I make it clear to my management that I have no interest in going into management. Some of them are OK with it. Some of them are frustrated with it.
I've been told/encouraged to apply for low-level management jobs in the past. While I'm certain I would make more money doing them, I'm also certain that I'd eat a gun after about a month.
When you are married to someone who is a superstar, expecting that they will never have dalliances with their preferred sex is unrealistic. They did, apparently, have a prenup, but I think he (and his PR team) are going the wrong direction on how to maintain his "public image".
Of course, Woods also appears to have a thing for women who aren't particularly bright, so that may be figuring into the whargarbl, here. I liked the one mistress who was mad he was stepping out on her. It's as if she didn't read the job description, or something.
Informal socializing doesn't necessarily require booze. Some of the best I've attended have included hiking trips, museum tours, or even theater presentations. Don't get me wrong, I like alcohol as much as the next guy, but I think that there are plenty of self-identified geeks who are uncomfortable with the whole booze+mingling thing, so give everyone some options.
If they're uncomfortable with socializing, I'm not sure how adding in other possibility *group activities* will help it any.
As someone once said, you don't need to drink to have a good time, but why make it harder than it needs to be.
Not only that, but I'm not aware of any rules that say that a corporation cannot run a new public offering of more shares, just because it may dilute the existing shareholder percentages (though there may be rules that way, "if you offer an IPO of (x) shares of common stock, you must also supply (y) number of shares to group (G)", ala the NYT).
It may not be a good idea for the stock price to do such, but nonetheless.
If the probability of coincidence is found to be small, we use our brains to try to work out causal relationships for the data
You can use your brain all day if you want, but until there's very specific data showing causation, you're just daydreaming.
We can use your example above. Would you claim that we cannot say that the hot weather caused the increase in ice cream vendors? Or would you claim that such a thing is simply unknowable because correlation is not causation.
You could say that, but then you're *answering a different question*.
You're also basing your claim on non-technical press interpretation of the findings. The quotes from actual researchers, even in your articles, usually say "may increase your chance" because they *know* that it is a correlation, not a causation, and that its entirely possible that there's another reason that hasn't been accounted for.
The study just says "these people have esophageal cancer at a higher rate, and happen to have really hot tea drinking habits in common".
The study does *not* say, even in the mass-media filtering for the article, "people who habitually drink very hot black tea are increasing their chance of getting esophageal" (the quotes even deliberately say "may", because the study authors and scientific commentators know that this is a *correlation* and that it does not at all, in any way, show causation).
There could be a myriad of reasons that this population has a higher risk rate, but looking at people who have esophageal cancer and finding a common link between them is no more indicative of causation than ice cream vendors appearing when it is hot means that ice cream vendors cause hot weather.
I've actually just recently moved away from those resolvers, because I've been having some fairly frequent problems with resolution times/success that went away when I switched over to OpenDNS for that purpose.
I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but there you are.
Then came the Internet, they could have a role as a known reliable source of information
For some value of "reliable". It's actually rather annoying to have to rigorously fact check every damn news story, blog post, etc that you come across. There's too many sources out there at the moment for anyone to really be considered a "reliable" news/info source for something that isn't very domain specific. The only exception I can think of is Nate Silver.
I was under the impression that the newest version of OWA will be (is?) fully compatible with Firefox (as in, gives you the neat "everything-but-the-psts" browser experience that you get under IE)?
There's a large deal of truth to this. If you want to do (or not) do something in a large company these days, the way to justify it is to write up a proposal that uses SOX or HIPAA (preferably both) a few dozen times. Your chance of getting money for it increases exponentially.
That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month. Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time. No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.
I suspect this is closer to the truth. Try getting even 100 requests for information out of a telecom, much less 8,000,000 individual requests, even if the tool is somewhat automated.
HOWEVER, a great deal of the protections that organized labor used to provide are now provided BY LAW. This makes the labor unions somewhat superfluous.
Because it's completely impossible for laws to be repealed.
Slashdot Mirror
I make it clear to my management that I have no interest in going into management. Some of them are OK with it. Some of them are frustrated with it.
I've been told/encouraged to apply for low-level management jobs in the past. While I'm certain I would make more money doing them, I'm also certain that I'd eat a gun after about a month.
Only if you only drink to get drunk.
When you are married to someone who is a superstar, expecting that they will never have dalliances with their preferred sex is unrealistic. They did, apparently, have a prenup, but I think he (and his PR team) are going the wrong direction on how to maintain his "public image".
Of course, Woods also appears to have a thing for women who aren't particularly bright, so that may be figuring into the whargarbl, here. I liked the one mistress who was mad he was stepping out on her. It's as if she didn't read the job description, or something.
Informal socializing doesn't necessarily require booze. Some of the best I've attended have included hiking trips, museum tours, or even theater presentations. Don't get me wrong, I like alcohol as much as the next guy, but I think that there are plenty of self-identified geeks who are uncomfortable with the whole booze+mingling thing, so give everyone some options.
