You write so poorly I have no idea what you are really trying to state or ask. Are you trying to ask how the certificate is useless? Simple, ask any IT employer what they place value in for certificates. Almost any employer will tell you that what a high school educated person would qualify for, is useless. Many employers will decline people with such certifications simply because it provides people with a false sense of self worth. As an entry level person having a RHCE, RHCA, CNE, CISSP, etc.. are worth something to employers, and none of those are Microsoft certifications. Very few entry level people would ever have such a certification however, because they are all tests of real world knowledge.
Are you trying to claim that Microsoft is giving away certifications without any cost to Australia? Prove it! The article does not make such a claim, and Microsoft does not have a history of giving away certifications. Making such a claim is absolutely baseless. The article states that "students" do not pay, it does not claim that Microsoft does not receive funding from other sources for both training materials, software licenses, or the certificates and registrations.
It appears by your comments that you lack any formal education, so it is safe to conclude that you have no "real" job experience. It would also be safe to assume you believe or hope that having a Microsoft certification will make you a "Professional". I know the TV and Radio commercials tell you that, so it must be true right? (Don't answer that question, it is what we call a "rhetorical question" in the real world).
More likely however, is that you are just an anonymous shill in some foreign land being paid to argue how great Microsoft certifications really are. Go eat some rice and bother people on Reddit.
First fallacies, let me see how many I can find. yes it is from microsoft so clearly it must have nothing to do with computers Straw man. The company that it comes from has no bearing on what it is, nor does it have anything to do with the value. and you wont learn anything because it is microsoft and not GNU/Linux Red Herring. Linux was not mentioned, also see your first fallacy. herp derp ad hominem.
Finally, you end with a fabrication and yet another straw man! TFA states that the certifications are "free for students", not "free for the Australian government/school systems.
Congratulations, you have created two whole sentences lacking any grammatical correctness. Even better, in those two limping sentences you have five easy to spot fallacies. I'm sure your parents are so proud of your idiocy!
My first thought on seeing "tranlate" and "I'm research" was that it's only language, but then I read invalid and incorrect statements about how precision is defined in Mathematica. So now I'm not quite sure it's just language.
Archiving a whole virtual machine as opposed to the code being compiled and run is baffling to me.
Now if you are trying to archive the machine to run your old version of Mathematica and see if you get the same result, you may want to check your license agreement with Wolfram first. Second, you should be able to export the code and run the same code on new versions.
I'm really really confused on why you would want this to begin with though. Precision has increased quite a bit with the advent of 64bit hardware. I'd be more interested in taking some theoretical code and changing "double" to "uberlong" and see if I get the same results than what I solved today on today's hardware.
Unless this is some type of Government work which requires you to maintain the whole system, I simply fail to see any benefit.
Having "Cloud" does not change how precision works in Math languages.
UAV's (drones) have a horrible saftey record, true, but it is because the automation on them is quite poor. At this point, very few of them are "autonomous".
Autonomy was not the point, the point was that even with protection systems "shit happens". Wind sheers come immediately to mind. Most of the military drones do fly autonomously, though operators _can_ override (reaper, predator) and they crash much more frequently than manned vehicles.
A well placed, rigorously programmed, redundantly powered backup system that could auto-land when normal power goes out is a much better soln than trying to land a heavy with no electrics (think: at night, in fog, heavy winds, ice, nuns/babies on board, etc).
The human operator is the fail safe today. Claiming there should be human no fail safe is foolish. Computers and electronics do fail, even the backups fail on occasion. I agree we need backup computers, and in fact nearly every aircraft has them, including UAVs. But to claim we should remove the humans is illogical and irrational. Some chance is better than no chance when electronics fail.
Not at all, you simply fail to understand how detrimental the protection of human rights is to your own well being. Years of brain washing and nonsense teachings have gotten you to that point, so it's understandable To a degree. At the same time, you have had ample opportunity to read history and make a more logical determination on the value of human rights and what happens when people become complacent and no longer think their rights are worth anything or worth protecting.
No, I don't have the time nor the patience to school you. Your ignorance is easily cured if you really want to cure it.
