Then let the networks filter the feed if they wish.
If the only way to watch the game without that noise is on television, then maybe the prices for live tickets will come down closer to something reasonable. Only extreme fans will brave the racket to see the game in person, and everyone else will watch the digitally-filtered version from home. Who sees it live will be determined by willingness to endure pain, rather than abundance of ready cash. There is something to that idea.
the various programming skills start at level 1 qualifications max out at level 6, while management skills start at level 5 and max out at level 10.
Call me an out-of-place mathematician, but what's the difference between a scale from 5 - 10 and a scale from 1 - 6? They both have six levels. The fact that they re-use known symbols (sequential Arabic digits) to name those levels is just convenience. Numbering management with a minimum qualification level of 5 is consistent with standard assumptions about managers (that they don't know what a baseline is), so maybe the numbering system is really a subtle joke?
So is Tim Berners-Lee (which I'm surprised an English slashdot geek didn't know). That's probably why he didn't say "chips," but rather "Utz Kettle Classics Crunchy Potato Chips," which is more specific.
Mahatma Gandhi had four sons, and most reports that bother to mention his family describe him as a very bad father. In general, however, people are willing to overlook that.
In 1997, I saw Al Gross talk at the Vehicular Technology Conference about his history in designing portable radios. He claimed that Dick Tracy author Chester Gould got the idea for the wrist radio from an actual prototype that he had been building (following on from his successful radio designs for the military). It's a very long feedback loop.
Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Just because you didn't mean to kill the person doesn't mean you walk away, but it is taken into consideration.
For those that don't know, "acting like a know-it-all" is just something that less knowledgeable people like to say about us more knowledgeable people, as if they are taking some moral high ground by being less knowledgeable.
Maybe that also happens, but it's not just knowing more, it's presentation. It's about not treating those who don't know some little detail like they are not worth your time to talk with. The common term for knowledgeable people with manners and communication skills is "expert."
More often, the know-it-all new kids who really annoy people are those who have read the manual, but don't know the reality. Typical exchange:
"Why did [the last guy in my job] spend all that time converting the formats, instead of just going to configuration file X and switching the mode? This whole configuration is like a decade old. No wonder you needed to get somebody new in to handle it."
"The customer has version 3.2 of the software, and that feature wasn't added until version 4.0"
"What a waste of my time. Just get the customer to upgrade."
And they do this with a tone that suggests it's someone else's fault for not having the customer environment constantly updated to the latest release of everything, rather than their problem for not dealing with the actual situation in front of them. If you don't know why customer environments don't get upgraded as soon as the new release comes out, then ask a colleague over coffee.
Finally, the worst know-it-all is the one who always "could have told you that would happen," but didn't. After something breaks, this person pipes up with all the reasons he knew it was going to fail, but never bothered to mention until his vast insight was obsolete. When something has broken, stick to insights that will help fix it, and avoid criticizing all the idiots who failed to spot the signs until (a) it's fixed, and (b) you are prepared to explain why you didn't point these signs out to people before it broke.
Or they approached EMI first, then eventually went to court, then it was there for a couple of years, and now it's done. The article doesn't mention when they first complained. They say the contract is from a decade ago, which sounds about a quarter-century short of Dark Side, and certainly post-Waters.
Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are made as single things. It was the glory days of the concept album. The best track is like the best square inch of a good painting, and they don't want to be judged on that. Good on 'em.
What I want to know is whether this means that EMI reckons we can freely copy EMI songs from that period because their copyrights applied to the physical album only, so a digital copy from vinyl is OK for free distribution.
If you're looking for the definition of an eigenvector, you can probably trust what you find. Otherwise, it's like fixing a slow watch by never winding it: instead of being always wrong, it's now exactly correct twice every day.
It's become so easy to have your web address and mailbox have the same domain, one has to wonder about people who don't bother - is the rest of the office a mess? And domains are cheap, and easy to register. Not having time or claiming not enough savvy makes you look lazy and dumb.
