Who cares? Either it is a known method giving unknown/new results on an established data-set, which is almost certainly a mistake. Or a brand new method, giving unexpected results, in which case I want to review the algorithm itself, not its realization in software; if the algorithm proof is solid, many people will want to implement it in their own way. If the data-set is new, I will recommend to the author that he first verifies it using some standard techniques, before he tries a new approach on it.
The purpose of a business is to sell products to customers at a profit. When your own workers are your own customers, paying them less means eating away your own customer pool.
The first step is to be amended as - Always look for ways that you can reduce the number of manual steps in manufacturing WITHOUT sacrificing design objectives and material (input) quality.
Which is much harder than it sounds. Typically people do the first part, sacrifice the second, then end up with a cheaper and inferior product. Whereas the Japanese, Swiss, German and other manufacturers of quality are very careful about these 'low-hanging' fruit.
I was once working in a software company, doing maintenance on a product (an embedded telephony module) which was pretty much going to be end-of-lifed soon. It was one of the most enjoyable times of my career. There was me and two other guys, all of us junior engineers and no supervision whatsoever. We were able to make radical changes at our own discretion; I was a young man and didn't really mind spending nights and weekends working on that stuff. We got some things wrong, but we also fixed very very old bugs and re-wrote an entire module to test out some ideas we had about performance bottlenecks. The customer, who was basically running out the clock on warranty was somewhat surprised at all the releases he was getting, but didn't seem to mind. His test and field staff were actually quite happy.
The whole thing didn't put off the inevitable, because nobody in the company paid any attention to the fact that the product had actually been re-engineered into somewhat workable. In any case, there was no follow-up planned, so eventually the entire product line was closed down and the customer was migrated to something else. But we had fun while we could and learnt a lot.
In terms of cost of insertion (USD per kg), ISRO blows all competition away. If, in the future, poor African or Latin American nations wish to put low earth satellites in orbit for remote sensing, weather or similar uses, they won't use Falcon 9.
Individual organizations in India still gets aid in the form of direct funding for (Non Govt. organizations or NGOs are mostly prohibited from taking money directly from external sources and the govt. has recently cracked down heavily on this) for individual projects, along with World Bank funding, etc. Some of these are Indian branches of foreign organizations, on which the rules are somewhat different.
I remember there was some discussion in 2012 regarding British aid to India (as it turned out, it was to institutions such as Oxfam, etc.) and the Indian govt had said that by 2015 even this would be phased out. I know there has been a heavy crackdown recently with regards to any Indian organization receiving foreign money directly.
Its not just about the selection process; it is also about nurturing a person once hired. No interviewing process is 100% accurate and you will never get people who are the exact match for what you need. It is possible that minorities are being hired but then are not fitting in and the organization is not using the resources it has to make it happen.
Most wireless protocol stack implementations are the same; allocate deterministically once and never de-allocate.
As a friend of mine used say, de-allocation in a virtual memory system is strange; sbrk() will . All you do is possibly to release a page in vmem which was never going to get swapped in anyway. There is a chance of additional TLB cache flushing being avoided, but I am not sure that the difference is worth it.
You still get those wind-up clocks. We have one from a German company; I keep it because the alarm makes a sound like a banshee; it is the one alarm clock guaranteed to get my son out of bed in the morning.
Except that these are two separate problems. One is how to grow the economy. The second is how to distribute the outcome of the growth. The problem with your position is that you have already given up on the second; you are reconciled to the fact that the 0.1% is going to get the lion's share of the outcome of the economy.
You can hold off on immigration; but eventually robots will take over and do most of our jobs for us. If we still stick to the current capitalist model of society (and robots count as somebody's property/capital), and do not find a way to distribute the output of our robotic friends equitably (without requiring each and everybody in society to do meaningless jobs just to participate in the economy), we are all in trouble.
I am 44 years old. Working in software for more than 20 years; a rather specialized sub-field of software. Completed 20 years in the business. About 10 years back, when I started looking around and saw that all the folks 10 years older than me were either completely clueless about what to do or had shifted to management, I made a conscious shift. I started specializing in maintenance work; old, 10-12 year old products. The smart young ones don't want to do maintenance work; it is un-glamourous, doesn't give them skills to put on linkedin. I love it; especially solving bugs from the field which are non-obvious. Its like detective work......and requires in-depth domain and product knowledge. So far, I have kept my head down, and out of sight. My customer's appreciate it (especially the field guys, who have their own customer's to face) when I come up with answers for them, and I am not competing with every 25 year old speaking knowledgeably about SMAC and Cassandra and stuff.
