The citation would be true in cases where exclusion was given based on a bias, and the bias is being forcefully removed by affirmative action. The problem is that the same biases that may exist in their case studies for education don't seem to exist in the work place.
I have been on the interview team for every company I have worked for in the last 25 years. This includes Network Engineers, SysAdmins, Developers, and Security experts. There is nowhere near 30 female applicants for every 70 male applicants for technical jobs. The percentage is in the low single digits, and in some cases not even that.
I have seen plenty of women apply for Sales, Finance, Project Managers, and other non-technical jobs. My current company for example has a mostly female sales staff and financial staff. There are no female applicants for either Security or Network Engineering. That is a "goose egg" zero. There are very few for development or system administration.
Why not ask, Linkedin for example, for some statistics on people searching for technical jobs by race and qualifications? Well that would be telling, but we don't see those stats. We just hear about how bad diversity is, usually backed by data that has nothing in common with the workplace.
I get that racism and sexism exist, but at the same time the way to correct those problems is not by attempting to force nonexistent or nonqualified applicants into employment. Reversing racism and sexism by adding new biases is simply a bad idea. It's much better to punish those things when see them, and work on sociology to increase the applicant pool and awareness.
In order to continue the "War On Terror" they need to invent bogey men. Reality does matter to those people, just watch TV "News" every now and again.
A point that you miss is that there are countless beneficial uses for radioactive materials that are not related to terrorism, in fact every time you go near a medical facility pay attention to all of the signs.
When is the last time you ever heard a "3rd world countries only want uranium so that they can terrorize the world" speaking politician mention how they believe those countries can achieve medical procedures we use every day in hospitals and labs (not including Universities and other research facilities) without radioactive isotopes. Things like X-Rays, Chemotherapy, CT scans, and everything else found in a Nuclear Medicine office (which is a pretty long list).
Before you "but that's radioactive Iodine, not Uranium" you hopefully know that production of radioactive Iodine requires Uranium. The difference between weapons grade and medical grade Uranium is how much enrichment is done (much less for Medical use, much more for Military use)
Not to stray from the point, but I'd guess that there really is a black market for radioactive materials. The reason for that would not be for "dirty bombing terrorist acts", but because some nations block production in other countries. Prohibitions don't work, and often have an opposite result from the intention.
Iran for example was the target of a massive amount of espionage and insurgency trying to destroy their production, even though their enrichment was just enough for medical purposes (repeatedly verified by UN inspectors). And if you are one of the "Iran is Evil" believers, pray tell us who that so called aggressive nation hell bent on the destruction of Israel and takeover of the world has attacked in the last 200 years? They had to defend themselves against a US armed Saddam Hussein, but did not start that conflict.
With that much money being spent to stop Iran from production, what do you think a Hospital in Cambodia does? Argue when the US yells "terrorist!" and try to produce their own anyway with incredible cost and risk, or buy it elsewhere. Probably the latter, especially when it's probably cheaper and faster to acquire on a black market without all the red tape.
The pension perhaps, but what happens when the government goes bankrupt?
If the Government goes bankrupt you won't have a pension, money becomes toilet paper. A bit of history can be found here and there are many other historical references to find (I picked an easy target).
Precious metals, gems, art, etc.. can survive a Federal bankruptcy but your saved cash won't. Even if it's in a "guaranteed" savings, what happens is due to massive inflation your hundred grand may purchase a loaf of bread (historically accurate by the way).
The only people that would benefit in the case of the US Government going bankrupt are the global bankers who would seize all assets of every person living in said USA both foreign and domestic.
Let me guess... Reading and Comprehension are not your forte right? "When Linux was not even 1.0 yet" refers to a time frame. Many of us that have been in the business a while use that as a reference and will fully admit it's not an accurate measurement. I started working with SunOS when version 4.0 came out, and was still supporting it when I left the DOD in 2010. I can remember the versions of software I was supporting (HP-UX 8.x, IRIX 3.x, AIX 2.x) easier than I can remember all of the dates they came out.
You can Google/Wiki search the dates these things were released just as easily as I can. If you care to find it, the data is there.
There is a reason for a separation of powers and a separation of technologies in the Military. In order for the Army and Air Force to work together, they do not need complete and full access to each others information and systems. They only need enough information shared to get the job done.
The same reasoning is true with how the Federal Government was defined, with separate branches and separate powers. This separation is to protect from a single power having the ability to take over Government.
Where you may not see the connection is that full control over all military could result in a coup, so rules are in place to prevent that. Including restricting the President from having total control.
Nowhere do I claim all physicists are wrong, stop fantasizing things that don't exist in order to protect your belief. I stated that Dark Energy and Dark matter are "probably" wrong. Those two things are only needed to protect a questionable theory called "Big Bang" which is something questioned by numerous physicists, especially those that came up with other theories such as the Quantum Vacuum theory.
Since you are now into the realm of using fantasy to protect beliefs, have a nice life. It is simply impossible to debate someone with that level of delusion.
Crackpots? Haha, so now we go to the ad hominem instead of the absurd. Keep astounding me with your brilliance.
Big Bang has never ever been proven, but anyone that does not believe must be committing blasphemy against science, because that other science is that of the heathen. Never mind the fact that Big Bang requires the Aether to work and we can't prove anything about the Aether, it must be true because you have been taught to believe it. Just fucking amazing!
Show me a working Big Bang model without magical components and I'll give you the whole debate. You can't, so can't win. Hmm, ad hominem will generally lead to more ad hominem especially after being caught in better masked fallacies. Maybe you will go with more ad hominem and try an appeal to emotion fallacy next.
Taking a non-biased look at "Climate Science" should be enough to prove to anyone that "Science" has not changed much from the "Flat Earth" days, with the exception of course that people are not usually physically tortured and killed for belief in a round world. Just chastised, defunded, and humiliated if they are one of "those" scientists.
