They actually are talking in doublespeak. "We added much-needed features, fixed some bugs, and improved memory performance" roughly translates to: "We added some fluff, removed some core functionality, and made it slower."
The rules of war are put in place not for the enemy, but exist for us. War is an inhumane thing. It is antithetical to our very nature.
Rules of engagement make it easier for us, the everyday people, to stomach. This both applies to the civilian population, and the grunts on the ground. If the acts committed during war becomes too atrocious for people to stomach, public sentiment turns against it, soldiers begin defecting. Vietnam was the perfect example of a conflict nobody except the sociopaths in charge wanted to continue.
Of course, this really only applies for those who are aggressors. The U.S. has not been in an existential war for at least 150 years. Every war since the Civil War has been fought on foreign soil, or in the open waters. Every threat has been to safety and security, but never to existence. Therefore, since there is nothing really at stake anyway, the U.S. can set rules.
In fact, had the Civil War been purely north vs. south, winner-take-all, all bets would've been off. As it were, the conflict was actually over the right to secede, making it a war over an ideology as opposed to territory or extermination. Even so, the atrocities committed during that war make Vietnam pale in comparison (though Vietnam was a special kind of hell for different reasons).
Third, astronomical records at that era were relatively scarce and quite imprecise too.
That's rather presumptuous. They were neither, actually. They didn't go down to the nits back then, but the records are detailed enough that people today can still rely on them despite most records of that day and age having been lost to time. If anything, astronomical records are more reliable than any other record from that period.
Now, it's true record-keeping was sparse in the southern hemisphere (as mentioned in TFA and TFS). But there is still information to be gleaned from less-reliable sources, and indirect references.
Long-term thinking vs. short term thinking. It's primarily a social thing. Some people naturally exhibit it more than others, obviously.
Everyone can be convinced to think long term. Most people just need to be shown that it actually works. And that's why history, and the knowledge of history, is important.
Karl Marx was a smart guy too. There's a difference between realistic thinking, and idealistic thinking. And unfortunately for many people, they tend towards the latter rather than the former.
There's a time and a place for idealistic thinking, and a time and a place for realistic thinking. Knowing when is appropriate of what is the skill that most people lack.
Tea Party is putting an end to the unions, so don't count on good teachers being available any time soon.
Teachers did that to themselves over the past 30 years, unfortunately. They weren't as ready to go on strike, for the sake of their students. So they got shafted every time contract negotiations happened.
Teachers' unions are some of the weakest out there. It's a combination of both the fact that people don't really value education anymore, and that teachers value it highly, over everything else for that matter. The difference means they ultimately get taken advantage of come time to negotiate a better base salary and raises.
And that's why you apply for every position, regardless of its requirements. Sometimes, HR or MBA people writing the requirements just don't know what they want.
That, and companies tend to treat their workforce like crap anyways. Cutting benefits, longer hours, less competent and more stressed management, all comes to a head eventually.
And once people found out they make more money by jumping companies every few years, there's no excuse to remain.
Unfortunately, schools (read, higher education) share the blame here. They promote business degrees and MBA as a way to go if you can't find a job. Reality (and most companies that know how to hire know and practice this) is that an MBA without years of experience in another field is completely worthless. The dirty secret that schools don't really want you to know is that having an MBA right out of school is actually detrimental: over-qualified for entry level, under-qualified for any level of management.
Having an MBA is almost like having passed a cert. Except since it's business and not Windows Server 2008, there's a whole "degree" behind it. It's still just a cert though: worthless if you don't have the fundamentals to something, anything.
A lot of it is the manufacturing. A larger screen means a bigger physical production line, which means defects are more costly.
A smaller screen means the production line size shrinks (as well the throughput increases). Or, more likely, the line size stays the same, but it gets more efficient (because defects tend to be random and localized, so the smaller the screen, the more you can cut "around" the defective part).
That's because we've gone from a Republic to a direct democracy. There's a difference between electing our own senators, and having our state legislature pick them. It's a subtle difference, and the current method appears to be better. But it's not.
The variations are also too great. If you start taking everything into account, you both need a fairly large and varied data set, and you'd get so much data back it's not easy to process wholly. Likely, the best way of doing these things is to go fishing, cast a wide net, and see what you haul up. But there are financial and other consideration, and having a large sample size may not be possible. In which case, it'd be necessary to find weak correlation and focus on that in a subsequent experiment.
