Are Hollywood writers so creatively bankrupt that they have to leach off of a great movie from the past. Why can't they just leave a sci-fi classic like Blade Runner alone ? Just come up with some new and interesting ideas for a change. Is that too much to ask ? I guess so.
If the mayor wanted to get the best use of MIT, he could just send naked pictures of Seven of Nine to the entire student body. The heat from so many nerds spontaneously combusting would be more than sufficient to melt the snow.
I didn't RTFA but it seems like there should be a mathematical formula for mass & distance which could define a galaxy easily. There are obviously many well known cases which could be used as examples for the model.
It's not just creating the lines of code. It's unit testing. It's system testing. Full regression testing. It's bug fixing. It's documentation. All the things necessary to get something production ready. And that stuff takes time. So 100 lines of code per day is actually a decent measure of a productive employee.
I was in Beijing last fall and the air quality there was horrendous. It seemed 10x as bad as the worst smog I ever saw in Los Angeles.
During my visit a huge dust storm blew in with tremendous winds. It was almost strong enough to knock me over at times. The next day the air was as blue as could be. Just beautiful clear skies. Our guide says it was the first time he had seen blue sky in Beijing for many months. Sad . . .
I can't see how dropping finals is a good idea in academia. Sure you'll have occasional classes where large projects are submitted in the place of finals. But for the vast majority of classes, (especially lectures) finals serve a very useful purpose. They force students to reflect on all components of the class and to see how they fit together. And obviously one can't do that until the end of the course. I remember many times during my undergraduate years learning a great deal in preparation for the final exam. Not so much specific details but in recognizing "the big picture" of the course. By eliminating finals, Harvard is robbing its students of this important process (though I'm sure the students are thrilled at having to do less work).
I'm not an electronic trader but I do work in a data-intensive tech job on Wall Street. And the above mindset is very common - that business guys are super smart and everyone else is a glorified office assistant. All of the senior managers at my company have MBA's and give only minor thanks to the computer scientists and statisticians that keep them employed. My supervisor only has a vague idea of the data and that's only because I keep him informed. Without me the guy would be completely lost. The techies definitely don't get much respect.
I think the above example is a great reason why you should always over-engineer your storage capability somewhat. Demand for space can come up unexpectedly and stop the whole show if it's not there. Also if you don't use the storage today, you will definitely make use of it tomorrow. Data usage always goes up, not down. So there's ROI for the next fiscal year when you can make use of the extra capacity.
If you get in the right lab, you can be seen as a valuable member of the team. But yes, some PhD's do view MS level workers as only "technicians".
Part of this belief is reinforced by the grant process. To get funding you have to submit grant proposals. Having a PhD by your name is necessary to be a Principal Investigator and bring in the $$.
Apple should have designed both devices with removable batteries. Not doing so was a disservice to the consumer as well as being eco-unfriendly.
I'm actually quite surprised at Apple's decision to lock the batteries in the device. The only thing I can think of is planned obsolescence to spur more sales. Which would be a pretty sleazy thing to do. [Or maybe a pretty profitable thing to do.]
iPods will stick around until they are replaced by new and improved technology. Likely we'd all still be using Walkmans if the iPod hadn't come along. While the market may be saturated as far as new sales, replacements for old / broken iPods will continue for a long time. I know I'll replace my nano iPod when the battery goes dead. Like most people I'm used to mine and don't want to give it up. That suggests continued iPod sales for the foreseeable future.
But I think Woz is correct on the iPhone. The lack of innovation (open development platform) and single carrier could be a serious impediment to adoption by the larger public. While several million iPhones have been sold that's a tiny fraction compared to the 50 million Razrs in existence. I think Apple could be making the same mistake it made with their computers in the 1980's. An industry leader with great design that eventually suffers because of the locked-down, proprietary control. I hope for Apple's sake the iPhone doesn't turn into a blip in cell phone history.
I work on Wall Street and have participated in many, many interviews from entry level guys to senior staff. It's very common to ask technical questions to our candidates. They could be either computing or statistical questions (the focus of our group) but they are always given. We wouldn't think of it otherwise.
The questions are sometimes about specific facts. That's most common with the younger guys. But we ask everybody to describe some technical problem they have resolved. Also we pose hypothetical situations and see how they respond.
The intent of the questions is three fold. One - we want to see if the candidates know what they say they do on their resumes. Often they do not. Two - we like to see how people think creatively when posed with novel situations. Most of our work will be exactly that. So understanding their decision making processes is very helpful in evaluating them. Finally we like to see how people handle stress. Nobody is screaming at the job seekers or anything. But we work in an industry where people have to defend their complex decisions to others. If you can't do that in an interview, you're a bad fit for this job.
Job interviews are not all "meet and greet". You have to show you know your stuff. And if you're confident in your skills, that should be no problem. In fact, you should be glad the company is doing the tough interviews. That means if you're hired, the people around you are likely going to be very good. And that's the kind of environment most people would really enjoy working in.