Lastly, why would I need to come up with yet another theory when I clearly stated numerous times that the Quantum Vacuum theory is more sound mathematically than the "Big Bang"? There is no need for yet another theory, but you refuse to read anything that interferes with your belief. Grats on being a thoroughly complete imbecile! (Perhaps a bit of a retaliatory ad hominem, but your failure to read and comprehend in addition to your lack of critical thinking skills is deserving of the title.)
Unless you can magically prove what over a century of worth of theorists have not, your "belief" is no longer interesting and is certainly not better than the actual theoretical physicists (of which I do read periodically). Your selective reading and comprehension ability mixed with your fanatical belief is really not pleasurable company. In fact I'd probably rather discuss theology with a Jehova's Witness, because they at least use a reference book for their bullshit. You just have a line of bullshit you are claiming is "science".
And the same people who theorize this have careers riding on "Big Bang" being correct, while QV/EV threatens their livelihood. But you keep on pretending that science never has any biases or motives other than the purity of science. I have a few thousand years of history that shows you are wrong.. but that does not mean you will pay any attention to facts.
Please stick with the Socratic method and argue the points at their simplest level.
We can detect gravity from our Sun, Moon, other planets, their moons, and other objects well enough to slingshot a space probe to Pluto, but we can't detect 95% of all mass and energy in our Universe? Come now, you are going to have to do better than this.
Dark Energy is everywhere, but the name is terrible. I prefer the old "cosmological constant", even if it may not be constant.
If it's everywhere as you claim, there should be exponentially more of this stuff to detect when compared to say, gravity. Do you believe that the alchemists were correct about the aether? The argument you provide is the same substance, go back and read some of those writings. Nobody knew what it was, but they were sure it was everywhere. Interestingly, this same argument exists for Nth dimensional travel but people miss the obvious because they are "told" this is "modern science" (lacking any science of course)
Not sure what you want by "detected". Dark energy, whatever it may be, is a placeholder name for an effect that inarguably exists.
Stop picking and choosing parts of paragraphs to argue and comment on the whole context. I stated that any method of "detecting" dark matter and energy exist without dark matter and energy. I even gave the example of gravitational lensing which people claim detects this stuff, yet the theorist who predicted gravitational lensing does not have this aether like stuff in his theory. In fact absolutely zero of his theories make such a prediction.
You finally go off on a tangent trying to claim that if we could somehow build a better detector we could detect 95% of the Universe, without addressing the first issue of "How the hell you can rationally claim that 95% of the Universe is hidden from view." and introducing topics that actually counter such a claim.
Such as neutrinos which are present, but surely not 95% of the Universe.
I have to second what the AC said. Measuring success is not about how much money you have.
I was not given anything special in school, I was always an A student when I tried and B/C when I didn't give a shit. I came from poverty, went into the Army so I could afford to go to College. I swore I'd never be like my deadbeat father, who passed away when I was a young teenager.
Maybe not being my father is an odd goal for some. To me, it's a whole lot. My son has not grown up in poverty, and while we have never been rich we have also never been poor. I just paid cash for his first full semester at college, I'm financially secure, I have a great employer (and I have the power to pick and choose who I work for today). In nearly working 30 years in IT I have experienced a whopping 2 weeks of unexpected unemployment. One day I do want get my PHD, but as a single parent I take a back seat to getting my son on a better track than I had.
That's not to claim I don't make mistakes, my life is full of them. I try to learn from mistakes, so have many more success stories than failures.
Biggest of all, I have never sacrificed my morality and/or ethics for anything or anyone. I have been able to show my kid that success does not require hand outs, silver spoons, or questionable ethics.
Life is not about the money, it's about the legacy you are leaving behind.
I live in the South Bay pretty close to Google HQ. There are absolutely big ego companies full of themselves, but they are not the majority. We have companies here known for douche baggery like Google, Apple, and Zynga. But we also have Rambus, Ericsson, Brocade, Motorola, Cisco, and countless others that are no different than companies elsewhere.
I saw the same thing in Detroit where every company was compared to one of the Big 3. The supply chain employed way more people than the Big 3, but they operated differently. In fact supply chain would not be successful if they acted like one of the "Big 3". Articles would always claim that they were the same because the stereotype suited someone's purposes, even when it was not true.
In fairness, their site is only linking to Google and there is only 800 lines of JavaScript including comments and blank lines. Do you realize how rare it is for a company web site not to link to Twitter, Facebook, and at least half a dozen click advertisers?
I am not saying you are wrong about the ego portions (I only read a fraction), but the tech part is not that bad.
I wish I could find the link, but no luck so far. There was a speech given to the house of lords in England in the 1700s where an attorney argues that copyrights are only beneficial to the copyright owner, which tends to not be the artist where the copyright is intended. Print shops would demand copyright to print a book, but of course they would pay the artist a few pennies for their troubles. The speech covers a well known English auhor's family woes after his death. Even though he was a well known author and sold enough books that he should have been wealthy, after he died his family was left destitute. The reason was because a publisher owned all of his copyrights and his family never received a penny in royalties.
Of course the copyright holder (publisher) was suing the house to extend copyrights, because it's so beneficial to the economy.
A bit off topic I realize, since TFA is about patents. The thing is though, the arguments stay the same. It is not like John the inventor gets to hold his patent and benefit, it's more like John the inventor's patent was 90% owned by the company he worked for because they sued him for the rights.
Some things never change. This has a lot to do with why they try and make backroom laws like TPP, CISPA/SOPA type laws, etc.. Rational people would point out the flaws, so in the US we just make the discussions a matter of national security so people don't know. Thank goodness a few companies got on the bandwagon with CISPA/SOPA, but the next versions are not being discussed publicly and are works in progress in the Senate and House.
