There is no benefit for anyone if you have a policy that does not allow a relationship between two employees of the same company, regardless if the policy is enforceable or not.
If I would be employed in such a company, I would not care about the policy.
If they fire me, or my spouse, I would go to court and demand reemployment (which I most certainly would win in any DE court and most EU courts). And after they have reemployed me and made a new contract about gracefully leaving the company, and a compensation, then: I would sue them again for libel, slander and insults to the dignity of myself and my spouse that they dare to imply that my personal love life/family life has any influence on my or her professionalism.
How would it be possible under such "policies" that a spouse applies to a job position in a company were her/his significant other is working? That is another basic right in most of the EU: I can apply, and work where ever I want. If I applied for a job in a big company, which has such a policy, and they reject me AND are so stupid to write as cause of rejection: "sorry you are married to an employer we already have, that is against our policy" that would again be an open invitation for another court case.
and instead regurgitated the same old talking points that I debunked some two years ago, You actually debunked never anything. You have no clue about electric grids or power plants. You are one of those guys who throws "base load" and "capacity factor" around and has no idea what you do with them and what they actually mean.
Everything you told in the article we are discussing about is either plain wrong or so misleading/simplified that I consider it wrong.
And now you don't even want to try to answer the most simplest questions I challenged you with... Scared to fail?
To them, appearance trumps every rational design decision. And even there they fail, the only thing that somewhat looks good on the recent Mac models are the colours of the casing.
When I have more time I will dig into HacIntoshs (with touch screen) or running a OS X/macOS VM on a decent linux box.
Depends what your goal is, this is a stupid advice.
In most jurisdictions work contracts (can) demand that work that you do outside of ordinary work hours fall under "copyright" of your employer, more precisely: your employer has the right to demand that you hand them out and can distribute them how ever he sees fit. Of course he has to compensate you for that, and of course you don't lose your "moral rights" (and probably you can still distribute them under a FS/OS license in your own name).
Without static type checking you need much more unit tests. With static type checking it depends what your product is, is it a library, you need unit tests, is it a whole application, you are better of with UI driven automated UATs that give, if possible, a 100% coverage rate over your code.
If an asteroid/meteor explodes depends on many things. I gave you the energy formula. Now google yourself. Whether a meteorite hits the ground depends mostly on its size... Here e.g. is an interesting read, not sure that you comprehend it, though:P https://physics.stackexchange....
Now if they could explain what a foul in basketball is, that would be a computer. No, it would not. What a foul is in a beginners league is just proper usage of body contact in a professional league.
Completely right, which (former) soccer player is called "The Hand of God" and why...
If everything in such "games" (aka sport, but focusing on the meaning of game) would be "strikt"... why would you watch something like olympic ice dancing or even tennis?
Where do you draw the line between a foul and "well it was ok"... an arbiter is "forming the game", reacting on the over all "fairness" or "unfairness", a foul that was "ok" in the first half of the game might be "not ok" in the second half because the arbiter wants to calm down the players... and that again is a point for discussion for the watchers, so more stuff to talk about.
For both the formula is E = m * v^2 (m = mass, v = velocity, that was obvious, wasn't it?) So to make your statement true you need to cherry pick nice values for m and v... what else did you miss in school? (Hint: halving the mass and doubling the speed doubles the energy, a bit counterintuitive, don't you think so?)
Sorry if using Texas as a simple to follow example annoys you, or if you don't find the examples simple to follow. Well if you don't find it simple to follow, my suggestion is: "stay out of discussions you are not competent to join".
Yeah, but that claim "Turing had automated the testing of over 15 billion possible passwords each day" is simply wrong.
A enigma message works like this. Everyone involved knows the MASTERKEY used for the next days, weeks or a month. That key you want to "find".
Then you hear record a few hundred encrypted messages. Which are all encrypted with an individual key, invented/defined by the sender.
So: how does the receiver know the key? Because each message is headed by two repetitions of that key, encrypted by the MASTERKEY.
