Gotta echo the suggestion for a second major. I doubled in Systems Analysis and Psychology. While I was in college, dumb classmates thought that combination made no sense. When I started interviewing, every single company made a significant positive comment about it. Further, when I was asked why I chose that combo, I said because those were the two things I was interested in (as opposed to an answer like: well, I wanted to be an AI guy, so it made sense, yadda yadda). Companies seemed to like that answer a lot.
What? Parent said that it is important to get people to like you, and then you say you disagree because people will know you're being fake and they won't like you.
See the problem? You're not disagreeing with parent.
Anyway, parent was exactly right. It is incredibly important to get people to like you in just about any profession. Bottom line is that you are not the whole company, and therefore you don't hold all the keys. When you need someone with one of the keys in order to do your job, then it is much better for you to have a good relationship with them. Otherwise, if they refuse or stall, then you have to cause a fuss with your superiors, which will slow things down and is usually a lose-lose.
I am a consultant, and if a person at the client sees me as a threat or really anything but a help, they are not going to be willing to get me what I need in order to get my work done.
You are taking something on the level of a neuron and using that as evidence of something macroscopic. It just doesn't work like that. "Talent" is something that would involve many brain areas working together. This evidence does not support what you are suggesting.
Something like "learning to playing chess" has no business being discussed on the neuronal level.
This evidence doesn't even support what the summary is suggesting. Learning (in the popular -- not neuroscientific -- sense) does not make any sense on the level of a neuron. It is a system level idea that we believe strongly has neuron pathway strengthening as its fundamental mechanism.
As for your Ericsson case study, be careful how you interpret the results. Someone who is talented is more likely to practice more hours than someone who is not talented. That is the problem with pseudoscientific/correlational studies. That's also the problem with nature v nurture debates like this: the answer is always wrong.
1997 called; it wants its irrelevant rant back. I am a linux geek, and I resist Windows as much as possible. But my job is not to find ways to get my email, contacts, calendar, etc. to sync with my PDA with some insane workaround. My PDA is a productivity item. If it doesn't "just work", it's wasting my time; why would I use it?
Don't want me to use Exchange? Tell that to my company; tell that to its clients; tell that to its clients' clients.
Sending that "Don't send me Word docs" message is fine if you're making a brochureware site for Uncle Joe's Llama Farm, but won't fly for anyone much bigger than that.
You say I should explain to my clients the benefits of OSS and the reasons to avoid MS lock-in? I would have no problem with that, if that was what they were paying me for or even expressed any interest at all in hearing something like that. Coming out with that unsolicited would not be wise.
Can you explain why identifying the markup version with a dtd would not allow them to support both?
Re:Bet there still isn't a decent "Stop!" button
on
HTML V5 and XHTML V2
·
· Score: 0
But, in order to support "web 2.0" apps, browsers would need to allow this entity to be scriptable in the DOM (otherwise, I don't see how you could support restricting parts of dynamic content). And if that is the case, then a script could simply un-restrict any part of the page at will.
Do you have a solution to handle this without causing issues with dynamic content?
Math at higher levels becomes a task in creativity and less a task in simple facts. I think a large part of the question is: given x versions of the same proof, how do you decide which one(s) to include, and how do you resolve disputes over which proof is "better."
Not only that, but it is possible to make it hard or impossible to tell that you have even used TrueCrypt:
Q: Is it possible to use TrueCrypt without leaving any 'traces' on Windows?
A: Yes. This can be achieved by running TrueCrypt in traveller mode under BartPE. BartPE stands for "Bart's Preinstalled Environment", which is essentially the Windows operating system prepared in a way that it can be entirely stored on and booted from a CD/DVD (registry, temporary files, etc., are stored in RAM - hard disk is not used at all and does not even have to be present). The freeware Bart's PE Builder can transform a Windows XP installation CD into BartPE. As of TrueCrypt 3.1, you do not need any TrueCrypt plug-in for BartPE. Simply boot BartPE, download the latest version of TrueCrypt to the RAM disk (which BartPE creates), extract the downloaded archive to the RAM disk, and run the file 'TrueCrypt.exe' from the folder 'Setup Files' on the RAM disk (the 'Setup Files' folder should be created when you unpack the archive containing TrueCrypt).
How many times have they sent an email to you and then yelled at you for not reading it during your off hours? It seems to me that if I ever got this from mgt, I would simply ask them why they didn't call my phone if it was that urgent.
I hear the theoretical point you're making often, but I don't ever see it. My consulting firm decided to shell out for PDAs for everyone about a year ago, and I have seen no noticeable change like that which is being suggested.
