All animals that received the drug lived, no matter when their treatment started; three monkeys that were not treated died.
We're not told the size of the control group, but if it were 18 monkeys to match the treated group, you had a very hardy set of monkeys or a less aggressive strain of the virus.
It is interesting to see how people here define 'Taking Notes'.
There seem to be the two polar extremes of 'feverishly transcribing everything' and taking no notes whatsoever. There is a good middle ground of listen, learn, document your understanding.
Apart from the distraction, laptops are poor because you just cannot sketch a diagram or simple flowchart as quickly as you can on paper. Even formal logic symbols, set notation or any of those visual representations of relationships are hard to come by quickly.
Scribbling down your understandings as they come to you is more efficient than just listening, because translating the discovery into your own words and writing it down are two powerful mnemonic devices. You also get to choose the words that best describe the understanding you have gleaned, rather than using someone else's words.
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
Ah the "walking along the street' meme. As opposed to the checking out peoples houses and yards in the pouring rain in a suburb which has a recent high incidence of break ins? The first one wouldn't be a reason for neighbourhood watch to call it in. the second one probably would, and was what was testified to by the 911 Operator, the nieghbourhood watch organiser and the lady who actually had a home invasion in the area.
What are the odds of getting six white people on a jury? What are the odds of tossing heads six times in a row?
Different maths. Head or Tails on an unbiased coin is random chance. Jury selection is just that, selection.
Specifically jury selection is meant to rule out bias. The prosecution will move to strike any juror that strongly opposes their side. The defence tries the same thing. So you should end up with the least biased pool of jurors.
In this case, the prosecution had a technically weak case. They had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, yet the forensics were a nightmare, most of their witnesses were testifying in favour of the defendant and the witnesses who were firmly in their camp had had initial statements and depositions taken in very dubious circumstances. So they were going with the hopes that an emotional plea would get around that burden of proof.
The defence on the other hand had a technically strong case, for all the reasons cited above. So they needed people who wouldn't have preconceived notions or agendas, who would let the evidence and rule of law decide.
So the union of the sets {people more likely to be swayed by emotion} and {people least likely to have prejudicial knowledge of this case} turned out to be women who were mostly white (one was I believe hispanic). Either the prosecution or the defence struck off everyone else.
Maybe so but did George Zimmerman have any good reason to get out of his vehicle in the first place? If I thought I was being stalked by someone I might try to jump them too.
Well the 911 operator asked him where TM was going. That's when he got out of the car to find out. When the 911 Operator asked if he was following TM he said yes and the Operator told him 'you don't have to do that' and he said 'OK'. They then went on to discuss addresses or locations where the cops could meet him.
Why he got out of his car was done to death in the trial, and the 911 Operator was stepped through every line in the conversation. It's available on youtube
Only one witness said that GZ was on top, and that was recanted because they explained that the larger person on top and they had assumed it was GZ because the media kept showing a 14 year old picture of TM. Once they realised that GZ was the smaller person they reversed the named positions.
She should have been sued for wrongful death. She would have spent the rest of her life paying whatever she makes to the family of that little girl and the rest of us wouldn't have had our rights trampled in the process.
LK
From the article:
The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website, and that Drew directly or indirectly did so, but it acquitted Drew of having violated Terms of Service in furtherance of the tortious act. That is, the jury ruled that Drew is guilty of relatively lower-level crimes for violating MySpacs Terms of Service (for being involved in the setting up of a fake MySpace account). It acquitted Drew for any role in inflicting distress on Meier or for anything related to Meier's suicide. The maximum allowed penalty for the misdemeanor violations are one year in prison for each violation, although the majority of federal misdemeanors result in a sentence of probation.
So any issue of wrongful death, injury etc seems to have been thrown out by the jury. All the morally reprehensible stuff was removed from the table by a jury of her peers.
Even using the account to further the tortuous act was kicked by the jury. Everything she allegedly did which I find wrong was found not guilty by the jury.
Yes, she seems like a bad person from what I know. But the jury apparently did not see enough proof that she was. But people are applauding because she was found guilty of something most people haven't considered a crime as punishment for a crime which she was found not to have committed.
I think you'll find that "skill at the job" is, ultimately, what determines the size of that pay check.
Actually it is one of three factors. Probably not even the most impoirtant of the three.
If you're highly skilled you will probably be paid a lot more for your time than someone who is just starting out.
Here you are not fairly comparing apples with apples. You are comparing skill with experience. And experience is the equivalent of time. Someone in a grad program will probably not be on anything like what a 10 year veteran will be on. Sure there is an assumption being made that skill has amassed over time, but you are basically being rewarded with an assumed amount of skill for time played, or worked as the case may be.
And the third thing that matters is ability to sell yourself. Which the author of the original piece didn't get at all. Group > Solo because introverts generally cannot sell themselves well. I've moved jobs 4 times in my career, each time to something either more fun or with much better pay.I could do this thanks in part to my ability to sell myself and in part due to the fact that I have invested time in certifying myself on the technologies I work with. There's that time element again. I have known some brilliant people who will never have an above average job because they will not get the certifications required to make them a saleable asset.
And no I don't want to turn it into a debate on the relative merits of certs or whether they are worth anything in sensible terms, the reality whether I like it or not is that they do open doors that would otherwise be shut. I am a realist in this.
Also I have heard of people who can get to level 60 in 5 days total playing time. I can't get to 60 in 20 days total playing time. Those guys have more skill than me at the game and are getting more out of their time investment than I am.
And when it comes to guilds/groups, surprisingly enough you get selected on your skill levels. Sure, you will get into more random pick up groups if you are spending more time in the game, but I have found that once players have grouped with me, they will generally invite me back because I perform my role in the team with average or better skill and I play well with others. I know plenty of people who I would never play in a group with again because not only do they have no skill, they cannot identify the fact that they have no skill, so there is little hope for self improvement. I have also been in groups where people do not play well with others, and they do not get invited back either.