There was one person who was mentally challenged and he was tortured as a form of leverage on his family members. They actually tortured a mentally handicapped person.
C++ is like a Swiss Army penknife gone mad. The one with three blades, corkscrew and screwdriver was a useful enhancement over a plain knife ; though a plain knife is sufficient for most of what you need. But now the penknife has 1000 blades ranging from fish gutting to bear fighting, a built in arc welder, all the tools needed to strip the engine of a Maserati PLUS a built in grill and oven. Its crazy.
It allows those genuinely in need of rare skills to use the system as intended. On the other hand it discourages whole sale replacement of the local work force.
What you can do is to have a bottom on the cost per H1B to the employer. Let us say, you fix an amount Y. If the company pays the visa holder less than Y, they pay the rest as tax to the govt. If they pay more than Y, then they are not taxed. Y has to be the market clearing rate; i..e the rate at which all H1B visas available are taken.
Nope. A purely empirical observer wouldn't be able to tell you that 'as far as mommy knows, the chocolate is still in the drawer and that is why she is surprised'. The empirical observer would be able to predict that mommy giggles but wouldn't know __why__ she is giggling. The little boy can, because he can model mommy's state of mind. That is the fundamental difference.
Computer programs have no idea that what they are tracking is 'time' and how that "time" is different from any other relation (for example, distance) between entities , because they cannot infer causality between events.
Computer programs track a number which changes based on an abstract rule that the programmer programmed into it and based on the absolute value of that number, they do things. You could write a program where this number is replaced by the distance from a fixed point and send the computer on a random walk and the outcome would be very very different, for the same basic rules.
Time is not a sequence of numbers. If I show you a picture of a car down the street and then a picture of the same car in front of you, you will immediately place them in a 'time' order because you infer causality between the two of them......the car is in front of you right now __because__ it was down the street some __time ago__ and it is no longer there because it is here __now__. You think a program scheduler can create a relationship like this spontaneously?
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? Either it is a known method giving unknown/new results on an established data-set, which is almost certainly a mistake. Or a brand new method, giving unexpected results, in which case I want to review the algorithm itself, not its realization in software; if the algorithm proof is solid, many people will want to implement it in their own way. If the data-set is new, I will recommend to the author that he first verifies it using some standard techniques, before he tries a new approach on it.
There are these nifty safety devices called protective relays, which fire when the line voltage drops.
In natural law ethics, it is called the 'law of forfeiture'. When you attack somebody's fundamental rights, you forfeit your own.
The purpose of a business is to sell products to customers at a profit. When your own workers are your own customers, paying them less means eating away your own customer pool.
The first step is to be amended as
- Always look for ways that you can reduce the number of manual steps in manufacturing WITHOUT sacrificing design objectives and material (input) quality.
Which is much harder than it sounds. Typically people do the first part, sacrifice the second, then end up with a cheaper and inferior product. Whereas the Japanese, Swiss, German and other manufacturers of quality are very careful about these 'low-hanging' fruit.
Is there a BT profile whereby my smartphone can connect to the audiotainment system and use the screen to render maps? Because that would be awesome.
I was once working in a software company, doing maintenance on a product (an embedded telephony module) which was pretty much going to be end-of-lifed soon. It was one of the most enjoyable times of my career. There was me and two other guys, all of us junior engineers and no supervision whatsoever. We were able to make radical changes at our own discretion; I was a young man and didn't really mind spending nights and weekends working on that stuff. We got some things wrong, but we also fixed very very old bugs and re-wrote an entire module to test out some ideas we had about performance bottlenecks. The customer, who was basically running out the clock on warranty was somewhat surprised at all the releases he was getting, but didn't seem to mind. His test and field staff were actually quite happy.
The whole thing didn't put off the inevitable, because nobody in the company paid any attention to the fact that the product had actually been re-engineered into somewhat workable. In any case, there was no follow-up planned, so eventually the entire product line was closed down and the customer was migrated to something else. But we had fun while we could and learnt a lot.
In terms of cost of insertion (USD per kg), ISRO blows all competition away. If, in the future, poor African or Latin American nations wish to put low earth satellites in orbit for remote sensing, weather or similar uses, they won't use Falcon 9.
Individual organizations in India still gets aid in the form of direct funding for (Non Govt. organizations or NGOs are mostly prohibited from taking money directly from external sources and the govt. has recently cracked down heavily on this) for individual projects, along with World Bank funding, etc. Some of these are Indian branches of foreign organizations, on which the rules are somewhat different.
