And if they surveyed people on how much TV advertising affected their buying decisions I wonder what the result would be? Above or below 30 percent? And what multiple of social media ad spend is spent on TV advertising again? 10x, 100x? By thatmettroic everyone in America better say they are not only affected by TV ads, but they cause them to buy two of everything.
I disagree that it is a component that is needed in computer science. I mean.. one should UNDERSTAND basic statistics just to operate in modern life, but this has nothing to do with CS at all. One should understand what a sample is, what standard deviation is, what mean vs median is, what the normal curve looks like, etc.. everyone should know this graduating from high school nowadays. If they don't then the school system is failing. None of this has anything to do with computer science though unless you are writing a program for or using statistical analysis. Like I said before, I have been working in the industry for over 10 years now doing very complex stuff and I have never used statistics to do it. I don't understand at all what this article is talking about, it seems to confuse the idea that statistical analysis of large data sets is the only thing computer science is about.
A comment like this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of algorithmic theory. You don't have to determine if an algorithm is performing more or less efficient through sampling or statistics, you can PROVE it using math.
As someone with a BCS who has worked in the industry for over 10 years in an environment highly focused on algorithmic efficiency and performance, AND got a near failing grade in stats in university, I fail to see how being proficient at statistics would help one in computer science. What is important is computation theory and algorithm theory, which are not things you learn in statistics. Unless you are trying to write code that does everything using Monte Carlo simulations that is.
While wages I am sure do play a factor, as former a hiring manager I can tell you the GP is 100% correct. Older and younger programmers both have their pros and cons. Younger programmers are nearly always more up to date on the latest technologies and trends and have an innate ability to "churn out" fairly good quality code at a lightning fast rate. However, they are nearly always inexperienced compared to their more seasoned peers, and make a lot of what I would call "elementary mistakes" when it comes to architecture. They also have a tendency to *always* want to use the latest and greatest tech instead of the tried and true, which is not always a good thing.
Older workers have the opposite pros and cons. They tend to take a bit longer to finish a project, but that project is usually of higher quality and better architecture because they have been around the block and know how to code for the long term. They also like to stick with the tried and true technology because they know it, and it works.
Ideal teams have a healthy mix of both young fresh employees and older seasoned ones. A good manager knows how to create this team and get them to work together to bring out the best of the young and old, and how to get the seasoned professionals to help teach the young employees about enterprise architecture, while the young employees can help keep the older employees fresh and up to date on the latest technology trends.
The internet of things referrs to the concept of connecting all kinds of devices and sensors to the internet that have essentially zero processing power.. all they do is serve as inputs to other cloud-based systems. Traditionally, things that were connected to the internet were "smart" - they were computers, laptops, or more recently tablets and smartphones. The internet of things is dumb. It is thermostats, wireless cameras, bluetooth proximity devices, sensors in roads and driveways, in cars, in light bulbs. None of these things has any real CPU or memory horsepower nor do they do much of anything beyond sending data to the cloud, and/or receive a single "ON/OFF" command.
You are looking at this from the wrong point of view. The way you should be looking at is, if you ALSO had the option of calling up Ford or GM or whoever your car maker was directly, and asking THEM if they could beat the dealer's price, could they? Of course they could, they make the damn car.
The idea that dealers create pricing competition for cars is total baloney because dealers don't make cars in the first place, they just mark them up and sell them. Ford competes with Honda and GM, they don't compete with Honda dealers and GM dealers. The thing that keeps the features and functions progressing for Ford while keeping costs low is not their dealer network, it is competition from other auto makers. The only competition dealers are having is who can mark up your car the least.
Let's see.... either you pay $199 and get locked into an AT&T contract and then have to pay even more money to get your phone unlocked at the end of it, or you pay $349 and get a Nexus 5/6 and use it with any carrier you want. Oh and did I mention it also has access to the Play store?
Latitude is not everything when it comes to sunlight and snow. Montreal,Canada is quite a bit further south than London. If you have ever been to Montreal and London in the winter you would know what I am talking about.