But first of all, it is in fact the job of the police to act on suspicion, and suspicion is a subjective term. If a police officer feels you look or move in a way that arouse suspicion, then they have a valid reason - a duty, even - to look into it.
So as I stated, you have no problem with a cop shoving a camera up your asshole to look for drugs then. I mean, how else is it possible to prove that you are not a drug mule? You were on the freeway weren't you? If you really don't think a cop should shove a camera up your asshole without having probable cause, you just contradicted your own statement.
A cop can not pull you over to check your tires either. Now a cop could pull you over if your tire was dangerously low in appearance, but not to pull out the gauge and measure it. Why? Because there is no probable cause, which is _supposed_ to be a requirement.
The rest of what you state backs your irrational opinion that there is no possible way anyone would have malicious intent when placed in a position of authority. Our Laws were written understanding how broken that opinion is. You don't know, or you forgot! Shame on you!
Drones have a horrible safety record, and are exactly what you are claiming is the fix. In the case of drones since humans rarely get hurt you don't hear about all of the crashes. At least two within the last week have caused damage to people so we heard about those.
The problem is really that people sitting outside expect or demand perfection where it can't really exist, given our current "air lift" flying technology.
Well trained humans combined with computers has gotten us to an extremely good record with safety. Wi To Lo or whoever the pilot in training was from Asiana was not trained and the one guy that was trained on the plane didn't do their job. Computers that should have caught the problem didn't for what ever reason.
Claiming computer guided is the only way is fine until an anomaly wipes out electrical systems. While it would be difficult for a human to land a large passenger plane without electricity at least there is a chance.
Actually that is not what you stated in your last two posts. Perhaps you were trying to imply such a thing, but did not state it. What you stated is that Assange "should" face trial.
An easy to spot fallacy is when someone claims that facts are no longer facts because someone untrustworthy presented them. It's easy to cross over into the same realm as "those people" you are referring to when doing so.
And "hell yes", I'm guilty of doing the same thing often enough. I don't like to, or do so intentionally, but I am human.
While I agree with your point, I have to also agree with a few of the points Gartner's analyst made. Ever try to implement OpenStack? Some things are okay (Virtual Machines), but other things are horribly convoluted (Virtual Routing). Version upgrades break previous functionality, and documentation is lacking so finding what actually broken requires lots of time and effort. Waiting for the documentation to catch up is fine until you need a feature or bug fix in the latest version.
I'm not claiming that it's horrible mind you, but rather pointing out that it needs some time to mature. Gartner's opinion does not mention the fact that OpenSource products like this can do very well (Apache, Linux, MariaDB/MySQL). At the same time, enough OpenSource projects fall off the Earth to have some concerns.
Seems like you are ignorant to how things work in the Justice area. From your own article:
But Judge Scheindlin ruled in August that the Police Department not only had violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, but had also violated the 14th Amendment by resorting to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as the number of police stops soared in minority communities over the last decade.
That tells you that the ruling was passed and that police can not pursue "Stop and Frisk".
The new judge, John Koeltl, was instructed to put off “all proceedings and otherwise await further action” from the panel. The appeals court has not yet taken up whether Judge Scheindlin’s decision reached the correct constitutional conclusion regarding the police tactics.
That paragraph, and a good chunk of the article, is telling you how they are trying to appeal. Until Judge Scheindlin's ruling is overturned by appeal, it's illegal for them to use "Stop and Frisk".
The article, and you, also ignore the main reason for the appeal, which is not because of ending "Stop and Frisk" but the recommendations and ruling that followed. Such as a percentage of the Police force having to wear always on cameras, etc... The article does discuss a ruling that the judge in the case was (possibly) removed from the bench, but not before ruling that "Stop and Frisk" was unconstitutional.
I'll worry about that when it happens. Until then, I treat all people like people. My methods of not being a dick to people, or judging them by their job, seems to work pretty well.
As I mentioned to someone else, why don't you start trying to make yourself a martyr? If you started emailing Assange, I'm sure he would be able to help considering that there is most likely much more news to break. Until then, don't claim everyone else should martyr themselves.
"over $100 million worth of research went into the design they ended up using"
Well, that's not quite true. Perhaps $100M went into designing and testing all the different prototypes they ultimately discarded, and the one they used... but the one that they finally decided upon only cost a fraction of that.