Not clear enough regarding the "fragment". "Frag(bnk)22x=y" for example would be a bank password, "Frag(eml)22x=y" for email, etc..., so the fragement I'm referring to is an identifier in the password for the service. No, I don't really use something that simple, but it should make the point.
The hashes for these are obviously going to be different, and a brute force attack would take quite a while to crack the password even if someone acquired a hash. Since a new equation comes around every 6 months or so, statistically by the time it could be broken I would have a new password. Obviously this excludes a government supercomputer from the mix of statistics. If a Government wanted to nab me, a password is the hard way to do so.
Perhaps a bit pedantic, but a dictionary attack would not crack anything that is not in the dictionary. If "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today." results in a password of "Ig2tmd,S2tpt." then a dictionary attack would never be able to crack it. A "worm" would crack it, but given a length of 13 characters it would take a long ass time to crack. If you change your password every few months, as security experts recommend, you have an extremely low chance of being "cracked" into.
DARPA, NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, ATF, FEMA, and every other government agency wants something other than passwords to be your password. Don't worry citizen, nothing every goes wrong with things like that. Remember that in theory the Government works for you, just ignore the practice.
By the way, I do the same thing with my password as you. Fragments are inserted for functionality, the "password" structure is similar. The problem however, is what GP stated. I can't use my normal methodology in many locations because "You can only use numbers and letters in your password", followed by "Your password exceeds length" errors.
If people and companies could get passed 1990s CRYPT authentication the world would be a bit safer for those of us that care. We'll never be able to fix the people using "password" as their password, and biometrics won't fix them either.
Einsteins theory doesn't use gravity at all. It works with mass and energy which cause curved spacetime which then causes gravitational lensing.
The model Einstein had includes gravity, you are skewing how he viewed gravity as a property of mass.
The dark matter is predicted by this effect because we can't detect enough normal matter to justify the level of light-bending we can observe.
Einstein never predicted dark matter or dark energy, so that statement is a complete fabrication. Dark matter and dark energy were "predicted" when models of the "Big Bang" did not work. Stop and think about that for a while.
Dark matter is also predicted by several other observable phenomena like the speed galaxies rotate around each other or cosmic microwave background.
As with above the "prediction" is because our mathematical models of the "Big Bang" and gravity are not working, which means that they are not "predicted" but needed for someone's theory to work.
So all things that exist, exist within our solar system and are detectable with existing technology?
Not at all, and nowhere do I state any such thing. I do state that logically it's improbable, but not impossible.
If you want to claim that up to 95% of the Universe is made up of dark matter and energy, fine. We can watch geysers on a gas giant's moon, but we can't detect 95% of the space between our Earth and the probe watching? Come now, something is wrong with that claim. Oh I know, someone decided that "dark matter and energy don't exist in our Solar system". Then why is it absent in our solar system?
Higgs boson is a sub atomic particle, and not the same claim or the same scale. Nobody claimed that the particle made up 70%-95% of the Universe like they do with dark matter and dark energy. You are making an apples to elephants comparison in an attempt to skew the rhetoric in favor of the irrational (whether you realize it or not).
There were many theories to explain galactic rotation rates: MOND, WIMPs, MACHOs, many more I've forgotten. But out of the whole pack, WIMPs predicted the recent CMBR data accurately. When the math works, and accurately predicts unrelated measurements unknown when the hypothesis was made, well, science means we go with that until we have something better. We still don't know enough about dark matter to build a detector, but that's not required - what matters is that this theory survived when the others were falsified.
In the case of Big Bang they have had to make models work by inventing most of the mass and energy from thin air. We are not talking about a small anomaly that they can't account for, we are talking about anywhere between 70% and 95% (depending on the model)! Stop and think about that for a second.
This is about filling in gaps in mathematical models to make them work, there is nothing ever "detected". Everything used to claim "we detected dark matter/energy" exists without those two things, like gravitational lensing.
So is it possible that dark matter and dark energy exist? Sure. Is it possible that those two things make up 95% of the Universe? No. Extraordinary claims and all that.
Part of the issue here is that the question is ambiguous. "Big Bang" has morphed and changed into may forms in the last century+ when it was first envisioned. So, which big bang are you and TFA referring to? The original that said all the mass was a few hundred thousand miles across and blew up? The one taught in the 1970s that all mass was compressed into a ball about 270,000 light years across and blew up? The one that still requires all of the mass to exist already and compressed down to a compact size that you can find on U of M website? Or finally, are you referring to the Big Bang which steals the Quantum/Expanding Vacuum theory, but somehow claims to still be a "big bang"?
QV or EV invalidates the need for a Big Bang. Though we don't know where quantum particles come from, the theory has worked out that collisions would result in mass over time and a constant source of energy. All we need to start the Universe is a small vacuum and time (hence the Universe is much older than people in the Big Bang camp claim). There are a couple variations of the QV/EV theory, but they don't differ greatly like the "Big Bang" does. I hate to advertise for the guy, but Lawrence Kraus's book "A Universe from Nothing" is a decent read.
As to this "But the last 50 years have shown us that dark matter and dark energy actually make up 95% of the energy composition of our cosmos. Given that, is there any wiggle room to possibly invalidate the Big Bang?" pardon me if I don't share your enthusiasm. From a logical perspective we have been able to study quite a bit of our solar system hands on, and we have never been able to detect either dark matter or dark energy (no, gravitational lensing is not a test [see last paragraph]). Even the people using the term in science papers can't seem to agree on any what these things are, properties vary from model to model and person to person.
