But that's the thing: in most home theatre setups, you're never even exposed to the UI of your television. It stays locked on one input permanently (the input from your AV receiver), you're not adjusting settings after the initial setup, you're not using it to change channels or volume or mute... The interfaces that you're going to interact with will be from your TV service box, your game consoles, your streaming box, etc.
So what is the TV other than a passive display to display the output of other devices?
Maybe that's the problem that Apple was seeking to solve. My guess is that was their aim but got scared about trying to compete with the cable providers and content cartel. I think Jobs would have pushed forward regardless and been proven right, but the Harvard MBAs currently in charge would never take that kind of risk. Which is why Apple's market cap is 1/4 of what it was 2 years ago and that trend is likely to continue unless the watch becomes the type of must have accessory the smartphones became. I seriously doubt that and think the watch will be an exercise accessory and that's about it. Apple should think about starting a bank to take care of that giant pile of cash they have. Might be the best ROI opportunity they have left.
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time. Working on the device to find workarounds at least requires engagement and interest to focus on a single task.
Spoken like someone who has never taught a group of 15 yr olds in a computer lab. I assure you, if it allows them to play games, get out of work, or look cool; the dumbest 15 year old kid will turn into a computer whiz in minutes. I've seen kids who can't speak with even passable grammar and terrible grades complete complex hacks to get around doing work. Many times the hack was harder and more useful than that lesson being taught. People are weird, kids are even weirder.
Minority factions push back a little against centuries of white dominance and millenniums of male dominance........and this is what we get? Crying foul for men's rights? Lol. What a frigging joke. I'm a white male who won custody of his children. The mother did not. I feel very comfortable in saying a man can achieve anything they pretty much want in this life through balancing their desires, morals, and motivations, of course.....white men, especially. Arguments like these -- reverse racism, men's rights -- are coming from the lazy white men who actually have to work to obtain a goal rather than have it handed to them on their majority-filled plates.
Being white has only been an advantage for about 500 years in the west. Before that, it was better to be Arab. Before that it was Mongolian. Then Chinese (or possibly Roman). Then there's a brief Greek period in there. Before that it goes back to the Arabs (Persians actually). Its generally been better to be male in a dominate culture, but if your culture is conquered it flipped to female damn quick.
The truth is that in the US its more about the amount of $$ your family has than anything. The rest of this stuff is all rounding errors and click bait. That and typical tribal groups fighting for control. If you don't understand this, you are both very lucky and a fool. My wish for you is to never have to actually learn these truths.
" Why else there would be a need for segregation in sports? "
Who says there is a need?
Lots of girls/women want desperately to compete with the boys/men.
You are either being sarcastic or completely ignorant on this point. Sports are generally divided into categories based on factors including age and gender but not the way you describe. There are female only divisions for almost all sports (except the football in the US) and there is an open division for everyone. Its just that only males complete in that open division and typically so it gets called the men's or boy's section. But it is an open division for all competitors in every sport in which I have ever seen a competition. And generally this is the case as women perform significantly worse than their male counterparts, in a measurable way that can't be debated. For example, a typical male swimmer on a Division III NCAA team is usually about on par with the NCAA Division I women's champion. The Division I males are usually about 10% faster and this increases as the distance covered increases. Sports are one of those areas where male superiority can't really be debated. Even a judged sport such as gymnastics where the female division is more popular, the men do much more difficult routines despite the fact that the females in their sport represent a larger amount of female athletic talent (as gymnastics are more popular for females than males).
It is curious that this kind of movement always seems to be only interested in obtaining safe, high-paying, white-collar jobs for women. If there is any hint that a job might be Difficult, Dangerous, or Dirty, there is no real push to put women in those roles, even when the pay is high. I have never met a single female welder, for example. A good welder is patient, deliberate, and if the directions don't line up with the situation, they need to ask for further directions. If you wanted to pick a gender most suited for that, would you pick a man? I wouldn't. Yet because it is (very mildly) dangerous, often dirty, and sometimes difficult, most women don't seem to be interested.
Women in fact are better welders on average than men. They just don't want those jobs for some reason, even though they are often high paying.
I do. The term is ill-defined, but in general: if you land the data before you process it's a not-stream.
