If you really want to look at magic look at the research behind antidepressants, particularly effexor. Some studies not done by the manufacturer show a ~22% improvement compared to 20% placebo, and while statistically significant, isn't really applicable to the general population. To me, that isn't much better than homeopathy./no I'm not looking up the studies, if you care enough search pubmed
Saying "some studies" isn't that much better than saying "well it didn't help my cousin bob." Welcome to statistics and randomness, if you do enough studies then they will cover every single possible result. Show me a proper meta-analysis and I may consider what you said but otherwise it's just hot air. That's not even counting the tons of lovely ways you can fuck up a study.
That said, unlike various other drugs specific antidepressants aren't used alone, aren't expected to cure every single case of depression and don't have as much of a time crunch (ie: the patient probably won't die if you give them a useless drug at first). If a drug is better for some subset of people compared to other drugs then it's a useful drug even if you don't know what subset it's better for. This also means that certain types of studies are useless for evaluation such drugs.
This is not capitalism - by influencing the market (especially so heavily) and giving money to institutions just because they're 'a huge part of the economy' we gave up capitalism.
Oh for the love of god, shut up or learn what the fuck you're talking about. The government been controlling the economy for the past century and been doing it heavily since at least the great depression. The federal reserve and various laws have never allowed capitalism to exist in a pure form for a damn good reason.
Don't bitch and complain when the government continues to do what it has done for a century. It should have kept this mess from happening in the first place but it didn't and now it's trying to prevent it from spreading. It's probably a lot better than the alternatives given how many recessions happened in the 19th century (not to mention the direct reasons for the federal reserve to have it's present amount of power).
These people fucked up - by the tenets of capitalism, if they can't survive this on their own, LET THEM FAIL. Oh, boo hoo, a tough few years. Better than going even further into debt just to bail out a few rich pricks who made the mistake of doing things where the benefits were far outweighed by the costs and potential risks.
The rich? Who do you think will really be in trouble when the economy implodes and unemployments goes through the roof? The rich who have stable savings in 50 different forms or the poor who live paycheck to paycheck? Maybe the middle class who just lost any ability to borrow money and had their retirement disappears?
This is to bail out the economy and not a bunch of rich people.
Right, so I take it then that you have nothing at all to back up your claims. In other words this is all just random BS that you think is right because you think it is right with nothing backing it up. Arguing with zealots gets boring and repetitive quickly.
So I take it you have references, studies, impact studies and so on to back up all of your claims? You are making quite a few of them that go against generally held beliefs so please do back them up.
You act like steel crumple zones don't exist and aren't effective. You can effectively absorb energy without reducing your car to 2/3 of it's original length, and 0/3 of it's original value.
Please do provide references. Crumple zones aren't crumple zones if they stay intact.
In his case, the plastic car was badly damaged, he and his car were fine.
The car being badly damaged means jack shit and that's the point, it's supposed to get badly damaged so the person inside isn't. You can also play Russian roulette and survive 5 times out of 6, that doesn't change it being a stupid idea.
The real reason we cut metal out of cars is because it's heavy and expensive.
Crumple zones are great, but that has nothing to do with metal vs plastic.
Of course it matters, if you have crumple zones than the car will be destroyed although you'll be fine. If you make a car that doesn't implode then it doesn't have crumple zones (since those require the car to damage itself) thus you're more likely to die hideously (or suffer life long disability).
They don't build 'em like they used to.
Cars built like tanks result in damage occupants more often than those not built like tanks. I value my life and health over the cost of a new car.
You can also try not passing the trucks and just go at the speed limit. Sure it takes longer to get there but you have less risk of getting hit by a truck going the other way. Granted watching the lovely "truck passing dance" by other cars was rather amusing last time I was in Poland (especially given the high traffic density on that road).
No the way to ensure you have a safe distance is to slow down once they merge in thus creating a new safety zone for yourself. Granted that assumes you're not an idiotically aggressive driver which you've demonstrated isn't the case with you.
Which isn't a good thing since your body is weaker and more expensive than everything else. The point of the crumple zones is to be destroyed to absorb the energy of an impact instead of you. There is metal that actually keeps things from getting to you but that's after the crumple zones.
I'd take a totaled car over massive internal injuries.
If I remember correctly ultra capacitors have lower energy density than batteries by far and hydrogen is absurdly difficult to store (ie: storage system lower energy density if you include it). In other words you're right although I don't think you quite understand in what way.
