One could also argue that while those positions are utterly stupid, if enough people will vote for you based on your espousal of those positions than it's also highly intelligent to pay them lip service. Given that we're in the realm of politics, one could also make all manner of other arguments that normally shouldn't be plausible or worthy of much thought, but are within the realm of probability.
It also goes without saying that most every individual is likely to hold some position or behave in some manner that is irrational. I'm not terribly familiar with his platform, so I really can't provide comment much beyond what you've stated. However, it seems incredibly off for a neurosurgeon to believe that homosexuality is a choice when a growing amount of science has pointed in the other direction ever since Simon LeVay's work in the early 90's. I don't know if he's also deeply religious and just looking for excuses to calm the dissonance or something else along those lines, but the facts as I understand them do not make sense.
Seriously, jail time for a non-violent civil offense is asinine.
I'd suggest a small amount of monetary related to the local cost of the media that was infringed (around 2.5 times the actual cost seems reasonable for non-commercial infringement) and then a small amount of community service that's tied to the duration (impractical for some software and other digital goods, but works well for most things) of the infringed content.
This way if someone ever does get in trouble, society doesn't have to bear the cost of imprisoning someone for something that's about as harmful to society as jaywalking. While we're at it, let's get formatting shifting legally codified into the law and return the copyright duration to a more reasonably limit in line with what was originally proposed.
Go look at some of the winners from previous years. Some of the solutions are on such a diabolical level that they might take days or weeks to fully track down and understand and are so convoluted that no one could possibly think it was intentional.
A sufficient number of nuclear warheads would be just as effective. You might have a few people surviving in hardened underground installations, but this is something we could accomplish with today's technology.
There are probably several score of chemical or biological weapons that could also wipe out a planet or better yet wipe out just a targeted species on it while leaving much or most of the planet and its ecology intact.
Unless we've already got so many habitable planets that we can afford to completely destroy one, it's probably better to leave the planet intact and ideally habitable after killing everything on it as presumably the people doing the killing would also want to use it at some point.
Only because the response from the school was wholly inappropriate. Imagine if I borrowed your lawnmower and left it outside so it rusted it a bit and you shoot me in response. Just because I did something wrong doesn't mean that your response is reasonable or lawful.
If they had just given him a lecture and explained why his behavior was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to the teacher that would have been sufficient, but the standard school administrator response these days seems to one of not only throwing common sense out along with the baby and the bathwater, but also hitting the baby with an ax on its way out the window.
First, there's an issue of the age of the people involved, which can lead to statutory rape charges even if both parties clearly consented. The article doesn't list the age of the person at the time he made the comment, but this article indicates that he was 17 at the time. Even failing that, relationships between two people where one is in a position of authority relative to the other are still messy as far as sexual harassment suits go and would be enough to get a teacher fired.
Also, you would care if you were the person about whom these rumors were being spread as that kind of allegation can be career ending on its own. The administration clearly went overboard, but there's a clear difference between insinuating that someone is having sexual relations with their students and jokes about a person being a closeted Jets fan.
It's hardly surprising when kids in high school act immature. That's to be expected, but the administration taking such a disproportionate reaction to something, which is better sorted out with a simple discussion about the seriousness of making such claims and perhaps an apology, is rather disappointing.
Because everyone knows that entry level employees are just as productive as those who have been at a company for several years.
If you find that this is the case, the employees you have aren't very good and perhaps you are better off bringing in a new batch to see if you can get some better prospects. On the other hand, if you have a high turnover rate, you're going to end up lacking the kind of institutional knowledge that makes maintenance of existing code bases much easier or that allows you to refine your products over the years.
Unfortunately stock holders don't like companies that rest on their laurels, especially tech companies. The tech industry has also shown us that no matter what the big thing is today, in 15 years it could very well be gone. For as big as the iPod was for Apple, the phone has completely devoured that market. The only way Apple can sit on their hands is if they control a majority of their own shares, otherwise share holders will always demand growth, which is easier for Apple to do in new or emerging markets rather than in their established product markets.
At some point in the future, most or all cars will self-driving and I would imagine that Apple sees themselves as being the purveyor of luxury self-driving cars, much like they target the high-end of the markets in which they exist today. Personally, I think that they'd be better off getting into large household appliances and tackling the smart home problem, but they've probably spent more time analyzing this than your or I have and think that cars represent more value.
That works great for games where people don't care about the mundane details and just want to have a fun time and given his track record I think that approach is good. However, for an interview, people want more elongated answers that delve into details. He's not obligated to provide such a response, but I don't think anyone would disagree that it would have been a lot more fun if some of the answers were wrapped up in anecdotes or other yarns.
