I'd avoid SVN for anything that isn't a flat text file, otherwise it becomes a pain to merge or determine what the actual difference between two files is. I'm not aware of anything that will make viewing diffs for Word documents human readable. Never mind that some of the people who need to use it will probably be a afraid of it or have even more basic problems like forgetting to commit.
If they're not doing anything that requires absolute security or precise formatting, something like Google docs might work reasonably well. It's simple to use and doesn't require the users to understand the complexities of version control. No idea if there's anything that can be hosted locally in case the company can't or would prefer not to put the data on Google's servers.
Because [nimrod] has been a well known slur for a long time.
Citation needed.
There's a slang dictionary that lists it as a slang word for "penis" from ~40 years prior to it appearing in Bugs Bunny cartoons, but it doesn't appear to be used in that context in the cartoons. The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates that the term may have been used ironically prior to the cartoons to mock an individual as a poor hunter rather than it's original meaning of a great hunter, but notes that it wasn't until the 80's that it was widely used to mean an idiot, geek, etc.
If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please let me know. I couldn't find anything to support that claim after a few minutes of Google searching to support that it's been a well known slur (I can't recall hearing it recently so it may have fallen out of favor) outside of the generation that grew up using it. Seems far more likely that a cartoon unintentionally lead to the language shift because it used a reference that children were unlikely to understand as anything other than an insult.
All of that aside, "nimrod" is at worst on the same level as "dork" or "geek" but is probably closer to calling someone a "doo doo head". Only a nimrod would try to insult someone by calling them a nimrod.
20% yearly growth means that they will double their revenue in a little under four years.
People's failure to understand exponential growth is astounding.
To think Google needs an increasing rate of growth on top of an already immense, but consistent yearly rate of growth to be successful is idiotic. Ten years of 20% yearly growth would mean that Google has roughly six times the revenue as they do now in a decade. If you had a 10% increase every year in the growth rate, after a decade Google would have over 100 times their current revenue. The first example might not even be realistic and the second doesn't even come close to making sense.
Actually, wouldn't you need to demonstrate that the observed outcome (less women in technology) is due to some form of bias or discrimination also a conclusion made with out evidence?
For example, We can observe that on average males are taller than females. One could hypothesis that this is due to some social factor (i.e., lack of encouragement to grow at a young age) or any number of other causes, but to claim that any cause is correct and then require someone to prove you wrong if they want to claim it is not the reason is begging the question.
Making a claim in either direction requires some data. It would probably be better of the poster to whom you responded to have phrased their statement as "Girls aren't getting into technology . .." which is simply just stating the observed outcome we can measure.
No one said Microsoft (or anyone else) has to use the school system to push their program. Would creating after school programs or summer coding camps aimed at young girls not be a reasonable solution?
If the school doesn't want to play ball it doesn't mean that Microsoft can't use other avenues to achieve their goals.
Some countries do have what amounts to squatter's rights in that if you occupy and otherwise unoccupied dwelling for a long enough duration you can claim it as a residency and the actual owner will not be able to evict you.
I tried to find that, because like you I speculated that there was probably a large amount of disparity, but I couldn't find anything with a quick search and didn't have time to do much digging. The figures may very well not be available or not possible to reasonably estimate. It's certainly possible that they are, but I don't care enough to go looking. If someone does have them though I would be curious.
According to an article in the Havana Times the average salary in Cuba (as of 2012) was ~$22 based on a report released by the Cuban government. A few other sources from a quick Google search were in the same ballpark so I'll assume that's reasonable.
So Netflix is roughtly 1/3 of an average monthly salary, which is still a considerable amount, but I would imagine that given the limited access to internet there, the cost of Netflix is hardly the largest barrier.
The "free market" as they'll see it will eat them alive, I'm afraid.
I suspect that the U.S. removing embargoes and trading with Cuba will do a lot to improve their economy. The tourism industry is also likely to see a lot of growth. I don't see how this will "eat them alive" though.
What's the alternative? Keep driving for us until some other company produces self-driving cars and you're out of the job anyway?