They're also two rather different issues. One is about the distance you can travel and some minor efficiency differences. The other is about the cost per mile of getting there.
Can you get a third party adapter that gives you line-in? I know that for my car I could get one for around $100 (+whatever if I don't install it myself) and I think most cars have one of one sort or another.
No it's being used to keep the whole economy from imploding even further which would cause a lot more problems than a bunch of idiots losing their houses. The main difference is that I will benefit from a non-disintegrating economy but won't benefit from those idiots getting a free ride.
Rather someone who doesn't know the limitations of a computer (they do have limitations you know) and doesn't have anything of substance to say.
You're the only one here who seems to not understand the limitations of either computer or humans.
Overconfidence never leads to good places.
Quite true, human confidence does prevent automation of many areas due to a false belief that humans are better.
I'll never understand why some people think that because its done on a computer, it makes it better. There are always bugs and because of that, it's no more infallible than humans. It'll just make the mistakes faster and *much* harder to detect.
Many computer programs are a lot less error prone than humans as even something as simple as simple mathematics would show (just give them enough numbers that are large enough). There is nothing that says computer bugs have to appear just as often as human fuckups. Computer code will pretty run the same every time which means it has to only be debugged at one point while humans can make a mistake even if they did the exact same thing correctly 10000 times.
You're just not very imaginative, living things are really no different from machines. So unless you believe everything was made by god it's already quite evident that relatively simple machines (cells) can without prior design create intelligent beings. In other words it not that hard to make machines that are better than their creators assuming you have sufficiently good technology.
It's only idiots who think that workers are robots and can work in top form non-stop with no means of relaxation. You're perfectly free to believe that and I'm perfectly free to not work for you. Granted you'll likely only get idiots and the desperate working for you so don't complain when they keep acting like idiots.
I'm also salaried. I get paid to get things done not for my warm body to fill a chair for 8 hours. If I waste time than that just means that I need to make up for it later. If I don't get my work done then that's my manager's job to do something about not ITs.
White list? Well I know what companies I'd never work at. Wasting days of time because I can't search for a solution to a problem in what I'm doing does not make me happy. The same goes for wasting days because I can't install software I need to use.
As for productivity? That's between my manager and me. If he thinks I'm being productive then why the hell should IT or HR presume to know better?
No you work if you need to wherever you can just like those people who work two jobs while in college to pay for it do. IF you didn't need to work those two jobs in college then you evidently have some form of income possibilities (parents, etc.) to fall back on (and again why weren't you getting experience in college if you had that much free time?). Life isn't all easy 9-to-5 work and if you can't deal with it then in the end it's your fault. My 50+ year old mother was able to do as much so I'm pretty sure anyone else can as well if they actually put the effort into it.
It works if you're good enough to pick up the skills as you go or already know enough about the skills (but don't have much to officially back it up). You may also be able to convince your interviewers that while you're incompetent for the job at hand they should hire you for a much better job instead (that you do have the skills for but didn't know about or lacked the official experience for).
If you weren't being hired then what DID you do? Well? If you need experience then you need experience not money. Go work on some open source project, volunteer for some non-profit, find some somewhat related company (then try to wiggle yourself into the proper department/make connections), go to local software events to make connections, meet people who may work in the field, work on your own projects to improve your skills and so on. Of course you should have been doing all of this in college or simply been getting internships so it's really your fault for getting out of college without experience. Remember that in life it matter who you know, what people think you know and what you actually know in that order. Don't obsess about the second of those when it's the first that you really should be thinking about.
Don't complain about not being able to find a job if you're doing little more than sitting on your ass all day.
I'd like to also say I agree with the other reply in that if you have no other options then just "stretch the truth." However if you do that then make bloody sure you actually have the skills to back up your claims or you'll just be digging yourself an even bigger hole.
Slashdot Mirror
It's 0.29%.
I don't do it, unless you count stuff that's so far in the backend it's multiple apis (if even that) away from the actual webpage.
That said I've coded a bunch of web stuff for my own amusement and am generally familiar with it.