I don't care how hard you work at it, you can't hire people if they are not qualified or do not exist, unless you think Yahoo is going to start their own university.
If you live in a southern climate, sure. If you live in a northern climate, for half of the year you are only getting 50% light cover on your panels at best... and that is assuming you can keep them cleared of snow.
No one is saying there is no value or lesser value. What I am saying is if 1% of CS graduates are black then you are not going to have greater than 1% of your tech employees be black... period. You can't artificially create diversity. This issue needs to be tackled at the source, the universities. They need to attract more females and minorities to CS programs.
How do they do this and what are the barriers that blacks and females see that prevent them from getting a CS degree? This is the complicated question that needs answering, not "why isn't Yahoo hiring more women and blacks".
The charts released by Yahoo indicate women fare worse in its global tech workforce...
They indicate nothing of the sort. They indicate that Yahoo has fewer female workers than male workers. That is it.
Insinuating that female workers "fare worse" at Yahoo is akin to insinuating that there is rampant sexism and a glass ceiling going on there, which is most likely simply untrue. The truth is that there are simply fewer females applying for positions because there are fewer female CS graduates, which is the ACTUAL fact.
If you want more women in the tech workforce, you need to start at the source and graduate more first.
The same thing can be said of blacks. Like it or not the amount of black CS engineers in Silicon Valley is very, very small. You can't artificially create diversity when none exists in the talent pool.
We need a revision to the common law statues around private airspace. This law is horribly outdated in the modern environment.
Reasonable provisions could be made, for example, one has complete control of all airspace 500m above their property. This would not interfere with any "real" aircraft but would prohibit spying by cheap quadcopters without a warrant.
So you're saying you would not trade in wasting 1 minutes stopping for gas every couple of days for a single 1/2 hour visit to a battery swap place once a month? You would come out ahead in the scenario.
Example. The local phone company by default posts your name and address to a public directory when you get phone service. This is then replicated to 411.com and whitepages.com and a dozen other sites. I got the local phone company to take it down (which was a HUGE hassle), but it is still mirrored all over the net. It's been 5 years and you can still get my phone number and address by Googling my name even though I never put it up there.
Even if your phone supports 4G, most Telcos do not allow roaming phones to use it because it is not covered by their roaming agreements.
If you take a US Verizon LTE phone into Canada, you will not get 4G even though the networks are identical. The inverse is also true for Bell or Telus phones in the USA.
One exception is Rogers in Canada and AT&T in the USA who have an LTE roaming agreement.
You have the US and it's bill of rights because in 1776 the majority of people didn't want to pay their taxes to England anymore. The american revolution had nothing to do with the second amendment at all.
Neither of these things is "unfortunate". It is not "unfortunate" that hardware from 2005 is still working fine and useful to the user. In fact, it is excellent and what everyone should try to do when they build a piece of kit.
The only "unfortunate" thing about it is the fact that Microsoft stopped applying security fixes to XP.
Disagree. The US got the first amendment right. And you got the second amendment wrong.
Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.
Again, I would point to the US as the prime example of why the second amendment does absolutely nothing to help you secure any of your primary freedoms, since they are being violated ALL THE TIME by your government, but I don't see anyone successfully taking up arms against them.. and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.
All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.
That may be true for some minority of people but I refuse to believe it is true for the majority.
In fact, I feel that if you can't adequately abstract yourself from a game, it may be pointing to other deeper issues that need to be addressed.
It certainly is likely to be a problem with some people, but not the majority. Games are just entertainment, they are not a substitute for life itself. Anyone who quits playing a game because of how it is making them feel as a person is too emotionally bonded to the game and likely has other social issues to look into.
No one is arguing that. What we are arguing is the outdated model where the value of that service is 70% of a books profits in an age where said book has near zero cost of production since it is electronic.