Someone is going to do it, so it makes far more sense for Uber to have a business model that allows the company to continue to exist once it reaches that point. If you're going to ask progress to stop so that certain jobs can be saved, why not get rid of your car and go back to a horse and carriage since the automobile wiped all of them out.
It's one thing to know that someone was brutally executed and quite another to see it. Perhaps it was done to push support for military intervention against ISIS. Knowing Fox there's some angle that they're working and I don't think it's as simple as money. Even the act of posting the video and the conversation it creates is going to shape and drive a debate on the subject, even if a very small number of people actually watched it.
Money seems like too simple of an explanation because I imagine most of the clicks are going to the blogs that are now outraged that Fox displayed the video at all. If anyone sees a traffic spike it's going to be the other sites that just throw out short opinion pieces devoid of any real content that can be consumed in a minute or so by the majority of people who don't care about the video itself but are more interested in the drama surrounding it.
Regardless of whether Fox is right or their reasons are right, they're probably going somewhere with this or trying to turn it into something to push their agenda.
While that is certainly true, being able to write code or provide instructions to a computer does enforce a certain way of thinking, which would be beneficial to most people regardless of what they go on to do in life. Personally, I think having young children use something like Scratch to make simple programs is a great way to build problem solving skills, which are far more important that memorizing facts or trivia that aren't going to have much benefit either.
If it really needs to be exceptionally secure and you're dealing with a system that is constantly running, why not just keep any encryption keys in memory only where it's that much harder to get them and have them manually be entered by someone if the system needs to be brought down. That or use some module with the encryption baked in at a physical level to handle encryption and decryption. Yes, it's more expensive, but these systems are already hugely expensive and it makes it incredibly difficult for anyone without physical access to get at the actual data.
Is there some practical reason why it couldn't be done this way or something else that I'm missing outside of the obvious that there's another, cheaper way of doing things?
By the same token, how much cost do you really have as a record label? Obviously any recording studios, office space, etc. will have a continual cost that needs to be covered as well as any staff (sound engineers, secretaries, agents) that are paid some fixed salary, but beyond that what are their expenses that necessitate extracting so much money from artists?
If they're worried about their gravy train drying up, tough shit. No one should be obligated to keep paying them money for services that aren't necessary, especially when they tend to offer crap services to begin with. Stop blowing money on extravagant parties and expensive cars for employees and the costs will come down. If that means they have to live the same kind of lifestyle as most other working class folk, you won't find many who would shed a tear over it.
We're almost to a point where there's no need for them to exist. The services that they provide can't be worth the fees that they extract. Their cut shouldn't be several times larger than the people who actually created the content. There's no good reason for it.
If you saw the TED talk, then you would no the problem with your reply. Namely - which dictionary???
It doesn't really matter. You can choose one and follow it as a matter of policy. At that point you don't have to evaluate language choices on a case by case basis and there are consistent rules that can be applied. There aren't terribly many different major dictionaries to choose from either and many of them tend to be in consensus for the major issues. One might even argue that something like Wikipedia should try avoid informal language as much as possible regardless of the fact simply because non-native speakers will not understand all of the idioms or colloquialisms that exist in the language.
However, my the thrust of my joke has less to do with choosing some set of rules and that sometimes the evolution of language leads to the destruction of language. It's not an issue if a phrase like "the bomb" comes to mean that something is "cool" (a slang word of its own that has become widely used) or desirable because the secondary meaning doesn't overlap with the primary meaning. However, words like nonplussed and priceless have come to have meanings that are at complete odds with each other and literally is so often used in place of figuratively that it has lost all value as well.
Those are all words or phrases that have become useless because the meaning is no longer clear. It has become impossible to effectively convey meaning using those words, which makes them more dead and any words in a dead language.
Another interesting fact. Decimate also has a domain specific definition when working with signal processing. It's quite funny when talking about decimating some data and someone who's unfamiliar with the special meaning gets this quizzical look on their face as the imagine someone bringing down some kind of wholesale wanton destruction on a data set.
It's easier just to draw a line and say that if it hasn't been recognized by a dictionary, it shouldn't be used. Otherwise you have to decide to draw some arbitrary line between what slang or uncommon usages to accept and what slang to reject. Far easier just to go with the accepted form and allow changes if the accepted form changes. Just because a language is alive doesn't mean it should be allowed to run wild in all places.