Dense matter is a logical probability, because we know that the majority of every atom is empty space. Under extremely high gravitational fields this area could be reduced making denser atoms. Dark matter and dark energy have been used exclusively to make people's mathematical models of the Universe work. It is just as likely that we don't fully understand gravity as much as we thought, as it is to have dark matter and energy. I'd further argue that since we have never detected either in our solar system, odds would favor that they don't exist. I don't rule it out as impossible, but I would not say it's probable.
Gravitational lensing does not require either dark matter or dark energy. I find it odd that the NASA link discusses Einstein as the person that came up with the theory, yet fails to mention that Einstein did not theorize these two "dark" things. Gravitational lensing is a result of having curved space and obviously gravity. Dark * is not required nor expected..
That they continue to try and blame programmers for problems that management creates should bother people. Yes, this is a rewording of the same article. The only way to sell this alchemy (I would not even call it pseudo science) is by continually bleating out the theme "programmers are baaaad and we can detect them being baaaaad".
Lets just say (though its impossible for them to do) that they can isolate every possible variable that would cause fluctuations in EEGs, heart rates, and everything else they want to track biometrically. How on earth do they plan to track and correlate that data without either knowing or directing everything you eat, drink, and touch (including shampoo, soap, and hand lotion).
Even better, how do they plan to either direct or track all of your personal interactions which can impact those same things. If they can't, then the numbers are skewed and we don't have any science, you only have biases.
Oh, I can see it now. "Monty. We know your dad died yesterday but you are performing sub par and your heart rate is elevated higher than we expect, so we are going to have to let you go. We can't have a repeat of your three days of sub par performance when your wife divorced you five years ago."
Now lets look at some of the great Microsoft Management decisions, and decide who's to blame: Programmer or Management. Lync can not copy/paste data. Do you really think a programmer didn't notice the lack of basic function and point it out? Windows 8, and in fact Microsoft's whole "One UI" strategy is management driven. Zune, was actually a decent device but management killed the program. Programmers said Win8 was not ready, Management released it (as they did with Vista, ME, countless back office products, etc..). Programmers have had fixes for security ready only to have them pulled by management for various reasons. "Can't fix that IIS back door because someone's code may break" is frigging hilarious, but how many times have we read just that from Microsoft management?
That list could get really really long, so here is the point. Why are they not hooking management up to these things and putting them under pressure instead of the programmers? Probably for the same reason I start with, which is that this is alchemy and not science.
I felt the need to re-arrange a bit so the most severe issues are first.
The problem in USA is not that Google and Apple had agreements not to hire from each other, it's that there are so few employers at all, and that's a problem of business costs being too high thanks to government rules, taxes, regulations, litigation costs, inflation etc.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. Companies colluding to reduce employee wages is illegal and a problem. Hence the ruling and pending judgement to both reward people shafted by these illegal arrangements and punish the companies for using them.
Have you ever interviewed for either Google or Apple? I have, and their built in exclusion process ensures that they can hire only who they want when they want. If they want to save money they hire nobody local, and then claim that they need more H1B workers.
I don't take issue with the ability of a company to exclude people based on a lack of experience or knowledge, but that's not the criteria these companies are using to make exclusions. Google for example demands that you spend about a week studying various "trick questions" for their interview process. Your first phone interview will provide you a list of things to study, none of which have to pertain to the job you are interviewing for.
"trick questions" which does not test your real knowledge. It is however a great test to determine who will provide free labor without complaints.
Hiring employees becomes necessary when there is more work that can be done, where the cost of hired labour is lower than the value produced by that labour.
That part you have correct, but then it all goes downhill.
If you make labour cost too high, less of it will be bought, because the value produced by that labour may not be enough to cover the cost and to make some profit, and the whole point of business is to generate profit, otherwise it's not a business but a hobby.
Great, but why are you limiting your point on labor to only the worker bees? A CEO should make 145 million dollars a year while a worker bee makes 40K and is told they are overpaid? A manager can make a 1 million dollar bonus by eliminating 5 minimum wage employees and replacing them with 5 people making.60 an hour in a foreign country? Events similar to these happen frequently in the US. Do the math, how does this add up?
Look, I agree that the welfare state is a huge problem. That last paragraph has nothing to do with the welfare state, it has to deal with deregulation and incentives in the system to fuck people over so that you can make big bucks. Even to the point where a board will fire a CEO of a profitable company for not fucking his employees.
Ok, first of all, it is spelled "hearsay" — as in "I heard him say, that...". I corrected your mistake earlier — and gave you a link describing the term. Yet you keep using it even though it is not even applicable, strictly speaking, anywhere other than in court...
Not really high on my "to-do" list, but I have made a note of it. You understood what was intended, which is all that should be required.
Imagine yourself calling police to report, say, a neighbor raping his goat. Your tip, even though made without oath, and not to the judge himself — thus "hearsay" — would not be enough to convict the man of zoophilia [wikipedia.org] or cruelty to animals, but it would be enough for police to go to a judge and getting a warrant to search his premises.
You keep arguing the same point, it does not change in time. Sure, a judge _can_ issue a warrant based on Joe claiming "I saw Bob humping a goat". If that is the only evidence provided, a judge would most likely not issue a warrant. Judges are not stupid, they realize that people with bad motives can make false claims. The latter happens more often that someone actually humping a goat.
Sure! But in these two cases police did manage to obtain more evidence (legally), so that's now moot...
I have not seen anything in terms of court records, so won't agree it's moot. I will agree that it's a satisfactorily resolved issue, but not the primary reason I take issue with what both MS and Google have done.
You have not argued those issues so I see no need to discuss this further. Thanks again for the amicable chat.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you get into the fastest growing business in the world? #getourstock #text4cash.com #notascam #realtwitter.com
Why would the SEC care about their bots? They just said I can get rich too!!
