I used to think the same way, but hasn't that problem more or less been corrected by the recent total reality smack-down? It seems to me that "affordable" and "housing" can once again be used without negation in a sentence that also contains "California".
Oh I don't think so at all.
Based on this site, median house price around my location is $125K, and median house price in the bay area is $585K.
I've found it's not too hard around here to earn over $125K. But I can't imagine Google paying $150K to $200K just to match the local opportunities. Then, add in the cost of living difference, and financially, it would have been too big of a hit.
And stock options? Even in 2005 when I was talking to them, I think the stock option train had already left the station. Sure, the stock's up from 200 to 575 in that timeframe - nothing to sneeze at - but no huge windfall.
And I already did my stint working for a large silicon valley corporate giant. It was so easy to get boxed in creatively, and limited in potential (both in earning potential and opportunities to do something fun). It can be a great first job in someone's career, but not so much fun later in life.
I think it would have been totally exciting to work in Silicon Valley for Google, but it wasn't meant to be. It was just a very weird process when they called me. Sure, I'll talk to anyone about a job if they call. What is there to lose? But I really didn't think it was going to go anywhere, and, well, it didn't.
It was a phone screen test. They were going to fly me out to the bay area for the interview - I was definitely interested in a free trip to California.
But I don't think they would have made me an offer to make it worth a move to a much more expensive part of the country.
I am no algorithm expert, but if I were in charge, I would start with that last phrase that you listed ("would not buy again") along with other similar phrases ("is a scam", "feel completely ripped off", etc). Then I would scan the massive Google database to see if I could find other phrases that are frequently located "near" to those key phrases, and see what I come up with.
I bet I'd come up with a pretty good list of phrases that have negative sentiment. I'd eyeball those, and get rid of the obvious bad ones, and then use the good list(of negative sentiment phrases) to run through the algorithm again. Then eyeball those, and you probably have a good list.
Then I'd use those phrases as my "negative indicators" and implement the same logic as the "rel=nofollow" logic (i.e. you get no google points for those links).
Google, wanna hire me? Oh wait, we did this already. You liked me for a while.... I aced your goofy interview test. Then what happened?
It is passed 2pm. At least where I am. And no-one else reads slashdot anywhere else but where I am, otherwise the headline would give a time zone, wouldn't it?
Are you an arsenic-based life form? What time is it there?
If you're surrounded by the void, then you're in the void. The earth is in outer space.
A man digs a hole in the dirt, with his shovel. His shovel moves 4.5 tons of dirt. If dirt weighs 30 lbs per cubic foot, how many cubic feet of dirt are in the hole?
Seems like this might be fun to debate, just for the heck of it....
Without citing references, I'll state that Outer Space was first named and defined in an Earth-centric fashion. Go far enough away from the Earth, and you get to Outer Space. It's that area past the Troposphere, past the Stratosphere, past the Mesosphere, past the Thermosphere, past the Exosphere. As Wikipedia says, "These are the boundaries between the earth's surface and outer space."
By definition, outer space is the area between planets and other celestial objects. Planets are no more 'in outer space" as outer space is "in planets".
By your analogy, Maui could be considered "in the ocean". But it's not. It's an island. When you are on the island, you are surrounded by the ocean, but you aren't in the ocean. By definition, the ocean excludes land, and you are out of the ocean when you step on land. If I pointed to Maui on a giant globe, and asked 100 educated people "if you are standing here, are you in the ocean", at least 99 would say "no". [citation needed] You are on land.
Same goes for the atoms that comprise my Xbox360. If I asked 100 scientists whether those atoms are in cardboard, most would probably say no. They're in the Xbox.
Not expecting a response, or a "ok you're right' or a "na you're wrong". I just figured it'd be fun to practice pretzel logic.
Virtually every idea in computer science has been thought of decades prior
This is impossible. It is a self-referential paradox.
Let's play it out with your example: Say the idea of sticking a section like this in the middle of a document is at time T. Then the notion of include files and macros might be time T-20 years So there must have been something similar at T-40 years... which was not an original idea, because it was really invented at T-80 years. But wait.. that was actually invented at T-100 years.....
the void that exists beyond any celestial body including the Earth.[1] It is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. Theoretically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.
So no, the Earth isn't in outer space. But neither is water. It's a void.
The headline "Earth's Water Didn't Come From Outer Space" should get a resounding "duh!" from the Slashdot crowd.
For the 50 millionth time, Bill Gates didn't make any such claim about 637K, 640K or whatever.
I'm with you. I hate when people exaggerate and mis-attribute claims. Like GWB said, "if I said it once, I said it a hundred zillion times... I hate exaggeration."
We are offering a bounty of $100 million dollars plus US citizen status for information leading to arrest. That is enough money to literally buy Muslim paradise for the rest of your life.
