions, then odds are the reason that Microsoft hasn't fixed them is because that's not the target audience of Excel and it would take too much work to fix them.
However, the fact that the functions haven't been removed yet either is a bit odd.
I think if they managed to find a flaw in the BD+ implementation of RSA then that would still be a pretty respectable breakthrough. Given the number of systems out there are use their own implementation of the algorithm, if a flaw is present in BD+ then there is a pretty good chance that it is present in the other implementations as well.
It feels like you are trolling a bit, but the same companies that used to pay NASA to put their telecommunication satellites up in orbit would just shift to the newer, cheaper companies that show up with reliable rockets. Manned space flight is a bit more difficult to induce companies to do, but going into orbit around Earth to repair satellites makes sense if it is cheaper than building and sending a new one up. Likewise, going farther than orbit would happen once companies have a financial motive (or enough money to blow) to do so.
A government organization that is focused on pure science is likely going to be better suited to move us farther into space faster than a corporate, profit driven, organization, but that only works if they have the money to do so.
Personally, I thought that the His Dark Materials series (Golden Compass, Subtle Knife, and Amber Spyglass) where a lot more preachy than Narnia was. By the time you get to Amber Spyglass the series is practicably hitting you in the face with the preaching.
Alright, I'm not sure if you are trying to have a serious discussion, if you are trolling right now, or if we are talking in two separate directions. Sorry if that offends you, but I've never really encountered anyone that says that philosophy is not needed anymore due to the laws of nature being understood. Too many fields, such as ethics, use philosophy as a base upon which to start working. Also, going back to the original comment of mine, the whole thing was a gedankenexperiment as an example in which a higher deity would not be subject to the laws of nature as we know them to be. Gedankenexperiment's, by their very nature, do not have to be able to test their claims.
Sorry if I confused you, but I was talking philosophy since my original comment several levels up.
I regret to say it, but I think you might have missed the point of my argument as I was merely trying to provide an example of how science isn't necessarily suitable to solve a philosophical argument. Additionally, as you note, a higher being would be subject to the rules of some sort of physics; but, the point of my argument was that the higher being would not necessarily be subject to the same physics that we would be subject to.
I disagree with your assessment that you can conclusively prove that you aren't living in a simulation, this is a subject that tends to enjoy debate in philosophy and Wikiepdia has a good jumping off spot for it in their Simulated Reality article. However, even if you are living in a simulated reality, the better question is always going to be along the lines of "If you are, what impact would it have?" If it were to be proven right now that this is all a simulation, outside of the questions of "Who, how, and why?" what impact would it have; likely, not much as you would still be subject to all of the rules of the simulation and life would still go on as it has for as long as you have known it to be going on.
These arguments against any sort of higher being such as a god are flawed since they assume that such a being is required to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Without getting into theology you can counter this with an example of a programmer and a simulation. For the programmer, it is possible to write a simulation in such a way that the inhabits of the simulation are unaware that they are in a simulation and subject to the rules of the simulation; think of something along the lines of Conway's Game of Life. Since the programmer is outside of the simulation it is possible for them to see everything that is going on in the simulation and assuming that they are intelligent enough to know the fine details of the simulation they can even predict the long term outcomes (omniscience). Likewise, depending upon on how their view into the simulation is designed, they can even see everything that is going on (omnipresence). Being able to do multiple things at once is a bit trickier, but since they wrote the simulation, there is no rule against them using agents that they control to interact with the simulation. From the perspective of someone with in the simulation, these agents would all appear to be the same entity.
Anyways, this likely isn't the best counter example, but I'm just trying to point out the fact that the existence of a god or gods cannot be disproven solely by the application of our own understanding of the laws of nature.
Alright, I went and did a bit more reading on the subject and it looks like you are right. However, it seems that I was thinking about some of the papers that use quantum computers as an oracle machine that would allow for polynomial time solutions. But those papers start to trend outside of my knowledge base - anyone have recommendations on papers and books in this area?
If I remember my theory correctly, then any of the NP-Complete problems would most likely be solvable in polynomial time using quantum computers. A couple of the problems have more obvious military uses than others; for example, the knapsack problem would allow for the optimization of logistics and it looks like there is already a quantum algorithm of knapsack problem.
You still need a convent way of reading them, right now Kindle is still much better than a laptop. However, if someone were to come out with a product like Kindle but with access to the Google Library then they might have a killer app.
Most likely it is corporate-crippleware. My computer takes about 3 minutes to boot from cold to the Windows desktop, but because of all of the "utilities" that are loading and doing stuff, there is another ten minutes before the machine is actually usable.
Well that is how Krusty did it in Bart the Fink episode of The Simpsons.
The article explains everything towards the end of it - apparently the laws in California are setup in such a way that anyone not in exempted fields working more than 40 hours a week are required to be paid overtime.
Perhaps this is a bit of a naive question, but how come there isn't a way to weave the fibers together? Most cotton fibers are only about 1 - 6cm but we are able to weave them together, or is the comparison not even valid?
Avast! That there keyboard seems to be missing the "A" key matey, how can I type "Arrrr!" on it?
The first Fable wasn't bad, just over hyped. As far as RPGs go it was actually pretty good. There were some interesting ideas in it as well that just didn't see a proper execution. If Fable II is what the fist one was intended to be then it should be a pretty good game.