These are all 'real life' skills that the author cannot identify with. I get plenty of job offers from people who I have worked for/with before who know I am good at what I do and I play well with others. The same skills that pay off in WoW. If I joined a project and called everyone who hadn't configured large scale BGP a n00b, I'd be on their ignore and don't invite again lists so quick it would be funny to watch.
And finally in WoW as in real life, if your Dad has a lot of money, you can circumvent both skill and time.
Re:OK, that's obvious on the surface...
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
I would agree with you if the H1-B hire were underpaid (like the outsourcing of some clothes/shoes factories) but AFAIK that's not the case.
You really are trying to limit your Knowledge then aren't you? The article that started this thread is a survey of exactly that and an approximation of how much less H1-B workers are getting.
But now that you know that the H1-Bs are underpaid, your position on the ethics of the situation has changed?
I could go to the UK, where the exchange rate hovers around double the Australian dollar, and slum it for 2-3 years and earn enough to have a good housing deposit over here. Does that mean the UK engineers are overpaid because houses and the cost of living are more expensive there?
A foreign engineer probably does not have the same level of university debt that a fully trained American engineer has, and if they 'slum it' living on minimal outlay for 3-5 years in America thay can be set up for life back home due to exchange rates and the much lower costs of living. An American doesn't get that exchange rate or cost of living bonus when they go home. They need to earn enough money to create a future at American rates.
Re:Slightly incorrect research.
on
The H-1B Swindle
·
· Score: 1
Other issue is that it does not compare apples to apples: most H1b are non-managerial positions with relatively low experience, while national average includes middle managers. One need to compare H1B to the people in the same position
You are so right he didn't compare apples to apples. The H1-B positions were mostly for programmer-analysts while the national average he used for local workers was 'programmer' because it was the lesser paid of the 'programmer' and 'analyst' classifications. So he weighted the statistic in favour of the H1-Bs and they still ended up getting less on average. Of course you would know that if you had read the article and didn't have the attention span of a poodle.
And 'manager' would be a different job classification again.
Apple are doing nothing necessarily wrong, as they could claim that their software could be used to organise either legitimate digital music or our own music that we created. Even the iPod could go under that sort of (fairly specious) claim.
iTunes itself isn't a problem, but Apple should be absolutely vulnerable to a lawsuit on the iPod front. IANAL of course. Before iTunes there was no legal way to get tunes onto an iPod in Australia. So they were supplying a product that not only encouraged a copyright violation, it almost required one to use. Even now I do not know if iTunes actualy grants a license for downloaded music to be copies onto an iPod or multiples thereof?
Sure there are free audio elements out there which could be used legally on an iPod, but please don't try to convince me that the bulk of iPod users only have this stuff on their 'Pods
After a quick perusal of the site, I cannot see the licence under which I would purchase songs from this store. However the site does have instructions on how to burn the songs to CD and copy them to an iPod. So unless the licence explicitly allows this, they could be as guilty as Kazaa of encouraging copyright infringement.
By definition, half the drivers are "better than average" and the other half are "worse than average".
Only if you do not know what average means. Average means you take a set of values and divide it by the number of elements in the set. So the average of 1,8,9,10 and 10 is 38/5 or 7.6. 80% of the numbers in that set are above the average.
Applying the same math to drivers, if 1/3 of drivers have had 2 accidents and 2/3 have only had one accident than the average number of accidents is 4/3 per driver. 66% of drivers would have a better than average driving record.
The term you are confusing with average is median. By definition half of the drivers are better than the median and half are worse. In the 1,8,9,10 and 10 sample above the median would be 9.
The median is often a better comparison value because extreme values on either fringe can affect the average disproportionately to the number of values. This is why housing prices for an area are quoted based on the median house price rather than the average.
Applying these statistics back to the question at hand.
I feel pretty confident in saying that 69% of all workers didn't perform above average, so why should they be expecting a reward?
It is easy to be an above average worker in any company productivity-wise, because you always have management pulling down the average. In many cases they actually throw negative values of productivity into the mix. If 69% of your company are actually performing below average then either you have too much management, or you are a company that supplies project management services.
If a games system allows cheating, this means that there is a problem with the design of the games system, end of story. **NOTHING** that runs on a person's own machine should make any difference whatsoever, even if the client itself is modified, because the point of control should be at the network interface on the server end.
You have a very limited view of cheating, which seems to be modifying numbers or statistics. Either that or you think that the far end server should be generating the images and sending them to your PC to replay, which is impractical. And even then it wouldn't really affect the healing cheat pointed out below, because all of the information can either be picked up by the client, or inferred.
An example of non numerical cheating would be a thief sneaking up on a player. If they are of a similar level, the thief may be hidden except for a very brief flicker. The difference in levels and skills determines how prolonged and often this flicker would happen. It is up to the player being snuck up on to be aware and notice these flickers. It is up to the thief player to keep obstructions between himself and the potential victim until he can get behind him or close enough to strike.
A well coded server may stop presenting the thief data to my environment when he is 'out of phase', but if modify my client so that a big red ball appears at the location a thief phases out and make alarms sound, that would constitute cheating in my book. Furthermore, I assume you are not expecting the server to work out which parts of said thief should be visible through a bush and instead throws it to the client to draw in the intervening obstacles. This means even if the thief hides behind obstacles I can still 'see' him because my client is modified.
That was just an example. You could make people hiding behind obstacles appear as a glowing red outline. You could automate functionality that should require skill, such as having a healing module that calculates the damage your party memebrs are taking, factors in how long it expects the assailants of each party member to survive, the hate level each monster has built up towards each character and then automatically cast the most powerful healing spell on the most needy recipient that will not exceed the monsters hate thresholds.
Or are you of the mind that anything you can do is not cheating because anyone else could do it too? In soccer it is against the rules to handle the ball unless you are the keeper, yet Maradonna had his hand of God goal. Anyone else could punch the ball into the net too, but it was still against the rules, or cheating.