See, I don't understand this. The argument around being pressured by mgt, I can't really say anything about because I haven't experienced it. But why are you not able to simply NOT LOOK AT YOUR PDA if you don't want to? I honestly don't get it. I have had a PDA for over a year and I can -- without a doubt -- say that is has significantly increased my work life balance. I can take the earlier flight home without guilt.
Yes, that's what we need... more regulation of the economy... to fight something as significant as spam. I'm sure there won't be any side effects to this regulation.
What about the REST of the impact of this legislation? Where's the discussion of that?
This is like nuking China and then applauding ourselves for accidentally curtailing hacking.
I don't think it's a "fluke". I think the party changed directions at 2001. The party used to be about non-intervention and avoiding nation building and small government and local control of public schools and individual liberties and lower income taxes etc. Then Bush comes (and campaigns on this platform, btw) and intervenes in Iraq for no reason, engages in nation building, creates the largest increase in government in a long time, gives control of public schools to the federal government, significantly curtails individual liberties (to the point where the Democrats are now the front-runners here!), and spends tax money like crazy.
Maybe you feel like the party always sucked. All I am saying is that I was on board with the platform until 2001, when it seemed to reverse itself on most of the important issues.
??? I tried to explain this already. I am saying that there is a difference between the pre-2001 Republican party and the post-2001 Republican party. I already agree that the latter is shit. So listing things that happened after 2001 is just going to have me agreeing and wondering why you are suggesting you feel differently from me.
All I said was that I only have a problem with the party since 2001, and you disagree and state a bunch of stuff that the party has done since 2001. So, yes, it would be more effective if you stated your issues with the party PREVIOUS to 2001.
Are you kidding me? Tell me, really, what is the difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat. Spoiler alert: there is none, except for some very vague notion of which set of nearly identical, corporate influenced planks in the platform seem to align with the individual's personal beliefs.
just accept that the GOP isn't broken and doesn't need saving? The GOP is doing exactly what it was built to do.
If that's true, then I will need to change my party affiliation. The only thing keeping an R next to my name is my assumption that recent (as in, since 2001) GOP wandering is a temporary, rather than permanent, bout of lunacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotta echo the suggestion for a second major. I doubled in Systems Analysis and Psychology. While I was in college, dumb classmates thought that combination made no sense. When I started interviewing, every single company made a significant positive comment about it. Further, when I was asked why I chose that combo, I said because those were the two things I was interested in (as opposed to an answer like: well, I wanted to be an AI guy, so it made sense, yadda yadda). Companies seemed to like that answer a lot.
Better yet, I would suggest he master everything.
What? Parent said that it is important to get people to like you, and then you say you disagree because people will know you're being fake and they won't like you.
See the problem? You're not disagreeing with parent.
Anyway, parent was exactly right. It is incredibly important to get people to like you in just about any profession. Bottom line is that you are not the whole company, and therefore you don't hold all the keys. When you need someone with one of the keys in order to do your job, then it is much better for you to have a good relationship with them. Otherwise, if they refuse or stall, then you have to cause a fuss with your superiors, which will slow things down and is usually a lose-lose.
I am a consultant, and if a person at the client sees me as a threat or really anything but a help, they are not going to be willing to get me what I need in order to get my work done.
Know what you mean, man. Try this.
What if the "program" is your genetics. Is that god?
It isn't new knowledge.
You are taking something on the level of a neuron and using that as evidence of something macroscopic. It just doesn't work like that. "Talent" is something that would involve many brain areas working together. This evidence does not support what you are suggesting.
Something like "learning to playing chess" has no business being discussed on the neuronal level.
This evidence doesn't even support what the summary is suggesting. Learning (in the popular -- not neuroscientific -- sense) does not make any sense on the level of a neuron. It is a system level idea that we believe strongly has neuron pathway strengthening as its fundamental mechanism.
As for your Ericsson case study, be careful how you interpret the results. Someone who is talented is more likely to practice more hours than someone who is not talented. That is the problem with pseudoscientific/correlational studies. That's also the problem with nature v nurture debates like this: the answer is always wrong.
Unfortunately the iPhone uses 1 digit to store the year in order to save space.
1997 called; it wants its irrelevant rant back. I am a linux geek, and I resist Windows as much as possible. But my job is not to find ways to get my email, contacts, calendar, etc. to sync with my PDA with some insane workaround. My PDA is a productivity item. If it doesn't "just work", it's wasting my time; why would I use it?
Don't want me to use Exchange? Tell that to my company; tell that to its clients; tell that to its clients' clients.
Sending that "Don't send me Word docs" message is fine if you're making a brochureware site for Uncle Joe's Llama Farm, but won't fly for anyone much bigger than that.