The citation would be true in cases where exclusion was given based on a bias, and the bias is being forcefully removed by affirmative action. The problem is that the same biases that may exist in their case studies for education don't seem to exist in the work place.
I have been on the interview team for every company I have worked for in the last 25 years. This includes Network Engineers, SysAdmins, Developers, and Security experts. There is nowhere near 30 female applicants for every 70 male applicants for technical jobs. The percentage is in the low single digits, and in some cases not even that.
I have seen plenty of women apply for Sales, Finance, Project Managers, and other non-technical jobs. My current company for example has a mostly female sales staff and financial staff. There are no female applicants for either Security or Network Engineering. That is a "goose egg" zero. There are very few for development or system administration.
Why not ask, Linkedin for example, for some statistics on people searching for technical jobs by race and qualifications? Well that would be telling, but we don't see those stats. We just hear about how bad diversity is, usually backed by data that has nothing in common with the workplace.
I get that racism and sexism exist, but at the same time the way to correct those problems is not by attempting to force nonexistent or nonqualified applicants into employment. Reversing racism and sexism by adding new biases is simply a bad idea. It's much better to punish those things when see them, and work on sociology to increase the applicant pool and awareness.
In order to continue the "War On Terror" they need to invent bogey men. Reality does matter to those people, just watch TV "News" every now and again.
A point that you miss is that there are countless beneficial uses for radioactive materials that are not related to terrorism, in fact every time you go near a medical facility pay attention to all of the signs.
When is the last time you ever heard a "3rd world countries only want uranium so that they can terrorize the world" speaking politician mention how they believe those countries can achieve medical procedures we use every day in hospitals and labs (not including Universities and other research facilities) without radioactive isotopes. Things like X-Rays, Chemotherapy, CT scans, and everything else found in a Nuclear Medicine office (which is a pretty long list).
Before you "but that's radioactive Iodine, not Uranium" you hopefully know that production of radioactive Iodine requires Uranium. The difference between weapons grade and medical grade Uranium is how much enrichment is done (much less for Medical use, much more for Military use)
Not to stray from the point, but I'd guess that there really is a black market for radioactive materials. The reason for that would not be for "dirty bombing terrorist acts", but because some nations block production in other countries. Prohibitions don't work, and often have an opposite result from the intention.
Iran for example was the target of a massive amount of espionage and insurgency trying to destroy their production, even though their enrichment was just enough for medical purposes (repeatedly verified by UN inspectors). And if you are one of the "Iran is Evil" believers, pray tell us who that so called aggressive nation hell bent on the destruction of Israel and takeover of the world has attacked in the last 200 years? They had to defend themselves against a US armed Saddam Hussein, but did not start that conflict.
With that much money being spent to stop Iran from production, what do you think a Hospital in Cambodia does? Argue when the US yells "terrorist!" and try to produce their own anyway with incredible cost and risk, or buy it elsewhere. Probably the latter, especially when it's probably cheaper and faster to acquire on a black market without all the red tape.
The pension perhaps, but what happens when the government goes bankrupt?
If the Government goes bankrupt you won't have a pension, money becomes toilet paper. A bit of history can be found here and there are many other historical references to find (I picked an easy target).
Precious metals, gems, art, etc.. can survive a Federal bankruptcy but your saved cash won't. Even if it's in a "guaranteed" savings, what happens is due to massive inflation your hundred grand may purchase a loaf of bread (historically accurate by the way).
The only people that would benefit in the case of the US Government going bankrupt are the global bankers who would seize all assets of every person living in said USA both foreign and domestic.
Let me guess... Reading and Comprehension are not your forte right? "When Linux was not even 1.0 yet" refers to a time frame. Many of us that have been in the business a while use that as a reference and will fully admit it's not an accurate measurement. I started working with SunOS when version 4.0 came out, and was still supporting it when I left the DOD in 2010. I can remember the versions of software I was supporting (HP-UX 8.x, IRIX 3.x, AIX 2.x) easier than I can remember all of the dates they came out.
You can Google/Wiki search the dates these things were released just as easily as I can. If you care to find it, the data is there.
There is a reason for a separation of powers and a separation of technologies in the Military. In order for the Army and Air Force to work together, they do not need complete and full access to each others information and systems. They only need enough information shared to get the job done.
The same reasoning is true with how the Federal Government was defined, with separate branches and separate powers. This separation is to protect from a single power having the ability to take over Government.
Where you may not see the connection is that full control over all military could result in a coup, so rules are in place to prevent that. Including restricting the President from having total control.
Nowhere do I claim all physicists are wrong, stop fantasizing things that don't exist in order to protect your belief. I stated that Dark Energy and Dark matter are "probably" wrong. Those two things are only needed to protect a questionable theory called "Big Bang" which is something questioned by numerous physicists, especially those that came up with other theories such as the Quantum Vacuum theory.
Since you are now into the realm of using fantasy to protect beliefs, have a nice life. It is simply impossible to debate someone with that level of delusion.
Crackpots? Haha, so now we go to the ad hominem instead of the absurd. Keep astounding me with your brilliance.
Big Bang has never ever been proven, but anyone that does not believe must be committing blasphemy against science, because that other science is that of the heathen. Never mind the fact that Big Bang requires the Aether to work and we can't prove anything about the Aether, it must be true because you have been taught to believe it. Just fucking amazing!
Show me a working Big Bang model without magical components and I'll give you the whole debate. You can't, so can't win. Hmm, ad hominem will generally lead to more ad hominem especially after being caught in better masked fallacies. Maybe you will go with more ad hominem and try an appeal to emotion fallacy next.
Taking a non-biased look at "Climate Science" should be enough to prove to anyone that "Science" has not changed much from the "Flat Earth" days, with the exception of course that people are not usually physically tortured and killed for belief in a round world. Just chastised, defunded, and humiliated if they are one of "those" scientists.