I remember there was some discussion in 2012 regarding British aid to India (as it turned out, it was to institutions such as Oxfam, etc.) and the Indian govt had said that by 2015 even this would be phased out. I know there has been a heavy crackdown recently with regards to any Indian organization receiving foreign money directly.
Its not just about the selection process; it is also about nurturing a person once hired. No interviewing process is 100% accurate and you will never get people who are the exact match for what you need. It is possible that minorities are being hired but then are not fitting in and the organization is not using the resources it has to make it happen.
Most wireless protocol stack implementations are the same; allocate deterministically once and never de-allocate.
As a friend of mine used say, de-allocation in a virtual memory system is strange; sbrk() will . All you do is possibly to release a page in vmem which was never going to get swapped in anyway. There is a chance of additional TLB cache flushing being avoided, but I am not sure that the difference is worth it.
A new language is not a technology.
You still get those wind-up clocks. We have one from a German company; I keep it because the alarm makes a sound like a banshee; it is the one alarm clock guaranteed to get my son out of bed in the morning.
It was a free game. She didn't profit from it at all.
Except that these are two separate problems. One is how to grow the economy. The second is how to distribute the outcome of the growth. The problem with your position is that you have already given up on the second; you are reconciled to the fact that the 0.1% is going to get the lion's share of the outcome of the economy.
You can hold off on immigration; but eventually robots will take over and do most of our jobs for us. If we still stick to the current capitalist model of society (and robots count as somebody's property/capital), and do not find a way to distribute the output of our robotic friends equitably (without requiring each and everybody in society to do meaningless jobs just to participate in the economy), we are all in trouble.
I am 44 years old. Working in software for more than 20 years; a rather specialized sub-field of software. Completed 20 years in the business. About 10 years back, when I started looking around and saw that all the folks 10 years older than me were either completely clueless about what to do or had shifted to management, I made a conscious shift. I started specializing in maintenance work; old, 10-12 year old products. The smart young ones don't want to do maintenance work; it is un-glamourous, doesn't give them skills to put on linkedin. I love it; especially solving bugs from the field which are non-obvious. Its like detective work......and requires in-depth domain and product knowledge. So far, I have kept my head down, and out of sight. My customer's appreciate it (especially the field guys, who have their own customer's to face) when I come up with answers for them, and I am not competing with every 25 year old speaking knowledgeably about SMAC and Cassandra and stuff.
There was one person who was mentally challenged and he was tortured as a form of leverage on his family members. They actually tortured a mentally handicapped person.
Read the original X-windows code. Impressively baroque OO written in C, with structs and function pointers, just as God intended it to be done.
C++ is like a Swiss Army penknife gone mad. The one with three blades, corkscrew and screwdriver was a useful enhancement over a plain knife ; though a plain knife is sufficient for most of what you need. But now the penknife has 1000 blades ranging from fish gutting to bear fighting, a built in arc welder, all the tools needed to strip the engine of a Maserati PLUS a built in grill and oven. Its crazy.
It allows those genuinely in need of rare skills to use the system as intended. On the other hand it discourages whole sale replacement of the local work force.
What you can do is to have a bottom on the cost per H1B to the employer. Let us say, you fix an amount Y. If the company pays the visa holder less than Y, they pay the rest as tax to the govt. If they pay more than Y, then they are not taxed. Y has to be the market clearing rate; i..e the rate at which all H1B visas available are taken.
That list is pretty eye-opening. So Psy isn't a one hit wonder.....fancy that.
Nope. A purely empirical observer wouldn't be able to tell you that 'as far as mommy knows, the chocolate is still in the drawer and that is why she is surprised'. The empirical observer would be able to predict that mommy giggles but wouldn't know __why__ she is giggling. The little boy can, because he can model mommy's state of mind. That is the fundamental difference.
Computer programs have no idea that what they are tracking is 'time' and how that "time" is different from any other relation (for example, distance) between entities , because they cannot infer causality between events.
Computer programs track a number which changes based on an abstract rule that the programmer programmed into it and based on the absolute value of that number, they do things. You could write a program where this number is replaced by the distance from a fixed point and send the computer on a random walk and the outcome would be very very different, for the same basic rules.
Time is not a sequence of numbers. If I show you a picture of a car down the street and then a picture of the same car in front of you, you will immediately place them in a 'time' order because you infer causality between the two of them......the car is in front of you right now __because__ it was down the street some __time ago__ and it is no longer there because it is here __now__. You think a program scheduler can create a relationship like this spontaneously?
That's not a robot, that's a mecha suit.