Never mind any words or phrases which have become so largely and collectively misused such that it makes using them pointless as the meaning is now ambiguous.
That is to say, this begs the question that sanctioning such behavior will literally leave most nonplussed which leaves me bemused and impassionate.
TFA links to a Bloomberg article that say they're going to use 100% renewable energy:
The factory will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, including from a new local solar farm
Presumably that's being done not just for good press for being green but also because of the unreliability of the power grid in the area if what you say is true.
They would probably be better of selling the building to someone else and locating their data center elsewhere, but I suppose they're trying to save face after the whole fiasco involving GT and the sapphire displays.
I believe what he's saying is that boys are more likely (some studies have found boys are five or more times likely) to be autistic or suffer from some autism spectrum disorder . Among other characteristics related to this disorders is difficulty communicating with other people such as having problems being able to tell how another person feels based on facial expression. One theory is that people who are autistic or have autism spectrum disorders may prefer working with computers because it does not require as much social interaction. The computer is essentially devoid of emotion. There are no facial cues or body language, just output messages. That might make boys more inclined to be interested in computers.
Normally it isn't a zero-sum game. Anyone who wants to study can, but if a funding model is introduced that penalizes schools for having too many boys it's likely that you'll see some get excluded, either because there's now less funding available than before if there aren't enough girls in the class or because the school is not able to get enough girls in the class to qualify for funding.
Really, they should just make a basic computer course mandatory in one of the earlier grades. That way everyone will have exposure and if it turns out that girls still aren't interested then people need to start looking for other causes or perhaps it does lead to more interest from girls and it solves the problem in that way.
I don't think a basic computer science class is anywhere near worthless.
On the contrary it ties in with skills like problem solving that are definitely something the could stand more development in young children.
If they need to drop something, they could easily toss out a year of History. Most of it is just memorizing facts (some of which aren't even really true, like Columbus being the first to discover America, etc.) rather than learning some of the more interesting aspects of history.
While that's all well and good, if you end up with legislation that ends up removing funding for computer science programs after the school is unsuccessful at attracting more students in the target demographic, it just goes on to hurt everyone.
If they want more equal participation, fund and introduce a mandatory computer science class at an earlier grade level. That will expose everyone to it and if certain groups of people decide the don't like it, they don't have to take additional classes.
I definitely agree with this. You can even give them some scaffolding and have them make something simple like pong, which you can use to demonstrate the concept of objects by adding multiple balls to the screen at once or making the paddles change size. You can even discuss some simple algorithms like determining how the ball should bounce or how to determine if a player missed the ball.
If you can get someone interested in coding and give them some to demonstrate some core concepts that have easy solutions you'll likely find that many start seeking out additional knowledge to build on what they already have in order to add stuff to a simple game. When I was young and first started learning to code, typing in some simple programs to make basic games is what got me interested enough to learn more in order to modify them or make my own changes to the games.
You could also ask the class about what kinds of problems that they would want to use a computer/smartphone to solve. Invariably someone will suggest something simple enough to make a quick app. There are some people who aren't terribly interested in computers or programming for its own sake, but if you show them how it can be used to solve real problems that they face, it might get them to take more of an interest.
To some people, having the engine is liberating and allows them far more creativity. If you're someone who has an amazing story to tell and an interesting idea for a game, but have very little programming experience, being able to bring your grand vision into existence is going to be a lot more difficult and may prevent some from even trying. We're not telling budding authors to construct their own typewriter and build their own press after all.
At the same time, engine design itself is certainly important, but it's a different kind of creativity. It won't appeal to everyone, but I've found that showing people a basic engine and discussing enhancements or improvements is a good way to get them more interested. If you have a simple engine and let them run into the limitations, they might feel compelled to put in the effort to poke around at the engine itself whereas if you had them start from scratch it might be overwhelming.
Part of the learning process is giving people education in manageable chunks. Obviously there are some who can handle more than others, but even the most brilliant and diligent of students can be overwhelmed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd avoid SVN for anything that isn't a flat text file, otherwise it becomes a pain to merge or determine what the actual difference between two files is. I'm not aware of anything that will make viewing diffs for Word documents human readable. Never mind that some of the people who need to use it will probably be a afraid of it or have even more basic problems like forgetting to commit.