If you really want to look at magic look at the research behind antidepressants, particularly effexor. Some studies not done by the manufacturer show a ~22% improvement compared to 20% placebo, and while statistically significant, isn't really applicable to the general population. To me, that isn't much better than homeopathy. /no I'm not looking up the studies, if you care enough search pubmed
Saying "some studies" isn't that much better than saying "well it didn't help my cousin bob." Welcome to statistics and randomness, if you do enough studies then they will cover every single possible result. Show me a proper meta-analysis and I may consider what you said but otherwise it's just hot air. That's not even counting the tons of lovely ways you can fuck up a study.
That said, unlike various other drugs specific antidepressants aren't used alone, aren't expected to cure every single case of depression and don't have as much of a time crunch (ie: the patient probably won't die if you give them a useless drug at first). If a drug is better for some subset of people compared to other drugs then it's a useful drug even if you don't know what subset it's better for. This also means that certain types of studies are useless for evaluation such drugs.
This is not capitalism - by influencing the market (especially so heavily) and giving money to institutions just because they're 'a huge part of the economy' we gave up capitalism.
Oh for the love of god, shut up or learn what the fuck you're talking about. The government been controlling the economy for the past century and been doing it heavily since at least the great depression. The federal reserve and various laws have never allowed capitalism to exist in a pure form for a damn good reason.
Don't bitch and complain when the government continues to do what it has done for a century. It should have kept this mess from happening in the first place but it didn't and now it's trying to prevent it from spreading. It's probably a lot better than the alternatives given how many recessions happened in the 19th century (not to mention the direct reasons for the federal reserve to have it's present amount of power).
These people fucked up - by the tenets of capitalism, if they can't survive this on their own, LET THEM FAIL. Oh, boo hoo, a tough few years. Better than going even further into debt just to bail out a few rich pricks who made the mistake of doing things where the benefits were far outweighed by the costs and potential risks.
The rich? Who do you think will really be in trouble when the economy implodes and unemployments goes through the roof? The rich who have stable savings in 50 different forms or the poor who live paycheck to paycheck? Maybe the middle class who just lost any ability to borrow money and had their retirement disappears?
This is to bail out the economy and not a bunch of rich people.
Right, so I take it then that you have nothing at all to back up your claims. In other words this is all just random BS that you think is right because you think it is right with nothing backing it up. Arguing with zealots gets boring and repetitive quickly.
So I take it you have references, studies, impact studies and so on to back up all of your claims? You are making quite a few of them that go against generally held beliefs so please do back them up.
You act like steel crumple zones don't exist and aren't effective. You can effectively absorb energy without reducing your car to 2/3 of it's original length, and 0/3 of it's original value.
Please do provide references. Crumple zones aren't crumple zones if they stay intact.
In his case, the plastic car was badly damaged, he and his car were fine.
The car being badly damaged means jack shit and that's the point, it's supposed to get badly damaged so the person inside isn't. You can also play Russian roulette and survive 5 times out of 6, that doesn't change it being a stupid idea.
The real reason we cut metal out of cars is because it's heavy and expensive.
Crumple zones are great, but that has nothing to do with metal vs plastic.
Of course it matters, if you have crumple zones than the car will be destroyed although you'll be fine. If you make a car that doesn't implode then it doesn't have crumple zones (since those require the car to damage itself) thus you're more likely to die hideously (or suffer life long disability).
They don't build 'em like they used to.
Cars built like tanks result in damage occupants more often than those not built like tanks. I value my life and health over the cost of a new car.
You can also try not passing the trucks and just go at the speed limit. Sure it takes longer to get there but you have less risk of getting hit by a truck going the other way. Granted watching the lovely "truck passing dance" by other cars was rather amusing last time I was in Poland (especially given the high traffic density on that road).
No the way to ensure you have a safe distance is to slow down once they merge in thus creating a new safety zone for yourself. Granted that assumes you're not an idiotically aggressive driver which you've demonstrated isn't the case with you.
The myth about going to DC to be more efficient is painful too. If a manager in a workplace would entertain a crackpot ideas like that, I'd leave.
So you are against any new innovations or non-standard ideas without even examining the claims behind them first...
Which isn't a good thing since your body is weaker and more expensive than everything else. The point of the crumple zones is to be destroyed to absorb the energy of an impact instead of you. There is metal that actually keeps things from getting to you but that's after the crumple zones.
I'd take a totaled car over massive internal injuries.
If I remember correctly ultra capacitors have lower energy density than batteries by far and hydrogen is absurdly difficult to store (ie: storage system lower energy density if you include it). In other words you're right although I don't think you quite understand in what way.
