'I already looked at these paths' but this one 'looks different' but is it *really* different.
I distantly recall this sounding similar to determining the actual number of permutations of things -- a ring of beads, Rubik's cube configurations -- as governed by 'group theory'. How much of this graph isomorphism problem falls under group theory?
Software Mortician sounds legitimate, actually -- someone who regularly handles transition, retirement, dismantling, and final disposition of old systems and data.
If there was a proper discipline (actual universally-accepted principles and practices, not regulations or theory) that could be adhered to which would *make* them engineers, that would be even better -- regardless of what they were called.
Because the cops don't make the laws, or the lawmakers enact them without knowing what it takes to enforce them at the street level, as a complete body of law?
The old talent doesn't want to do the new stuff: Management would kill their families and pets with a straight razor while they sleep, butcher their bodies, cook the meat into tacos, then serve the tacos to the Sunday school kindergarten class before they would be willing to train anyone for anything ever.
Maybe I'm getting old, but the driving vision for a lot of these reboots nowadays seems to lack appeal to me. Well, here's hoping that at least in this version of Sweeney Todd they'll do something inventive or refreshing with the music.
I mean, I understand because I'm old enough to have a grandfather who was permanently affected by polio. So I grew up with that. But those much younger than me?
Quite a few people younger/around your age remember polio. Just not people in this neck of the hemisphere of the woods.
I still strongly suspect that the only people who can really understand his "simple" explanations are those who already understand the bulk of the concepts being explained.
Good point -- however, he gets it into a form where people:
who would like to know more, or
who never really wanted to know more, but bring it up as small talk in conversations with people who do know more, and get a much more detailed description than they were expecting or ever wanted
can understand his descriptions well enough to use their elements to create well-formed questions.
While the general public might expect that researchers should want to maximize comprehension of their work, academic writing tends to follow an opaque style permeated with professional jargon and complex syntax. Proposed explanations for the emergence of this style range from experts generally finding it difficult to be simple when writing about their expertise to more complex social and cultural theories: "Cynics charge... that academics play an elitist game with their words: They want to exclude interlopers.
This is a joke, right? I plugged this text into http://readability-score.com/ and got a rough grade level of 16 for understandability.
Maybe researchers expect and support magazines such as Popular Science, Psychology Today, Discover, JAMA-Kids, etc. to interpret and rewrite their research to a specific audience, from high-school student through peers in unrelated fields. I bet most writers would tell you that it's not one-size-fits-all. Heck, maybe they wouldn't mind if they get called for an interview to explain their research in more detail.
He simply does not understand why most people would not embrace this. It seems perfectly logical to him. It is efficient. It is through. It saves time and energy. It puts a "team" on raising your kids.
And when the time comes, they'll trust the company enough to be easier to cook and eat -- hold on, that line wasn't supposed to make it into the press release. Send it back to PR and have them review *the whole thing* and let me know when the next draft is ready. Sheesh.
For my riding inkjet printer. You plug in a dongle, and it prints out a one-time code you hold up to the scanner, which starts the engine. After all, we have to make sure the car won't strand anyone unexpectedly.
In short, she's a real cunt who can't admit she's wrong and makes REAL problems from her IMAGINED issues. For us, we had to find another hotel at peak season, which meant walking 2 miles with heavy bags on a hot summers day with no water. Fucking cow.
The vast majority of cows wouldn't have problems carrying bags two miles, even on a hot day. It's also unlikely you'd ever describe a cow as 'shrill' -- they tend to be pretty placid.
Let's see... you referred to your sister in law both as a "cunt" and as a "cow". I don't think the issues are only at her end.
Even if one of the adjectives is appropriate, I'd agree with that assessment. Consistency, for one.
I'd immediately know the call was fake. Now if it went, "Hey, this is Hollywood. We heard you have one of our rovers from the moon landing movie, and would like to buy it back..."
How difficult would that make things? They could write the software in Cuba and sell it through a subcontractor in a different country. It's not as if software requires a 'Made in' label, and this has been done in the past on the very small-scale, quite lucratively.
Couldn't he have sent a 'demand letter' (?) via certified mail, requesting that they either cease and desist, provide documentation of their ownership of the copyright, or accept the validity of their contract and his ownership of the copyright and give him due credit? It seems that phone calls and email, while civil, made him waste his time, while a physical letter (or a phone call from an attorney/paralegal on his side) would be something like a ticket to have their legal department give it priority.
"Compared to a Westinghouse Gen II PWR, the AP1000 contains 50 percent fewer safety-related blah, 35 percent fewer blah, 80 percent less safety-related blah, 85 percent less control blah, and 45 percent less seismic blah.
So if I get the math right, it sounds like it's 45% less earthquake resistant, 85% less under control, and... carry the 1, 130-165% less safe all around. This makes me kind of nervous. But we got the facts -- at least that they're not spinning it to try to make the situation sound better than it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Complete with edible - yeah I'm not going there.
'I already looked at these paths' but this one 'looks different' but is it *really* different.
I distantly recall this sounding similar to determining the actual number of permutations of things -- a ring of beads, Rubik's cube configurations -- as governed by 'group theory'. How much of this graph isomorphism problem falls under group theory?