That's a pretty good way to think about it. A stream is really just a table without disk backing which means you have to be reading from the stream before you write to it. In a streaming system, select queries run forever (or at least with a timeout) and inserts must happen after a select query on the same stream is made for the data to be transmitted through the stream. In this way you can take a stream of incoming data provided by an insert statement(s) and send it to multiple different reading queries (ie selects) which only know they are reading from a named stream, not how data is being fed into that stream. In this way you can build up a graph of streams (plus views, and tables) that process incoming streaming of tuples and only dump said data to disk when you have finished transforming, analyzing it and whatever else you do with it. Generally, customers will "compress" their high volume incoming stream using a group by into a summary of the data which is then written to a data warehouse or database.
I know R. My wife has a Yarn store. WTF are those other things?
Its a distributed exec for Java processes. That's really it. It has crappy monitoring built in that's unnecessary due to SNMP but they built it in anyway because...well I don't know why.
Here's the break down of that claim in more computer sciencey terms: Almost all big data problems are simple counting problems with some stats thrown in. For more advanced clustering tasks, most math libraries have everything you need. Most "big data" sizes are under a few TB of data. Most big data problems are also I/O bound. Single nodes are actually pretty powerful and fast these days. 24 cores, 128 GB RAM, 15 TB of disk behind a RAID controller that can give you 400 MB/s data rates will cost you just barely 5 figures. This single node will outperform a standard 8 node Hadoop cluster. Why? Because the local, high density disks that HDFS encourages are slow as molasses (30 MB/s). And...
Hadoop has a huge abstraction penalty for each record access. If you're doing minimal computation for each record, the cost of delivering the record dominates your runtime. In Hadoop, the cost is fairly high. If you're using a scripting language and reading right off the file system, your cost for each record is low. I've found Hadoop record access times to be about 20x slower than Python line read times from a text file, using the _same_ file system for Hadoop and Python (of course, Hadoop puts HDFS on top of it). In Big-O terms, the 'c' we usually leave out actually matters here - O(1*n) vs. O(20*n). 1 hour or 20 hours, you pick.
Optimization is usually about creating a small inner loop at the expense of setup cost. You can see this in compilers/languages (creating an optimized binary vs a script interpreter), in databases (prepare vs execute), and in these types of big data systems. Hadoop can't and doesn't optimize its inner loop very well at all due to its basic programming interface. It stores each row in an array of Java objects. A better design would process buffers of data with non-copying access libraries to hide this abstraction.
Data processing systems can be thought of on a scale from simple, small systems that prepare each query quickly to scalable systems that take longer to optimize the query but execute it more quickly for each row. So MySQL for instance is at the quick/small end of the spectrum, Oracle near the middle, datawarehouses towards the larger and finally distributed and streaming systems at extremely large end of the spectrum. As you scale to millions of rows per second of throughput, you must have a very optimal inner loop and not touching disk frequently helps greatly. Hadoop does none of this well. SQLStream (see my post above) does it much much better via SQL.
The problem with "big data" is that there are no vendor specs and the implementations are sometimes questionable. There is a provider that does a better which is SQLStream (http://www.sqlstream.com) which has a streaming DB which is controlled via SQL. In addition to normal tables, you have streams which are relational typed conduits though which data flows and windows which are time (and row) based groups of tuples which can be used in agg queries with all the standard SQL functions (there's also Java UDXes and MED support). Designing your middleware on top of a SQL engine is a much better design pattern than doing it all with hand wired Java. All this and about 100x the throughput of a Hadoop program. Disclaimer: I'm an engineer at SQLStream.
IAAP (I am a physician, and a pathologist at that!). In TFA, she notes that the pathology was only marginally more informative by including electron microscopy and immunofluorescent study. I'm not sure what more she's expecting. There's a reason why medical school is 4 years, residency is 3-4 years, and fellowship is another 1-2 years (after 4 years of college for most US citizens). This stuff IS hard, and yes it actually does require a graduate degree. In this specific instance, should the bill explain that it's the standard of care to get EM and IF tests on medical kidney biopsies? Should the bill explain what those tests are? Maybe, but I've never seen a mechanic's bill that explained why part A was used and what that part is normally used for, or how often it's used/replaced. I've never seen any bill that really explained what stuff was for. It's going to be hard for most people to fully understand a medical bill, no matter how clear and un-obfuscated it is.
For medical billing, people are obviously more interested and vested in what's happening, but a lot of the times, the situation is going to be complicated. I don't know what the solution to that is, other than paying physicians for their time (instead of unnecessary procedures and tests) to explain things more clearly.
