There is no reason to berate people who make good-faith contributions. A simple "that's not good enough" is appropriate.
That said, the rest IS "so hard". If you look at what you wrote, I bet you'll even figure out why.
HINT: Ask yourself how many people are "contributing in good faith", then ask if the rest, which can easily be taken for a debate or discussion (which it isn't), is worth the time commitment.
I recognize sarcasm, and both appreciate and practice it. That said, it does appear that "emotional IQ" has some actual "play" in regards to group dynamics and performance. A bit of googling finds this as an introduction: http://www.danielgoleman.info/emotional-intelligence-teams/
It wouldn't surprise me if that is a primary factor when the group is "somewhat homogeneous" with respect to the group objective--but I"m not a social scientist and that may also not be true. Experiments that you could imaging constructing to test my hypothesis end up sounding like the setup to a joke: "An Engineer, Political Activist, Elementary School Teacher, and Pastor enter a bar and are asked to solve a physics problem..."
I know I can't be the first to suggest that if the content producers were willing to source their own ads, and make them part of the articles being published (i.e. conform to a more "print media" approach), then current ad blocking approaches would become obsolete overnight, and the security risks would almost completely disappear.
So if you want content funded with ads, the underlying issue hasn't changed: FIX THE DAMN INTERNET AD MODEL ALREADY. Your friend shouldn't be getting a bee in his bonnet about ad blockers, he should be screaming loudly for an ad model that's workable, and has at least some attempt at security and content oversight from the website he writes for.
Oddly enough I am currently streaming Fallout 4 from my desktop PC in the basement (on a wired Gigabit connection on my LAN) through a dedicated dual-band (2.5/5.0) wifi access point. I would quantify the result as "very playable" right up until someone hits the wifi node with a massive load (i.e. someone starts a streaming service, big download, etc.), at which point there is a noticeable lag that quickly recovers.
For "twitch" gaming with an FPS, that just wouldn't cut it. For playing Fallout 4, it seems to work fine. I may try streaming it to my chromebook running GalliumOS (linux) to see what it's like, but haven't got around to it.
Short review of the new Bladerunner: If you liked the first one, go see this one. If you didn't like the first one, you'll like this one better. If you hated the first one, avoid this one. Note: My "first one" is the director's cut.
I'm going to go ahead an disagree with you. It's one thing to be "booted from a flight" (read: denied boarding) and a whole other thing to be removed from one with the threat or use of force when you've acted in good faith.
The most proper time to deny boarding is hours prior to the passenger's arrival at the airport. Once a passenger has left for the airport, they are executing their part of the travel contract in good faith. There are many opportunities to deny boarding during the process: prior to check in, at check in, and at the gate prior to boarding (and there may be other times). At each point, the expectation of being denied boarding does not go away, but the likelihood for any fair system should decrease at each step, not increase. Until at such time as a passenger has actually boarded, at which time it is entirely reasonable for the passenger to have every expectation that the carrier will fulfill their part of the contract (subject to issues that may impact the entire flight or passenger behavior). To use your hotel example--it is reasonable to deny a reservation at check in, but it is completely unacceptable to drag them out of their bed after they've occupied their room.
If you are coerced into leaving a flight after boarding without some reasonable cause--and the airline deciding they didn't want you to board is NOT reasonable, you have no longer been denied boarding--you've had your deal altered, pray they don't alter the deal further.
I was just on a Southwest flight last night, and the attendant stated something to the effect: "Thank you for flying with Southwest airlines, where we strive to beat our competition, not you".
That's about right, based on this article (and related study). Work hours for peak cognition was 22-27 for women, and 25-30 for men, after that, working hours have a negative impact on cognitive functioning.
No. The gravitational force, along with an assumed distribution of something that hasn't been observed but must be common, can explain the motion.
I certainly agree that the observations are valid...but it seems to me (and yes, I'm an amateur that doesn't work in the field) that the solution was assumed and fit to the observations. The assumption of the solution (gravitational force) is the "love fest" part. This, to me, seems obvious as an outsider looking in.
I'm not even arguing against what's being proposed ("dark matter") as a potential solution, I'm just pointing out the bias as I see it: "Wow, look at that, I wonder what distribution of mass is generating that gravitational force to produce that motion?"
Learn some history, your ignorance of international espionage (both corporate and government--which are often one and the same) and the resulting consequences is telling.
It's very likely that Crashmarik was referring to the Clinton era missile technology transfer to China that resulting in a generational improvement in their missile and rocket technology overnight. Google gave me this as the first result:
To be a bit more clear (and likely pedantic), there is observational evidence of matter moving in such a way that cannot be explained by the gravitational force alone. This observation is been made in our own galaxy, and can be mathematically accounted for by assuming a distribution of something that generates gravitational force (and the weak force) but doesn't otherwise exhibit any of the properties of what we currently think of as matter.