The hormonal issues are often overstated. For instances hyperthyroidism (PDF warning) typically doesn't amount to enough weight to be solely responsible for obesity:
Since much of the weight gain in hypothyroidism is accumulation in salt and water, when the hypothyroidism is treated one can expect a small (usually less than 10% of body weight) weight loss
There are also medical treatments available for most of these issues, which a person should seek as carrying around excessive amounts of weight it hard on the body and is strongly correlated with diabetes and other medical conditions. Eventually those problems will result in a far more expensive medical bill that could be reduced or prevented by treating the initial issues.
People who have no hormonal or glandular problems will still insist that they do, because it obviously can't be them, it must be something else's fault. Just weigh everyone and charge based on total weight of person traveling and their luggage. It's far more simple that way and even if someone does have a legitimate medical condition or has been taking medication that is responsible for their extra weight, it still doesn't change the laws of physics or the need for additional fuel.
Sounds like a classic case of a brilliant engineer/programmer simply lacking in common sense, perhaps in this instance due to being young more than anything.
There's a difference between teaching basic programming constructs and teaching people how to solve problems. The latter skill is universally applicable and something I think is sorely lacking in a lot of people. As society becomes more automated, anyone without problem solving skills or critical thinking ability has no value as they can be replaced by a robot. We can either invest in educating our populace now, or pay for it later when we have a portion of the workforce that's incapable of working.
If your take away from that is that one (probably your) party is better than the other and not that they're both incredibly shit, you're kidding yourself as much as the person you're responding to.
Without changes to diet or doing any exercise I think your options are pretty much limited to violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Just cut out as much of the processed sugar and other junk foods as possible and go walking for 30 minutes every day. The notion that you have to eat completely healthy and spend hours in the gym doing intense workouts is a pretty big misconception. Not eating crap foods and getting a small amount of exercise every day is enough to have a significant effect. That won't turn you into Mr. Universe, but it will improve your overall health by a lot.
It's not about GMO itself, but rather a convenient way to enact protectionist policies that mean Scottish farmers don't have to compete with other countries that can get more efficient yields or have their own governments subsidizing agriculture.
First, none of the crops or seeds they sell have a terminator gene activated so you can produce resistant offspring, it's just illegal to do so without paying Monsanto as long as they hold the patent. Second, patents eventually come to an end which means that people will be able to use this invention for themselves without paying Monsanto anything, which is actually happening this year for some of their products. So for their first generation soybeans, you can now freely keep and replant the seeds without any threat of legal recourse.
Also, there's no requirement that GMO crops be patented. See golden rice for a good example of a GMO food that was designed to save lives and has been given away to be used freely.
If you want patent-free GMO to be readily available, you can pay for the costs associated with developing and release it yourself. Otherwise you can fork over extra tax dollars so the government can fund whatever pet project I feel is a huge benefit to the world as well. Or we can just let some companies shoulder the risk and get their guaranteed monopoly for a while. Another benefit is that the company is going to have to keep developing new products to stay in business whereas the government has far less incentive to keep producing more GMO food after the first few rounds.
Someone always has to pay the cost so that the bleeding edge can become commonplace. Enthusiasts pay for the high cost, high margin products that help make up for selling the mid-range run of the mill parts at low margins to the rest of us. Yesterday's luxury is today's commodity.
Because it is of no benefit for Apple to release it. The only people who care about this data just want to use it to harangue Apple for not conforming to some predetermined standard of workforce racial distribution. Sure, "trade secret" is a bullshit reason, but the reason for wanting the data is just as bullshit, so it's only fair.
The problem, as anyone who has had a problem with Google and needed to talk to a human knows, is that Google doesn't have a lot of staff to deal with this kind of thing. They try to have an algorithm detect and deal with abuses, but they're often wrong or inadequate which leaves regular people without a lot of options.
Because you can't take a bunch of kids that have grown up in dysfunctional family situation and have merely been passed through a failed educational system and magically expect that they'll be able to succeed at a college level in a fields that require a lot of study.
Your idea is like trying to put a roof on a house before you've erected the walls or even laid the foundation. If you want to see more minority representation, you're going to need to fix the underlying issues first. Otherwise you'll just end up spending a lot of effort for very little success whereas with a bottom-up approach, even if you don't have a lot of minorities majoring in the sciences, you'll have more that are attaining the kind of education to break the cycle of poverty.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Under normal circumstances, Apple shouldn't be getting special treatment from the government, nor should they be required to divulge any information about their workforce.
Slashdot Mirror
One could also argue that while those positions are utterly stupid, if enough people will vote for you based on your espousal of those positions than it's also highly intelligent to pay them lip service. Given that we're in the realm of politics, one could also make all manner of other arguments that normally shouldn't be plausible or worthy of much thought, but are within the realm of probability.