So, all the intercepted messages look like this: Message-1 CODE1ENCODED <-- encoded by MASTERKEY (wheels turn further one knob every character) 2ENCODEDAGAIN <-- encoded by same MASTERKEY (but wheels are in different position) "CODE1ENCODED" and "2ENCODEDAGAIN" are the same CODEWORD, e.g HitlerIsGreat, encoded by MASTERKEY with different wheel positions.
Message-2 HARDCODE2 <-- encoded by MASTERKEY (wheels turn further one knob every character) 2EVENHARDER <-- encoded by same MASTERKEY (but wheels are in different position) "HARDCODE2" and "2EVENHARDER" are the same CODEWORD, e.g. ChurchilSucks, encoded by MASTERKEY with different wheel positions.
Turing found a clever way how to find the MASTERKEY, by exploiting the fact that the secret was repeated at the beginning of each message, even as all those secrets were individual secrets they all point to the same MASTERKEY.
There is no way that a few "Bombs" (mechanical computers) brute force a billion of variances every day. E.g. you have a bomb running with the insane speed of 1000rpm (17 turns per second), then you need 1000seconds to explore 1million possibilities (which is roughly 17 minutes), that means you need 1700 minutes. The day has 1440 minutes, so if you want to invest maximum 8 hours or so you need roughly half a dozen machines. As the speed is most likely less than 100rpm that would be perhaps 50 to 60 "Bombs". (Oh I see now: 15 billion... adjust my numbers accordingly;D )
And now imagine how quickly those "computers" would wear out and would needed to be replaced...
And the main mistake was to repeat the encryption code at the beginning of the message, to protect against "typing errors", so you knew e.g. that: XTZUVF TREGCF were encrypted by the same code, e.g. MASTER
Further it was most likely that a message sent to a submarine ended in something like: Heil Hitler! Good Luck! Happy Hunting!
I know half a dozen people who got their accounts blocked by Pay Pal, years, if not a decade, before eBay bought them. Half of them never got the money back. The other needed to file law suits to get it. And for a few it was really a bad problem, traveling the world with an pay pal credit card and getting the account blocked because pay pal thought: it is not normal that a person uses the card over months in various different countries. How would you feel if you travel with the trans siberia express from Germany via Poland via Russia via Mongolia to China and when you are in Myanmar your credit card is not useable for half a year and that is your only way to pay during your traveling and all your money is on the pay pal account?
The big bonus of EVs is: cheap fuel. Really cheap.
The big malus of hydrogen (besides storage etc. and all the other stuff everyone is talking about) is: it is significantly more expensive than gasoline.
Well, you would be correct. I was neer there, but I assume it is a square and the concave "cut" is probably caused by the people who abused the Pyramid as a quarry... or has a good design reason. At least it is pretty clear that the Pyramid at the time when it was build was covered in limestone, and the 4 sides where completely flat.
In a certain sense they are. However if one would use the term talking to me, I would assume he means a higher level meeting of product managers (POs) and the executives, where several projects are tracked, not a single one.
It wont blow me away. It is known since 40 years that there many natural constants you can "derive" by picking measurements from the pyramids. And it is scientific consensus: this is coincidence.
Just take a picture from a random part of the stars, then use your idea about the pyramids... you get the same surprising results.
Static typing, Generics, run time/load time byte code instrumentation, jit compilation, picking from a handful (or with 3rd party VMs more) garbage collecting algorithms, Annotations I guess there are plenty more, but I'm not a Python expert.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no citation needed. ... just check your work contract.
I live in such a jurisdiction, and most likely you do, too
I once had such a contract.
There is no benefit for anyone if you have a policy that does not allow a relationship between two employees of the same company, regardless if the policy is enforceable or not.
If I would be employed in such a company, I would not care about the policy.
If they fire me, or my spouse, I would go to court and demand reemployment (which I most certainly would win in any DE court and most EU courts). And after they have reemployed me and made a new contract about gracefully leaving the company, and a compensation, then: I would sue them again for libel, slander and insults to the dignity of myself and my spouse that they dare to imply that my personal love life/family life has any influence on my or her professionalism.