It seems that the scientific community has a love-fest with the gravitational force to the point they postulate the existence of something not observed to generate it. Direct and Indirect experiments have been proposed and/or done to detect this stuff, but no conclusive evidence seems forthcoming.
There IS such a thing as an "inherent right". Go do some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Having said that, I would agree that there is no "inherent right" to view a website, which seems to be your point. We, as a society, could create a legal right to do so, and although I don't believe corporations can or should have inherent rights, they do have legal ones, which makes the issue one for debate.
I think your suggestion is essentially that "if you want to sell to the public, you need to provide for anonymous access like you'd get in a retail store". Personally, that both seems reasonable/desirable from a consumer point of view, and a no-brainer from a retailer point of view (since you'd be eliminating potential customers otherwise).
I've always preferred to use the following to describe the Intel architectures: (# arbitrary parallel processes) + (possible # additional parallel processes).
For most i7's that's a 4+4 core CPU. The i5 is either a 2+2 or 4+0, and so on. I'd think these new AMD offerings would be in the 4+4 range, although this description doesn't indicate how often a workload can satisfy the requirement. I'm sure we could complicate it by adding a percentage at the end or something, i.e. 4+4x.75 (75% of the common workloads have the equivalent of 8 cores). You'd think the industry could adopt this (or a similar) approach.
This has always been a good question in my mind. We have a generally agreed upon understanding of four fundamental forces (granted, depending on how they are grouped, the number is +/- 1), but only two that are understood to operate on large scales: gravitational and electromagnetic.
It has always seemed to me that there is an inherent desire to explain "dark matter" as a gravitational phenomenon ("matter"), and that an attempt to quantify the forces involved and determine if there exists a possible electromagnetic charge & current distribution that fits the force profile would be a good place to start looking for an explanation...but I never see any attempt to do so (granted, I don't work in the field). My assumption is that either this has been tried an discarded, or that there are other observations that would exclude this as a possibility. The closest thing I discovered was this: http://www.futurity.org/can-regular-electromagnetism-explain-dark-matter/ which isn't really an electromagnetic approach, but rather a "mass based" approach that has unique electromagnetic properties.
In any case...I second the motion. Is anyone aware of any attempt to categorize "dark matter" in this way?
=> is not <=> ; you reversed the logic. You'd make a shitty computer programmer. Your statement is also false.
Computer programming is not leadership.
Ah, I see you are ignorant, immature, or inexperienced, or some combination of all three. There--we've traded insults (although to be fair I'm just sharing an observation on your response)...feel better now?
Please note I said "Leadership *can be* computer programming". I did NOT say that it IS. To be pedantic, it's more correct to say the "computer programming can be an expression of leadership", although that should have been implied.
I actually agree with much of what you said, but you seem to be confusing authority (often but not always held by a manager), management (that may or may not have authority, knowledge of the work being overseen, or ability to lead), and leadership (which may or may not be provided by someone in authority or a manager).
The original statement of ("Management IS a leadership position") is an assumption that typically made by someone in authority, or management in general, and it's an assumption that is often (note: not always) not true. It seems to be a view that those with MBA's come out of school with in recent years, and has caused no end of confusion, consternation, and negative impact on morale in industry. Unfortunately, this assumption is typically strengthened (in the mind of management) when "the workers" are unwilling to acknowledge that having (good) management is a very worthwhile thing. This is typical of environments in which management incorrectly believes they are leaders, when really they are only individuals that hold some authority. This makes the whole thing becomes a self-reinforcing (and polarizing) issue.
The most efficient work occurs in an environment where all three are present: management ensures that all of the workers have everything needed to accomplish their tasking; leadership provide oversight, direction, and vision; authorities quickly and efficiently resolve any disputes and constrain the scope of the tasks and prevent scope growth beyond what is required. Clear communication and cooperation ("understanding of people and social interactions" in my original post) between these roles is necessary to achieve the goals of the vision and tasking. All of these roles may or may not be done by a single individual, and the roles may exist formally, or informally (i.e. team dynamics) in any given group.
Management *can be* a leadership position. Leadership *can be* computer programming. It takes a good understanding of people and social interaction to understand what's what, and most people miss that so badly they envision that all management is leadership and that there is no leadership outside management, when nothing is further from the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason to berate people who make good-faith contributions. A simple "that's not good enough" is appropriate.
That said, the rest IS "so hard". If you look at what you wrote, I bet you'll even figure out why.
HINT: Ask yourself how many people are "contributing in good faith", then ask if the rest, which can easily be taken for a debate or discussion (which it isn't), is worth the time commitment.
Some well-asked questions are more valuable than any answer...if those hearing the question can engage in critical thinking.
I might agree with this version, but not yours.