Is there a proper 'tongue-in-cheek' emoji?
Any examples of direct/proximate applications to layperson problems?
Software Mortician sounds legitimate, actually -- someone who regularly handles transition, retirement, dismantling, and final disposition of old systems and data.
If there was a proper discipline (actual universally-accepted principles and practices, not regulations or theory) that could be adhered to which would *make* them engineers, that would be even better -- regardless of what they were called.
It looks like you're trying to come up with new ideas. Would you like some help with that?
Then you'll probably get a chuckle out of this as well.
Because the cops don't make the laws, or the lawmakers enact them without knowing what it takes to enforce them at the street level, as a complete body of law?
Black I can understand, but Green Tea Party activists too? Sounds like progress to me!
Build a close-in weapons system, fit it with lasers, and run a few fun^H^H^H destructive tests.
The old talent doesn't want to do the new stuff: Management would kill their families and pets with a straight razor while they sleep, butcher their bodies, cook the meat into tacos, then serve the tacos to the Sunday school kindergarten class before they would be willing to train anyone for anything ever.
Maybe I'm getting old, but the driving vision for a lot of these reboots nowadays seems to lack appeal to me. Well, here's hoping that at least in this version of Sweeney Todd they'll do something inventive or refreshing with the music.
I mean, I understand because I'm old enough to have a grandfather who was permanently affected by polio. So I grew up with that. But those much younger than me?
Quite a few people younger/around your age remember polio. Just not people in this neck of the hemisphere of the woods.
Why the hell would I want a difficult job with real responsibilities?
I guess this is its own kind of zen answer.
I still strongly suspect that the only people who can really understand his "simple" explanations are those who already understand the bulk of the concepts being explained.
Good point -- however, he gets it into a form where people:
can understand his descriptions well enough to use their elements to create well-formed questions.
While the general public might expect that researchers should want to maximize comprehension of their work, academic writing tends to follow an opaque style permeated with professional jargon and complex syntax. Proposed explanations for the emergence of this style range from experts generally finding it difficult to be simple when writing about their expertise to more complex social and cultural theories: "Cynics charge ... that academics play an elitist game with their words: They want to exclude interlopers.
This is a joke, right? I plugged this text into http://readability-score.com/ and got a rough grade level of 16 for understandability.
Maybe researchers expect and support magazines such as Popular Science, Psychology Today, Discover, JAMA-Kids, etc. to interpret and rewrite their research to a specific audience, from high-school student through peers in unrelated fields. I bet most writers would tell you that it's not one-size-fits-all. Heck, maybe they wouldn't mind if they get called for an interview to explain their research in more detail.
I for one embrace this brave, new world.
He simply does not understand why most people would not embrace this. It seems perfectly logical to him. It is efficient. It is through. It saves time and energy. It puts a "team" on raising your kids.
And when the time comes, they'll trust the company enough to be easier to cook and eat -- hold on, that line wasn't supposed to make it into the press release. Send it back to PR and have them review *the whole thing* and let me know when the next draft is ready. Sheesh.
For my riding inkjet printer. You plug in a dongle, and it prints out a one-time code you hold up to the scanner, which starts the engine. After all, we have to make sure the car won't strand anyone unexpectedly.
In short, she's a real cunt who can't admit she's wrong and makes REAL problems from her IMAGINED issues. For us, we had to find another hotel at peak season, which meant walking 2 miles with heavy bags on a hot summers day with no water. Fucking cow.
The vast majority of cows wouldn't have problems carrying bags two miles, even on a hot day. It's also unlikely you'd ever describe a cow as 'shrill' -- they tend to be pretty placid.
Let's see... you referred to your sister in law both as a "cunt" and as a "cow". I don't think the issues are only at her end.
Even if one of the adjectives is appropriate, I'd agree with that assessment. Consistency, for one.
I'd immediately know the call was fake. Now if it went, "Hey, this is Hollywood. We heard you have one of our rovers from the moon landing movie, and would like to buy it back ..."
How difficult would that make things? They could write the software in Cuba and sell it through a subcontractor in a different country. It's not as if software requires a 'Made in' label, and this has been done in the past on the very small-scale, quite lucratively.
Couldn't he have sent a 'demand letter' (?) via certified mail, requesting that they either cease and desist, provide documentation of their ownership of the copyright, or accept the validity of their contract and his ownership of the copyright and give him due credit? It seems that phone calls and email, while civil, made him waste his time, while a physical letter (or a phone call from an attorney/paralegal on his side) would be something like a ticket to have their legal department give it priority.
Sony's lawyer didn't immediately back down because Sony might have taken an exclusive license.
They would have benefitted from also taking Martinez's advice (FTFA):
2.) Have your licensing documentation organized and easily searchable.
"Compared to a Westinghouse Gen II PWR, the AP1000 contains 50 percent fewer safety-related blah, 35 percent fewer blah, 80 percent less safety-related blah, 85 percent less control blah, and 45 percent less seismic blah.
So if I get the math right, it sounds like it's 45% less earthquake resistant, 85% less under control, and ... carry the 1, 130-165% less safe all around. This makes me kind of nervous. But we got the facts -- at least that they're not spinning it to try to make the situation sound better than it is.