Even that is a sad joke. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that they could fudge numbers to make it appear like they really spent an insane amount of money on the controller design. That said, when they design full weapons systems (unmanned drones, and numerous military vehicles) including the virtual prototypes and FEA for less than $100M it should become obvious that someone from Microsoft is trying to bullshit someone for some reason.
If Microsoft really spent $100M on designing the controller, a whole bunch of executives should be forced to return any bonus checks received and swiftly receive their walking papers. After the first million, they were just peeing away the companies money.
Except that in the US there must be probable cause in order to detain people and search them. And absolutely yes! A breathalyzer, saliva (DNA) gathering, finger printing, paper checking, etc.. is all supposed to be illegal to gather without having probable cause. This is why "Stop and Frisk" was outlawed in New York (after way too long of it being done as the court case dragged on).
The citizens here need to file a suit here against the police involved, the contractors, and the US agencies involved. There have been a few suits against breathalyzers which have held them legal, but given by officers not "contractors".
The cops had no probable cause for this so called "voluntary" pull over. Everyone driving was diverted and forced to pull in, and detained. According to TFA, if you bothered to read it, the driver discussing issues was harassed to the point of finally blowing in a breathalyser so that they could leave and return from work since it was during their lunch break that they were forced into a detainment area. For doing _NOTHING_!
Assuming you read TFA and understood that these people were not pulled over for doing anything wrong: By your broken logic, a cop should be able to jam a camera up your ass since you might be carrying illegal narcotics up there. Lets not forget you are consenting to the same treatment for your significant other.
If you didn't bother reading TFA and just assumed that these people were acting illegally and therefor pulled over you are just as broken in critical thinking. Congrats on being either the cooked frog or dangerously ignorant.
Well then, you can't claim that the government mandate had any impact on technological improvement factually, because there was no mandate. Read the article you linked! The government presented a timetable for installing air-bags which Ford said could not be met. The government did not give money to help develop air-bags, or create regulations that they were ready and installed by N time. The government did the smart thing and let the market do their job in advancing the technology prior to creating mandates in the middle-late eighties.
Except for Assange who would be sitting in a concrete block during the time it takes to make the "test case". It's always easy to claim someone else should be the martyr isn't it?
A Google search will be much more efficient at doing this. Barret Brown is one that came to mind immediately, but others have been forced to testify. against sources. Interestingly Brown didn't even post classified material, he simply linked to this material already on the web.
Your statement regarding the location of each person does not make either willing to trust the US judicial system. Neither will your straw man, nor your personal opinion of a person. Claiming your straw man argument is "neither here nor there" does not change the placing of a straw man. You will need some better rhetoric than that.
I think you being particular about the named persons job function is intentionally trying to skew the point I made. The point was that numerous political figures that do have influence with enforcement agencies will pressure agencies into actions (right or wrong is not the point).
Next, claiming that the US is not as bad as "those guys" does not take away how frightening of a time it is to be a journalist in the US. It does not mean that Journalists are not being prosecuted without hesitation and having their first amendment rights revoked at the same rate as US citizens are (or perhaps faster). Your example is best case scenario today, yet we could also look at other worse cases and use those as the "normal". Neither would be correct, because the normal sits in a bit of a flux between those two sets of potential examples.
Personally, what you seem to overlook in your last statement is that it's not _you_ putting yourself on the hook but you putting someone else on the hook. As mentioned, Assange is not the only journalists that is not testing the US waters (Greenwald). Sure "They should fight and go to jail for what they believe in" sounds fine, but would you do the same? Hell, start conversing with Assange and see if you could make yourself a martyr because I'm sure there is more news to try and break.
Look, legally I believe in very much everything you stated. The issue is that the Government is not following the laws currently, and nobody from the Government has gone to jail for denying people their rights, not one. If that starts to happen I'll be more apt to argue on the side of the laws of the land.
