Although since your manager usually sees your application (at least, they have wherever I've worked at!) they might notice if you put down something that's untrue, even if it takes a while.
I don't know about Google, but I know of quite a few companies that don't like that kind of thing, although it could make them more attractive if they've tweaked the results slightly, true (since I guess that might be quite hard)
I can't see that it allows candidates to be any less truthful than they normally would be to be honest
It depends how good their algorithm is - let's say it looks at what proportion of your life since graduating you've been in work, where more is better. That's a disadvantage to women because they (generally) take time off to have/raise kids and so on, even though the algorithm isn't specifically designed to discriminate against them.
(OK, so it's a trivial case, but you get the general idea)
I suspect there could be plenty of arguments in court about whether some nuance of the algorithm treats some group unfairly or not...
Although doesn't Microsoft's own
documentation say that you can use Javascript (in an external script file) to add the or tags to the document using document.write() (or something like that) and that the "click-to-activate" thing is circumvented by doing so?
In which case, isn't the whole case pretty much a waste of time anyway?
alternatively, copy the link, delete the part in between the colons, delete one of the colons, and THEN use it. (That way, google doesn't use its "hash" to look up the web page, it's forced to lookup the whole URL)
Yup the planes are almost totalled... I heard about this november (I think) last year, from New Scientist, and it said that for most of the planes it'd been fitted to the force of impact was enough to destroy the undercarriage and cause it to badly deform the structure of the airframe above -- which would cost loads to check & repair, leaving pretty much the avionics and engines to reuse (as well as some nice scrap!)
Heck, the impact doesn't even need to be that fast for this to happen! I've only flown a few hours and I've seen two aircraft returned to the manufacturers for repair after that landings that looked fine (if a touch heavy!) caused the undercarriage to start to buckle.
Since the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft, how can you be responsible if you haven't checked that its not going to fall apart passing 500ft or something? Even so there's always freak accidents of course...
To the people saying that a personal chute is better, I have a counter story, told to me while I was working on a glider field. (It's also true -- I met and spoke to the guy involved, he'll let you poke him in the back to feel the metal bolts he received!)
One time this pilot arrived and rigged his glider, and took off as normal. Unfortunately, the bolt holding the elevator part of the (T-)tail on (yup, there's only one bolt on most gliders AFAIK, to make it easy to assemble) fell off, and his 'plane skyrocketed, before crashing pretty much down on its tail but tilted backwards, breaking the guys back quite badly and forcing him off gliding for a while.
Now: How are you supposed to escape from a vertically oriented craft at 0g thats likely to fall on top of you even if you do get out? Even if not fully deployed a plane-chute would help to orient you better allowing a) a slightly softer more controlled "landing" and b) more chance of escape
Well, the main problem with the image that bounces N and N+1 times is that if you have the diffuser touching the wedge then you actually tend to get black bands around the pixels - which for 1mm^2 pixels could be quite annoying - so the trick is to adjust the distance of the diffuser from the wedge to get optimum quality. However - It still assumes that the wedge is providing a relatively uniform image, so at least to start with it'll need to be high quality, and probably machined - which isn't going to do much for costs. Although a machined piece of plastic (maybe £100 max, including diffuser) and a projector (£2000 say) is still a lot lot cheaper than £10000 for a plasma TV.
Is it a discrepancy? A well designed e-voting machine would allow almost instananeous results, while maintaining a high level of accuracy. Thats the beauty of computers - their speed.
Although then you have all these "provisional" ballots and so on to confirm, but i suspect that there's a roughly equal percentage of failed provisional for each candidate (compared to their total vote) so you could say to a very high degree of certainty who had won.
The problem becomes convincing people that e-voting machines are secure, and that won't happen as long as they are closed source and made by a company who's CEO (i forget - it might be one of the other senior execs) is a (or has very close links to a) republican senator!
ATMS rely on auditing to be reliable and fraud-free (kind of, anyway)... And this requires identifyable information to be stored. Now, since (fair, democratic) elections require that identifyable information NOT be stored, you couldn't just add a "vote" option to your ATM machine - it'd need to have a complete software re-write.