Actually DNS for IPv6 is more critical than that. Two things cause issues.
Firstly, multihoming is achieved differently in IPv6. Instead of advertising your/24 or whatever your network slice is to multiple upstream peers, you will instead request different equal sized slices from different upstreams. The host portion of your addresses will remain the same for a given server, but based on the upstream provider it is speaking through, its network prefix may be changed at your network boundary. If you only use one of the full addresses to access the site, and that link goes down, the site is unavailable to you only, while the rest of the DNS using internet can pick up the alternate addresses. Also you would be locked into a provider, because moving to a different point in the IP hierarchy would change your IP addresses and customers would be unable to find you again. And the stationery reprints would be fun too.
and Secondly, if IP addresses became the default resource locaters, you would probably have fights over addresses like 1::F00D and you could always have legal issues between 2:D0::F00D and 2::D0:F00D
"We are saying that we created the internet therefore we own it therefore we control it." "..we are saying that we don't want people who are so fond of censorship to fuck with ours."
"I wish I had mod points now, because you and many others on this topic should be modded into oblivion."
I understand your concern. America owns the internet, so the only censorship should be American censorship. And if only you had the power to censor anyone who disagreed you the world would be a better place.
I haven't seen the patent first hand, but often something obvious now, wasn't at that time. If it were then why wasn't someone else doing it already.
I can list many examples of this. The mouse, keyboard, screens, printers, windowing environment, The Internet, an Operating system and even a CPU and the IC chips, were at the time major conceptual steps forward.
... because you are talking about new 'things'. Except maybe the keyboard because as a standalone device it was an aesthetic change from older computers where the keyboard formed part of the computer box as opposed to being a peripheral. And that was an extension from the typewriter that the computer emulated. So no big paradigm shifting stuff there, just evolution
That being said, comparing this 'innovation' to those is pathetic. This 'innovation' is using a database to store and change data. Which is really the point of databases. It's not novel.
Ah but it is customer data or customer billing data. Well, every company I have worked with has had at least one database that fulfilled this specific purpose. In fact many databases or implementations thereof are sold and customised to this particular function
It is realtime data or based on the account balance before providing services? Credit Cards, EFTPOS, even phone cards have been providing that feature for years.
Ah but it is a cellphone. And we have not done all of the above with a cellphone before. Ok so is your contention then that every time a new technology emerges, all existing business processes that can be implemented with this new technology are now patentable provided you mention the new technology by name in your patent.
From your list above, I agree, the mouse was new. And windowing systems were new. Assuming they were both coverable by individual patents, fair enough (Because the software is/isn't patentable argument is immaterial to my point). Now some smart bunny comes along and invents the touchpad and patents it. Should it now be possible to patent 'A windowing system that is controlled by a touchpad'? The windowing system is doing everything it did before.
And in the same vein, you have a database that checks available funds, which has existed in many variants in the past, only now it is being accessed by a mobile phone instead of a credit card or phone card. That is a database doing everything it did before. You may be first to market with that particular arrangement of features, but it that does not make it non-obvious.
So if it was non-obvious, why didn't companies do it before? Well, until competition hotted up it was easier to lock people into contracts and get profits on their unused funds each month. It was free money without providing a service. But pay as you go can be cheaper and safer for the customer, so new companies could undercut them. This made the new pricing method viable.
If an Indian can code sorting algoritms every bit as well as I can, at a tenth the cost, why hire the American?
What, exactly, did you think was the point of globalisation? Globalisation is succeeding. The most competetive producers are getting the work, and prices for products continue to decrease.
Of course if you refer to Americanization disguised as globalisation, where all the intellectual property is owned by the US and used to tax other nations who actually produce things, then yes it does appear to be failing.
Of course you still do get FTAs which allow America to destroy localised industries by product duymping, and countries willing to adopt the DMCA just to be allowed to sell to America
Just imagine how much worse it could get if most countries scaled copyright back to 20 years and stopped paying a culture tax to Hollywood et al. Or when America runs out of credit and can no longer afford to be the biggest consumer?
The only time to leave that first job is when you have the second job lined up. There seems to be a large lack of reality inherent in the attached article
Don't work in cubicles, ever. Working in cubicles is the sure sign that you're not working for a successful company. Imagine the smartest person you know, working in your field. Now imagine how they would react if they were told they're going to work in a box with no door or roof, allowing them no privacy.
Many graduates will never get a job with this advice. Most of the companies I have seen with graduate programs are large companies which means cubicles. Of course it also means a very good name on your resume, graduate rotations so you can experience different workstreams and some form of mentor program if you care to take advantage of it.
It also means many of the evils that come with corporations such as bad bosses, bad methods and general cluelessness. These can be opportunities to learn, or the bane of your existance. They can be both if you choose to learn everything you can from them and then do not move on. Learn how to achieve things in the corporate world, how to persuade management without offending them. That way when you go work at a smaller firm you will be able to communicate with your customers on their terms and understand where their requirements are coming from. If you have never experienced ISO9000 or the like from the inside you can never really appreciate some customer requirements.
This guy is setting himself and a number of people who buy into his philosophy for a rude shock. If you do not have the perfect boss, move on. If your boss allocates a function to a co-worker that you think you are better prepared for, move on. If your boss does not accept your estimates on times, move on. Basically if you are not Lord of all the eye can see, move on.
Reality is, some bosses are pains in the butt. So are customers. Learn to work with and aroudn them, then when you have learned all you can and learned how to recognise this type, feel free to move on. If you are a programmer advising the boss on how to manage a server, and he has server gusy for that, then there is a balance you need to strike. The boss is paying the other guy to perform these tasks. If he isn't up to scratch the boss should move him out and get someone else in. He shouldn't be delegating to you the tasks from other departments that you want. I have seen this issue so often with new people in companies who want to focus on what interests them and not on the job they were employed to do. The other guy probably can't program, so the boss would be paying two resources for the same role, and his project would be behind.