What about people who just don't want to leave their computer running all day? I know you can hire a VM to run your mail server, but what's the point? Why would that give any better service than a gmail account?
To me, the point is that AOL has always existed to give usenet a subject for ethnic jokes. (How many AOL users does it take to screw in a lightbulb?) The negative image of an AOL account isn't that the user doesn't have a personal domain, but that the general domain is AOL.
The travel expenses thing has gotten crazy for me. It's like the accountants think the company is doing me a favour letting me go to an exciting foreign hotel, experience the interior of exotic taxis, and meet the charming foreign customs officers. I do not consider it a perk, and being treated as guilty until proven innocent in claiming back the expensive "approved" hotel (instead of a more affordable and convenient one that's not on the list) is just enough to let me accept the less productive option of constant telephone meetings with people whose faces I have never seen.
That is, I suppose, their goal. Reduced overhead looks good, while lost business and reduced productivity just looks like market forces that are being proactively addressed by more careful attention to reducing expenses. The accountants are taking important action to tighten belts and address the failing ability of the business divisions to deliver top-line growth. The damage they do to the company actually looks like a responsible way to address the business situation. I think they have cause and effect backwards, but it's their decision to make, not mine.
Maybe I'm misinformed, but don't most (private) U.S. hospitals treat doctors like customers? In several computer systems that I saw in New York state, they were providing different report styles and different input methods (from e-mail to hand-written) for the different doctors. The reason I was given was that they had to do this, since doctors who didn't feel the hospital system suited their unique requirements would suggest different hospitals to their patients. The resulting computer systems were very inefficient, compared with what they could be with more cohesive planning.
Also, isn't a large part of paperwork involved with billing, and filing the right forms with the various payers? I don't suppose the insurance and government agencies publish WSDL interfaces for their claims, so that probably needs to be transcribed to paper, right? What portion of administrative cost goes to copying data by hand from the computer?
It would be interesting to see the same study in a single-payer environment; or even in a simpler mixed-payer environment where supplementary coverage claims are filed by the patient, rather than the hospital, and the competition between hospitals for the preference of independent doctors is a bit less fierce. It may be that the U.S. healthcare system is just an extreme case.
It's not creating salt or importing it from anywhere. The total amount of salt in the neighbourhood of the plant will not be changed. If the concentration is moved around a bit, there is a river right there to feed a mixing pool to moderate the salinity before releasing the salt into the sea.
I can understand the point that they should be aware of the issue, but I feel certain that it can be completely dealt with.
How could a school I teach at claim ownership over this work? In my mind this would be like club owners claiming to own the rights to any music that is played at their venues.
That's the best analogy so far. The school is paying the teacher to teach students, and pays for some of the necessary equipment (books, projector, etc.), but the actual lesson is up to the judgment of the teacher. Some teachers will use suggested lesson plans from the workbooks, and some will take the time to make one that works better for them. If they have chosen to take the time to make a good plan, like a singer who took the time to write an original song, the employer benefits from better results, but has not paid for the right to sell the plan. The teacher was not hired as a lesson plan writer any more than the singer was hired as a song writer.
On the other hand: Who types http:/// anyway? Most programs which turn text into clickable URLs look for www.* (which btw. is one of the reasons for not omitting www from the URL although it is technically not necessary either.)
Don't I know it! How many times have I been thankful that whoever owns www.localhost.com hasn't sprayed advertising all over the homepage? If I try to connect to a local server, but it hasn't started correctly, the browser helpfully redirects me to this site. If it were me, I would advertise Apache for Dummies there; so if someone from contactprivacy.com (the registered owners) is reading this: Thanks!