Lastly, why would I need to come up with yet another theory when I clearly stated numerous times that the Quantum Vacuum theory is more sound mathematically than the "Big Bang"? There is no need for yet another theory, but you refuse to read anything that interferes with your belief. Grats on being a thoroughly complete imbecile! (Perhaps a bit of a retaliatory ad hominem, but your failure to read and comprehend in addition to your lack of critical thinking skills is deserving of the title.)
Unless you can magically prove what over a century of worth of theorists have not, your "belief" is no longer interesting and is certainly not better than the actual theoretical physicists (of which I do read periodically). Your selective reading and comprehension ability mixed with your fanatical belief is really not pleasurable company. In fact I'd probably rather discuss theology with a Jehova's Witness, because they at least use a reference book for their bullshit. You just have a line of bullshit you are claiming is "science".
And the same people who theorize this have careers riding on "Big Bang" being correct, while QV/EV threatens their livelihood. But you keep on pretending that science never has any biases or motives other than the purity of science. I have a few thousand years of history that shows you are wrong.. but that does not mean you will pay any attention to facts.
Please stick with the Socratic method and argue the points at their simplest level.
We can detect gravity from our Sun, Moon, other planets, their moons, and other objects well enough to slingshot a space probe to Pluto, but we can't detect 95% of all mass and energy in our Universe? Come now, you are going to have to do better than this.
Dark Energy is everywhere, but the name is terrible. I prefer the old "cosmological constant", even if it may not be constant.
If it's everywhere as you claim, there should be exponentially more of this stuff to detect when compared to say, gravity. Do you believe that the alchemists were correct about the aether? The argument you provide is the same substance, go back and read some of those writings. Nobody knew what it was, but they were sure it was everywhere. Interestingly, this same argument exists for Nth dimensional travel but people miss the obvious because they are "told" this is "modern science" (lacking any science of course)
Not sure what you want by "detected". Dark energy, whatever it may be, is a placeholder name for an effect that inarguably exists.
Stop picking and choosing parts of paragraphs to argue and comment on the whole context. I stated that any method of "detecting" dark matter and energy exist without dark matter and energy. I even gave the example of gravitational lensing which people claim detects this stuff, yet the theorist who predicted gravitational lensing does not have this aether like stuff in his theory. In fact absolutely zero of his theories make such a prediction.
You finally go off on a tangent trying to claim that if we could somehow build a better detector we could detect 95% of the Universe, without addressing the first issue of "How the hell you can rationally claim that 95% of the Universe is hidden from view." and introducing topics that actually counter such a claim.
Such as neutrinos which are present, but surely not 95% of the Universe.
You rock!!
I have to second what the AC said. Measuring success is not about how much money you have.
I was not given anything special in school, I was always an A student when I tried and B/C when I didn't give a shit. I came from poverty, went into the Army so I could afford to go to College. I swore I'd never be like my deadbeat father, who passed away when I was a young teenager.
Maybe not being my father is an odd goal for some. To me, it's a whole lot. My son has not grown up in poverty, and while we have never been rich we have also never been poor. I just paid cash for his first full semester at college, I'm financially secure, I have a great employer (and I have the power to pick and choose who I work for today). In nearly working 30 years in IT I have experienced a whopping 2 weeks of unexpected unemployment. One day I do want get my PHD, but as a single parent I take a back seat to getting my son on a better track than I had.
That's not to claim I don't make mistakes, my life is full of them. I try to learn from mistakes, so have many more success stories than failures.
Biggest of all, I have never sacrificed my morality and/or ethics for anything or anyone. I have been able to show my kid that success does not require hand outs, silver spoons, or questionable ethics.
Life is not about the money, it's about the legacy you are leaving behind.
Are you telling me I should not spend the $50.00 to get my certificate? That web site clearly said my score was 206, and I can even get the proof!
ps
In case you miss what should be obvious, this is called sarcasm.
I live in the South Bay pretty close to Google HQ. There are absolutely big ego companies full of themselves, but they are not the majority. We have companies here known for douche baggery like Google, Apple, and Zynga. But we also have Rambus, Ericsson, Brocade, Motorola, Cisco, and countless others that are no different than companies elsewhere.
I saw the same thing in Detroit where every company was compared to one of the Big 3. The supply chain employed way more people than the Big 3, but they operated differently. In fact supply chain would not be successful if they acted like one of the "Big 3". Articles would always claim that they were the same because the stereotype suited someone's purposes, even when it was not true.
In fairness, their site is only linking to Google and there is only 800 lines of JavaScript including comments and blank lines. Do you realize how rare it is for a company web site not to link to Twitter, Facebook, and at least half a dozen click advertisers?
I am not saying you are wrong about the ego portions (I only read a fraction), but the tech part is not that bad.
I wish I could find the link, but no luck so far. There was a speech given to the house of lords in England in the 1700s where an attorney argues that copyrights are only beneficial to the copyright owner, which tends to not be the artist where the copyright is intended. Print shops would demand copyright to print a book, but of course they would pay the artist a few pennies for their troubles. The speech covers a well known English auhor's family woes after his death. Even though he was a well known author and sold enough books that he should have been wealthy, after he died his family was left destitute. The reason was because a publisher owned all of his copyrights and his family never received a penny in royalties.
Of course the copyright holder (publisher) was suing the house to extend copyrights, because it's so beneficial to the economy.
A bit off topic I realize, since TFA is about patents. The thing is though, the arguments stay the same. It is not like John the inventor gets to hold his patent and benefit, it's more like John the inventor's patent was 90% owned by the company he worked for because they sued him for the rights.