If you want to be proactive, I support it, ubt start in house. Suggest improvements to your own processes, document the undocumented, set standards. Then you get your bosses attention and suggestions for other areas will get more attention. But if you are a grad and you come in creating issues for other workers, you are the one who will suffer.
And you are a graduate, and you are giving estimates on how long it will take you to complete a task. Do you always have only one task or are you expected to run multiple jobs at once? You need to learn to negotiate. You can have this module in 8 days, but one of these others will slip. Email is your negotiating friend, as long as you use it as a record of agreements as opposed to a blackmail tool.
Finally, you need to stay in your first job for about 2 years. This gives you a job history as well as a reputation ofr being able to commit. 3 weeks in a job before kicking it will look negative on any resume, and you won't get a reference worth squat. The first 5 years in IT were hard work taking the job that best equipped me to get another job. Now I get to choose what I want to do and where I work, and I can demand an office. But I earned that, I didn't just complain or walk out when it wasn't handed to me
I don't know where you pulled your definitions from.
Facts are evidence. Well facts can be used as evidence. It is a fact that I was born in Africa. I do not know what this is evidence for/of?
Evidence is not truth. Ok from the above. The fact that I was born in Africa is evidence of something? which is not the truth?
Truth is supported by facts and evidence. I don't even know what this means? The facts are truth, the truth is a fact.
Truth is. Facts are. Evidence can be used to discover facts and truth. The truth or the facts do not change based on the evidence you can find.
If farmers are abducted and probed by aliens, then that is a fact and it is also the truth. That there is not evidence to lead us to believe that this is a fact or the truth would not in any way make it less a fact or the truth.
I believe that evidence was distorted to lead the public to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Did that make the existence of WMDs a fact or the truth? No WMDs have been found. Does that make their non-existence a fact or the truth? It is probable that we will never know the facts or truth about WMDs, all we have is our personal beliefs based on the evidence.
It will never be the sole result of a decision to fire, or a decision to get a raise, at least, not in the IT profession.
I've found the best way to get a raise is to switch jobs or get a promotion, both of which have required written english skills.
Also to get ahead you have to be recognisable from the crowd. If you correct your bosses work privately, and can do it in a helpful manner, over time you may be asked to proofread stuff, and then you may actually be asked to write technical briefs for customers. Nobody likes to look foolish in front of a crowd, so if you can protect your boss from looking foolish by warning them in advance, you are valuable to them. This makes you visibly competent to your boss, and gives you a value over others at your level, which is useful at raise/promotion time.
Your other options if you have english skills are to ignore mistakes your boss makes, or mock them for them. If you don't have adequate English skills you do not even have those options. And then maybe you wouldn't know the opportunities having and expressing English skills brings you.
Of course having said that...
It will never be the sole result of a decision to fire, or a decision to get a raise, at least, not in the IT profession.
I have no basis to disagree with you. But only because you do not seem to know the difference between the sole cause of an action and the sole result of an action. I don't know anyone who has been either fired or received a raise and responded by getting better English skills.
Actually there are some good character opportunities in that list, and some horrific ones.
Captain America never struck me as having any depth. Was always a goody two shoes, and I really don't know how much mileage you can make out of him being frozen in ice. Maybe you can go with something Indiana Jonesish with the Nazis / Hydra? And end the movie with him being frozen. Which might be something I could watch.
Hawkeye - The original seemed a bland character with a bow, however the ultimate series seems to have made him more a trigenometry / geometry genius who expresses himself with a bow. Throw in a touch of autism and you might be able to create some depth to this character. A hero who can't deal with people in his normal persona might add some interesting challenges.
Ant-man. Already has a complex back-story, most of which I know little about. Was a hero and leader of Avengers I think for a time, then became unstable, beat his wife (the wasp I think) and is now trying to recover from all the things he has self inflicted. I have issues empathising with those who beat down on those weaker than themselves, so this would take some work.
Nick Fury. Yet again I would use his Ultimates persona, although I don't think I have ever read any of his pre-ultimates stuff. And in the Ultimates it is his job to keep tabs on all the different heros and villians running around, as well as running the Ultimates. And you can never be sure if he is an evil government lackey or one of the good guys. Rather than being a shade of grey he seems to constantly transition between shades. Could be done well explaining why he got the job and who he is under it all. Also had a part in dissassembling the Weapon X programme, and kept tabs on Spidey's development and responsible for Magnetos imprisonment, so he can be used to tie in the X2 and Spidey franchises, without actually doing crossovers. Might even be good to wind this movie up with a charter for the Avengers.
Which would then give you an avenger movie where you know the main players from before, who now have to take their idiosyncrasies that have been put on display and actually work together. Add in Ultimates Thor, who doesn't behave like a soldier and will only obey Fury if he thinks it is the right thing, and Iron Man and you could have a nice ensemble. X and X2 had to work on introducing the back stories of their characters, whereas Avengers would have fully fledged entities and so could focus on the story and chcracter development rather than backstories.
But they will probably just spend the money on name actors and cheesy FX and rely on the 'franchise quality' of the characters to attract an audience.
Hopefully Marvel making the movies in house will mean a higher focus on stories and characters and a lessened focus on lunchboxes and merchandising, as the long-term gain may be increased comic revenue.
Maybe it is a crime though to sell stuff that has been obtained through cheating?
The victims of the crime may not be the people who were killed, but the people who paid for goods that were obtained fraudulently?
How do you know he used a bot? There's just an accusation
TFA suggests that that is part of the reason he was arrested, though it does not actually state the crime the guy is charged with. We're only operating off the suggested evidence to hand. That set the basline for our speculation, if you would like to open a different hypothetical argument that is entirely your choice.
Actually simplifying your argument, the deception would not so much be the fact that a bot was present where a human was expected. Rather the deception would be in agreeing to the EULA and then breaking it.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not told the size of the control group, but if it were 18 monkeys to match the treated group, you had a very hardy set of monkeys or a less aggressive strain of the virus.