If there were no auditing, ATM fraud would be considerably easier - try proving that the cash that disappeared from your account went to a cash machine 500 miles from any place you've ever taken money from before or since, if they store no personal information. And if you then use the ATMs for elections - boom, no secure elections.
If its reached the velocity to orbit twice (or indeed, any number of times, given an assumed lack of air resistance), then either:
1) Its at a height at which it can orbit - If the start point is low, the orbit'll be elliptical. 2) Its above the height where it has escape velocity, in which case it'll fly away (this is *quite* unlikely I think!)
So, having the velocity to orbit twice effectively puts you in orbit anyway, so once there you might as well stay there - It gives you more time to make course adjustments and so on. Given this, why bother to make the distinction between the velocity and actually orbiting?
Pentiums were just on the market then! Cos early the next year I got given my first PC - A 166MHz Pentium. But even with the 1.3GHz Athlon i have now i suspect the colossus could decrypt faster... what with WinXP and all [on my machine, obviously].
Compression is good. If you compress using something like XviD, you can easily get 1 1/2 hours of high(ish) quality video on a CD - which is 700MB. So in 20GB you could get about 42 hours of video. Which seems adequate to me, unless you really need to take it to some desert island for a month. Then of course, its on a smaller screen, so you could have even more compression.
Hmm... we have a similar problem with 'locked phones' in the UK as well. Except that the law was changed to force phone companies to allow you to unlock phones for a 'reasonable fee.' This is usually more than the price of a cheap phone!
Slashdot Mirror
Although since your manager usually sees your application (at least, they have wherever I've worked at!) they might notice if you put down something that's untrue, even if it takes a while.
I don't know about Google, but I know of quite a few companies that don't like that kind of thing, although it could make them more attractive if they've tweaked the results slightly, true (since I guess that might be quite hard)
I can't see that it allows candidates to be any less truthful than they normally would be to be honest
It depends how good their algorithm is - let's say it looks at what proportion of your life since graduating you've been in work, where more is better. That's a disadvantage to women because they (generally) take time off to have/raise kids and so on, even though the algorithm isn't specifically designed to discriminate against them.
(OK, so it's a trivial case, but you get the general idea)
I suspect there could be plenty of arguments in court about whether some nuance of the algorithm treats some group unfairly or not...
Although doesn't Microsoft's own documentation say that you can use Javascript (in an external script file) to add the or tags to the document using document.write() (or something like that) and that the "click-to-activate" thing is circumvented by doing so? In which case, isn't the whole case pretty much a waste of time anyway?
alternatively, copy the link, delete the part in between the colons, delete one of the colons, and THEN use it. (That way, google doesn't use its "hash" to look up the web page, it's forced to lookup the whole URL)
Yup the planes are almost totalled... I heard about this november (I think) last year, from New Scientist, and it said that for most of the planes it'd been fitted to the force of impact was enough to destroy the undercarriage and cause it to badly deform the structure of the airframe above -- which would cost loads to check & repair, leaving pretty much the avionics and engines to reuse (as well as some nice scrap!)
Heck, the impact doesn't even need to be that fast for this to happen! I've only flown a few hours and I've seen two aircraft returned to the manufacturers for repair after that landings that looked fine (if a touch heavy!) caused the undercarriage to start to buckle.
Since the pilot is responsible for the safety of the aircraft, how can you be responsible if you haven't checked that its not going to fall apart passing 500ft or something? Even so there's always freak accidents of course...
To the people saying that a personal chute is better, I have a counter story, told to me while I was working on a glider field. (It's also true -- I met and spoke to the guy involved, he'll let you poke him in the back to feel the metal bolts he received!)
One time this pilot arrived and rigged his glider, and took off as normal. Unfortunately, the bolt holding the elevator part of the (T-)tail on (yup, there's only one bolt on most gliders AFAIK, to make it easy to assemble) fell off, and his 'plane skyrocketed, before crashing pretty much down on its tail but tilted backwards, breaking the guys back quite badly and forcing him off gliding for a while.