The idea is that you update your CV every so often, but you send the same document to everyone. The cover letter is what you customize to the particular job you are applying for. You point out the two or three items in the CV that you particularly want this employer to notice. I agree with the other posters that it's not always necessary. If you are applying to a job that just advertised for a Chemical Engineer, without further detail, and you have a degree in Chemical Engineering, with experience as a Chemical Engineer, then a cover letter is not really called for. If the advertisement was for work in a particular branch, then you just write to point out that two years of your previous position involved work with the equipment that would be expected for that type of work.
When processing applications, it makes a very positive impression to know that the applicant actually read the advertisement, and felt it would be worth applying for. When I receive a CV without a cover letter, I always wonder if the person just mailed off fifty of them to every address available. In cases like that, even if the person seems qualified, I sometimes wonder if they are really interested. It's not uncommon for people to turn down an interview, which is really annoying after I've taken the time to read through their application. A decent cover letter suggests that I might not be wasting my time by reading your qualifications.
After reading these arguments about how important the essay is, why it shouldn't be, and how much potential it has to encourage a well-rounded student body, I would really like to hear from someone who has been on the receiving end. Out of 1000 essays written, how many get read? 10? Is it given a grade that gets weighted and merged with SAT scores, high school rankings, and handwriting analysis results for everyone; or is it used as a tie-breaker for the marginal cases?
My suspicion is that almost none of them get read, but they are still given a mystical importance by the applicants. It sounds like the admissions department is just trying to match the appearance to the practice, and saving a lot of headache all around.
Exactly. I'm not blind, but I do prefer to browse with a larger-than-normal font. If sites just mark up content, then that works fine. Some pages override that control because they need to do complicated layout to say what they mean (like those interactive maps on recovery.gov), but most things that you need to say can be done with text.
I didn't think the Recovery.gov data was so bad (for my standards) once you clicked the "Text View of Data" button. Pull-down menus and standard HTML tables with hyperlinks. The problem the original article was complaining about was that it didn't have extra markups that most people won't notice, but that help the special-assistance tools. Like using TH tags for the table header row, instead of just TR and setting the color.
When I looked at the main state-summary table here just now, it did mark up the header row correctly (as far as I could tell). The original article makes some specific complaints, such as this:
To make the table more accessible, use TH [table header] tags around the state names, and include scope="row".
It looked like this is what they do. Maybe they have already acted on the report?
Wow. That's interesting. Maybe it's just that I have been limited to work with components manufacturers; maybe it's because they are all covered by HIPAA, which has very vague borders (due to limited case history), so everyone plays extra cautious; maybe it's because they need FDA device-class certifications, and expect more scrutiny than other projects; or maybe the companies have more cautious legal departments. Whatever the reason, we have certainly met people who interpret the regulations in different contexts. Thanks for the information.
A cryptographic module may generate cryptographic keys internally. Cryptographic keys generated by the cryptographic module for use by an Approved algorithm or security function shall be generated using an Approved key generation method. Approved key generation methods are listed in Annex C to this standard. If an Approved key generation method requires input from a RNG, then an Approved RNG that meets the requirements specified in Section 4.7.1 shall be used.
Compromising the security of the key generation method (e.g., guessing the seed value to initialize the deterministic RNG) shall require as least as many operations as determining the value of the generated key.
If a seed key is entered during the key generation process, entry of the key shall meet the key entry requirements specified in Section 4.7.4. If intermediate key generation values are output from the cryptographic module, the values shall be output either 1) in encrypted form or 2) under split knowledge procedures.
Documentation shall specify each of the key generation methods (Approved and non-Approved) employed by a cryptographic module.
And the definition of a cryptographic module:
Cryptographic module: the set of hardware, software, and/or firmware that implements Approved security functions (including cryptographic algorithms and key generation) and is contained within the cryptographic boundary.
So, you might be able to abuse FIPS-certified components to build something that does ROT-13, but you shouldn't be able to get the resulting cryptographic module certified. Did any of the examples you have seen end up fulfilling U.S. government contracts that required a FIPS-140 certification?
Slashdot Mirror
Then let the networks filter the feed if they wish.