They're also two rather different issues. One is about the distance you can travel and some minor efficiency differences. The other is about the cost per mile of getting there.
Can you get a third party adapter that gives you line-in? I know that for my car I could get one for around $100 (+whatever if I don't install it myself) and I think most cars have one of one sort or another.
Hydrogen cuts your efficiency by something like 60% and requires transport which pretty much kills any gains compared to just using gasoline.
No it's being used to keep the whole economy from imploding even further which would cause a lot more problems than a bunch of idiots losing their houses. The main difference is that I will benefit from a non-disintegrating economy but won't benefit from those idiots getting a free ride.
You can call R from python directly (as in in pass data and get results back) given the proper modules.
Rather someone who doesn't know the limitations of a computer (they do have limitations you know) and doesn't have anything of substance to say.
You're the only one here who seems to not understand the limitations of either computer or humans.
Overconfidence never leads to good places.
Quite true, human confidence does prevent automation of many areas due to a false belief that humans are better.
I'll never understand why some people think that because its done on a computer, it makes it better. There are always bugs and because of that, it's no more infallible than humans. It'll just make the mistakes faster and *much* harder to detect.
Many computer programs are a lot less error prone than humans as even something as simple as simple mathematics would show (just give them enough numbers that are large enough). There is nothing that says computer bugs have to appear just as often as human fuckups. Computer code will pretty run the same every time which means it has to only be debugged at one point while humans can make a mistake even if they did the exact same thing correctly 10000 times.
You're just not very imaginative, living things are really no different from machines. So unless you believe everything was made by god it's already quite evident that relatively simple machines (cells) can without prior design create intelligent beings. In other words it not that hard to make machines that are better than their creators assuming you have sufficiently good technology.
Machines CAN NEVER BE AS GOOD AS THE ONES THAT PROGRAM THEM.
Sure they can and you don't even really need to "program" much into them, just look at biology and evolution.
It's only idiots who think that workers are robots and can work in top form non-stop with no means of relaxation. You're perfectly free to believe that and I'm perfectly free to not work for you. Granted you'll likely only get idiots and the desperate working for you so don't complain when they keep acting like idiots.
I'm also salaried. I get paid to get things done not for my warm body to fill a chair for 8 hours. If I waste time than that just means that I need to make up for it later. If I don't get my work done then that's my manager's job to do something about not ITs.
White list? Well I know what companies I'd never work at. Wasting days of time because I can't search for a solution to a problem in what I'm doing does not make me happy. The same goes for wasting days because I can't install software I need to use.
As for productivity? That's between my manager and me. If he thinks I'm being productive then why the hell should IT or HR presume to know better?
No you work if you need to wherever you can just like those people who work two jobs while in college to pay for it do. IF you didn't need to work those two jobs in college then you evidently have some form of income possibilities (parents, etc.) to fall back on (and again why weren't you getting experience in college if you had that much free time?). Life isn't all easy 9-to-5 work and if you can't deal with it then in the end it's your fault. My 50+ year old mother was able to do as much so I'm pretty sure anyone else can as well if they actually put the effort into it.
It works if you're good enough to pick up the skills as you go or already know enough about the skills (but don't have much to officially back it up). You may also be able to convince your interviewers that while you're incompetent for the job at hand they should hire you for a much better job instead (that you do have the skills for but didn't know about or lacked the official experience for).
If you weren't being hired then what DID you do? Well? If you need experience then you need experience not money. Go work on some open source project, volunteer for some non-profit, find some somewhat related company (then try to wiggle yourself into the proper department/make connections), go to local software events to make connections, meet people who may work in the field, work on your own projects to improve your skills and so on. Of course you should have been doing all of this in college or simply been getting internships so it's really your fault for getting out of college without experience. Remember that in life it matter who you know, what people think you know and what you actually know in that order. Don't obsess about the second of those when it's the first that you really should be thinking about.
Don't complain about not being able to find a job if you're doing little more than sitting on your ass all day.
I'd like to also say I agree with the other reply in that if you have no other options then just "stretch the truth." However if you do that then make bloody sure you actually have the skills to back up your claims or you'll just be digging yourself an even bigger hole.
Except the original poster doesn't seem to have too much trouble with HR since if he did then he wouldn't be getting interviews.