Some things never change. This has a lot to do with why they try and make backroom laws like TPP, CISPA/SOPA type laws, etc.. Rational people would point out the flaws, so in the US we just make the discussions a matter of national security so people don't know. Thank goodness a few companies got on the bandwagon with CISPA/SOPA, but the next versions are not being discussed publicly and are works in progress in the Senate and House.
Not clear enough regarding the "fragment". "Frag(bnk)22x=y" for example would be a bank password, "Frag(eml)22x=y" for email, etc..., so the fragement I'm referring to is an identifier in the password for the service. No, I don't really use something that simple, but it should make the point.
The hashes for these are obviously going to be different, and a brute force attack would take quite a while to crack the password even if someone acquired a hash. Since a new equation comes around every 6 months or so, statistically by the time it could be broken I would have a new password. Obviously this excludes a government supercomputer from the mix of statistics. If a Government wanted to nab me, a password is the hard way to do so.
Perhaps a bit pedantic, but a dictionary attack would not crack anything that is not in the dictionary. If "I'm going to take my dog, Spot, to the park today." results in a password of "Ig2tmd,S2tpt." then a dictionary attack would never be able to crack it. A "worm" would crack it, but given a length of 13 characters it would take a long ass time to crack. If you change your password every few months, as security experts recommend, you have an extremely low chance of being "cracked" into.
DARPA, NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, ATF, FEMA, and every other government agency wants something other than passwords to be your password. Don't worry citizen, nothing every goes wrong with things like that. Remember that in theory the Government works for you, just ignore the practice.
By the way, I do the same thing with my password as you. Fragments are inserted for functionality, the "password" structure is similar. The problem however, is what GP stated. I can't use my normal methodology in many locations because "You can only use numbers and letters in your password", followed by "Your password exceeds length" errors.
If people and companies could get passed 1990s CRYPT authentication the world would be a bit safer for those of us that care. We'll never be able to fix the people using "password" as their password, and biometrics won't fix them either.
Einsteins theory doesn't use gravity at all. It works with mass and energy which cause curved spacetime which then causes gravitational lensing.
The model Einstein had includes gravity, you are skewing how he viewed gravity as a property of mass.
The dark matter is predicted by this effect because we can't detect enough normal matter to justify the level of light-bending we can observe.
Einstein never predicted dark matter or dark energy, so that statement is a complete fabrication. Dark matter and dark energy were "predicted" when models of the "Big Bang" did not work. Stop and think about that for a while.
Dark matter is also predicted by several other observable phenomena like the speed galaxies rotate around each other or cosmic microwave background.
As with above the "prediction" is because our mathematical models of the "Big Bang" and gravity are not working, which means that they are not "predicted" but needed for someone's theory to work.
So all things that exist, exist within our solar system and are detectable with existing technology?
Not at all, and nowhere do I state any such thing. I do state that logically it's improbable, but not impossible.
If you want to claim that up to 95% of the Universe is made up of dark matter and energy, fine. We can watch geysers on a gas giant's moon, but we can't detect 95% of the space between our Earth and the probe watching? Come now, something is wrong with that claim. Oh I know, someone decided that "dark matter and energy don't exist in our Solar system". Then why is it absent in our solar system?
Higgs boson is a sub atomic particle, and not the same claim or the same scale. Nobody claimed that the particle made up 70%-95% of the Universe like they do with dark matter and dark energy. You are making an apples to elephants comparison in an attempt to skew the rhetoric in favor of the irrational (whether you realize it or not).
There were many theories to explain galactic rotation rates: MOND, WIMPs, MACHOs, many more I've forgotten. But out of the whole pack, WIMPs predicted the recent CMBR data accurately. When the math works, and accurately predicts unrelated measurements unknown when the hypothesis was made, well, science means we go with that until we have something better. We still don't know enough about dark matter to build a detector, but that's not required - what matters is that this theory survived when the others were falsified.
In the case of Big Bang they have had to make models work by inventing most of the mass and energy from thin air. We are not talking about a small anomaly that they can't account for, we are talking about anywhere between 70% and 95% (depending on the model)! Stop and think about that for a second.
This is about filling in gaps in mathematical models to make them work, there is nothing ever "detected". Everything used to claim "we detected dark matter/energy" exists without those two things, like gravitational lensing.
So is it possible that dark matter and dark energy exist? Sure. Is it possible that those two things make up 95% of the Universe? No. Extraordinary claims and all that.
There is no "human" life in New Jersey.
Part of the issue here is that the question is ambiguous. "Big Bang" has morphed and changed into may forms in the last century+ when it was first envisioned. So, which big bang are you and TFA referring to? The original that said all the mass was a few hundred thousand miles across and blew up? The one taught in the 1970s that all mass was compressed into a ball about 270,000 light years across and blew up? The one that still requires all of the mass to exist already and compressed down to a compact size that you can find on U of M website? Or finally, are you referring to the Big Bang which steals the Quantum/Expanding Vacuum theory, but somehow claims to still be a "big bang"?
QV or EV invalidates the need for a Big Bang. Though we don't know where quantum particles come from, the theory has worked out that collisions would result in mass over time and a constant source of energy. All we need to start the Universe is a small vacuum and time (hence the Universe is much older than people in the Big Bang camp claim). There are a couple variations of the QV/EV theory, but they don't differ greatly like the "Big Bang" does. I hate to advertise for the guy, but Lawrence Kraus's book "A Universe from Nothing" is a decent read.
As to this "But the last 50 years have shown us that dark matter and dark energy actually make up 95% of the energy composition of our cosmos. Given that, is there any wiggle room to possibly invalidate the Big Bang?" pardon me if I don't share your enthusiasm. From a logical perspective we have been able to study quite a bit of our solar system hands on, and we have never been able to detect either dark matter or dark energy (no, gravitational lensing is not a test [see last paragraph]). Even the people using the term in science papers can't seem to agree on any what these things are, properties vary from model to model and person to person.