When I worked in academia I used to collaborate on a research project with a data architect from one of the major electronic exchanges. His whole shop is MS and.NET. I asked him why he didn't run Linux / Unix. He said that with competent guys the MS boxes had great uptime. Wall Street can afford to pay the top salaries so they attract guys who really know their stuff. Not just semi-competent people who managed to sit through an MSCE exam. [his words not mine]
Also he said support was crucial for his company. If something went down, he wanted to be able to call someone immediately. He couldn't afford to just post a question on a message board and hope someone replies. He wanted contracts with 3rd party support that had experience with similar huge enterprise systems that he had.
When I said there were companies who could provide excellent Linux support, he said his ass was on the line if something broke so he wanted to be able to justify his software choice to the the C-level guys. And those guys knew the name Microsoft. So he didn't see anything else as an option.
I was at a bar drinking with a bunch of tech friends watching the Giants game. We couldn't hear the conversation but recognized it as the Seinfeld add right away. As an aside, man does Gates look old in that thing - like somebody's Grandfather. Anyway the add finished and we all looked at each other and said WTF?
If the add is trying to target young, tech savvy people, it failed miserably. In fact it had the opposite effect. Most of the crowd thought it was a desperate attempt to gain attention. And the choice of Seinfeld and Gates could not have been weirder.
If our group was any kind of a representative sample, the add was a colossal failure.
I am surprised Sun didn't tie Monty to the company with golden handcuffs (deferred compensation). His departure could have a negative effect on customer loyalty. And it sure does look bad for the founder to be leaving so quickly.
I'd be amazed if the FCC doesn't have a standard set of tests that can be used. Why should they use the test procedures of a private company ? Obviously the possibility for manipulating the tests for their private gain exists. So why even allow it?
The scientific merit of this proposal is dubious at best.
My guess is that NASA is trying to ride the genomics wave and add something that is biological to get more people interested / get more funding. Politics over good science.
Slashdot Mirror
omg I'm a happy, girl :) LOL I love my cute hubby's chocolate hair. yay ! hahaha
woops - meant leech. Hollywood types who tarnish great originals with crappy remakes / prequels / sequels / etc = money grubbing blood suckers. But I'd guess most already knew that.
Are Hollywood writers so creatively bankrupt that they have to leach off of a great movie from the past. Why can't they just leave a sci-fi classic like Blade Runner alone ? Just come up with some new and interesting ideas for a change. Is that too much to ask ? I guess so.
If the mayor wanted to get the best use of MIT, he could just send naked pictures of Seven of Nine to the entire student body. The heat from so many nerds spontaneously combusting would be more than sufficient to melt the snow.
I'm not an astronomer but don't galaxies generally spin while clusters just sit there and hang out.
I didn't RTFA but it seems like there should be a mathematical formula for mass & distance which could define a galaxy easily. There are obviously many well known cases which could be used as examples for the model.
It's not just creating the lines of code. It's unit testing. It's system testing. Full regression testing. It's bug fixing. It's documentation. All the things necessary to get something production ready. And that stuff takes time. So 100 lines of code per day is actually a decent measure of a productive employee.
well Mars is an improvement to living in your Mom's basement
I was in Beijing last fall and the air quality there was horrendous. It seemed 10x as bad as the worst smog I ever saw in Los Angeles. During my visit a huge dust storm blew in with tremendous winds. It was almost strong enough to knock me over at times. The next day the air was as blue as could be. Just beautiful clear skies. Our guide says it was the first time he had seen blue sky in Beijing for many months. Sad . . .
I can't see how dropping finals is a good idea in academia. Sure you'll have occasional classes where large projects are submitted in the place of finals. But for the vast majority of classes, (especially lectures) finals serve a very useful purpose. They force students to reflect on all components of the class and to see how they fit together. And obviously one can't do that until the end of the course. I remember many times during my undergraduate years learning a great deal in preparation for the final exam. Not so much specific details but in recognizing "the big picture" of the course. By eliminating finals, Harvard is robbing its students of this important process (though I'm sure the students are thrilled at having to do less work).
I'm not an electronic trader but I do work in a data-intensive tech job on Wall Street. And the above mindset is very common - that business guys are super smart and everyone else is a glorified office assistant. All of the senior managers at my company have MBA's and give only minor thanks to the computer scientists and statisticians that keep them employed. My supervisor only has a vague idea of the data and that's only because I keep him informed. Without me the guy would be completely lost. The techies definitely don't get much respect.
I think the above example is a great reason why you should always over-engineer your storage capability somewhat. Demand for space can come up unexpectedly and stop the whole show if it's not there. Also if you don't use the storage today, you will definitely make use of it tomorrow. Data usage always goes up, not down. So there's ROI for the next fiscal year when you can make use of the extra capacity.