I mostly use lyric sites to discover what a catchy song is called when I only know one or two lines.
I totally get how they can argue that file sharing sites etc cost them revenue, but this!?
It is interesting to see how people here define 'Taking Notes'. There seem to be the two polar extremes of 'feverishly transcribing everything' and taking no notes whatsoever. There is a good middle ground of listen, learn, document your understanding. Apart from the distraction, laptops are poor because you just cannot sketch a diagram or simple flowchart as quickly as you can on paper. Even formal logic symbols, set notation or any of those visual representations of relationships are hard to come by quickly. Scribbling down your understandings as they come to you is more efficient than just listening, because translating the discovery into your own words and writing it down are two powerful mnemonic devices. You also get to choose the words that best describe the understanding you have gleaned, rather than using someone else's words.
Since when does a teenager need a "good reason" to be walking along the street?
Ah the "walking along the street' meme. As opposed to the checking out peoples houses and yards in the pouring rain in a suburb which has a recent high incidence of break ins? The first one wouldn't be a reason for neighbourhood watch to call it in. the second one probably would, and was what was testified to by the 911 Operator, the nieghbourhood watch organiser and the lady who actually had a home invasion in the area.
What are the odds of getting six white people on a jury? What are the odds of tossing heads six times in a row?
Different maths. Head or Tails on an unbiased coin is random chance. Jury selection is just that, selection.
Specifically jury selection is meant to rule out bias. The prosecution will move to strike any juror that strongly opposes their side. The defence tries the same thing. So you should end up with the least biased pool of jurors.
In this case, the prosecution had a technically weak case. They had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, yet the forensics were a nightmare, most of their witnesses were testifying in favour of the defendant and the witnesses who were firmly in their camp had had initial statements and depositions taken in very dubious circumstances. So they were going with the hopes that an emotional plea would get around that burden of proof.
The defence on the other hand had a technically strong case, for all the reasons cited above. So they needed people who wouldn't have preconceived notions or agendas, who would let the evidence and rule of law decide.
So the union of the sets {people more likely to be swayed by emotion} and {people least likely to have prejudicial knowledge of this case} turned out to be women who were mostly white (one was I believe hispanic). Either the prosecution or the defence struck off everyone else.
Maybe so but did George Zimmerman have any good reason to get out of his vehicle in the first place? If I thought I was being stalked by someone I might try to jump them too.
Well the 911 operator asked him where TM was going. That's when he got out of the car to find out. When the 911 Operator asked if he was following TM he said yes and the Operator told him 'you don't have to do that' and he said 'OK'. They then went on to discuss addresses or locations where the cops could meet him.
Why he got out of his car was done to death in the trial, and the 911 Operator was stepped through every line in the conversation. It's available on youtube
And other witnesses said GZ was on top.
Only one witness said that GZ was on top, and that was recanted because they explained that the larger person on top and they had assumed it was GZ because the media kept showing a 14 year old picture of TM. Once they realised that GZ was the smaller person they reversed the named positions.
I agree, but there was no need for this.
She should have been sued for wrongful death. She would have spent the rest of her life paying whatever she makes to the family of that little girl and the rest of us wouldn't have had our rights trampled in the process.
LK
From the article:
The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website, and that Drew directly or indirectly did so, but it acquitted Drew of having violated Terms of Service in furtherance of the tortious act. That is, the jury ruled that Drew is guilty of relatively lower-level crimes for violating MySpacs Terms of Service (for being involved in the setting up of a fake MySpace account). It acquitted Drew for any role in inflicting distress on Meier or for anything related to Meier's suicide. The maximum allowed penalty for the misdemeanor violations are one year in prison for each violation, although the majority of federal misdemeanors result in a sentence of probation.
So any issue of wrongful death, injury etc seems to have been thrown out by the jury. All the morally reprehensible stuff was removed from the table by a jury of her peers.
Even using the account to further the tortuous act was kicked by the jury. Everything she allegedly did which I find wrong was found not guilty by the jury.
Yes, she seems like a bad person from what I know. But the jury apparently did not see enough proof that she was. But people are applauding because she was found guilty of something most people haven't considered a crime as punishment for a crime which she was found not to have committed.
I think you'll find that "skill at the job" is, ultimately, what determines the size of that pay check.
Actually it is one of three factors. Probably not even the most impoirtant of the three.
If you're highly skilled you will probably be paid a lot more for your time than someone who is just starting out.
Here you are not fairly comparing apples with apples. You are comparing skill with experience. And experience is the equivalent of time. Someone in a grad program will probably not be on anything like what a 10 year veteran will be on. Sure there is an assumption being made that skill has amassed over time, but you are basically being rewarded with an assumed amount of skill for time played, or worked as the case may be.
And the third thing that matters is ability to sell yourself. Which the author of the original piece didn't get at all. Group > Solo because introverts generally cannot sell themselves well. I've moved jobs 4 times in my career, each time to something either more fun or with much better pay.I could do this thanks in part to my ability to sell myself and in part due to the fact that I have invested time in certifying myself on the technologies I work with. There's that time element again. I have known some brilliant people who will never have an above average job because they will not get the certifications required to make them a saleable asset.
And no I don't want to turn it into a debate on the relative merits of certs or whether they are worth anything in sensible terms, the reality whether I like it or not is that they do open doors that would otherwise be shut. I am a realist in this.
Also I have heard of people who can get to level 60 in 5 days total playing time. I can't get to 60 in 20 days total playing time. Those guys have more skill than me at the game and are getting more out of their time investment than I am.
And when it comes to guilds/groups, surprisingly enough you get selected on your skill levels. Sure, you will get into more random pick up groups if you are spending more time in the game, but I have found that once players have grouped with me, they will generally invite me back because I perform my role in the team with average or better skill and I play well with others. I know plenty of people who I would never play in a group with again because not only do they have no skill, they cannot identify the fact that they have no skill, so there is little hope for self improvement. I have also been in groups where people do not play well with others, and they do not get invited back either.