That's nice and all, but what does that have to do with anything any poster has complained about in this forum. There's a difference between not giving the care correctly and giving the care correctly and then over charging by 5-10x.
BTW, you do realize that when you put one of your medical bills (assuming it has confusing codes and huge amounts of over-billing) in the mail, and that letter goes across state lines, under some interpretations of the law (decided case law, not someone's idea of what a statue means) then you are committing mail fraud with a RICO kicker. That means the law treats your organization like the mafia. Now, several things have to be true for this to kick in, but I've seen examples of all of those elements in most medical bills. So as soon as some lawyer gets wise, you guys are in for the mother of all class action lawsuits. Nobody will win except the lawyers and this is the only remedy we have currently under the law. That's pretty depressing.
I see a big disconnect between performance art and programming, they aren't even closely related. I play the viola and am a programmer if this matters.
Software just has to work properly and be maintainable for it to acceptable and nobody cares how you got it to that point. Music is on a much higher level.
I work in software and do music production on the side. I would say it has to do with the type of music and programming you are doing. Writing a database optimizer is much much much harder than producing an EDM track. And I would say there are far more people who could produce an EDM track than write a database optimizer. And the quality of each are going to be obvious to anyone that uses/hears either of those things. I think if you compared writing a corp web app and playing in a symphony you would find the converse to be true, that is there are fewer people who could play well enough to be in a symphony vs write a corp web app. So I think the real answer is it depends. If you think either music or software is harder or easier than the other, you probably are just more skilled at one of those things.
The distribution is not "U" shaped, and it is not normal (bell shaped). It is high on the left, and slopes downward to the right.
That's called a power distribution. And its what you would expect the distribution of programmers to be given that programmers are drawn from the extreme edge of the normal distribution programming skill in society at large.
I was under the impression that the increased CO2 needs for manufacturing Leafs and Volts more than offset the small reduction in exhaust. Perhaps I'm wrong.
You are wrong, that comparison is CO2 of keeping an old ICE car against CO2 of getting a new EV car. If you are getting a car anyway, the EV is far far far more green.
Because paying $540 dollars a month is better than paying $580 a month.
The other fact is that pure gas cars are getting really good milage. The Mazda 6 is rated at 40mpg on the highway. The new CX-5 CUV is over 30mpg hwy.
My Chevy Cruze is averaging over 33 mpg for me.
Hahahahahahahahaha, you do realize you couldn't sell those cars in most other countries in the world including China because their MPG is too low....for all of them...now maybe by American standards, but our cars in general get terrible MPG across the board. In fact, most auto makers have to make a special "New World" version for the US as if they wanted to sell that car in Europe or Asia they would have to change the design significantly.
Glad to see, you have divine revelation on your side and issues like the budget, taxes, illegal immigration, and the shrinking middle class aren't real problems for you.
And if it seemed like Republicans gave a shite about those issues, you would have a point. And perhaps the rank and file do. However, those elected with an R next to their name don't and instead seem to spend all their time doing exactly what the OP pointed out. Your ideology and actions might back up your statement, the behavior of those your party elects is not.
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
You must be thick. The point of a 20% flat tax is that there is no way to do that. Income coming in to an entity is taxed at 20%. Doesn't matter if its a foreign entity (as long as the transaction involves an american) or shell corp or whatever, if it passed through your hands its taxed at 20%. In fact, using shell corps and foreign entities would become a bad thing as you would risk double taxation then. So routing all of your income directly to bank account would become the most tax efficient tactic. But it will never happen as tax attorneys, accountants, politicians and CEOs would all band together to stop it.
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
In total amount of taxes paid yes, as a percentage of income, hell no. On average, the rich pay only 1/3-1/4 of their share of taxes (12-15%) as the "average american" (33.5-36%) as a percentage basis. And since the rich are receiving ~90% of the income in the US, they should be paying ~90% of the taxes. See how that works? But they are not even close to that. When you come in to suggest that since they pay 51% (or whatever) of the taxes that's OK, even though they make 90% of the "income". How that even seems fair in your brain is beyond me. If you are rich, you are just a greedy person but I can understand your motivations. If you are not rich, you are truly a fool so please turn in your voter card.
Any articles I've read on this topic have either been:
"Heroic Puppies campaign to free the Hugo awards from the evil clutches of the SJWs"
or
"Band of Neo-Nazis corrupt the Hugo awards with cheat voting."
Come on internet. You can be better than this.