If the only way to watch the game without that noise is on television, then maybe the prices for live tickets will come down closer to something reasonable. Only extreme fans will brave the racket to see the game in person, and everyone else will watch the digitally-filtered version from home. Who sees it live will be determined by willingness to endure pain, rather than abundance of ready cash. There is something to that idea.
the various programming skills start at level 1 qualifications max out at level 6, while management skills start at level 5 and max out at level 10.
Call me an out-of-place mathematician, but what's the difference between a scale from 5 - 10 and a scale from 1 - 6? They both have six levels. The fact that they re-use known symbols (sequential Arabic digits) to name those levels is just convenience. Numbering management with a minimum qualification level of 5 is consistent with standard assumptions about managers (that they don't know what a baseline is), so maybe the numbering system is really a subtle joke?
So is Tim Berners-Lee (which I'm surprised an English slashdot geek didn't know). That's probably why he didn't say "chips," but rather "Utz Kettle Classics Crunchy Potato Chips," which is more specific.
Mahatma Gandhi had four sons, and most reports that bother to mention his family describe him as a very bad father. In general, however, people are willing to overlook that.
In 1997, I saw Al Gross talk at the Vehicular Technology Conference about his history in designing portable radios. He claimed that Dick Tracy author Chester Gould got the idea for the wrist radio from an actual prototype that he had been building (following on from his successful radio designs for the military). It's a very long feedback loop.
In the 1970s, computers were used for two things: to go to the moon, and to play pong. Nothing in between. That was back before every OS sucked.
Just thought you would appreciate the song. Getting offa your lawn now.
Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter. Just because you didn't mean to kill the person doesn't mean you walk away, but it is taken into consideration.
For those that don't know, "acting like a know-it-all" is just something that less knowledgeable people like to say about us more knowledgeable people, as if they are taking some moral high ground by being less knowledgeable.
Maybe that also happens, but it's not just knowing more, it's presentation. It's about not treating those who don't know some little detail like they are not worth your time to talk with. The common term for knowledgeable people with manners and communication skills is "expert."
More often, the know-it-all new kids who really annoy people are those who have read the manual, but don't know the reality. Typical exchange:
And they do this with a tone that suggests it's someone else's fault for not having the customer environment constantly updated to the latest release of everything, rather than their problem for not dealing with the actual situation in front of them. If you don't know why customer environments don't get upgraded as soon as the new release comes out, then ask a colleague over coffee.
Finally, the worst know-it-all is the one who always "could have told you that would happen," but didn't. After something breaks, this person pipes up with all the reasons he knew it was going to fail, but never bothered to mention until his vast insight was obsolete. When something has broken, stick to insights that will help fix it, and avoid criticizing all the idiots who failed to spot the signs until (a) it's fixed, and (b) you are prepared to explain why you didn't point these signs out to people before it broke.
Steven Wright has claimed that he has a 1:1 map of the United States. He keeps it spread out across the country because it's a bitch to fold.
I used to love the full-colour musical ride on the back of the 50. Shame they retired that one.
Or they approached EMI first, then eventually went to court, then it was there for a couple of years, and now it's done. The article doesn't mention when they first complained. They say the contract is from a decade ago, which sounds about a quarter-century short of Dark Side, and certainly post-Waters.
Albums like Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are made as single things. It was the glory days of the concept album. The best track is like the best square inch of a good painting, and they don't want to be judged on that. Good on 'em.
What I want to know is whether this means that EMI reckons we can freely copy EMI songs from that period because their copyrights applied to the physical album only, so a digital copy from vinyl is OK for free distribution.
If you're looking for the definition of an eigenvector, you can probably trust what you find. Otherwise, it's like fixing a slow watch by never winding it: instead of being always wrong, it's now exactly correct twice every day.
It's become so easy to have your web address and mailbox have the same domain, one has to wonder about people who don't bother - is the rest of the office a mess? And domains are cheap, and easy to register. Not having time or claiming not enough savvy makes you look lazy and dumb.