If they're not doing anything that requires absolute security or precise formatting, something like Google docs might work reasonably well. It's simple to use and doesn't require the users to understand the complexities of version control. No idea if there's anything that can be hosted locally in case the company can't or would prefer not to put the data on Google's servers.
Because [nimrod] has been a well known slur for a long time.
Citation needed.
There's a slang dictionary that lists it as a slang word for "penis" from ~40 years prior to it appearing in Bugs Bunny cartoons, but it doesn't appear to be used in that context in the cartoons. The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates that the term may have been used ironically prior to the cartoons to mock an individual as a poor hunter rather than it's original meaning of a great hunter, but notes that it wasn't until the 80's that it was widely used to mean an idiot, geek, etc.
If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please let me know. I couldn't find anything to support that claim after a few minutes of Google searching to support that it's been a well known slur (I can't recall hearing it recently so it may have fallen out of favor) outside of the generation that grew up using it. Seems far more likely that a cartoon unintentionally lead to the language shift because it used a reference that children were unlikely to understand as anything other than an insult.
All of that aside, "nimrod" is at worst on the same level as "dork" or "geek" but is probably closer to calling someone a "doo doo head". Only a nimrod would try to insult someone by calling them a nimrod.
20% yearly growth means that they will double their revenue in a little under four years.
People's failure to understand exponential growth is astounding.
To think Google needs an increasing rate of growth on top of an already immense, but consistent yearly rate of growth to be successful is idiotic. Ten years of 20% yearly growth would mean that Google has roughly six times the revenue as they do now in a decade. If you had a 10% increase every year in the growth rate, after a decade Google would have over 100 times their current revenue. The first example might not even be realistic and the second doesn't even come close to making sense.
Actually, wouldn't you need to demonstrate that the observed outcome (less women in technology) is due to some form of bias or discrimination also a conclusion made with out evidence?
." which is simply just stating the observed outcome we can measure.
For example, We can observe that on average males are taller than females. One could hypothesis that this is due to some social factor (i.e., lack of encouragement to grow at a young age) or any number of other causes, but to claim that any cause is correct and then require someone to prove you wrong if they want to claim it is not the reason is begging the question.
Making a claim in either direction requires some data. It would probably be better of the poster to whom you responded to have phrased their statement as "Girls aren't getting into technology . .
No one said Microsoft (or anyone else) has to use the school system to push their program. Would creating after school programs or summer coding camps aimed at young girls not be a reasonable solution?
If the school doesn't want to play ball it doesn't mean that Microsoft can't use other avenues to achieve their goals.
If the corporations care so much what's stopping them from creating after school programs or summer camps targeted at young girls?
They don't need to go through the school system to effect change in young children.
Some countries do have what amounts to squatter's rights in that if you occupy and otherwise unoccupied dwelling for a long enough duration you can claim it as a residency and the actual owner will not be able to evict you.
I tried to find that, because like you I speculated that there was probably a large amount of disparity, but I couldn't find anything with a quick search and didn't have time to do much digging. The figures may very well not be available or not possible to reasonably estimate. It's certainly possible that they are, but I don't care enough to go looking. If someone does have them though I would be curious.
So Netflix is roughtly 1/3 of an average monthly salary, which is still a considerable amount, but I would imagine that given the limited access to internet there, the cost of Netflix is hardly the largest barrier.
The "free market" as they'll see it will eat them alive, I'm afraid.
I suspect that the U.S. removing embargoes and trading with Cuba will do a lot to improve their economy. The tourism industry is also likely to see a lot of growth. I don't see how this will "eat them alive" though.
What's the alternative? Keep driving for us until some other company produces self-driving cars and you're out of the job anyway?
Someone is going to do it, so it makes far more sense for Uber to have a business model that allows the company to continue to exist once it reaches that point. If you're going to ask progress to stop so that certain jobs can be saved, why not get rid of your car and go back to a horse and carriage since the automobile wiped all of them out.
I wasn't aware that the German people owned the means of production or that private property was abolished.