Seems like this is exactly the type of polarizing click bait that the Internet specializes in. Its the cockfighting of debate.
If 80% of all SF writers are white males, then you can expect around that same fraction of the nominees to be white and male.
A guess
Maybe, but not necessarily.
If roughly 50% of English speakers are white, and roughly 50% of those are male, then around 75% of English-speakers are NOT white males.
If one were to assume that writing talent is more or less evenly distributed among the population, and that the truly gifted are increasingly able to rise to the top despite cultural and social biases, then I would expect that the majority of outsanding writers today to not be white males, regardless of the underlying distribution of all the mediocre writers.
Just saying.
And another guess. Guess what, neither of you have any idea as to the actual number. So quit making decisions based upon non-facts, look up the actual number. You have an internet and are currently using it for something, but clearly in aid of making factual points. Based upon your experience of SF fans/writers, what do you think the actual number is? Al Al, most of the people who read your post will have an opinion on what that number actually is. And the guesses you post go against their life experience. This is why you won't get any traction for your ideas here as you are asking people to take what you say at face value against their life experience. If you are going to do that, you will have to provide better proof than a guess you pulled from what your underwear covers.
Systemd has laudable goals and people do want it. That's why it's been adopted, because some people want what it does. "It fills a use case people have" is what Linus says. And that use case happens to be the one that desired by the people responsible for building distros.
I don't think so. In university some pharmacy or chemistry guys could scrounge pure ethanol. (98 or 99%.) Screwdrives with that were nasty.
But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.
If that was really the case then people who were given morphine drips in hospitals would have high rates of addiction after leaving the hospital. But this doesn't happen. People who get addicted to Opioids either are in constant, on-going pain (due to injury or other reason) or are purely recreational users who are likely responding to external stresses. Basically, the entire model of addiction you are using is wrong and the numbers on addiction bear this out quite clearly. And before you tell me about "soldier's sickness" after the Civil war, remember that most of those soldiers had on-going, serious pain management issues (due to missing limbs and poor quality surgery at the time). This is why our "war on drugs" has been such a monumental failure, our basic model of addiction is wrong and leads you to believe non-sense (like your post). Heroin is certainly addictive but addiction is a response to stress and pain, not a moral failing or a bio-chemical crutch. A better model is provided by the Rat Park research. Policy using this model as a basis will be much more effective if for no other reason than its a far more accurate model of how humans behave than the practically medieval way we deal with addiction right now.
Most security crews at nightclubs (I moonlight at one sometimes) must have at least 1 woman on them for dealing with problematical females. And generally the female bouncers are quite tough (but not always). Still wouldn't expect the same number of women in those jobs as generally males cause more problems depending on the crowd and thus more male bouncers. Police forces (where many bouncers come from) and other security fields are primarily male so this all works out.
CS is already badly damaged as it is. From the feeling that jobs are going to be at minimum wage rates, to the fact that there is extremely heavy H-1B competition for every single position, be it an entry level coder on up, to the fact that it is looked down upon [1]... all gets people to look for other professions. I've even met high school counselors steering kids away from STEM in general, and into law or business with the phrase, "there is no such thing as an unemployed attorney or CPA".
The last thing the industry needs is a state's foot on the neck of a section of the population interested in this occupation. It just means that that aspiring programmer is now doing other things, and that could be the next Linus Torvalds or Wietse Venema that gets shooed out of the field.
[1]: CS and IT get relatively little respect as a profession compared to others that take as much education and experience. Tell someone you are a veteran IT person, they will immediately ask you what to do because their Windows PC seems slow.
Tell that to my bank account, and my email account that receives at least unsolicited one job offer each day (which generally have a higher salary than a doc or CPA or a lawyer outside of a few select firms plus things they don't generally get like bonuses and options). All that and I can look at myself in the mirror each day (making lots of $$ is law generally requires you giving this up unless you are really lucky or good or both).
Actually, dumb policies like this help me as it will ultimately reduce the number of qualified programmers in the world. Please keep up your mis-information campaign. My banker and descendants thanks you...
I suspect most five-year-olds or confused squirrels know what "ignoring" means:)
Dude, reread his original post. And substitute the word 'learn' for the words 'be told'. Then it will make sense to you. He was a rude asshole, but you are still being either intentional dense or the idiot he says you are.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's the thing: in most home theatre setups, you're never even exposed to the UI of your television. It stays locked on one input permanently (the input from your AV receiver), you're not adjusting settings after the initial setup, you're not using it to change channels or volume or mute... The interfaces that you're going to interact with will be from your TV service box, your game consoles, your streaming box, etc.