Slashdot Mirror
You write so poorly I have no idea what you are really trying to state or ask. Are you trying to ask how the certificate is useless? Simple, ask any IT employer what they place value in for certificates. Almost any employer will tell you that what a high school educated person would qualify for, is useless. Many employers will decline people with such certifications simply because it provides people with a false sense of self worth. As an entry level person having a RHCE, RHCA, CNE, CISSP, etc.. are worth something to employers, and none of those are Microsoft certifications. Very few entry level people would ever have such a certification however, because they are all tests of real world knowledge.
Are you trying to claim that Microsoft is giving away certifications without any cost to Australia? Prove it! The article does not make such a claim, and Microsoft does not have a history of giving away certifications. Making such a claim is absolutely baseless. The article states that "students" do not pay, it does not claim that Microsoft does not receive funding from other sources for both training materials, software licenses, or the certificates and registrations.
It appears by your comments that you lack any formal education, so it is safe to conclude that you have no "real" job experience. It would also be safe to assume you believe or hope that having a Microsoft certification will make you a "Professional". I know the TV and Radio commercials tell you that, so it must be true right? (Don't answer that question, it is what we call a "rhetorical question" in the real world).
More likely however, is that you are just an anonymous shill in some foreign land being paid to argue how great Microsoft certifications really are. Go eat some rice and bother people on Reddit.
It was a joke.. *sigh*
Can you speak a bit louder? There is this loud whirring noise in the background!
First fallacies, let me see how many I can find. yes it is from microsoft so clearly it must have nothing to do with computers Straw man. The company that it comes from has no bearing on what it is, nor does it have anything to do with the value. and you wont learn anything because it is microsoft and not GNU/Linux Red Herring. Linux was not mentioned, also see your first fallacy. herp derp ad hominem.
Finally, you end with a fabrication and yet another straw man! TFA states that the certifications are "free for students", not "free for the Australian government/school systems.
Congratulations, you have created two whole sentences lacking any grammatical correctness. Even better, in those two limping sentences you have five easy to spot fallacies. I'm sure your parents are so proud of your idiocy!
My first thought on seeing "tranlate" and "I'm research" was that it's only language, but then I read invalid and incorrect statements about how precision is defined in Mathematica. So now I'm not quite sure it's just language.
Archiving a whole virtual machine as opposed to the code being compiled and run is baffling to me.
Now if you are trying to archive the machine to run your old version of Mathematica and see if you get the same result, you may want to check your license agreement with Wolfram first. Second, you should be able to export the code and run the same code on new versions.
I'm really really confused on why you would want this to begin with though. Precision has increased quite a bit with the advent of 64bit hardware. I'd be more interested in taking some theoretical code and changing "double" to "uberlong" and see if I get the same results than what I solved today on today's hardware.
Unless this is some type of Government work which requires you to maintain the whole system, I simply fail to see any benefit.
Having "Cloud" does not change how precision works in Math languages.
And now you have a useless certificate falsely claiming that you know something about computers as a MSCE
The brilliant part is that Australia tax money will pay for this trash!
UAV's (drones) have a horrible saftey record, true, but it is because the automation on them is quite poor. At this point, very few of them are "autonomous".
Autonomy was not the point, the point was that even with protection systems "shit happens". Wind sheers come immediately to mind. Most of the military drones do fly autonomously, though operators _can_ override (reaper, predator) and they crash much more frequently than manned vehicles.
A well placed, rigorously programmed, redundantly powered backup system that could auto-land when normal power goes out is a much better soln than trying to land a heavy with no electrics (think: at night, in fog, heavy winds, ice, nuns/babies on board, etc).
The human operator is the fail safe today. Claiming there should be human no fail safe is foolish. Computers and electronics do fail, even the backups fail on occasion. I agree we need backup computers, and in fact nearly every aircraft has them, including UAVs. But to claim we should remove the humans is illogical and irrational. Some chance is better than no chance when electronics fail.
I think you are blowing this out of proportion.
Not at all, you simply fail to understand how detrimental the protection of human rights is to your own well being. Years of brain washing and nonsense teachings have gotten you to that point, so it's understandable To a degree. At the same time, you have had ample opportunity to read history and make a more logical determination on the value of human rights and what happens when people become complacent and no longer think their rights are worth anything or worth protecting.
No, I don't have the time nor the patience to school you. Your ignorance is easily cured if you really want to cure it.