He threw a chair at one of his staff. What's he going to do when they come to fire him ? Throw an entire office set ?
If you get in the right lab, you can be seen as a valuable member of the team. But yes, some PhD's do view MS level workers as only "technicians". Part of this belief is reinforced by the grant process. To get funding you have to submit grant proposals. Having a PhD by your name is necessary to be a Principal Investigator and bring in the $$.
but I'll wait to buy one until it can cut off someone's arm
My favorite was the Daily News headline when NYC was going bankrupt in the 1970's "Ford to City: Drop Dead".
Apple should have designed both devices with removable batteries. Not doing so was a disservice to the consumer as well as being eco-unfriendly.
I'm actually quite surprised at Apple's decision to lock the batteries in the device. The only thing I can think of is planned obsolescence to spur more sales. Which would be a pretty sleazy thing to do. [Or maybe a pretty profitable thing to do.]
iPods will stick around until they are replaced by new and improved technology. Likely we'd all still be using Walkmans if the iPod hadn't come along. While the market may be saturated as far as new sales, replacements for old / broken iPods will continue for a long time. I know I'll replace my nano iPod when the battery goes dead. Like most people I'm used to mine and don't want to give it up. That suggests continued iPod sales for the foreseeable future.
But I think Woz is correct on the iPhone. The lack of innovation (open development platform) and single carrier could be a serious impediment to adoption by the larger public. While several million iPhones have been sold that's a tiny fraction compared to the 50 million Razrs in existence. I think Apple could be making the same mistake it made with their computers in the 1980's. An industry leader with great design that eventually suffers because of the locked-down, proprietary control. I hope for Apple's sake the iPhone doesn't turn into a blip in cell phone history.
I work on Wall Street and have participated in many, many interviews from entry level guys to senior staff. It's very common to ask technical questions to our candidates. They could be either computing or statistical questions (the focus of our group) but they are always given. We wouldn't think of it otherwise.
The questions are sometimes about specific facts. That's most common with the younger guys. But we ask everybody to describe some technical problem they have resolved. Also we pose hypothetical situations and see how they respond.
The intent of the questions is three fold. One - we want to see if the candidates know what they say they do on their resumes. Often they do not. Two - we like to see how people think creatively when posed with novel situations. Most of our work will be exactly that. So understanding their decision making processes is very helpful in evaluating them. Finally we like to see how people handle stress. Nobody is screaming at the job seekers or anything. But we work in an industry where people have to defend their complex decisions to others. If you can't do that in an interview, you're a bad fit for this job.
Job interviews are not all "meet and greet". You have to show you know your stuff. And if you're confident in your skills, that should be no problem. In fact, you should be glad the company is doing the tough interviews. That means if you're hired, the people around you are likely going to be very good. And that's the kind of environment most people would really enjoy working in.
When I worked in academia I used to collaborate on a research project with a data architect from one of the major electronic exchanges. His whole shop is MS and .NET. I asked him why he didn't run Linux / Unix. He said that with competent guys the MS boxes had great uptime. Wall Street can afford to pay the top salaries so they attract guys who really know their stuff. Not just semi-competent people who managed to sit through an MSCE exam. [his words not mine]
Also he said support was crucial for his company. If something went down, he wanted to be able to call someone immediately. He couldn't afford to just post a question on a message board and hope someone replies. He wanted contracts with 3rd party support that had experience with similar huge enterprise systems that he had.
When I said there were companies who could provide excellent Linux support, he said his ass was on the line if something broke so he wanted to be able to justify his software choice to the the C-level guys. And those guys knew the name Microsoft. So he didn't see anything else as an option.
I was at a bar drinking with a bunch of tech friends watching the Giants game. We couldn't hear the conversation but recognized it as the Seinfeld add right away. As an aside, man does Gates look old in that thing - like somebody's Grandfather. Anyway the add finished and we all looked at each other and said WTF?
If the add is trying to target young, tech savvy people, it failed miserably. In fact it had the opposite effect. Most of the crowd thought it was a desperate attempt to gain attention. And the choice of Seinfeld and Gates could not have been weirder.
If our group was any kind of a representative sample, the add was a colossal failure.
I am surprised Sun didn't tie Monty to the company with golden handcuffs (deferred compensation). His departure could have a negative effect on customer loyalty. And it sure does look bad for the founder to be leaving so quickly.
Section 11 was unworkable if not even embarrassing for Google. There's no way it was going to stay for long.
I'd be amazed if the FCC doesn't have a standard set of tests that can be used. Why should they use the test procedures of a private company ? Obviously the possibility for manipulating the tests for their private gain exists. So why even allow it?
The scientific merit of this proposal is dubious at best.
My guess is that NASA is trying to ride the genomics wave and add something that is biological to get more people interested / get more funding. Politics over good science.