So what is the TV other than a passive display to display the output of other devices?
Maybe that's the problem that Apple was seeking to solve. My guess is that was their aim but got scared about trying to compete with the cable providers and content cartel. I think Jobs would have pushed forward regardless and been proven right, but the Harvard MBAs currently in charge would never take that kind of risk. Which is why Apple's market cap is 1/4 of what it was 2 years ago and that trend is likely to continue unless the watch becomes the type of must have accessory the smartphones became. I seriously doubt that and think the watch will be an exercise accessory and that's about it. Apple should think about starting a bank to take care of that giant pile of cash they have. Might be the best ROI opportunity they have left.
A few smart kids screwing around to find workarounds isn't the same thing as all of the kids being able to get to anything at any time. Working on the device to find workarounds at least requires engagement and interest to focus on a single task.
Spoken like someone who has never taught a group of 15 yr olds in a computer lab. I assure you, if it allows them to play games, get out of work, or look cool; the dumbest 15 year old kid will turn into a computer whiz in minutes. I've seen kids who can't speak with even passable grammar and terrible grades complete complex hacks to get around doing work. Many times the hack was harder and more useful than that lesson being taught. People are weird, kids are even weirder.
Minority factions push back a little against centuries of white dominance and millenniums of male dominance........and this is what we get? Crying foul for men's rights? Lol. What a frigging joke. I'm a white male who won custody of his children. The mother did not. I feel very comfortable in saying a man can achieve anything they pretty much want in this life through balancing their desires, morals, and motivations, of course.....white men, especially. Arguments like these -- reverse racism, men's rights -- are coming from the lazy white men who actually have to work to obtain a goal rather than have it handed to them on their majority-filled plates.
Being white has only been an advantage for about 500 years in the west. Before that, it was better to be Arab. Before that it was Mongolian. Then Chinese (or possibly Roman). Then there's a brief Greek period in there. Before that it goes back to the Arabs (Persians actually). Its generally been better to be male in a dominate culture, but if your culture is conquered it flipped to female damn quick.
The truth is that in the US its more about the amount of $$ your family has than anything. The rest of this stuff is all rounding errors and click bait. That and typical tribal groups fighting for control. If you don't understand this, you are both very lucky and a fool. My wish for you is to never have to actually learn these truths.
" Why else there would be a need for segregation in sports? "
Who says there is a need?
Lots of girls/women want desperately to compete with the boys/men.
You are either being sarcastic or completely ignorant on this point. Sports are generally divided into categories based on factors including age and gender but not the way you describe. There are female only divisions for almost all sports (except the football in the US) and there is an open division for everyone. Its just that only males complete in that open division and typically so it gets called the men's or boy's section. But it is an open division for all competitors in every sport in which I have ever seen a competition. And generally this is the case as women perform significantly worse than their male counterparts, in a measurable way that can't be debated. For example, a typical male swimmer on a Division III NCAA team is usually about on par with the NCAA Division I women's champion. The Division I males are usually about 10% faster and this increases as the distance covered increases. Sports are one of those areas where male superiority can't really be debated. Even a judged sport such as gymnastics where the female division is more popular, the men do much more difficult routines despite the fact that the females in their sport represent a larger amount of female athletic talent (as gymnastics are more popular for females than males).
It is curious that this kind of movement always seems to be only interested in obtaining safe, high-paying, white-collar jobs for women. If there is any hint that a job might be Difficult, Dangerous, or Dirty, there is no real push to put women in those roles, even when the pay is high. I have never met a single female welder, for example. A good welder is patient, deliberate, and if the directions don't line up with the situation, they need to ask for further directions. If you wanted to pick a gender most suited for that, would you pick a man? I wouldn't. Yet because it is (very mildly) dangerous, often dirty, and sometimes difficult, most women don't seem to be interested.
Women in fact are better welders on average than men. They just don't want those jobs for some reason, even though they are often high paying.
I do. The term is ill-defined, but in general: if you land the data before you process it's a not-stream.