You know that the US offered bounties on a lot of the jihandis, right? Bin Laden has a $25 million bounty on his head, and he's still not caught:
"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden."http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
Damn. The guy in the cave next door is Osama Bin Laden. Missed it by one letter.
The reason is Rahm Emanuel's logic, being spread through both political parties and every news organization.
"Never let a crisis go to waste".
The more you can hype it, the more you can advance your agenda, whether it be to invade a country whose leader tried to kill your dad, or get re-elected, or sell advertising on a news channel.
I haven't heard any fondling stories taking place Canada (yet)
If the TSA had followed my recommendation, we'd all be eager to fly. Have five separate fondling lines. Passengers get to choose which examination they want:
1) The currently implemented fondle line 2) A line to get fondled by the Hooters girl 3) A line to get fondled by a Chippendale's guy 4) An OB/GYN 5) A GP/Prostate examiner
You could get fondled the TSA way, or get felt up by a sexy person of the gender of your choice. Or you could have a physical at the same time. We'd be catching ovarian and prostate cancer, while you fly.
They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party.
I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I am curious as to exactly how a loosely organized group like the Tea Party would go about not letting individuals "represent" them. It's not like either person that you named was elected to speak on behalf of the party. Right?
Oh wait, I am talking to A/C, which is a lot like talking to myself. Anyone have a helpful reply?
Thinking of a worst-case scenario, this would be like giving those hard working and intelligent enough a pass at a super-long life, while eliminating the unwashed masses. That poses another problem, but everything is a problem, and in truth nothing is a total solution.
The Nazi Party pursued its racial and social policies through persecution and killing of those considered social undesirables... Especially targeted [included]... people with mental or physical disabilities
The scary thing is that I agreed with most everything you said.... and then I thought "waaaaaait a minute!"
You cringe? Interesting... It is ONE char and only one.
When I am coding I there are times when I just drop a quick test into the left hand margin because it is visually a "sore thumb" that sticks out and is unmistakable as something that should not be there and if it IS there then it requires immediate attention.
While Python is a very nice C Clone they really fucked it up with this bit of stupidity.
In Python, I do that with one character. "#" tells me that the next line (or lines) were just stuck in there. Personal coding convention while debugging.
for e in employee: #
if e.title == "PHB": email_salary_to_everybody(e.name,e.salary)
process_payroll (e)
Whew. When I got the recommendation from the guy who wrote the book on security, I wasn't so sure. But since jhigh endorses it, I'll take it under advisement.
In order for it to have any merit though, the probability of that "every once in a while" would have to be significant enough to offset all those other idiots (which I doubt).
And the "lifetime's worth of tax revenue" would have to be greater than the "lifetime's worth of handouts" (which I seriously doubt).
And you are implying that the life wouldn't be saved by an ordinary doctor, only an emergency room.
Sounds a little far fetched to me.
---
Funny thing is, we probably agree that the poor and indigent deserve some level of basic healthcare. The disagreement is typically one of the economics. A typical argument is that "you can't put a price on a life" (and therefore, it's not an economic decision).
If that were true, why don't we assign each poor person a personal doctor, nurse, or pharmacist, and provide them free medicine? That would solve our unemployment problem immediately, as demand for these positions would skyrocket! This shows that it is ABSOLUTELY an economic decision, as it's clearly economically infeasible to assign each person a personal healthcare professional.
We are trying to determine the BEST healthcare scenario for a limited dollar. We may disagree about what that dollar amount is, but it's absolutely an economic decision.
And having idiots mis-use the emergency rooms isn't helping the price tag. If you can argue that somehow mis-use of the emergency room helps the lower price tag, I'd like to hear that argument. Otherwise, let's stick to common sense logic.
Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states.
Name a state without a Blue Cross Blue Shield office. If you can't, then your premise is wrong. Given incorrect statements in the start of the first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obviously conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.
That's like saying "name a state that doesn't have a 'Christ Hospital'" in it.
There are 155 different companies with the name Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they are just that - different companies.
Given the obvious flawed logic in your first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obvious conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.
I would LOVE to attend something like this - so if it's held again, please post the invitation on Slashdot. I'd travel the 300 miles to attend. (Better yet, make videos and post them!)
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think the same way, but hasn't that problem more or less been corrected by the recent total reality smack-down? It seems to me that "affordable" and "housing" can once again be used without negation in a sentence that also contains "California".
Oh I don't think so at all.
Based on this site, median house price around my location is $125K, and median house price in the bay area is $585K.
I've found it's not too hard around here to earn over $125K. But I can't imagine Google paying $150K to $200K just to match the local opportunities. Then, add in the cost of living difference, and financially, it would have been too big of a hit.
And stock options? Even in 2005 when I was talking to them, I think the stock option train had already left the station. Sure, the stock's up from 200 to 575 in that timeframe - nothing to sneeze at - but no huge windfall.