How would it be possible under such "policies" that a spouse applies to a job position in a company were her/his significant other is working? That is another basic right in most of the EU: I can apply, and work where ever I want. If I applied for a job in a big company, which has such a policy, and they reject me AND are so stupid to write as cause of rejection: "sorry you are married to an employer we already have, that is against our policy" that would again be an open invitation for another court case.
and instead regurgitated the same old talking points that I debunked some two years ago,
You actually debunked never anything.
You have no clue about electric grids or power plants. You are one of those guys who throws "base load" and "capacity factor" around and has no idea what you do with them and what they actually mean.
Everything you told in the article we are discussing about is either plain wrong or so misleading/simplified that I consider it wrong.
And now you don't even want to try to answer the most simplest questions I challenged you with ... Scared to fail?
I had the same models, well, still have the intel one, and had no single problem with them.
To them, appearance trumps every rational design decision.
And even there they fail, the only thing that somewhat looks good on the recent Mac models are the colours of the casing.
When I have more time I will dig into HacIntoshs (with touch screen) or running a OS X/macOS VM on a decent linux box.
Depends what your goal is, this is a stupid advice.
In most jurisdictions work contracts (can) demand that work that you do outside of ordinary work hours fall under "copyright" of your employer, more precisely: your employer has the right to demand that you hand them out and can distribute them how ever he sees fit. Of course he has to compensate you for that, and of course you don't lose your "moral rights" (and probably you can still distribute them under a FS/OS license in your own name).
In a lab.
Not in a war head or bomb.
Without static type checking you need much more unit tests.
With static type checking it depends what your product is, is it a library, you need unit tests, is it a whole application, you are better of with UI driven automated UATs that give, if possible, a 100% coverage rate over your code.
If an asteroid/meteor explodes depends on many things. ... :P https://physics.stackexchange....
I gave you the energy formula. Now google yourself.
Whether a meteorite hits the ground depends mostly on its size
Here e.g. is an interesting read, not sure that you comprehend it, though
Yes, it is for construction purpose. But when they were covered and "true pyramids" you did not see that concave structure because the cover was flat.
Well, :D
so far you showed you have no clue
Scared to answer my simple challenge?
ROFL
Now if they could explain what a foul in basketball is, that would be a computer.
No, it would not.
What a foul is in a beginners league is just proper usage of body contact in a professional league.
Completely right, which (former) soccer player is called "The Hand of God" and why ...
If everything in such "games" (aka sport, but focusing on the meaning of game) would be "strikt" ... why would you watch something like olympic ice dancing or even tennis?
Where do you draw the line between a foul and "well it was ok" ... an arbiter is "forming the game", reacting on the over all "fairness" or "unfairness", a foul that was "ok" in the first half of the game might be "not ok" in the second half because the arbiter wants to calm down the players ... and that again is a point for discussion for the watchers, so more stuff to talk about.
If an asteroid is big enough to worry about hitting us, all those considerations are probably moot.
For both the formula is E = m * v^2 (m = mass, v = velocity, that was obvious, wasn't it?) ... what else did you miss in school? (Hint: halving the mass and doubling the speed doubles the energy, a bit counterintuitive, don't you think so?)
So to make your statement true you need to cherry pick nice values for m and v
1) Explain the first graph in 3 sentences and why it perfectly matches the suns day cycle: https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
2) Explain the graph on page 21, in 3 simple sentences and admit that all your recent posts are wrong: https://www.ethz.ch/content/da...
3) Explain the first graph here https://www.weforum.org/agenda... and explain the correlation to my question 1)
Stop making an idiot of yourself.
Sorry if using Texas as a simple to follow example annoys you, or if you don't find the examples simple to follow. Well if you don't find it simple to follow, my suggestion is: "stay out of discussions you are not competent to join".