That's a pretty good way to think about it. A stream is really just a table without disk backing which means you have to be reading from the stream before you write to it. In a streaming system, select queries run forever (or at least with a timeout) and inserts must happen after a select query on the same stream is made for the data to be transmitted through the stream. In this way you can take a stream of incoming data provided by an insert statement(s) and send it to multiple different reading queries (ie selects) which only know they are reading from a named stream, not how data is being fed into that stream. In this way you can build up a graph of streams (plus views, and tables) that process incoming streaming of tuples and only dump said data to disk when you have finished transforming, analyzing it and whatever else you do with it. Generally, customers will "compress" their high volume incoming stream using a group by into a summary of the data which is then written to a data warehouse or database.
I know R. My wife has a Yarn store. WTF are those other things?
Its a distributed exec for Java processes. That's really it. It has crappy monitoring built in that's unnecessary due to SNMP but they built it in anyway because...well I don't know why.
Here's the break down of that claim in more computer sciencey terms: Almost all big data problems are simple counting problems with some stats thrown in. For more advanced clustering tasks, most math libraries have everything you need. Most "big data" sizes are under a few TB of data. Most big data problems are also I/O bound. Single nodes are actually pretty powerful and fast these days. 24 cores, 128 GB RAM, 15 TB of disk behind a RAID controller that can give you 400 MB/s data rates will cost you just barely 5 figures. This single node will outperform a standard 8 node Hadoop cluster. Why? Because the local, high density disks that HDFS encourages are slow as molasses (30 MB/s). And...
Hadoop has a huge abstraction penalty for each record access. If you're doing minimal computation for each record, the cost of delivering the record dominates your runtime. In Hadoop, the cost is fairly high. If you're using a scripting language and reading right off the file system, your cost for each record is low. I've found Hadoop record access times to be about 20x slower than Python line read times from a text file, using the _same_ file system for Hadoop and Python (of course, Hadoop puts HDFS on top of it). In Big-O terms, the 'c' we usually leave out actually matters here - O(1*n) vs. O(20*n). 1 hour or 20 hours, you pick.
Optimization is usually about creating a small inner loop at the expense of setup cost. You can see this in compilers/languages (creating an optimized binary vs a script interpreter), in databases (prepare vs execute), and in these types of big data systems. Hadoop can't and doesn't optimize its inner loop very well at all due to its basic programming interface. It stores each row in an array of Java objects. A better design would process buffers of data with non-copying access libraries to hide this abstraction.
Data processing systems can be thought of on a scale from simple, small systems that prepare each query quickly to scalable systems that take longer to optimize the query but execute it more quickly for each row. So MySQL for instance is at the quick/small end of the spectrum, Oracle near the middle, datawarehouses towards the larger and finally distributed and streaming systems at extremely large end of the spectrum. As you scale to millions of rows per second of throughput, you must have a very optimal inner loop and not touching disk frequently helps greatly. Hadoop does none of this well. SQLStream (see my post above) does it much much better via SQL.
The problem with "big data" is that there are no vendor specs and the implementations are sometimes questionable. There is a provider that does a better which is SQLStream (http://www.sqlstream.com) which has a streaming DB which is controlled via SQL. In addition to normal tables, you have streams which are relational typed conduits though which data flows and windows which are time (and row) based groups of tuples which can be used in agg queries with all the standard SQL functions (there's also Java UDXes and MED support). Designing your middleware on top of a SQL engine is a much better design pattern than doing it all with hand wired Java. All this and about 100x the throughput of a Hadoop program. Disclaimer: I'm an engineer at SQLStream.
IAAP (I am a physician, and a pathologist at that!). In TFA, she notes that the pathology was only marginally more informative by including electron microscopy and immunofluorescent study. I'm not sure what more she's expecting. There's a reason why medical school is 4 years, residency is 3-4 years, and fellowship is another 1-2 years (after 4 years of college for most US citizens). This stuff IS hard, and yes it actually does require a graduate degree. In this specific instance, should the bill explain that it's the standard of care to get EM and IF tests on medical kidney biopsies? Should the bill explain what those tests are? Maybe, but I've never seen a mechanic's bill that explained why part A was used and what that part is normally used for, or how often it's used/replaced. I've never seen any bill that really explained what stuff was for. It's going to be hard for most people to fully understand a medical bill, no matter how clear and un-obfuscated it is.
For medical billing, people are obviously more interested and vested in what's happening, but a lot of the times, the situation is going to be complicated. I don't know what the solution to that is, other than paying physicians for their time (instead of unnecessary procedures and tests) to explain things more clearly.
That's nice and all, but what does that have to do with anything any poster has complained about in this forum. There's a difference between not giving the care correctly and giving the care correctly and then over charging by 5-10x.