The best way of understanding these results (and the results of most social science experiments) is not to take it as definitive, but to recognize that it is but a small piece of the puzzle, and answers only a specific question. It adds to our understanding, but it certainly is not all there is to understand.
It's not propoganda. It's not selling out. Deriding those who possess charisma is no more than self-righteous indignation. It's sour grapes.
Your attitude is exactly the problem with engineers and scientists. It's the problem with how we think, and how we automatically assume others should and will think (the same way). We think the results stand on their own. We think that just because it's True, people will automatically see it to be true. This is wrong (not to mention that we don't know the Truth, only get closer to it with time). This is merely an ideal. It is what should happen. The logic, the mathematics, points to this thought process. See where I'm going? It's not reality, insomuch as mathematics is an exact representation of reality. Reality is vastly different. People are not logic. They're not mathematically inclined. Most of them are barely educated.
This dissonance is why scientists and engineers do not get the recognition they deserve, and hence the results they champion. They don't understand why despite having both equations and numbers, people just don't get it. The answer is that they don't care about the numbers. They don't care about the equations. They care about how their neighbors think. They care about how their coworkers think. They care about still having a job so that they can put food on the table for themselves and their kids, those other people a thousand miles away be damned.
Success lies not just in the quality of the information, but the presentation of the information. It lies in being able to convince other people that the information is valuable, that it's trustworthy, and important. Steve Jobs' iPod didn't succeed because it was technically superior (No wireless. Less space than a Nomad.). It succeeded because he knew how to present it. He knew how to make it fashionable, and interesting, and desirable. It succeeded because it was Steve Jobs selling it, and not Steve Wozniak.
But don't forget that the iPod did have its merits. It wasn't just bullshit. The interface was interesting and intuitive, and not half as clunky as other MP3 players. Facts can't stand on their own, but you can't speak effectively without facts. You need both. We, as scientists and engineers, need both.
Slashdot Mirror
TFS mentions Frys. They are awesome online and in store.
Not having a job also is a marker for having a lot of spare time.
Or improve the government managing the education.
I'm not sure how having an actual lens makes for an inferior eye (the nautilus' eye has no lens). Unless you're talking about squids.
They actually are talking in doublespeak. "We added much-needed features, fixed some bugs, and improved memory performance" roughly translates to: "We added some fluff, removed some core functionality, and made it slower."
The rules of war are put in place not for the enemy, but exist for us. War is an inhumane thing. It is antithetical to our very nature.
Rules of engagement make it easier for us, the everyday people, to stomach. This both applies to the civilian population, and the grunts on the ground. If the acts committed during war becomes too atrocious for people to stomach, public sentiment turns against it, soldiers begin defecting. Vietnam was the perfect example of a conflict nobody except the sociopaths in charge wanted to continue.
Of course, this really only applies for those who are aggressors. The U.S. has not been in an existential war for at least 150 years. Every war since the Civil War has been fought on foreign soil, or in the open waters. Every threat has been to safety and security, but never to existence. Therefore, since there is nothing really at stake anyway, the U.S. can set rules.
In fact, had the Civil War been purely north vs. south, winner-take-all, all bets would've been off. As it were, the conflict was actually over the right to secede, making it a war over an ideology as opposed to territory or extermination. Even so, the atrocities committed during that war make Vietnam pale in comparison (though Vietnam was a special kind of hell for different reasons).
Third, astronomical records at that era were relatively scarce and quite imprecise too.
That's rather presumptuous. They were neither, actually. They didn't go down to the nits back then, but the records are detailed enough that people today can still rely on them despite most records of that day and age having been lost to time. If anything, astronomical records are more reliable than any other record from that period.
Now, it's true record-keeping was sparse in the southern hemisphere (as mentioned in TFA and TFS). But there is still information to be gleaned from less-reliable sources, and indirect references.
Long-term thinking vs. short term thinking. It's primarily a social thing. Some people naturally exhibit it more than others, obviously.
Everyone can be convinced to think long term. Most people just need to be shown that it actually works. And that's why history, and the knowledge of history, is important.
Karl Marx was a smart guy too. There's a difference between realistic thinking, and idealistic thinking. And unfortunately for many people, they tend towards the latter rather than the former.
There's a time and a place for idealistic thinking, and a time and a place for realistic thinking. Knowing when is appropriate of what is the skill that most people lack.
Tea Party is putting an end to the unions, so don't count on good teachers being available any time soon.
Teachers did that to themselves over the past 30 years, unfortunately. They weren't as ready to go on strike, for the sake of their students. So they got shafted every time contract negotiations happened.