I recognize sarcasm, and both appreciate and practice it. That said, it does appear that "emotional IQ" has some actual "play" in regards to group dynamics and performance. A bit of googling finds this as an introduction: http://www.danielgoleman.info/emotional-intelligence-teams/
It wouldn't surprise me if that is a primary factor when the group is "somewhat homogeneous" with respect to the group objective--but I"m not a social scientist and that may also not be true. Experiments that you could imaging constructing to test my hypothesis end up sounding like the setup to a joke: "An Engineer, Political Activist, Elementary School Teacher, and Pastor enter a bar and are asked to solve a physics problem..."
I know I can't be the first to suggest that if the content producers were willing to source their own ads, and make them part of the articles being published (i.e. conform to a more "print media" approach), then current ad blocking approaches would become obsolete overnight, and the security risks would almost completely disappear.
So if you want content funded with ads, the underlying issue hasn't changed: FIX THE DAMN INTERNET AD MODEL ALREADY. Your friend shouldn't be getting a bee in his bonnet about ad blockers, he should be screaming loudly for an ad model that's workable, and has at least some attempt at security and content oversight from the website he writes for.
Oddly enough I am currently streaming Fallout 4 from my desktop PC in the basement (on a wired Gigabit connection on my LAN) through a dedicated dual-band (2.5/5.0) wifi access point. I would quantify the result as "very playable" right up until someone hits the wifi node with a massive load (i.e. someone starts a streaming service, big download, etc.), at which point there is a noticeable lag that quickly recovers.
For "twitch" gaming with an FPS, that just wouldn't cut it. For playing Fallout 4, it seems to work fine. I may try streaming it to my chromebook running GalliumOS (linux) to see what it's like, but haven't got around to it.
Short review of the new Bladerunner: If you liked the first one, go see this one. If you didn't like the first one, you'll like this one better. If you hated the first one, avoid this one. Note: My "first one" is the director's cut.
Now...see why bad (and good) sequels get made?
Ha! I am in no way as rabidly anti-Trump as some of the people around here, but even I have to ask "Which Trump thing?"
Buying a first class ticket isn't in any way a guarantee, as this full fare first class passenger can attest to:
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html
I'm going to go ahead an disagree with you. It's one thing to be "booted from a flight" (read: denied boarding) and a whole other thing to be removed from one with the threat or use of force when you've acted in good faith.
The most proper time to deny boarding is hours prior to the passenger's arrival at the airport. Once a passenger has left for the airport, they are executing their part of the travel contract in good faith. There are many opportunities to deny boarding during the process: prior to check in, at check in, and at the gate prior to boarding (and there may be other times). At each point, the expectation of being denied boarding does not go away, but the likelihood for any fair system should decrease at each step, not increase. Until at such time as a passenger has actually boarded, at which time it is entirely reasonable for the passenger to have every expectation that the carrier will fulfill their part of the contract (subject to issues that may impact the entire flight or passenger behavior). To use your hotel example--it is reasonable to deny a reservation at check in, but it is completely unacceptable to drag them out of their bed after they've occupied their room.
If you are coerced into leaving a flight after boarding without some reasonable cause--and the airline deciding they didn't want you to board is NOT reasonable, you have no longer been denied boarding--you've had your deal altered, pray they don't alter the deal further.
I was just on a Southwest flight last night, and the attendant stated something to the effect: "Thank you for flying with Southwest airlines, where we strive to beat our competition, not you".
Yeah! (posted to undo mistaken moderation)
The appropriate answer to any headline that asks a question. Including this one.
That's about right, based on this article (and related study). Work hours for peak cognition was 22-27 for women, and 25-30 for men, after that, working hours have a negative impact on cognitive functioning.
Three-day workweek is the most productive for employees, study says
Dammit! You didn't leave room for me!
Technically, if we go there, the statement will be true. :-)
No. The gravitational force, along with an assumed distribution of something that hasn't been observed but must be common, can explain the motion.
I certainly agree that the observations are valid...but it seems to me (and yes, I'm an amateur that doesn't work in the field) that the solution was assumed and fit to the observations. The assumption of the solution (gravitational force) is the "love fest" part. This, to me, seems obvious as an outsider looking in.
I'm not even arguing against what's being proposed ("dark matter") as a potential solution, I'm just pointing out the bias as I see it: "Wow, look at that, I wonder what distribution of mass is generating that gravitational force to produce that motion?"
Learn some history, your ignorance of international espionage (both corporate and government--which are often one and the same) and the resulting consequences is telling.
It's very likely that Crashmarik was referring to the Clinton era missile technology transfer to China that resulting in a generational improvement in their missile and rocket technology overnight. Google gave me this as the first result:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/11/world/clinton-approves-technology-transfer-to-china.html
Many countries that we are "friendly" with are not, in fact, our friends.