These are all 'real life' skills that the author cannot identify with. I get plenty of job offers from people who I have worked for/with before who know I am good at what I do and I play well with others. The same skills that pay off in WoW. If I joined a project and called everyone who hadn't configured large scale BGP a n00b, I'd be on their ignore and don't invite again lists so quick it would be funny to watch.
And finally in WoW as in real life, if your Dad has a lot of money, you can circumvent both skill and time.
I would agree with you if the H1-B hire were underpaid (like the outsourcing of some clothes/shoes factories) but AFAIK that's not the case.
You really are trying to limit your Knowledge then aren't you? The article that started this thread is a survey of exactly that and an approximation of how much less H1-B workers are getting.
But now that you know that the H1-Bs are underpaid, your position on the ethics of the situation has changed?
I could go to the UK, where the exchange rate hovers around double the Australian dollar, and slum it for 2-3 years and earn enough to have a good housing deposit over here. Does that mean the UK engineers are overpaid because houses and the cost of living are more expensive there?
A foreign engineer probably does not have the same level of university debt that a fully trained American engineer has, and if they 'slum it' living on minimal outlay for 3-5 years in America thay can be set up for life back home due to exchange rates and the much lower costs of living. An American doesn't get that exchange rate or cost of living bonus when they go home. They need to earn enough money to create a future at American rates.
Other issue is that it does not compare apples to apples: most H1b are non-managerial positions with relatively low experience, while national average includes middle managers. One need to compare H1B to the people in the same position
You are so right he didn't compare apples to apples. The H1-B positions were mostly for programmer-analysts while the national average he used for local workers was 'programmer' because it was the lesser paid of the 'programmer' and 'analyst' classifications. So he weighted the statistic in favour of the H1-Bs and they still ended up getting less on average. Of course you would know that if you had read the article and didn't have the attention span of a poodle.
And 'manager' would be a different job classification again.
Apple are doing nothing necessarily wrong, as they could claim that their software could be used to organise either legitimate digital music or our own music that we created. Even the iPod could go under that sort of (fairly specious) claim.
iTunes itself isn't a problem, but Apple should be absolutely vulnerable to a lawsuit on the iPod front. IANAL of course. Before iTunes there was no legal way to get tunes onto an iPod in Australia. So they were supplying a product that not only encouraged a copyright violation, it almost required one to use. Even now I do not know if iTunes actualy grants a license for downloaded music to be copies onto an iPod or multiples thereof?
Sure there are free audio elements out there which could be used legally on an iPod, but please don't try to convince me that the bulk of iPod users only have this stuff on their 'Pods
After a quick perusal of the site, I cannot see the licence under which I would purchase songs from this store. However the site does have instructions on how to burn the songs to CD and copy them to an iPod. So unless the licence explicitly allows this, they could be as guilty as Kazaa of encouraging copyright infringement.
By definition, half the drivers are "better than average" and the other half are "worse than average".
Only if you do not know what average means. Average means you take a set of values and divide it by the number of elements in the set. So the average of 1,8,9,10 and 10 is 38/5 or 7.6. 80% of the numbers in that set are above the average.
Applying the same math to drivers, if 1/3 of drivers have had 2 accidents and 2/3 have only had one accident than the average number of accidents is 4/3 per driver. 66% of drivers would have a better than average driving record.
The term you are confusing with average is median. By definition half of the drivers are better than the median and half are worse. In the 1,8,9,10 and 10 sample above the median would be 9.
The median is often a better comparison value because extreme values on either fringe can affect the average disproportionately to the number of values. This is why housing prices for an area are quoted based on the median house price rather than the average.
Applying these statistics back to the question at hand.
I feel pretty confident in saying that 69% of all workers didn't perform above average, so why should they be expecting a reward?
It is easy to be an above average worker in any company productivity-wise, because you always have management pulling down the average. In many cases they actually throw negative values of productivity into the mix. If 69% of your company are actually performing below average then either you have too much management, or you are a company that supplies project management services.
If a games system allows cheating, this means that there is a problem with the design of the games system, end of story. **NOTHING** that runs on a person's own machine should make any difference whatsoever, even if the client itself is modified, because the point of control should be at the network interface on the server end.
You have a very limited view of cheating, which seems to be modifying numbers or statistics. Either that or you think that the far end server should be generating the images and sending them to your PC to replay, which is impractical. And even then it wouldn't really affect the healing cheat pointed out below, because all of the information can either be picked up by the client, or inferred.
An example of non numerical cheating would be a thief sneaking up on a player. If they are of a similar level, the thief may be hidden except for a very brief flicker. The difference in levels and skills determines how prolonged and often this flicker would happen. It is up to the player being snuck up on to be aware and notice these flickers. It is up to the thief player to keep obstructions between himself and the potential victim until he can get behind him or close enough to strike.
A well coded server may stop presenting the thief data to my environment when he is 'out of phase', but if modify my client so that a big red ball appears at the location a thief phases out and make alarms sound, that would constitute cheating in my book. Furthermore, I assume you are not expecting the server to work out which parts of said thief should be visible through a bush and instead throws it to the client to draw in the intervening obstacles. This means even if the thief hides behind obstacles I can still 'see' him because my client is modified.
That was just an example. You could make people hiding behind obstacles appear as a glowing red outline. You could automate functionality that should require skill, such as having a healing module that calculates the damage your party memebrs are taking, factors in how long it expects the assailants of each party member to survive, the hate level each monster has built up towards each character and then automatically cast the most powerful healing spell on the most needy recipient that will not exceed the monsters hate thresholds.
Or are you of the mind that anything you can do is not cheating because anyone else could do it too? In soccer it is against the rules to handle the ball unless you are the keeper, yet Maradonna had his hand of God goal. Anyone else could punch the ball into the net too, but it was still against the rules, or cheating.