What about people who just don't want to leave their computer running all day? I know you can hire a VM to run your mail server, but what's the point? Why would that give any better service than a gmail account?
To me, the point is that AOL has always existed to give usenet a subject for ethnic jokes. (How many AOL users does it take to screw in a lightbulb?) The negative image of an AOL account isn't that the user doesn't have a personal domain, but that the general domain is AOL.
The travel expenses thing has gotten crazy for me. It's like the accountants think the company is doing me a favour letting me go to an exciting foreign hotel, experience the interior of exotic taxis, and meet the charming foreign customs officers. I do not consider it a perk, and being treated as guilty until proven innocent in claiming back the expensive "approved" hotel (instead of a more affordable and convenient one that's not on the list) is just enough to let me accept the less productive option of constant telephone meetings with people whose faces I have never seen.
That is, I suppose, their goal. Reduced overhead looks good, while lost business and reduced productivity just looks like market forces that are being proactively addressed by more careful attention to reducing expenses. The accountants are taking important action to tighten belts and address the failing ability of the business divisions to deliver top-line growth. The damage they do to the company actually looks like a responsible way to address the business situation. I think they have cause and effect backwards, but it's their decision to make, not mine.
Maybe I'm misinformed, but don't most (private) U.S. hospitals treat doctors like customers? In several computer systems that I saw in New York state, they were providing different report styles and different input methods (from e-mail to hand-written) for the different doctors. The reason I was given was that they had to do this, since doctors who didn't feel the hospital system suited their unique requirements would suggest different hospitals to their patients. The resulting computer systems were very inefficient, compared with what they could be with more cohesive planning.
Also, isn't a large part of paperwork involved with billing, and filing the right forms with the various payers? I don't suppose the insurance and government agencies publish WSDL interfaces for their claims, so that probably needs to be transcribed to paper, right? What portion of administrative cost goes to copying data by hand from the computer?
It would be interesting to see the same study in a single-payer environment; or even in a simpler mixed-payer environment where supplementary coverage claims are filed by the patient, rather than the hospital, and the competition between hospitals for the preference of independent doctors is a bit less fierce. It may be that the U.S. healthcare system is just an extreme case.
It's not creating salt or importing it from anywhere. The total amount of salt in the neighbourhood of the plant will not be changed. If the concentration is moved around a bit, there is a river right there to feed a mixing pool to moderate the salinity before releasing the salt into the sea.
I can understand the point that they should be aware of the issue, but I feel certain that it can be completely dealt with.
How could a school I teach at claim ownership over this work? In my mind this would be like club owners claiming to own the rights to any music that is played at their venues.
That's the best analogy so far. The school is paying the teacher to teach students, and pays for some of the necessary equipment (books, projector, etc.), but the actual lesson is up to the judgment of the teacher. Some teachers will use suggested lesson plans from the workbooks, and some will take the time to make one that works better for them. If they have chosen to take the time to make a good plan, like a singer who took the time to write an original song, the employer benefits from better results, but has not paid for the right to sell the plan. The teacher was not hired as a lesson plan writer any more than the singer was hired as a song writer.
Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just isn't that significant.
Not sure if you meant this seriously, but Austria compared it with their national bottom line, and almost cut it.
On the other hand: Who types http:/// anyway? Most programs which turn text into clickable URLs look for www.* (which btw. is one of the reasons for not omitting www from the URL although it is technically not necessary either.)
Don't I know it! How many times have I been thankful that whoever owns www.localhost.com hasn't sprayed advertising all over the homepage? If I try to connect to a local server, but it hasn't started correctly, the browser helpfully redirects me to this site. If it were me, I would advertise Apache for Dummies there; so if someone from contactprivacy.com (the registered owners) is reading this: Thanks!