To be a bit more clear (and likely pedantic), there is observational evidence of matter moving in such a way that cannot be explained by the gravitational force alone. This observation is been made in our own galaxy, and can be mathematically accounted for by assuming a distribution of something that generates gravitational force (and the weak force) but doesn't otherwise exhibit any of the properties of what we currently think of as matter.
It seems that the scientific community has a love-fest with the gravitational force to the point they postulate the existence of something not observed to generate it. Direct and Indirect experiments have been proposed and/or done to detect this stuff, but no conclusive evidence seems forthcoming.
There IS such a thing as an "inherent right". Go do some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Having said that, I would agree that there is no "inherent right" to view a website, which seems to be your point. We, as a society, could create a legal right to do so, and although I don't believe corporations can or should have inherent rights, they do have legal ones, which makes the issue one for debate.
I think your suggestion is essentially that "if you want to sell to the public, you need to provide for anonymous access like you'd get in a retail store". Personally, that both seems reasonable/desirable from a consumer point of view, and a no-brainer from a retailer point of view (since you'd be eliminating potential customers otherwise).
Yeah, "estimated shipping June 2016" doesn't compare to a product that's already out.
If the case is metallic, so what prevents them from using the own case as an antenna?
Physics.
I've always preferred to use the following to describe the Intel architectures: (# arbitrary parallel processes) + (possible # additional parallel processes).
For most i7's that's a 4+4 core CPU. The i5 is either a 2+2 or 4+0, and so on. I'd think these new AMD offerings would be in the 4+4 range, although this description doesn't indicate how often a workload can satisfy the requirement. I'm sure we could complicate it by adding a percentage at the end or something, i.e. 4+4x.75 (75% of the common workloads have the equivalent of 8 cores). You'd think the industry could adopt this (or a similar) approach.
I got curious and did some deeper googling and found this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.0283v1.pdf
It's a survey of current attempts/papers that describe the galactic EM field.
This has always been a good question in my mind. We have a generally agreed upon understanding of four fundamental forces (granted, depending on how they are grouped, the number is +/- 1), but only two that are understood to operate on large scales: gravitational and electromagnetic.
It has always seemed to me that there is an inherent desire to explain "dark matter" as a gravitational phenomenon ("matter"), and that an attempt to quantify the forces involved and determine if there exists a possible electromagnetic charge & current distribution that fits the force profile would be a good place to start looking for an explanation...but I never see any attempt to do so (granted, I don't work in the field). My assumption is that either this has been tried an discarded, or that there are other observations that would exclude this as a possibility. The closest thing I discovered was this: http://www.futurity.org/can-regular-electromagnetism-explain-dark-matter/ which isn't really an electromagnetic approach, but rather a "mass based" approach that has unique electromagnetic properties.
In any case...I second the motion. Is anyone aware of any attempt to categorize "dark matter" in this way?
Management *can be* a leadership position. Leadership *can be* computer programming.
=> is not <=> ; you reversed the logic. You'd make a shitty computer programmer. Your statement is also false.
Computer programming is not leadership.
Ah, I see you are ignorant, immature, or inexperienced, or some combination of all three. There--we've traded insults (although to be fair I'm just sharing an observation on your response)...feel better now?
Please note I said "Leadership *can be* computer programming". I did NOT say that it IS. To be pedantic, it's more correct to say the "computer programming can be an expression of leadership", although that should have been implied.
I actually agree with much of what you said, but you seem to be confusing authority (often but not always held by a manager), management (that may or may not have authority, knowledge of the work being overseen, or ability to lead), and leadership (which may or may not be provided by someone in authority or a manager).
The original statement of ("Management IS a leadership position") is an assumption that typically made by someone in authority, or management in general, and it's an assumption that is often (note: not always) not true. It seems to be a view that those with MBA's come out of school with in recent years, and has caused no end of confusion, consternation, and negative impact on morale in industry. Unfortunately, this assumption is typically strengthened (in the mind of management) when "the workers" are unwilling to acknowledge that having (good) management is a very worthwhile thing. This is typical of environments in which management incorrectly believes they are leaders, when really they are only individuals that hold some authority. This makes the whole thing becomes a self-reinforcing (and polarizing) issue.
The most efficient work occurs in an environment where all three are present: management ensures that all of the workers have everything needed to accomplish their tasking; leadership provide oversight, direction, and vision; authorities quickly and efficiently resolve any disputes and constrain the scope of the tasks and prevent scope growth beyond what is required. Clear communication and cooperation ("understanding of people and social interactions" in my original post) between these roles is necessary to achieve the goals of the vision and tasking. All of these roles may or may not be done by a single individual, and the roles may exist formally, or informally (i.e. team dynamics) in any given group.
No. Just no.
Management *can be* a leadership position. Leadership *can be* computer programming. It takes a good understanding of people and social interaction to understand what's what, and most people miss that so badly they envision that all management is leadership and that there is no leadership outside management, when nothing is further from the truth.