And I already did my stint working for a large silicon valley corporate giant. It was so easy to get boxed in creatively, and limited in potential (both in earning potential and opportunities to do something fun). It can be a great first job in someone's career, but not so much fun later in life.
I think it would have been totally exciting to work in Silicon Valley for Google, but it wasn't meant to be. It was just a very weird process when they called me. Sure, I'll talk to anyone about a job if they call. What is there to lose? But I really didn't think it was going to go anywhere, and, well, it didn't.
It was a phone screen test. They were going to fly me out to the bay area for the interview - I was definitely interested in a free trip to California.
But I don't think they would have made me an offer to make it worth a move to a much more expensive part of the country.
I am no algorithm expert, but if I were in charge, I would start with that last phrase that you listed ("would not buy again") along with other similar phrases ("is a scam", "feel completely ripped off", etc). Then I would scan the massive Google database to see if I could find other phrases that are frequently located "near" to those key phrases, and see what I come up with.
I bet I'd come up with a pretty good list of phrases that have negative sentiment. I'd eyeball those, and get rid of the obvious bad ones, and then use the good list(of negative sentiment phrases) to run through the algorithm again. Then eyeball those, and you probably have a good list.
Then I'd use those phrases as my "negative indicators" and implement the same logic as the "rel=nofollow" logic (i.e. you get no google points for those links).
Google, wanna hire me?
Oh wait, we did this already. You liked me for a while.... I aced your goofy interview test. Then what happened?
It is passed 2pm. At least where I am. And no-one else reads slashdot anywhere else but where I am, otherwise the headline would give a time zone, wouldn't it?
Are you an arsenic-based life form? What time is it there?
To baldly go where no one has ever gone before.
That explains Picard, but what about curly Kirk?
Kirk's carpet doesn't match his drapes. No carpet; he's got "hardwood".
If you're surrounded by the void, then you're in the void. The earth is in outer space.
A man digs a hole in the dirt, with his shovel. His shovel moves 4.5 tons of dirt. If dirt weighs 30 lbs per cubic foot, how many cubic feet of dirt are in the hole?
No dirt is in the hole.
No earth is in the void.
Seems like this might be fun to debate, just for the heck of it....
Without citing references, I'll state that Outer Space was first named and defined in an Earth-centric fashion. Go far enough away from the Earth, and you get to Outer Space. It's that area past the Troposphere, past the Stratosphere, past the Mesosphere, past the Thermosphere, past the Exosphere. As Wikipedia says, "These are the boundaries between the earth's surface and outer space."
By definition, outer space is the area between planets and other celestial objects. Planets are no more 'in outer space" as outer space is "in planets".
By your analogy, Maui could be considered "in the ocean". But it's not. It's an island. When you are on the island, you are surrounded by the ocean, but you aren't in the ocean. By definition, the ocean excludes land, and you are out of the ocean when you step on land. If I pointed to Maui on a giant globe, and asked 100 educated people "if you are standing here, are you in the ocean", at least 99 would say "no". [citation needed] You are on land.
Same goes for the atoms that comprise my Xbox360. If I asked 100 scientists whether those atoms are in cardboard, most would probably say no. They're in the Xbox.
Not expecting a response, or a "ok you're right' or a "na you're wrong". I just figured it'd be fun to practice pretzel logic.
Virtually every idea in computer science has been thought of decades prior
This is impossible. It is a self-referential paradox.
Let's play it out with your example:
Say the idea of sticking a section like this in the middle of a document is at time T.
Then the notion of include files and macros might be time T-20 years
So there must have been something similar at T-40 years... which was not an original idea, because it was really invented at T-80 years. But wait.. that was actually invented at T-100 years.....
Isn't the earth in outer space?
The definition of outer space is
the void that exists beyond any celestial body including the Earth.[1] It is not completely empty (i.e. a perfect vacuum), but contains a low density of particles, predominantly hydrogen plasma, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, and neutrinos. Theoretically, it also contains dark matter and dark energy.
So no, the Earth isn't in outer space. But neither is water. It's a void.
The headline "Earth's Water Didn't Come From Outer Space" should get a resounding "duh!" from the Slashdot crowd.
For the 50 millionth time, Bill Gates didn't make any such claim about 637K, 640K or whatever.
I'm with you. I hate when people exaggerate and mis-attribute claims. Like GWB said, "if I said it once, I said it a hundred zillion times... I hate exaggeration."
You know that the US offered bounties on a lot of the jihandis, right? Bin Laden has a $25 million bounty on his head, and he's still not caught:
"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden." http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
Damn. The guy in the cave next door is Osama Bin Laden. Missed it by one letter.
The reason is Rahm Emanuel's logic, being spread through both political parties and every news organization.
"Never let a crisis go to waste".