The idea is that you update your CV every so often, but you send the same document to everyone. The cover letter is what you customize to the particular job you are applying for. You point out the two or three items in the CV that you particularly want this employer to notice. I agree with the other posters that it's not always necessary. If you are applying to a job that just advertised for a Chemical Engineer, without further detail, and you have a degree in Chemical Engineering, with experience as a Chemical Engineer, then a cover letter is not really called for. If the advertisement was for work in a particular branch, then you just write to point out that two years of your previous position involved work with the equipment that would be expected for that type of work.
When processing applications, it makes a very positive impression to know that the applicant actually read the advertisement, and felt it would be worth applying for. When I receive a CV without a cover letter, I always wonder if the person just mailed off fifty of them to every address available. In cases like that, even if the person seems qualified, I sometimes wonder if they are really interested. It's not uncommon for people to turn down an interview, which is really annoying after I've taken the time to read through their application. A decent cover letter suggests that I might not be wasting my time by reading your qualifications.
After reading these arguments about how important the essay is, why it shouldn't be, and how much potential it has to encourage a well-rounded student body, I would really like to hear from someone who has been on the receiving end. Out of 1000 essays written, how many get read? 10? Is it given a grade that gets weighted and merged with SAT scores, high school rankings, and handwriting analysis results for everyone; or is it used as a tie-breaker for the marginal cases?
My suspicion is that almost none of them get read, but they are still given a mystical importance by the applicants. It sounds like the admissions department is just trying to match the appearance to the practice, and saving a lot of headache all around.
Exactly. I'm not blind, but I do prefer to browse with a larger-than-normal font. If sites just mark up content, then that works fine. Some pages override that control because they need to do complicated layout to say what they mean (like those interactive maps on recovery.gov), but most things that you need to say can be done with text.
I didn't think the Recovery.gov data was so bad (for my standards) once you clicked the "Text View of Data" button. Pull-down menus and standard HTML tables with hyperlinks. The problem the original article was complaining about was that it didn't have extra markups that most people won't notice, but that help the special-assistance tools. Like using TH tags for the table header row, instead of just TR and setting the color.
When I looked at the main state-summary table here just now, it did mark up the header row correctly (as far as I could tell). The original article makes some specific complaints, such as this:
To make the table more accessible, use TH [table header] tags around the state names, and include scope="row".
It looked like this is what they do. Maybe they have already acted on the report?
Wow. That's interesting. Maybe it's just that I have been limited to work with components manufacturers; maybe it's because they are all covered by HIPAA, which has very vague borders (due to limited case history), so everyone plays extra cautious; maybe it's because they need FDA device-class certifications, and expect more scrutiny than other projects; or maybe the companies have more cautious legal departments. Whatever the reason, we have certainly met people who interpret the regulations in different contexts. Thanks for the information.
A cryptographic module may generate cryptographic keys internally. Cryptographic keys generated by the cryptographic module for use by an Approved algorithm or security function shall be generated using an Approved key generation method. Approved key generation methods are listed in Annex C to this standard. If an Approved key generation method requires input from a RNG, then an Approved RNG that meets the requirements specified in Section 4.7.1 shall be used.
Compromising the security of the key generation method (e.g., guessing the seed value to initialize the deterministic RNG) shall require as least as many operations as determining the value of the generated key.
If a seed key is entered during the key generation process, entry of the key shall meet the key entry requirements specified in Section 4.7.4. If intermediate key generation values are output from the cryptographic module, the values shall be output either 1) in encrypted form or 2) under split knowledge procedures.
Documentation shall specify each of the key generation methods (Approved and non-Approved) employed by a cryptographic module.
And the definition of a cryptographic module:
Cryptographic module: the set of hardware, software, and/or firmware that implements Approved security functions (including cryptographic algorithms and key generation) and is contained within the cryptographic boundary.
So, you might be able to abuse FIPS-certified components to build something that does ROT-13, but you shouldn't be able to get the resulting cryptographic module certified. Did any of the examples you have seen end up fulfilling U.S. government contracts that required a FIPS-140 certification?