Slashdot Mirror
And if they surveyed people on how much TV advertising affected their buying decisions I wonder what the result would be? Above or below 30 percent? And what multiple of social media ad spend is spent on TV advertising again? 10x, 100x? By thatmettroic everyone in America better say they are not only affected by TV ads, but they cause them to buy two of everything.
I disagree that it is a component that is needed in computer science. I mean.. one should UNDERSTAND basic statistics just to operate in modern life, but this has nothing to do with CS at all. One should understand what a sample is, what standard deviation is, what mean vs median is, what the normal curve looks like, etc.. everyone should know this graduating from high school nowadays. If they don't then the school system is failing. None of this has anything to do with computer science though unless you are writing a program for or using statistical analysis. Like I said before, I have been working in the industry for over 10 years now doing very complex stuff and I have never used statistics to do it. I don't understand at all what this article is talking about, it seems to confuse the idea that statistical analysis of large data sets is the only thing computer science is about.
A comment like this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of algorithmic theory. You don't have to determine if an algorithm is performing more or less efficient through sampling or statistics, you can PROVE it using math.
IThere is definitely some degree of that, which I why I pointed it out in my post.
As someone with a BCS who has worked in the industry for over 10 years in an environment highly focused on algorithmic efficiency and performance, AND got a near failing grade in stats in university, I fail to see how being proficient at statistics would help one in computer science. What is important is computation theory and algorithm theory, which are not things you learn in statistics. Unless you are trying to write code that does everything using Monte Carlo simulations that is.
While wages I am sure do play a factor, as former a hiring manager I can tell you the GP is 100% correct. Older and younger programmers both have their pros and cons. Younger programmers are nearly always more up to date on the latest technologies and trends and have an innate ability to "churn out" fairly good quality code at a lightning fast rate. However, they are nearly always inexperienced compared to their more seasoned peers, and make a lot of what I would call "elementary mistakes" when it comes to architecture. They also have a tendency to *always* want to use the latest and greatest tech instead of the tried and true, which is not always a good thing.
Older workers have the opposite pros and cons. They tend to take a bit longer to finish a project, but that project is usually of higher quality and better architecture because they have been around the block and know how to code for the long term. They also like to stick with the tried and true technology because they know it, and it works.
Ideal teams have a healthy mix of both young fresh employees and older seasoned ones. A good manager knows how to create this team and get them to work together to bring out the best of the young and old, and how to get the seasoned professionals to help teach the young employees about enterprise architecture, while the young employees can help keep the older employees fresh and up to date on the latest technology trends.
The internet of things referrs to the concept of connecting all kinds of devices and sensors to the internet that have essentially zero processing power.. all they do is serve as inputs to other cloud-based systems. Traditionally, things that were connected to the internet were "smart" - they were computers, laptops, or more recently tablets and smartphones. The internet of things is dumb. It is thermostats, wireless cameras, bluetooth proximity devices, sensors in roads and driveways, in cars, in light bulbs. None of these things has any real CPU or memory horsepower nor do they do much of anything beyond sending data to the cloud, and/or receive a single "ON/OFF" command.
You are looking at this from the wrong point of view. The way you should be looking at is, if you ALSO had the option of calling up Ford or GM or whoever your car maker was directly, and asking THEM if they could beat the dealer's price, could they? Of course they could, they make the damn car.
The idea that dealers create pricing competition for cars is total baloney because dealers don't make cars in the first place, they just mark them up and sell them. Ford competes with Honda and GM, they don't compete with Honda dealers and GM dealers. The thing that keeps the features and functions progressing for Ford while keeping costs low is not their dealer network, it is competition from other auto makers. The only competition dealers are having is who can mark up your car the least.
Let's see.... either you pay $199 and get locked into an AT&T contract and then have to pay even more money to get your phone unlocked at the end of it, or you pay $349 and get a Nexus 5/6 and use it with any carrier you want. Oh and did I mention it also has access to the Play store?
Latitude is not everything when it comes to sunlight and snow. Montreal,Canada is quite a bit further south than London. If you have ever been to Montreal and London in the winter you would know what I am talking about.