If they're uncomfortable with socializing, I'm not sure how adding in other possibility *group activities* will help it any.
As someone once said, you don't need to drink to have a good time, but why make it harder than it needs to be.
Gettin' pretty wound up from a comment I made that implied billionaires should get laid, not married.
Say what you will about Tiger Woods, the only thing he did wrong was get married.
I think doing the "I'm a genuinely humbled man, blahblahblah" spiel is all wrong. He should set himself up as the next Hugh Hefner.
d: Is in a hotel with a nice bar that has readily available escorts trolling for well-off professionals.
It's terribly useful in those niches, however, *if its done correctly*.
My interest in the niche is the art/drawing tablet + laptop aspect. Basically a Wacom tablet slapped on top of a CPU.
This product already exists, of course, though the implementation quality varies widely.
Or MojoJojo?
Not only that, but I'm not aware of any rules that say that a corporation cannot run a new public offering of more shares, just because it may dilute the existing shareholder percentages (though there may be rules that way, "if you offer an IPO of (x) shares of common stock, you must also supply (y) number of shares to group (G)", ala the NYT).
It may not be a good idea for the stock price to do such, but nonetheless.
Some sports are more obviously modern replacements for warfare, allowing us to indulge in human emotional conflict with little real consequence.
And unlike the older practice of watching actual battles, the spectators are much less likely to be killed as a result of watching :)
(except in NASCAR... maybe...)
Carly? Her business/government acumen were so bad that she not only ruined HP, but got booted from McCain's staff as an adviser.
If the probability of coincidence is found to be small, we use our brains to try to work out causal relationships for the data
You can use your brain all day if you want, but until there's very specific data showing causation, you're just daydreaming.
We can use your example above. Would you claim that we cannot say that the hot weather caused the increase in ice cream vendors? Or would you claim that such a thing is simply unknowable because correlation is not causation.
You could say that, but then you're *answering a different question*.
You're also basing your claim on non-technical press interpretation of the findings. The quotes from actual researchers, even in your articles, usually say "may increase your chance" because they *know* that it is a correlation, not a causation, and that its entirely possible that there's another reason that hasn't been accounted for.
It's not up to me to explain "what causes it".
The study just says "these people have esophageal cancer at a higher rate, and happen to have really hot tea drinking habits in common".
The study does *not* say, even in the mass-media filtering for the article, "people who habitually drink very hot black tea are increasing their chance of getting esophageal" (the quotes even deliberately say "may", because the study authors and scientific commentators know that this is a *correlation* and that it does not at all, in any way, show causation).
There could be a myriad of reasons that this population has a higher risk rate, but looking at people who have esophageal cancer and finding a common link between them is no more indicative of causation than ice cream vendors appearing when it is hot means that ice cream vendors cause hot weather.
Looks to me like two articles that epitomize "correlation is not causation"
I've actually just recently moved away from those resolvers, because I've been having some fairly frequent problems with resolution times/success that went away when I switched over to OpenDNS for that purpose.
I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but there you are.
Those aren't personally targeted ads, they're just matched well to the demographic and geographic in which they're placed.
They may not be individually targeted, but they *are* targeted.
Intel has always had less than catchy code names, IMHO.
Then came the Internet, they could have a role as a known reliable source of information
For some value of "reliable". It's actually rather annoying to have to rigorously fact check every damn news story, blog post, etc that you come across. There's too many sources out there at the moment for anyone to really be considered a "reliable" news/info source for something that isn't very domain specific. The only exception I can think of is Nate Silver.
Errr - since the phone company gets paid every time they provide the data, I doubt they put any roadblocks in the process.
Right, because telecoms always do sensible things?
I was under the impression that the newest version of OWA will be (is?) fully compatible with Firefox (as in, gives you the neat "everything-but-the-psts" browser experience that you get under IE)?
There's a large deal of truth to this. If you want to do (or not) do something in a large company these days, the way to justify it is to write up a proposal that uses SOX or HIPAA (preferably both) a few dozen times. Your chance of getting money for it increases exponentially.
That could easily be 15 people, one "location" revealed per GPS heartbeat for the full year+month. Or a slightly larger number of people tracked for smaller periods of time. No, I didn't read the article, but 8,000,000 sounds ridiculously high for individual requests.
I suspect this is closer to the truth. Try getting even 100 requests for information out of a telecom, much less 8,000,000 individual requests, even if the tool is somewhat automated.
Sometimes.
AFAIK, all other law fields charge by the hour unless they're in-house lawyers (the hour accounting rules are annoying, if you ask me).
HOWEVER, a great deal of the protections that organized labor used to provide are now provided BY LAW. This makes the labor unions somewhat superfluous.
Because it's completely impossible for laws to be repealed.
FUD