You say I should explain to my clients the benefits of OSS and the reasons to avoid MS lock-in? I would have no problem with that, if that was what they were paying me for or even expressed any interest at all in hearing something like that. Coming out with that unsolicited would not be wise.
Sorry, I meant doctype declaration.
Can you explain why identifying the markup version with a dtd would not allow them to support both?
But, in order to support "web 2.0" apps, browsers would need to allow this entity to be scriptable in the DOM (otherwise, I don't see how you could support restricting parts of dynamic content). And if that is the case, then a script could simply un-restrict any part of the page at will.
Do you have a solution to handle this without causing issues with dynamic content?
Math at higher levels becomes a task in creativity and less a task in simple facts. I think a large part of the question is: given x versions of the same proof, how do you decide which one(s) to include, and how do you resolve disputes over which proof is "better."
Not only that, but it is possible to make it hard or impossible to tell that you have even used TrueCrypt:
Q: Is it possible to use TrueCrypt without leaving any 'traces' on Windows?
A: Yes. This can be achieved by running TrueCrypt in traveller mode under BartPE. BartPE stands for "Bart's Preinstalled Environment", which is essentially the Windows operating system prepared in a way that it can be entirely stored on and booted from a CD/DVD (registry, temporary files, etc., are stored in RAM - hard disk is not used at all and does not even have to be present). The freeware Bart's PE Builder can transform a Windows XP installation CD into BartPE. As of TrueCrypt 3.1, you do not need any TrueCrypt plug-in for BartPE. Simply boot BartPE, download the latest version of TrueCrypt to the RAM disk (which BartPE creates), extract the downloaded archive to the RAM disk, and run the file 'TrueCrypt.exe' from the folder 'Setup Files' on the RAM disk (the 'Setup Files' folder should be created when you unpack the archive containing TrueCrypt).
How many times have they sent an email to you and then yelled at you for not reading it during your off hours? It seems to me that if I ever got this from mgt, I would simply ask them why they didn't call my phone if it was that urgent.
I hear the theoretical point you're making often, but I don't ever see it. My consulting firm decided to shell out for PDAs for everyone about a year ago, and I have seen no noticeable change like that which is being suggested.
See, I don't understand this. The argument around being pressured by mgt, I can't really say anything about because I haven't experienced it. But why are you not able to simply NOT LOOK AT YOUR PDA if you don't want to? I honestly don't get it. I have had a PDA for over a year and I can -- without a doubt -- say that is has significantly increased my work life balance. I can take the earlier flight home without guilt.
Not really, but saying that has something to do with the fact that a Republican was elected rather than a Democrat is fooling yourself.
Also funnier than Everybody Loves Raymond:
1) dead tree stump
2) Charles Manson
3) Carrot Top
Ok, maybe that last one was a little too far...
Yes, that's what we need... more regulation of the economy... to fight something as significant as spam. I'm sure there won't be any side effects to this regulation.
What about the REST of the impact of this legislation? Where's the discussion of that?
This is like nuking China and then applauding ourselves for accidentally curtailing hacking.
I don't think it's a "fluke". I think the party changed directions at 2001. The party used to be about non-intervention and avoiding nation building and small government and local control of public schools and individual liberties and lower income taxes etc. Then Bush comes (and campaigns on this platform, btw) and intervenes in Iraq for no reason, engages in nation building, creates the largest increase in government in a long time, gives control of public schools to the federal government, significantly curtails individual liberties (to the point where the Democrats are now the front-runners here!), and spends tax money like crazy.
Maybe you feel like the party always sucked. All I am saying is that I was on board with the platform until 2001, when it seemed to reverse itself on most of the important issues.
> Why is the stuff from 2001-2007 off the board?
??? I tried to explain this already. I am saying that there is a difference between the pre-2001 Republican party and the post-2001 Republican party. I already agree that the latter is shit. So listing things that happened after 2001 is just going to have me agreeing and wondering why you are suggesting you feel differently from me.
All I said was that I only have a problem with the party since 2001, and you disagree and state a bunch of stuff that the party has done since 2001. So, yes, it would be more effective if you stated your issues with the party PREVIOUS to 2001.
That is all for Argument 101, for today.
Everything you talked about is 2001 on. Did you not read my post, or did you just not pay any attention to my point?
Are you kidding me? Tell me, really, what is the difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat. Spoiler alert: there is none, except for some very vague notion of which set of nearly identical, corporate influenced planks in the platform seem to align with the individual's personal beliefs.
just accept that the GOP isn't broken and doesn't need saving? The GOP is doing exactly what it was built to do.
If that's true, then I will need to change my party affiliation. The only thing keeping an R next to my name is my assumption that recent (as in, since 2001) GOP wandering is a temporary, rather than permanent, bout of lunacy.