I don't care how hard you work at it, you can't hire people if they are not qualified or do not exist, unless you think Yahoo is going to start their own university.
If you live in a southern climate, sure. If you live in a northern climate, for half of the year you are only getting 50% light cover on your panels at best... and that is assuming you can keep them cleared of snow.
No one is saying there is no value or lesser value. What I am saying is if 1% of CS graduates are black then you are not going to have greater than 1% of your tech employees be black... period. You can't artificially create diversity. This issue needs to be tackled at the source, the universities. They need to attract more females and minorities to CS programs.
How do they do this and what are the barriers that blacks and females see that prevent them from getting a CS degree? This is the complicated question that needs answering, not "why isn't Yahoo hiring more women and blacks".
The charts released by Yahoo indicate women fare worse in its global tech workforce...
They indicate nothing of the sort. They indicate that Yahoo has fewer female workers than male workers. That is it.
Insinuating that female workers "fare worse" at Yahoo is akin to insinuating that there is rampant sexism and a glass ceiling going on there, which is most likely simply untrue. The truth is that there are simply fewer females applying for positions because there are fewer female CS graduates, which is the ACTUAL fact.
If you want more women in the tech workforce, you need to start at the source and graduate more first.
The same thing can be said of blacks. Like it or not the amount of black CS engineers in Silicon Valley is very, very small. You can't artificially create diversity when none exists in the talent pool.
We need a revision to the common law statues around private airspace. This law is horribly outdated in the modern environment.
Reasonable provisions could be made, for example, one has complete control of all airspace 500m above their property. This would not interfere with any "real" aircraft but would prohibit spying by cheap quadcopters without a warrant.
Musk announced this days ago during a briefing call. BMW and Tesla are already talking. They were just at the plant on Wednesday.
Because Slashdot has such a great history of predicting product success.
So you're saying you would not trade in wasting 1 minutes stopping for gas every couple of days for a single 1/2 hour visit to a battery swap place once a month? You would come out ahead in the scenario.
And what about when you don't post it online?
Example. The local phone company by default posts your name and address to a public directory when you get phone service. This is then replicated to 411.com and whitepages.com and a dozen other sites. I got the local phone company to take it down (which was a HUGE hassle), but it is still mirrored all over the net. It's been 5 years and you can still get my phone number and address by Googling my name even though I never put it up there.
Even if your phone supports 4G, most Telcos do not allow roaming phones to use it because it is not covered by their roaming agreements.
If you take a US Verizon LTE phone into Canada, you will not get 4G even though the networks are identical. The inverse is also true for Bell or Telus phones in the USA.
One exception is Rogers in Canada and AT&T in the USA who have an LTE roaming agreement.
You have the US and it's bill of rights because in 1776 the majority of people didn't want to pay their taxes to England anymore. The american revolution had nothing to do with the second amendment at all.
Neither of these things is "unfortunate". It is not "unfortunate" that hardware from 2005 is still working fine and useful to the user. In fact, it is excellent and what everyone should try to do when they build a piece of kit.
The only "unfortunate" thing about it is the fact that Microsoft stopped applying security fixes to XP.
Disagree. The US got the first amendment right. And you got the second amendment wrong.
Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.
Again, I would point to the US as the prime example of why the second amendment does absolutely nothing to help you secure any of your primary freedoms, since they are being violated ALL THE TIME by your government, but I don't see anyone successfully taking up arms against them.. and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.
All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.
That may be true for some minority of people but I refuse to believe it is true for the majority.
In fact, I feel that if you can't adequately abstract yourself from a game, it may be pointing to other deeper issues that need to be addressed.
It certainly is likely to be a problem with some people, but not the majority. Games are just entertainment, they are not a substitute for life itself. Anyone who quits playing a game because of how it is making them feel as a person is too emotionally bonded to the game and likely has other social issues to look into.
No one is arguing that. What we are arguing is the outdated model where the value of that service is 70% of a books profits in an age where said book has near zero cost of production since it is electronic.