It also goes without saying that most every individual is likely to hold some position or behave in some manner that is irrational. I'm not terribly familiar with his platform, so I really can't provide comment much beyond what you've stated. However, it seems incredibly off for a neurosurgeon to believe that homosexuality is a choice when a growing amount of science has pointed in the other direction ever since Simon LeVay's work in the early 90's. I don't know if he's also deeply religious and just looking for excuses to calm the dissonance or something else along those lines, but the facts as I understand them do not make sense.
Seriously, jail time for a non-violent civil offense is asinine.
I'd suggest a small amount of monetary related to the local cost of the media that was infringed (around 2.5 times the actual cost seems reasonable for non-commercial infringement) and then a small amount of community service that's tied to the duration (impractical for some software and other digital goods, but works well for most things) of the infringed content.
This way if someone ever does get in trouble, society doesn't have to bear the cost of imprisoning someone for something that's about as harmful to society as jaywalking. While we're at it, let's get formatting shifting legally codified into the law and return the copyright duration to a more reasonably limit in line with what was originally proposed.
Go look at some of the winners from previous years. Some of the solutions are on such a diabolical level that they might take days or weeks to fully track down and understand and are so convoluted that no one could possibly think it was intentional.
Last year's winner is a rather good example.
A sufficient number of nuclear warheads would be just as effective. You might have a few people surviving in hardened underground installations, but this is something we could accomplish with today's technology.
There are probably several score of chemical or biological weapons that could also wipe out a planet or better yet wipe out just a targeted species on it while leaving much or most of the planet and its ecology intact.
Unless we've already got so many habitable planets that we can afford to completely destroy one, it's probably better to leave the planet intact and ideally habitable after killing everything on it as presumably the people doing the killing would also want to use it at some point.
Only because the response from the school was wholly inappropriate. Imagine if I borrowed your lawnmower and left it outside so it rusted it a bit and you shoot me in response. Just because I did something wrong doesn't mean that your response is reasonable or lawful.
If they had just given him a lecture and explained why his behavior was inappropriate and asked him to apologize to the teacher that would have been sufficient, but the standard school administrator response these days seems to one of not only throwing common sense out along with the baby and the bathwater, but also hitting the baby with an ax on its way out the window.
No they don't. They don't even come from the same language.
See here and here for their respective etymologies.
First, there's an issue of the age of the people involved, which can lead to statutory rape charges even if both parties clearly consented. The article doesn't list the age of the person at the time he made the comment, but this article indicates that he was 17 at the time. Even failing that, relationships between two people where one is in a position of authority relative to the other are still messy as far as sexual harassment suits go and would be enough to get a teacher fired.
Also, you would care if you were the person about whom these rumors were being spread as that kind of allegation can be career ending on its own. The administration clearly went overboard, but there's a clear difference between insinuating that someone is having sexual relations with their students and jokes about a person being a closeted Jets fan.
It's hardly surprising when kids in high school act immature. That's to be expected, but the administration taking such a disproportionate reaction to something, which is better sorted out with a simple discussion about the seriousness of making such claims and perhaps an apology, is rather disappointing.
Because everyone knows that entry level employees are just as productive as those who have been at a company for several years.
If you find that this is the case, the employees you have aren't very good and perhaps you are better off bringing in a new batch to see if you can get some better prospects. On the other hand, if you have a high turnover rate, you're going to end up lacking the kind of institutional knowledge that makes maintenance of existing code bases much easier or that allows you to refine your products over the years.
Unfortunately stock holders don't like companies that rest on their laurels, especially tech companies. The tech industry has also shown us that no matter what the big thing is today, in 15 years it could very well be gone. For as big as the iPod was for Apple, the phone has completely devoured that market. The only way Apple can sit on their hands is if they control a majority of their own shares, otherwise share holders will always demand growth, which is easier for Apple to do in new or emerging markets rather than in their established product markets.
At some point in the future, most or all cars will self-driving and I would imagine that Apple sees themselves as being the purveyor of luxury self-driving cars, much like they target the high-end of the markets in which they exist today. Personally, I think that they'd be better off getting into large household appliances and tackling the smart home problem, but they've probably spent more time analyzing this than your or I have and think that cars represent more value.
That works great for games where people don't care about the mundane details and just want to have a fun time and given his track record I think that approach is good. However, for an interview, people want more elongated answers that delve into details. He's not obligated to provide such a response, but I don't think anyone would disagree that it would have been a lot more fun if some of the answers were wrapped up in anecdotes or other yarns.
The weight of the passengers shouldn't matter by a very wide safety margin.
And you base your claim on your extensive knowledge of the engineering of aircraft or flight experience?