Now: How are you supposed to escape from a vertically oriented craft at 0g thats likely to fall on top of you even if you do get out? Even if not fully deployed a plane-chute would help to orient you better allowing a) a slightly softer more controlled "landing" and b) more chance of escape
Well, the main problem with the image that bounces N and N+1 times is that if you have the diffuser touching the wedge then you actually tend to get black bands around the pixels - which for 1mm^2 pixels could be quite annoying - so the trick is to adjust the distance of the diffuser from the wedge to get optimum quality. However - It still assumes that the wedge is providing a relatively uniform image, so at least to start with it'll need to be high quality, and probably machined - which isn't going to do much for costs. Although a machined piece of plastic (maybe £100 max, including diffuser) and a projector (£2000 say) is still a lot lot cheaper than £10000 for a plasma TV.
Is it a discrepancy? A well designed e-voting machine would allow almost instananeous results, while maintaining a high level of accuracy. Thats the beauty of computers - their speed.
Although then you have all these "provisional" ballots and so on to confirm, but i suspect that there's a roughly equal percentage of failed provisional for each candidate (compared to their total vote) so you could say to a very high degree of certainty who had won.
The problem becomes convincing people that e-voting machines are secure, and that won't happen as long as they are closed source and made by a company who's CEO (i forget - it might be one of the other senior execs) is a (or has very close links to a) republican senator!
ATMS rely on auditing to be reliable and fraud-free (kind of, anyway)... And this requires identifyable information to be stored. Now, since (fair, democratic) elections require that identifyable information NOT be stored, you couldn't just add a "vote" option to your ATM machine - it'd need to have a complete software re-write.
If there were no auditing, ATM fraud would be considerably easier - try proving that the cash that disappeared from your account went to a cash machine 500 miles from any place you've ever taken money from before or since, if they store no personal information. And if you then use the ATMs for elections - boom, no secure elections.
If its reached the velocity to orbit twice (or indeed, any number of times, given an assumed lack of air resistance), then either:
1) Its at a height at which it can orbit - If the start point is low, the orbit'll be elliptical.
2) Its above the height where it has escape velocity, in which case it'll fly away (this is *quite* unlikely I think!)
So, having the velocity to orbit twice effectively puts you in orbit anyway, so once there you might as well stay there - It gives you more time to make course adjustments and so on.
Given this, why bother to make the distinction between the velocity and actually orbiting?
In the UK received mail is the property of the receiver, to do with what they like...
Therefore you can forward emailed confidential information as much as you like!
Note of course that true email goes through SMTP across the net, not just through some companies mail server.
Why bother with the whole network booting thing and just switch to terminals?
What happens when you go home? Then you're screwed.
Ah well, since no-one can accept british superiority, here is an abridged list of british inventions ripped of by the good ol' US of A.
1) Computers
2) 'RSA' encryption
3) Jet engines
4) All-Moving tailplanes (to allow supersonic jets)
5) Jump-jets (namely, Harrier)
6) Radar and Microwave ovens
+ Many more but i'm feeling far too lazy.
Pentiums were just on the market then! Cos early the next year I got given my first PC - A 166MHz Pentium. But even with the 1.3GHz Athlon i have now i suspect the colossus could decrypt faster... what with WinXP and all [on my machine, obviously].
Compression is good.
If you compress using something like XviD, you can easily get 1 1/2 hours of high(ish) quality video on a CD - which is 700MB. So in 20GB you could get about 42 hours of video. Which seems adequate to me, unless you really need to take it to some desert island for a month. Then of course, its on a smaller screen, so you could have even more compression.
Wait... so why doesn't someone make a laptop? Good plan ;)
Hmm... we have a similar problem with 'locked phones' in the UK as well. Except that the law was changed to force phone companies to allow you to unlock phones for a 'reasonable fee.' This is usually more than the price of a cheap phone!