But first of all, it is in fact the job of the police to act on suspicion, and suspicion is a subjective term. If a police officer feels you look or move in a way that arouse suspicion, then they have a valid reason - a duty, even - to look into it.
So as I stated, you have no problem with a cop shoving a camera up your asshole to look for drugs then. I mean, how else is it possible to prove that you are not a drug mule? You were on the freeway weren't you? If you really don't think a cop should shove a camera up your asshole without having probable cause, you just contradicted your own statement.
A cop can not pull you over to check your tires either. Now a cop could pull you over if your tire was dangerously low in appearance, but not to pull out the gauge and measure it. Why? Because there is no probable cause, which is _supposed_ to be a requirement.
The rest of what you state backs your irrational opinion that there is no possible way anyone would have malicious intent when placed in a position of authority. Our Laws were written understanding how broken that opinion is. You don't know, or you forgot! Shame on you!
Drones have a horrible safety record, and are exactly what you are claiming is the fix. In the case of drones since humans rarely get hurt you don't hear about all of the crashes. At least two within the last week have caused damage to people so we heard about those.
The problem is really that people sitting outside expect or demand perfection where it can't really exist, given our current "air lift" flying technology.
Well trained humans combined with computers has gotten us to an extremely good record with safety. Wi To Lo or whoever the pilot in training was from Asiana was not trained and the one guy that was trained on the plane didn't do their job. Computers that should have caught the problem didn't for what ever reason.
Claiming computer guided is the only way is fine until an anomaly wipes out electrical systems. While it would be difficult for a human to land a large passenger plane without electricity at least there is a chance.
You do realize that you are trying to rationalize with an anonymous "sexual intellect" correct?
"sexual intellect" == "fucking know it all"
Actually that is not what you stated in your last two posts. Perhaps you were trying to imply such a thing, but did not state it. What you stated is that Assange "should" face trial.
Fair point, but my statement was just as valid.
An easy to spot fallacy is when someone claims that facts are no longer facts because someone untrustworthy presented them. It's easy to cross over into the same realm as "those people" you are referring to when doing so.
And "hell yes", I'm guilty of doing the same thing often enough. I don't like to, or do so intentionally, but I am human.
While I agree with your point, I have to also agree with a few of the points Gartner's analyst made. Ever try to implement OpenStack? Some things are okay (Virtual Machines), but other things are horribly convoluted (Virtual Routing). Version upgrades break previous functionality, and documentation is lacking so finding what actually broken requires lots of time and effort. Waiting for the documentation to catch up is fine until you need a feature or bug fix in the latest version.
I'm not claiming that it's horrible mind you, but rather pointing out that it needs some time to mature. Gartner's opinion does not mention the fact that OpenSource products like this can do very well (Apache, Linux, MariaDB/MySQL). At the same time, enough OpenSource projects fall off the Earth to have some concerns.
Seems like you are ignorant to how things work in the Justice area. From your own article:
But Judge Scheindlin ruled in August that the Police Department not only had violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, but had also violated the 14th Amendment by resorting to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as the number of police stops soared in minority communities over the last decade.
That tells you that the ruling was passed and that police can not pursue "Stop and Frisk".
The new judge, John Koeltl, was instructed to put off “all proceedings and otherwise await further action” from the panel. The appeals court has not yet taken up whether Judge Scheindlin’s decision reached the correct constitutional conclusion regarding the police tactics.
That paragraph, and a good chunk of the article, is telling you how they are trying to appeal. Until Judge Scheindlin's ruling is overturned by appeal, it's illegal for them to use "Stop and Frisk".
The article, and you, also ignore the main reason for the appeal, which is not because of ending "Stop and Frisk" but the recommendations and ruling that followed. Such as a percentage of the Police force having to wear always on cameras, etc... The article does discuss a ruling that the judge in the case was (possibly) removed from the bench, but not before ruling that "Stop and Frisk" was unconstitutional.
I'll worry about that when it happens. Until then, I treat all people like people. My methods of not being a dick to people, or judging them by their job, seems to work pretty well.
As I mentioned to someone else, why don't you start trying to make yourself a martyr? If you started emailing Assange, I'm sure he would be able to help considering that there is most likely much more news to break. Until then, don't claim everyone else should martyr themselves.