Actually DNS for IPv6 is more critical than that. Two things cause issues.
Firstly, multihoming is achieved differently in IPv6. Instead of advertising your /24 or whatever your network slice is to multiple upstream peers, you will instead request different equal sized slices from different upstreams. The host portion of your addresses will remain the same for a given server, but based on the upstream provider it is speaking through, its network prefix may be changed at your network boundary. If you only use one of the full addresses to access the site, and that link goes down, the site is unavailable to you only, while the rest of the DNS using internet can pick up the alternate addresses. Also you would be locked into a provider, because moving to a different point in the IP hierarchy would change your IP addresses and customers would be unable to find you again. And the stationery reprints would be fun too.
and Secondly, if IP addresses became the default resource locaters, you would probably have fights over addresses like 1::F00D and you could always have legal issues between 2:D0::F00D and 2::D0:F00D
If only he knew what irony was.
"We are saying that we created the internet therefore we own it therefore we control it." "..we are saying that we don't want people who are so fond of censorship to fuck with ours."
"I wish I had mod points now, because you and many others on this topic should be modded into oblivion."
I understand your concern. America owns the internet, so the only censorship should be American censorship. And if only you had the power to censor anyone who disagreed you the world would be a better place.
I agree with this
I haven't seen the patent first hand, but often something obvious now, wasn't at that time. If it were then why wasn't someone else doing it already.
I can list many examples of this. The mouse, keyboard, screens, printers, windowing environment, The Internet, an Operating system and even a CPU and the IC chips, were at the time major conceptual steps forward.
... because you are talking about new 'things'. Except maybe the keyboard because as a standalone device it was an aesthetic change from older computers where the keyboard formed part of the computer box as opposed to being a peripheral. And that was an extension from the typewriter that the computer emulated. So no big paradigm shifting stuff there, just evolution
That being said, comparing this 'innovation' to those is pathetic. This 'innovation' is using a database to store and change data. Which is really the point of databases. It's not novel.
Ah but it is customer data or customer billing data. Well, every company I have worked with has had at least one database that fulfilled this specific purpose. In fact many databases or implementations thereof are sold and customised to this particular function
It is realtime data or based on the account balance before providing services? Credit Cards, EFTPOS, even phone cards have been providing that feature for years.
Ah but it is a cellphone. And we have not done all of the above with a cellphone before. Ok so is your contention then that every time a new technology emerges, all existing business processes that can be implemented with this new technology are now patentable provided you mention the new technology by name in your patent.
From your list above, I agree, the mouse was new. And windowing systems were new. Assuming they were both coverable by individual patents, fair enough (Because the software is/isn't patentable argument is immaterial to my point). Now some smart bunny comes along and invents the touchpad and patents it. Should it now be possible to patent 'A windowing system that is controlled by a touchpad'? The windowing system is doing everything it did before.
And in the same vein, you have a database that checks available funds, which has existed in many variants in the past, only now it is being accessed by a mobile phone instead of a credit card or phone card. That is a database doing everything it did before. You may be first to market with that particular arrangement of features, but it that does not make it non-obvious.
So if it was non-obvious, why didn't companies do it before? Well, until competition hotted up it was easier to lock people into contracts and get profits on their unused funds each month. It was free money without providing a service. But pay as you go can be cheaper and safer for the customer, so new companies could undercut them. This made the new pricing method viable.
If an Indian can code sorting algoritms every bit as well as I can, at a tenth the cost, why hire the American?
What, exactly, did you think was the point of globalisation? Globalisation is succeeding. The most competetive producers are getting the work, and prices for products continue to decrease.
Of course if you refer to Americanization disguised as globalisation, where all the intellectual property is owned by the US and used to tax other nations who actually produce things, then yes it does appear to be failing.
Of course you still do get FTAs which allow America to destroy localised industries by product duymping, and countries willing to adopt the DMCA just to be allowed to sell to America
Just imagine how much worse it could get if most countries scaled copyright back to 20 years and stopped paying a culture tax to Hollywood et al. Or when America runs out of credit and can no longer afford to be the biggest consumer?
The only time to leave that first job is when you have the second job lined up. There seems to be a large lack of reality inherent in the attached article
Don't work in cubicles, ever. Working in cubicles is the sure sign that you're not working for a successful company. Imagine the smartest person you know, working in your field. Now imagine how they would react if they were told they're going to work in a box with no door or roof, allowing them no privacy.
Many graduates will never get a job with this advice. Most of the companies I have seen with graduate programs are large companies which means cubicles. Of course it also means a very good name on your resume, graduate rotations so you can experience different workstreams and some form of mentor program if you care to take advantage of it.
It also means many of the evils that come with corporations such as bad bosses, bad methods and general cluelessness. These can be opportunities to learn, or the bane of your existance. They can be both if you choose to learn everything you can from them and then do not move on. Learn how to achieve things in the corporate world, how to persuade management without offending them. That way when you go work at a smaller firm you will be able to communicate with your customers on their terms and understand where their requirements are coming from. If you have never experienced ISO9000 or the like from the inside you can never really appreciate some customer requirements.
This guy is setting himself and a number of people who buy into his philosophy for a rude shock. If you do not have the perfect boss, move on. If your boss allocates a function to a co-worker that you think you are better prepared for, move on. If your boss does not accept your estimates on times, move on. Basically if you are not Lord of all the eye can see, move on.
Reality is, some bosses are pains in the butt. So are customers. Learn to work with and aroudn them, then when you have learned all you can and learned how to recognise this type, feel free to move on. If you are a programmer advising the boss on how to manage a server, and he has server gusy for that, then there is a balance you need to strike. The boss is paying the other guy to perform these tasks. If he isn't up to scratch the boss should move him out and get someone else in. He shouldn't be delegating to you the tasks from other departments that you want. I have seen this issue so often with new people in companies who want to focus on what interests them and not on the job they were employed to do. The other guy probably can't program, so the boss would be paying two resources for the same role, and his project would be behind.