Dense matter is a logical probability, because we know that the majority of every atom is empty space. Under extremely high gravitational fields this area could be reduced making denser atoms. Dark matter and dark energy have been used exclusively to make people's mathematical models of the Universe work. It is just as likely that we don't fully understand gravity as much as we thought, as it is to have dark matter and energy. I'd further argue that since we have never detected either in our solar system, odds would favor that they don't exist. I don't rule it out as impossible, but I would not say it's probable.
Gravitational lensing does not require either dark matter or dark energy. I find it odd that the NASA link discusses Einstein as the person that came up with the theory, yet fails to mention that Einstein did not theorize these two "dark" things. Gravitational lensing is a result of having curved space and obviously gravity. Dark * is not required nor expected..
That they continue to try and blame programmers for problems that management creates should bother people. Yes, this is a rewording of the same article. The only way to sell this alchemy (I would not even call it pseudo science) is by continually bleating out the theme "programmers are baaaad and we can detect them being baaaaad".
Lets just say (though its impossible for them to do) that they can isolate every possible variable that would cause fluctuations in EEGs, heart rates, and everything else they want to track biometrically. How on earth do they plan to track and correlate that data without either knowing or directing everything you eat, drink, and touch (including shampoo, soap, and hand lotion).
Even better, how do they plan to either direct or track all of your personal interactions which can impact those same things. If they can't, then the numbers are skewed and we don't have any science, you only have biases.
Oh, I can see it now. "Monty. We know your dad died yesterday but you are performing sub par and your heart rate is elevated higher than we expect, so we are going to have to let you go. We can't have a repeat of your three days of sub par performance when your wife divorced you five years ago."
Now lets look at some of the great Microsoft Management decisions, and decide who's to blame: Programmer or Management. Lync can not copy/paste data. Do you really think a programmer didn't notice the lack of basic function and point it out? Windows 8, and in fact Microsoft's whole "One UI" strategy is management driven. Zune, was actually a decent device but management killed the program. Programmers said Win8 was not ready, Management released it (as they did with Vista, ME, countless back office products, etc..). Programmers have had fixes for security ready only to have them pulled by management for various reasons. "Can't fix that IIS back door because someone's code may break" is frigging hilarious, but how many times have we read just that from Microsoft management?
That list could get really really long, so here is the point. Why are they not hooking management up to these things and putting them under pressure instead of the programmers? Probably for the same reason I start with, which is that this is alchemy and not science.
I felt the need to re-arrange a bit so the most severe issues are first.
The problem in USA is not that Google and Apple had agreements not to hire from each other, it's that there are so few employers at all, and that's a problem of business costs being too high thanks to government rules, taxes, regulations, litigation costs, inflation etc.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. Companies colluding to reduce employee wages is illegal and a problem. Hence the ruling and pending judgement to both reward people shafted by these illegal arrangements and punish the companies for using them.
Have you ever interviewed for either Google or Apple? I have, and their built in exclusion process ensures that they can hire only who they want when they want. If they want to save money they hire nobody local, and then claim that they need more H1B workers.
I don't take issue with the ability of a company to exclude people based on a lack of experience or knowledge, but that's not the criteria these companies are using to make exclusions. Google for example demands that you spend about a week studying various "trick questions" for their interview process. Your first phone interview will provide you a list of things to study, none of which have to pertain to the job you are interviewing for.
"trick questions" which does not test your real knowledge. It is however a great test to determine who will provide free labor without complaints.
Hiring employees becomes necessary when there is more work that can be done, where the cost of hired labour is lower than the value produced by that labour.
That part you have correct, but then it all goes downhill.
If you make labour cost too high, less of it will be bought, because the value produced by that labour may not be enough to cover the cost and to make some profit, and the whole point of business is to generate profit, otherwise it's not a business but a hobby.
Great, but why are you limiting your point on labor to only the worker bees? A CEO should make 145 million dollars a year while a worker bee makes 40K and is told they are overpaid? A manager can make a 1 million dollar bonus by eliminating 5 minimum wage employees and replacing them with 5 people making .60 an hour in a foreign country? Events similar to these happen frequently in the US. Do the math, how does this add up?
Look, I agree that the welfare state is a huge problem. That last paragraph has nothing to do with the welfare state, it has to deal with deregulation and incentives in the system to fuck people over so that you can make big bucks. Even to the point where a board will fire a CEO of a profitable company for not fucking his employees.
Ok, first of all, it is spelled "hearsay" — as in "I heard him say, that ...". I corrected your mistake earlier — and gave you a link describing the term. Yet you keep using it even though it is not even applicable, strictly speaking, anywhere other than in court...
Not really high on my "to-do" list, but I have made a note of it. You understood what was intended, which is all that should be required.
Imagine yourself calling police to report, say, a neighbor raping his goat. Your tip, even though made without oath, and not to the judge himself — thus "hearsay" — would not be enough to convict the man of zoophilia [wikipedia.org] or cruelty to animals, but it would be enough for police to go to a judge and getting a warrant to search his premises.
You keep arguing the same point, it does not change in time. Sure, a judge _can_ issue a warrant based on Joe claiming "I saw Bob humping a goat". If that is the only evidence provided, a judge would most likely not issue a warrant. Judges are not stupid, they realize that people with bad motives can make false claims. The latter happens more often that someone actually humping a goat.
Sure! But in these two cases police did manage to obtain more evidence (legally), so that's now moot...
I have not seen anything in terms of court records, so won't agree it's moot. I will agree that it's a satisfactorily resolved issue, but not the primary reason I take issue with what both MS and Google have done.
You have not argued those issues so I see no need to discuss this further. Thanks again for the amicable chat.