Seems that you would be wrong. Dead wrong.
Since much of the weight gain in hypothyroidism is accumulation in salt and water, when the hypothyroidism is treated one can expect a small (usually less than 10% of body weight) weight loss
There are also medical treatments available for most of these issues, which a person should seek as carrying around excessive amounts of weight it hard on the body and is strongly correlated with diabetes and other medical conditions. Eventually those problems will result in a far more expensive medical bill that could be reduced or prevented by treating the initial issues.
People who have no hormonal or glandular problems will still insist that they do, because it obviously can't be them, it must be something else's fault. Just weigh everyone and charge based on total weight of person traveling and their luggage. It's far more simple that way and even if someone does have a legitimate medical condition or has been taking medication that is responsible for their extra weight, it still doesn't change the laws of physics or the need for additional fuel.
Sounds like a classic case of a brilliant engineer/programmer simply lacking in common sense, perhaps in this instance due to being young more than anything.
John McAfee himself has disowned the software and has put out a video on how to uninstall the software. If anything would make one presume him to lack innocence it would probably be his travel tips.
There's a difference between teaching basic programming constructs and teaching people how to solve problems. The latter skill is universally applicable and something I think is sorely lacking in a lot of people. As society becomes more automated, anyone without problem solving skills or critical thinking ability has no value as they can be replaced by a robot. We can either invest in educating our populace now, or pay for it later when we have a portion of the workforce that's incapable of working.
If your take away from that is that one (probably your) party is better than the other and not that they're both incredibly shit, you're kidding yourself as much as the person you're responding to.
You'll just end up with another batch of idiots that think it's an instruction manual.
Without changes to diet or doing any exercise I think your options are pretty much limited to violating the laws of thermodynamics.
Just cut out as much of the processed sugar and other junk foods as possible and go walking for 30 minutes every day. The notion that you have to eat completely healthy and spend hours in the gym doing intense workouts is a pretty big misconception. Not eating crap foods and getting a small amount of exercise every day is enough to have a significant effect. That won't turn you into Mr. Universe, but it will improve your overall health by a lot.
It's not about GMO itself, but rather a convenient way to enact protectionist policies that mean Scottish farmers don't have to compete with other countries that can get more efficient yields or have their own governments subsidizing agriculture.
First, none of the crops or seeds they sell have a terminator gene activated so you can produce resistant offspring, it's just illegal to do so without paying Monsanto as long as they hold the patent. Second, patents eventually come to an end which means that people will be able to use this invention for themselves without paying Monsanto anything, which is actually happening this year for some of their products. So for their first generation soybeans, you can now freely keep and replant the seeds without any threat of legal recourse.
Also, there's no requirement that GMO crops be patented. See golden rice for a good example of a GMO food that was designed to save lives and has been given away to be used freely.
If you want patent-free GMO to be readily available, you can pay for the costs associated with developing and release it yourself. Otherwise you can fork over extra tax dollars so the government can fund whatever pet project I feel is a huge benefit to the world as well. Or we can just let some companies shoulder the risk and get their guaranteed monopoly for a while. Another benefit is that the company is going to have to keep developing new products to stay in business whereas the government has far less incentive to keep producing more GMO food after the first few rounds.
Someone always has to pay the cost so that the bleeding edge can become commonplace. Enthusiasts pay for the high cost, high margin products that help make up for selling the mid-range run of the mill parts at low margins to the rest of us. Yesterday's luxury is today's commodity.
Because it is of no benefit for Apple to release it. The only people who care about this data just want to use it to harangue Apple for not conforming to some predetermined standard of workforce racial distribution. Sure, "trade secret" is a bullshit reason, but the reason for wanting the data is just as bullshit, so it's only fair.
Obviously no one can until a complaint is filed.
The problem, as anyone who has had a problem with Google and needed to talk to a human knows, is that Google doesn't have a lot of staff to deal with this kind of thing. They try to have an algorithm detect and deal with abuses, but they're often wrong or inadequate which leaves regular people without a lot of options.
Because you can't take a bunch of kids that have grown up in dysfunctional family situation and have merely been passed through a failed educational system and magically expect that they'll be able to succeed at a college level in a fields that require a lot of study.
Your idea is like trying to put a roof on a house before you've erected the walls or even laid the foundation. If you want to see more minority representation, you're going to need to fix the underlying issues first. Otherwise you'll just end up spending a lot of effort for very little success whereas with a bottom-up approach, even if you don't have a lot of minorities majoring in the sciences, you'll have more that are attaining the kind of education to break the cycle of poverty.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Under normal circumstances, Apple shouldn't be getting special treatment from the government, nor should they be required to divulge any information about their workforce.
Your argument also begs the question.