Teachers' unions are some of the weakest out there. It's a combination of both the fact that people don't really value education anymore, and that teachers value it highly, over everything else for that matter. The difference means they ultimately get taken advantage of come time to negotiate a better base salary and raises.
And that's why you apply for every position, regardless of its requirements. Sometimes, HR or MBA people writing the requirements just don't know what they want.
Not evil. Merely amoral. Sociopathic. But not evil. Evil requires actually knowing good and acting against it.
That, and companies tend to treat their workforce like crap anyways. Cutting benefits, longer hours, less competent and more stressed management, all comes to a head eventually.
And once people found out they make more money by jumping companies every few years, there's no excuse to remain.
Unfortunately, schools (read, higher education) share the blame here. They promote business degrees and MBA as a way to go if you can't find a job. Reality (and most companies that know how to hire know and practice this) is that an MBA without years of experience in another field is completely worthless. The dirty secret that schools don't really want you to know is that having an MBA right out of school is actually detrimental: over-qualified for entry level, under-qualified for any level of management.
Having an MBA is almost like having passed a cert. Except since it's business and not Windows Server 2008, there's a whole "degree" behind it. It's still just a cert though: worthless if you don't have the fundamentals to something, anything.
A lot of it is the manufacturing. A larger screen means a bigger physical production line, which means defects are more costly.
A smaller screen means the production line size shrinks (as well the throughput increases). Or, more likely, the line size stays the same, but it gets more efficient (because defects tend to be random and localized, so the smaller the screen, the more you can cut "around" the defective part).
You'll need those extra pixel density to see the bars of service you've got when you're holding it wrong.
That's because we've gone from a Republic to a direct democracy. There's a difference between electing our own senators, and having our state legislature pick them. It's a subtle difference, and the current method appears to be better. But it's not.
The variations are also too great. If you start taking everything into account, you both need a fairly large and varied data set, and you'd get so much data back it's not easy to process wholly. Likely, the best way of doing these things is to go fishing, cast a wide net, and see what you haul up. But there are financial and other consideration, and having a large sample size may not be possible. In which case, it'd be necessary to find weak correlation and focus on that in a subsequent experiment.
The best way of understanding these results (and the results of most social science experiments) is not to take it as definitive, but to recognize that it is but a small piece of the puzzle, and answers only a specific question. It adds to our understanding, but it certainly is not all there is to understand.
Marketing.
It's not propoganda. It's not selling out. Deriding those who possess charisma is no more than self-righteous indignation. It's sour grapes.
Your attitude is exactly the problem with engineers and scientists. It's the problem with how we think, and how we automatically assume others should and will think (the same way). We think the results stand on their own. We think that just because it's True, people will automatically see it to be true. This is wrong (not to mention that we don't know the Truth, only get closer to it with time). This is merely an ideal. It is what should happen. The logic, the mathematics, points to this thought process. See where I'm going? It's not reality, insomuch as mathematics is an exact representation of reality. Reality is vastly different. People are not logic. They're not mathematically inclined. Most of them are barely educated.
This dissonance is why scientists and engineers do not get the recognition they deserve, and hence the results they champion. They don't understand why despite having both equations and numbers, people just don't get it. The answer is that they don't care about the numbers. They don't care about the equations. They care about how their neighbors think. They care about how their coworkers think. They care about still having a job so that they can put food on the table for themselves and their kids, those other people a thousand miles away be damned.
Success lies not just in the quality of the information, but the presentation of the information. It lies in being able to convince other people that the information is valuable, that it's trustworthy, and important. Steve Jobs' iPod didn't succeed because it was technically superior (No wireless. Less space than a Nomad.). It succeeded because he knew how to present it. He knew how to make it fashionable, and interesting, and desirable. It succeeded because it was Steve Jobs selling it, and not Steve Wozniak.
But don't forget that the iPod did have its merits. It wasn't just bullshit. The interface was interesting and intuitive, and not half as clunky as other MP3 players. Facts can't stand on their own, but you can't speak effectively without facts. You need both. We, as scientists and engineers, need both.
That's what this paper is about.
Don't forget the Polish. They'll help find those WMDs too.
The flaw is applying logical reasoning to those who outright reject logical reasoning. It's as futile as painting the sky green.
So you're saying he's resting right now? That explains everything.
I expect Dish is going to have a few open positions soon.
Improving? How about making sure there's no hidden backdoor in the code first?
Tell that to Joseph Nacchio.