Don't confuse Socialism with a Social Democracy. One tends to end in utter failure. The other tends to actually work quite well.
It's one thing to know that someone was brutally executed and quite another to see it. Perhaps it was done to push support for military intervention against ISIS. Knowing Fox there's some angle that they're working and I don't think it's as simple as money. Even the act of posting the video and the conversation it creates is going to shape and drive a debate on the subject, even if a very small number of people actually watched it.
Money seems like too simple of an explanation because I imagine most of the clicks are going to the blogs that are now outraged that Fox displayed the video at all. If anyone sees a traffic spike it's going to be the other sites that just throw out short opinion pieces devoid of any real content that can be consumed in a minute or so by the majority of people who don't care about the video itself but are more interested in the drama surrounding it.
Regardless of whether Fox is right or their reasons are right, they're probably going somewhere with this or trying to turn it into something to push their agenda.
While that is certainly true, being able to write code or provide instructions to a computer does enforce a certain way of thinking, which would be beneficial to most people regardless of what they go on to do in life. Personally, I think having young children use something like Scratch to make simple programs is a great way to build problem solving skills, which are far more important that memorizing facts or trivia that aren't going to have much benefit either.
If it really needs to be exceptionally secure and you're dealing with a system that is constantly running, why not just keep any encryption keys in memory only where it's that much harder to get them and have them manually be entered by someone if the system needs to be brought down. That or use some module with the encryption baked in at a physical level to handle encryption and decryption. Yes, it's more expensive, but these systems are already hugely expensive and it makes it incredibly difficult for anyone without physical access to get at the actual data.
Is there some practical reason why it couldn't be done this way or something else that I'm missing outside of the obvious that there's another, cheaper way of doing things?
By the same token, how much cost do you really have as a record label? Obviously any recording studios, office space, etc. will have a continual cost that needs to be covered as well as any staff (sound engineers, secretaries, agents) that are paid some fixed salary, but beyond that what are their expenses that necessitate extracting so much money from artists?
If they're worried about their gravy train drying up, tough shit. No one should be obligated to keep paying them money for services that aren't necessary, especially when they tend to offer crap services to begin with. Stop blowing money on extravagant parties and expensive cars for employees and the costs will come down. If that means they have to live the same kind of lifestyle as most other working class folk, you won't find many who would shed a tear over it.
We're almost to a point where there's no need for them to exist. The services that they provide can't be worth the fees that they extract. Their cut shouldn't be several times larger than the people who actually created the content. There's no good reason for it.
So what you're saying is that all they need to do is sell some shredded letters and market it as "natural mail enhancement" and they should be okay?
If you saw the TED talk, then you would no the problem with your reply. Namely - which dictionary???
It doesn't really matter. You can choose one and follow it as a matter of policy. At that point you don't have to evaluate language choices on a case by case basis and there are consistent rules that can be applied. There aren't terribly many different major dictionaries to choose from either and many of them tend to be in consensus for the major issues. One might even argue that something like Wikipedia should try avoid informal language as much as possible regardless of the fact simply because non-native speakers will not understand all of the idioms or colloquialisms that exist in the language.
However, my the thrust of my joke has less to do with choosing some set of rules and that sometimes the evolution of language leads to the destruction of language. It's not an issue if a phrase like "the bomb" comes to mean that something is "cool" (a slang word of its own that has become widely used) or desirable because the secondary meaning doesn't overlap with the primary meaning. However, words like nonplussed and priceless have come to have meanings that are at complete odds with each other and literally is so often used in place of figuratively that it has lost all value as well.
Those are all words or phrases that have become useless because the meaning is no longer clear. It has become impossible to effectively convey meaning using those words, which makes them more dead and any words in a dead language.
Another interesting fact. Decimate also has a domain specific definition when working with signal processing. It's quite funny when talking about decimating some data and someone who's unfamiliar with the special meaning gets this quizzical look on their face as the imagine someone bringing down some kind of wholesale wanton destruction on a data set.
It's easier just to draw a line and say that if it hasn't been recognized by a dictionary, it shouldn't be used. Otherwise you have to decide to draw some arbitrary line between what slang or uncommon usages to accept and what slang to reject. Far easier just to go with the accepted form and allow changes if the accepted form changes. Just because a language is alive doesn't mean it should be allowed to run wild in all places.