BTW, you do realize that when you put one of your medical bills (assuming it has confusing codes and huge amounts of over-billing) in the mail, and that letter goes across state lines, under some interpretations of the law (decided case law, not someone's idea of what a statue means) then you are committing mail fraud with a RICO kicker. That means the law treats your organization like the mafia. Now, several things have to be true for this to kick in, but I've seen examples of all of those elements in most medical bills. So as soon as some lawyer gets wise, you guys are in for the mother of all class action lawsuits. Nobody will win except the lawyers and this is the only remedy we have currently under the law. That's pretty depressing.
I see a big disconnect between performance art and programming, they aren't even closely related. I play the viola and am a programmer if this matters.
Software just has to work properly and be maintainable for it to acceptable and nobody cares how you got it to that point. Music is on a much higher level.
I work in software and do music production on the side. I would say it has to do with the type of music and programming you are doing. Writing a database optimizer is much much much harder than producing an EDM track. And I would say there are far more people who could produce an EDM track than write a database optimizer. And the quality of each are going to be obvious to anyone that uses/hears either of those things. I think if you compared writing a corp web app and playing in a symphony you would find the converse to be true, that is there are fewer people who could play well enough to be in a symphony vs write a corp web app. So I think the real answer is it depends. If you think either music or software is harder or easier than the other, you probably are just more skilled at one of those things.
The distribution is not "U" shaped, and it is not normal (bell shaped). It is high on the left, and slopes downward to the right.
That's called a power distribution. And its what you would expect the distribution of programmers to be given that programmers are drawn from the extreme edge of the normal distribution programming skill in society at large.
I was under the impression that the increased CO2 needs for manufacturing Leafs and Volts more than offset the small reduction in exhaust. Perhaps I'm wrong.
You are wrong, that comparison is CO2 of keeping an old ICE car against CO2 of getting a new EV car. If you are getting a car anyway, the EV is far far far more green.
Because paying $540 dollars a month is better than paying $580 a month. The other fact is that pure gas cars are getting really good milage. The Mazda 6 is rated at 40mpg on the highway. The new CX-5 CUV is over 30mpg hwy. My Chevy Cruze is averaging over 33 mpg for me.
Hahahahahahahahaha, you do realize you couldn't sell those cars in most other countries in the world including China because their MPG is too low....for all of them...now maybe by American standards, but our cars in general get terrible MPG across the board. In fact, most auto makers have to make a special "New World" version for the US as if they wanted to sell that car in Europe or Asia they would have to change the design significantly.
Glad to see, you have divine revelation on your side and issues like the budget, taxes, illegal immigration, and the shrinking middle class aren't real problems for you.
And if it seemed like Republicans gave a shite about those issues, you would have a point. And perhaps the rank and file do. However, those elected with an R next to their name don't and instead seem to spend all their time doing exactly what the OP pointed out. Your ideology and actions might back up your statement, the behavior of those your party elects is not.
So then all you have to do is funnel all your expenses through your business and not get a paycheck of greater than 20k per year.
You must be thick. The point of a 20% flat tax is that there is no way to do that. Income coming in to an entity is taxed at 20%. Doesn't matter if its a foreign entity (as long as the transaction involves an american) or shell corp or whatever, if it passed through your hands its taxed at 20%. In fact, using shell corps and foreign entities would become a bad thing as you would risk double taxation then. So routing all of your income directly to bank account would become the most tax efficient tactic. But it will never happen as tax attorneys, accountants, politicians and CEOs would all band together to stop it.
What exactly... is "their fair share"?
I keep hearing people say that without defining what that really is.
Did you know the wealthy already pay most of the taxes? How much more would *you* like them to pay?
In total amount of taxes paid yes, as a percentage of income, hell no. On average, the rich pay only 1/3-1/4 of their share of taxes (12-15%) as the "average american" (33.5-36%) as a percentage basis. And since the rich are receiving ~90% of the income in the US, they should be paying ~90% of the taxes. See how that works? But they are not even close to that. When you come in to suggest that since they pay 51% (or whatever) of the taxes that's OK, even though they make 90% of the "income". How that even seems fair in your brain is beyond me. If you are rich, you are just a greedy person but I can understand your motivations. If you are not rich, you are truly a fool so please turn in your voter card.