Actually reading those articles last week was the catalyst for making my comment.
"over $100 million worth of research went into the design they ended up using"
Well, that's not quite true. Perhaps $100M went into designing and testing all the different prototypes they ultimately discarded, and the one they used... but the one that they finally decided upon only cost a fraction of that.
Even that is a sad joke. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that they could fudge numbers to make it appear like they really spent an insane amount of money on the controller design. That said, when they design full weapons systems (unmanned drones, and numerous military vehicles) including the virtual prototypes and FEA for less than $100M it should become obvious that someone from Microsoft is trying to bullshit someone for some reason.
If Microsoft really spent $100M on designing the controller, a whole bunch of executives should be forced to return any bonus checks received and swiftly receive their walking papers. After the first million, they were just peeing away the companies money.
Except that in the US there must be probable cause in order to detain people and search them. And absolutely yes! A breathalyzer, saliva (DNA) gathering, finger printing, paper checking, etc.. is all supposed to be illegal to gather without having probable cause. This is why "Stop and Frisk" was outlawed in New York (after way too long of it being done as the court case dragged on).
The citizens here need to file a suit here against the police involved, the contractors, and the US agencies involved. There have been a few suits against breathalyzers which have held them legal, but given by officers not "contractors".
The cops had no probable cause for this so called "voluntary" pull over. Everyone driving was diverted and forced to pull in, and detained. According to TFA, if you bothered to read it, the driver discussing issues was harassed to the point of finally blowing in a breathalyser so that they could leave and return from work since it was during their lunch break that they were forced into a detainment area. For doing _NOTHING_!
Assuming you read TFA and understood that these people were not pulled over for doing anything wrong: By your broken logic, a cop should be able to jam a camera up your ass since you might be carrying illegal narcotics up there. Lets not forget you are consenting to the same treatment for your significant other.
If you didn't bother reading TFA and just assumed that these people were acting illegally and therefor pulled over you are just as broken in critical thinking. Congrats on being either the cooked frog or dangerously ignorant.
Well then, you can't claim that the government mandate had any impact on technological improvement factually, because there was no mandate. Read the article you linked! The government presented a timetable for installing air-bags which Ford said could not be met. The government did not give money to help develop air-bags, or create regulations that they were ready and installed by N time. The government did the smart thing and let the market do their job in advancing the technology prior to creating mandates in the middle-late eighties.
Except for Assange who would be sitting in a concrete block during the time it takes to make the "test case". It's always easy to claim someone else should be the martyr isn't it?
A Google search will be much more efficient at doing this. Barret Brown is one that came to mind immediately, but others have been forced to testify. against sources. Interestingly Brown didn't even post classified material, he simply linked to this material already on the web.
Your statement regarding the location of each person does not make either willing to trust the US judicial system. Neither will your straw man, nor your personal opinion of a person. Claiming your straw man argument is "neither here nor there" does not change the placing of a straw man. You will need some better rhetoric than that.
I think you being particular about the named persons job function is intentionally trying to skew the point I made. The point was that numerous political figures that do have influence with enforcement agencies will pressure agencies into actions (right or wrong is not the point).
Next, claiming that the US is not as bad as "those guys" does not take away how frightening of a time it is to be a journalist in the US. It does not mean that Journalists are not being prosecuted without hesitation and having their first amendment rights revoked at the same rate as US citizens are (or perhaps faster). Your example is best case scenario today, yet we could also look at other worse cases and use those as the "normal". Neither would be correct, because the normal sits in a bit of a flux between those two sets of potential examples.
Personally, what you seem to overlook in your last statement is that it's not _you_ putting yourself on the hook but you putting someone else on the hook. As mentioned, Assange is not the only journalists that is not testing the US waters (Greenwald). Sure "They should fight and go to jail for what they believe in" sounds fine, but would you do the same? Hell, start conversing with Assange and see if you could make yourself a martyr because I'm sure there is more news to try and break.
Look, legally I believe in very much everything you stated. The issue is that the Government is not following the laws currently, and nobody from the Government has gone to jail for denying people their rights, not one. If that starts to happen I'll be more apt to argue on the side of the laws of the land.