If you want to be proactive, I support it, ubt start in house. Suggest improvements to your own processes, document the undocumented, set standards. Then you get your bosses attention and suggestions for other areas will get more attention. But if you are a grad and you come in creating issues for other workers, you are the one who will suffer.
And you are a graduate, and you are giving estimates on how long it will take you to complete a task. Do you always have only one task or are you expected to run multiple jobs at once? You need to learn to negotiate. You can have this module in 8 days, but one of these others will slip. Email is your negotiating friend, as long as you use it as a record of agreements as opposed to a blackmail tool.
Finally, you need to stay in your first job for about 2 years. This gives you a job history as well as a reputation ofr being able to commit. 3 weeks in a job before kicking it will look negative on any resume, and you won't get a reference worth squat. The first 5 years in IT were hard work taking the job that best equipped me to get another job. Now I get to choose what I want to do and where I work, and I can demand an office. But I earned that, I didn't just complain or walk out when it wasn't handed to me
I don't know where you pulled your definitions from.
Facts are evidence. Well facts can be used as evidence. It is a fact that I was born in Africa. I do not know what this is evidence for/of?
Evidence is not truth. Ok from the above. The fact that I was born in Africa is evidence of something? which is not the truth?
Truth is supported by facts and evidence. I don't even know what this means? The facts are truth, the truth is a fact.
Truth is. Facts are. Evidence can be used to discover facts and truth. The truth or the facts do not change based on the evidence you can find.
If farmers are abducted and probed by aliens, then that is a fact and it is also the truth. That there is not evidence to lead us to believe that this is a fact or the truth would not in any way make it less a fact or the truth.
I believe that evidence was distorted to lead the public to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Did that make the existence of WMDs a fact or the truth? No WMDs have been found. Does that make their non-existence a fact or the truth? It is probable that we will never know the facts or truth about WMDs, all we have is our personal beliefs based on the evidence.
It will never be the sole result of a decision to fire, or a decision to get a raise, at least, not in the IT profession.
I've found the best way to get a raise is to switch jobs or get a promotion, both of which have required written english skills.
Also to get ahead you have to be recognisable from the crowd. If you correct your bosses work privately, and can do it in a helpful manner, over time you may be asked to proofread stuff, and then you may actually be asked to write technical briefs for customers. Nobody likes to look foolish in front of a crowd, so if you can protect your boss from looking foolish by warning them in advance, you are valuable to them. This makes you visibly competent to your boss, and gives you a value over others at your level, which is useful at raise/promotion time.
Your other options if you have english skills are to ignore mistakes your boss makes, or mock them for them. If you don't have adequate English skills you do not even have those options. And then maybe you wouldn't know the opportunities having and expressing English skills brings you.
Of course having said that...
It will never be the sole result of a decision to fire, or a decision to get a raise, at least, not in the IT profession.
I have no basis to disagree with you. But only because you do not seem to know the difference between the sole cause of an action and the sole result of an action. I don't know anyone who has been either fired or received a raise and responded by getting better English skills.
Actually there are some good character opportunities in that list, and some horrific ones.
Captain America never struck me as having any depth. Was always a goody two shoes, and I really don't know how much mileage you can make out of him being frozen in ice. Maybe you can go with something Indiana Jonesish with the Nazis / Hydra? And end the movie with him being frozen. Which might be something I could watch.
Hawkeye - The original seemed a bland character with a bow, however the ultimate series seems to have made him more a trigenometry / geometry genius who expresses himself with a bow. Throw in a touch of autism and you might be able to create some depth to this character. A hero who can't deal with people in his normal persona might add some interesting challenges.
Ant-man. Already has a complex back-story, most of which I know little about. Was a hero and leader of Avengers I think for a time, then became unstable, beat his wife (the wasp I think) and is now trying to recover from all the things he has self inflicted. I have issues empathising with those who beat down on those weaker than themselves, so this would take some work.
Nick Fury. Yet again I would use his Ultimates persona, although I don't think I have ever read any of his pre-ultimates stuff. And in the Ultimates it is his job to keep tabs on all the different heros and villians running around, as well as running the Ultimates. And you can never be sure if he is an evil government lackey or one of the good guys. Rather than being a shade of grey he seems to constantly transition between shades. Could be done well explaining why he got the job and who he is under it all. Also had a part in dissassembling the Weapon X programme, and kept tabs on Spidey's development and responsible for Magnetos imprisonment, so he can be used to tie in the X2 and Spidey franchises, without actually doing crossovers. Might even be good to wind this movie up with a charter for the Avengers.
Which would then give you an avenger movie where you know the main players from before, who now have to take their idiosyncrasies that have been put on display and actually work together. Add in Ultimates Thor, who doesn't behave like a soldier and will only obey Fury if he thinks it is the right thing, and Iron Man and you could have a nice ensemble. X and X2 had to work on introducing the back stories of their characters, whereas Avengers would have fully fledged entities and so could focus on the story and chcracter development rather than backstories.
But they will probably just spend the money on name actors and cheesy FX and rely on the 'franchise quality' of the characters to attract an audience.
Hopefully Marvel making the movies in house will mean a higher focus on stories and characters and a lessened focus on lunchboxes and merchandising, as the long-term gain may be increased comic revenue.
Maybe it is a crime though to sell stuff that has been obtained through cheating? The victims of the crime may not be the people who were killed, but the people who paid for goods that were obtained fraudulently?
How do you know he used a bot? There's just an accusation
TFA suggests that that is part of the reason he was arrested, though it does not actually state the crime the guy is charged with. We're only operating off the suggested evidence to hand. That set the basline for our speculation, if you would like to open a different hypothetical argument that is entirely your choice.
Actually simplifying your argument, the deception would not so much be the fact that a bot was present where a human was expected. Rather the deception would be in agreeing to the EULA and then breaking it.