Yeah, but that claim "Turing had automated the testing of over 15 billion possible passwords each day" is simply wrong.
A enigma message works like this. Everyone involved knows the MASTERKEY used for the next days, weeks or a month. That key you want to "find".
Then you hear record a few hundred encrypted messages. Which are all encrypted with an individual key, invented/defined by the sender.
So: how does the receiver know the key? Because each message is headed by two repetitions of that key, encrypted by the MASTERKEY.
So, all the intercepted messages look like this:
Message-1
CODE1ENCODED <-- encoded by MASTERKEY (wheels turn further one knob every character)
2ENCODEDAGAIN <-- encoded by same MASTERKEY (but wheels are in different position)
"CODE1ENCODED" and "2ENCODEDAGAIN" are the same CODEWORD, e.g HitlerIsGreat, encoded by MASTERKEY with different wheel positions.
Message-2
HARDCODE2 <-- encoded by MASTERKEY (wheels turn further one knob every character)
2EVENHARDER <-- encoded by same MASTERKEY (but wheels are in different position)
"HARDCODE2" and "2EVENHARDER" are the same CODEWORD, e.g. ChurchilSucks, encoded by MASTERKEY with different wheel positions.
Turing found a clever way how to find the MASTERKEY, by exploiting the fact that the secret was repeated at the beginning of each message, even as all those secrets were individual secrets they all point to the same MASTERKEY.
There is no way that a few "Bombs" (mechanical computers) brute force a billion of variances every day. ... adjust my numbers accordingly ;D )
E.g. you have a bomb running with the insane speed of 1000rpm (17 turns per second), then you need 1000seconds to explore 1million possibilities (which is roughly 17 minutes), that means you need 1700 minutes. The day has 1440 minutes, so if you want to invest maximum 8 hours or so you need roughly half a dozen machines. As the speed is most likely less than 100rpm that would be perhaps 50 to 60 "Bombs". (Oh I see now: 15 billion
And now imagine how quickly those "computers" would wear out and would needed to be replaced ...
And the main mistake was to repeat the encryption code at the beginning of the message, to protect against "typing errors", so you knew e.g. that:
XTZUVF
TREGCF
were encrypted by the same code, e.g. MASTER
Further it was most likely that a message sent to a submarine ended in something like:
Heil Hitler!
Good Luck!
Happy Hunting!
I know half a dozen people who got their accounts blocked by Pay Pal, years, if not a decade, before eBay bought them.
Half of them never got the money back. The other needed to file law suits to get it. And for a few it was really a bad problem, traveling the world with an pay pal credit card and getting the account blocked because pay pal thought: it is not normal that a person uses the card over months in various different countries. How would you feel if you travel with the trans siberia express from Germany via Poland via Russia via Mongolia to China and when you are in Myanmar your credit card is not useable for half a year and that is your only way to pay during your traveling and all your money is on the pay pal account?
The big bonus of EVs is: cheap fuel. Really cheap.
The big malus of hydrogen (besides storage etc. and all the other stuff everyone is talking about) is: it is significantly more expensive than gasoline.
Well, ... or has a good design reason. At least it is pretty clear that the Pyramid at the time when it was build was covered in limestone, and the 4 sides where completely flat.
you would be correct.
I was neer there, but I assume it is a square and the concave "cut" is probably caused by the people who abused the Pyramid as a quarry
In a certain sense they are.
However if one would use the term talking to me, I would assume he means a higher level meeting of product managers (POs) and the executives, where several projects are tracked, not a single one.
It wont blow me away.
It is known since 40 years that there many natural constants you can "derive" by picking measurements from the pyramids.
And it is scientific consensus: this is coincidence.
Just take a picture from a random part of the stars, then use your idea about the pyramids ... you get the same surprising results.
Static typing, Generics, run time/load time byte code instrumentation, jit compilation, picking from a handful (or with 3rd party VMs more) garbage collecting algorithms, Annotations I guess there are plenty more, but I'm not a Python expert.
Or flight recorder ...