Never mind any words or phrases which have become so largely and collectively misused such that it makes using them pointless as the meaning is now ambiguous.
That is to say, this begs the question that sanctioning such behavior will literally leave most nonplussed which leaves me bemused and impassionate.
A priceless observation wouldn't you say?
The factory will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, including from a new local solar farm
Presumably that's being done not just for good press for being green but also because of the unreliability of the power grid in the area if what you say is true.
They would probably be better of selling the building to someone else and locating their data center elsewhere, but I suppose they're trying to save face after the whole fiasco involving GT and the sapphire displays.
I believe what he's saying is that boys are more likely (some studies have found boys are five or more times likely) to be autistic or suffer from some autism spectrum disorder . Among other characteristics related to this disorders is difficulty communicating with other people such as having problems being able to tell how another person feels based on facial expression. One theory is that people who are autistic or have autism spectrum disorders may prefer working with computers because it does not require as much social interaction. The computer is essentially devoid of emotion. There are no facial cues or body language, just output messages. That might make boys more inclined to be interested in computers.
Normally it isn't a zero-sum game. Anyone who wants to study can, but if a funding model is introduced that penalizes schools for having too many boys it's likely that you'll see some get excluded, either because there's now less funding available than before if there aren't enough girls in the class or because the school is not able to get enough girls in the class to qualify for funding.
Really, they should just make a basic computer course mandatory in one of the earlier grades. That way everyone will have exposure and if it turns out that girls still aren't interested then people need to start looking for other causes or perhaps it does lead to more interest from girls and it solves the problem in that way.
I don't think a basic computer science class is anywhere near worthless.
On the contrary it ties in with skills like problem solving that are definitely something the could stand more development in young children.
If they need to drop something, they could easily toss out a year of History. Most of it is just memorizing facts (some of which aren't even really true, like Columbus being the first to discover America, etc.) rather than learning some of the more interesting aspects of history.
While that's all well and good, if you end up with legislation that ends up removing funding for computer science programs after the school is unsuccessful at attracting more students in the target demographic, it just goes on to hurt everyone.
If they want more equal participation, fund and introduce a mandatory computer science class at an earlier grade level. That will expose everyone to it and if certain groups of people decide the don't like it, they don't have to take additional classes.
That's easy. They just need to stop vaccinating the boys and it should even out.
/ducks
I definitely agree with this. You can even give them some scaffolding and have them make something simple like pong, which you can use to demonstrate the concept of objects by adding multiple balls to the screen at once or making the paddles change size. You can even discuss some simple algorithms like determining how the ball should bounce or how to determine if a player missed the ball.
If you can get someone interested in coding and give them some to demonstrate some core concepts that have easy solutions you'll likely find that many start seeking out additional knowledge to build on what they already have in order to add stuff to a simple game. When I was young and first started learning to code, typing in some simple programs to make basic games is what got me interested enough to learn more in order to modify them or make my own changes to the games.
You could also ask the class about what kinds of problems that they would want to use a computer/smartphone to solve. Invariably someone will suggest something simple enough to make a quick app. There are some people who aren't terribly interested in computers or programming for its own sake, but if you show them how it can be used to solve real problems that they face, it might get them to take more of an interest.
To some people, having the engine is liberating and allows them far more creativity. If you're someone who has an amazing story to tell and an interesting idea for a game, but have very little programming experience, being able to bring your grand vision into existence is going to be a lot more difficult and may prevent some from even trying. We're not telling budding authors to construct their own typewriter and build their own press after all.
At the same time, engine design itself is certainly important, but it's a different kind of creativity. It won't appeal to everyone, but I've found that showing people a basic engine and discussing enhancements or improvements is a good way to get them more interested. If you have a simple engine and let them run into the limitations, they might feel compelled to put in the effort to poke around at the engine itself whereas if you had them start from scratch it might be overwhelming.
Part of the learning process is giving people education in manageable chunks. Obviously there are some who can handle more than others, but even the most brilliant and diligent of students can be overwhelmed.