The more you can hype it, the more you can advance your agenda, whether it be to invade a country whose leader tried to kill your dad, or get re-elected, or sell advertising on a news channel.
I haven't heard any fondling stories taking place Canada (yet)
If the TSA had followed my recommendation, we'd all be eager to fly. Have five separate fondling lines. Passengers get to choose which examination they want:
1) The currently implemented fondle line
2) A line to get fondled by the Hooters girl
3) A line to get fondled by a Chippendale's guy
4) An OB/GYN
5) A GP/Prostate examiner
You could get fondled the TSA way, or get felt up by a sexy person of the gender of your choice. Or you could have a physical at the same time. We'd be catching ovarian and prostate cancer, while you fly.
They let people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell represent the party.
I'm not taking sides in this debate, but I am curious as to exactly how a loosely organized group like the Tea Party would go about not letting individuals "represent" them. It's not like either person that you named was elected to speak on behalf of the party. Right?
Oh wait, I am talking to A/C, which is a lot like talking to myself. Anyone have a helpful reply?
Thinking of a worst-case scenario, this would be like giving those hard working and intelligent enough a pass at a super-long life, while eliminating the unwashed masses. That poses another problem, but everything is a problem, and in truth nothing is a total solution.
Actually, what you describe reminds me of the final solution (or more accurately, the radical policies of Nazi Germany.
From Wikipedia:
The Nazi Party pursued its racial and social policies through persecution and killing of those considered social undesirables ... ... people with mental or physical disabilities
Especially targeted [included]
The scary thing is that I agreed with most everything you said.... and then I thought "waaaaaait a minute!"
You cringe? Interesting... It is ONE char and only one.
When I am coding I there are times when I just drop a quick test into the left hand margin because it is visually a "sore thumb" that sticks out and is unmistakable as something that should not be there and if it IS there then it requires immediate attention.
While Python is a very nice C Clone they really fucked it up with this bit of stupidity.
In Python, I do that with one character. "#" tells me that the next line (or lines) were just stuck in there. Personal coding convention while debugging.
for e in employee:
#
if e.title == "PHB": email_salary_to_everybody(e.name,e.salary)
process_payroll (e)
And unix at 666 W.T.F.???
Unix at 666 is just telling you that code should be able to be read or written by anybody.
Whew. When I got the recommendation from the guy who wrote the book on security, I wasn't so sure. But since jhigh endorses it, I'll take it under advisement.
This is the first time Google has ever actually attempted to wield power.
Huh?
Net Neutrality, Spectrum Auction, Defining the mobile platform, and battling Microsoft all immediately come to mind as times that Google has attempted to wield power.
I'm sure we could come up with others if we thought about it.
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
The first thing that popped into my head was: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
I believe you have been playing with your Winkie - a totally different subsystem than your Winkey.
Play with the wrong one, and you'll have a real mess on your hands.
That is interesting and entertaining logic.
In order for it to have any merit though, the probability of that "every once in a while" would have to be significant enough to offset all those other idiots (which I doubt).
And the "lifetime's worth of tax revenue" would have to be greater than the "lifetime's worth of handouts" (which I seriously doubt).
And you are implying that the life wouldn't be saved by an ordinary doctor, only an emergency room.
Sounds a little far fetched to me.
---
Funny thing is, we probably agree that the poor and indigent deserve some level of basic healthcare. The disagreement is typically one of the economics. A typical argument is that "you can't put a price on a life" (and therefore, it's not an economic decision).
If that were true, why don't we assign each poor person a personal doctor, nurse, or pharmacist, and provide them free medicine? That would solve our unemployment problem immediately, as demand for these positions would skyrocket! This shows that it is ABSOLUTELY an economic decision, as it's clearly economically infeasible to assign each person a personal healthcare professional.
We are trying to determine the BEST healthcare scenario for a limited dollar. We may disagree about what that dollar amount is, but it's absolutely an economic decision.
And having idiots mis-use the emergency rooms isn't helping the price tag. If you can argue that somehow mis-use of the emergency room helps the lower price tag, I'd like to hear that argument. Otherwise, let's stick to common sense logic.
Currently, there are many laws preventing insurance companies from operating in all 50 states.
Name a state without a Blue Cross Blue Shield office. If you can't, then your premise is wrong. Given incorrect statements in the start of the first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obviously conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.
That's like saying "name a state that doesn't have a 'Christ Hospital'" in it.
There are 155 different companies with the name Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they are just that - different companies.
Given the obvious flawed logic in your first premise, then I'll assume all your other premises, logic, and obvious conclusions are all wrong and based on your flawed and grossly biased opinion.
I would LOVE to attend something like this - so if it's held again, please post the invitation on Slashdot. I'd travel the 300 miles to attend. (Better yet, make videos and post them!)
You answered your own question.
He will NOT pay, so he will not go to the emergency room with a headache.
"Free clinic is next door, bud."