Any articles I've read on this topic have either been:
"Heroic Puppies campaign to free the Hugo awards from the evil clutches of the SJWs" or "Band of Neo-Nazis corrupt the Hugo awards with cheat voting." Come on internet. You can be better than this.
Seems like this is exactly the type of polarizing click bait that the Internet specializes in. Its the cockfighting of debate.
If 80% of all SF writers are white males, then you can expect around that same fraction of the nominees to be white and male.
A guess
Maybe, but not necessarily.
If roughly 50% of English speakers are white, and roughly 50% of those are male, then around 75% of English-speakers are NOT white males.
If one were to assume that writing talent is more or less evenly distributed among the population, and that the truly gifted are increasingly able to rise to the top despite cultural and social biases, then I would expect that the majority of outsanding writers today to not be white males, regardless of the underlying distribution of all the mediocre writers.
Just saying.
And another guess. Guess what, neither of you have any idea as to the actual number. So quit making decisions based upon non-facts, look up the actual number. You have an internet and are currently using it for something, but clearly in aid of making factual points. Based upon your experience of SF fans/writers, what do you think the actual number is? Al Al, most of the people who read your post will have an opinion on what that number actually is. And the guesses you post go against their life experience. This is why you won't get any traction for your ideas here as you are asking people to take what you say at face value against their life experience. If you are going to do that, you will have to provide better proof than a guess you pulled from what your underwear covers.
Thanks for proving the GPs point for her. That wooshing sound over your was logic leaving the room you are in.
Systemd has laudable goals and people do want it. That's why it's been adopted, because some people want what it does. "It fills a use case people have" is what Linus says. And that use case happens to be the one that desired by the people responsible for building distros.
Ah, so its just like the cloud then.
But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.
If that was really the case then people who were given morphine drips in hospitals would have high rates of addiction after leaving the hospital. But this doesn't happen. People who get addicted to Opioids either are in constant, on-going pain (due to injury or other reason) or are purely recreational users who are likely responding to external stresses. Basically, the entire model of addiction you are using is wrong and the numbers on addiction bear this out quite clearly. And before you tell me about "soldier's sickness" after the Civil war, remember that most of those soldiers had on-going, serious pain management issues (due to missing limbs and poor quality surgery at the time). This is why our "war on drugs" has been such a monumental failure, our basic model of addiction is wrong and leads you to believe non-sense (like your post). Heroin is certainly addictive but addiction is a response to stress and pain, not a moral failing or a bio-chemical crutch. A better model is provided by the Rat Park research. Policy using this model as a basis will be much more effective if for no other reason than its a far more accurate model of how humans behave than the practically medieval way we deal with addiction right now.
Most security crews at nightclubs (I moonlight at one sometimes) must have at least 1 woman on them for dealing with problematical females. And generally the female bouncers are quite tough (but not always). Still wouldn't expect the same number of women in those jobs as generally males cause more problems depending on the crowd and thus more male bouncers. Police forces (where many bouncers come from) and other security fields are primarily male so this all works out.
CS is already badly damaged as it is. From the feeling that jobs are going to be at minimum wage rates, to the fact that there is extremely heavy H-1B competition for every single position, be it an entry level coder on up, to the fact that it is looked down upon [1]... all gets people to look for other professions. I've even met high school counselors steering kids away from STEM in general, and into law or business with the phrase, "there is no such thing as an unemployed attorney or CPA".
The last thing the industry needs is a state's foot on the neck of a section of the population interested in this occupation. It just means that that aspiring programmer is now doing other things, and that could be the next Linus Torvalds or Wietse Venema that gets shooed out of the field.
[1]: CS and IT get relatively little respect as a profession compared to others that take as much education and experience. Tell someone you are a veteran IT person, they will immediately ask you what to do because their Windows PC seems slow.
Tell that to my bank account, and my email account that receives at least unsolicited one job offer each day (which generally have a higher salary than a doc or CPA or a lawyer outside of a few select firms plus things they don't generally get like bonuses and options). All that and I can look at myself in the mirror each day (making lots of $$ is law generally requires you giving this up unless you are really lucky or good or both).
Actually, dumb policies like this help me as it will ultimately reduce the number of qualified programmers in the world. Please keep up your mis-information campaign. My banker and descendants thanks you...
I suspect most five-year-olds or confused squirrels know what "ignoring" means :)
Dude, reread his original post. And substitute the word 'learn' for the words 'be told'. Then it will make sense to you. He was a rude asshole, but you are still being either intentional dense or the idiot he says you are.