Comment Re:me dumb (Score 1) 157
Here is the quantum algorithm:
1. Do weird stuff
2. If anybody starts to do something useful or interesting with my weird stuff, then STOP doing weird stuff.
3. Go to 1
Here is the quantum algorithm:
1. Do weird stuff
2. If anybody starts to do something useful or interesting with my weird stuff, then STOP doing weird stuff.
3. Go to 1
Surely it must have been on Slashdot before, though I can't actually find it with Google.
It's entangled with its dupe. Finish observing this one and the other should show up via Google.
You've _completely_ missed the point about money:
While the number of bad teachers has dropped you still have 50%people in the system that come from the bottom of academic performance.
A McKinsey survey of the worldâ(TM)s best schoolsâ"in Finland, South Korea, Singaporeâ"found that they consistently draw 100% of their teachers from the top third of graduates; in the U.S., almost half come from the bottom third. That may explain why our kidsâ(TM) performance falls below that of students in Estonia and why one-third of those who make it to college in the U.S. need remedial education.
Once people get into a teaching position, getting a bad teacher out is almost impossible.
Great. I'll be locked in jail with my entire family.
TWC has had crappy reliability in my experience.
So, there ought to be a law against adding new laws?
Right, they are saying it is the result of a pattern of behaviour. Like when you find ashes it is evidence of a fire, but that doesn't mean you need to have an ashes quota. It means you need to prevent fires.
By "people like you" I mean people who leap to unfounded conclusions based on their existing preconceptions. Take your comment "Old Fuddy Duddy. Get the thought police it's hate speech." No-one is saying it is hate speech. You made that bit up yourself, it's your own reaction, your own mind that thinks that way. They are saying it is discriminatory in the context of a PATTERN of similar remarks.
To win a discrimination case there needs to be a pattern, an on-going problem. A single remark is not enough if that's all it was.
Sure, but the problem here is that the exploit executes in the sandbox process which has root. A normal, non-sandboxed app would run at normal user level and, as you say, be limited in the damage it can do. The sandboxing was supposed to add an extra layer of security, but backfired and actually helped the app to trivially get root access.
They have not said "company X hasn't hired enough Y". They said that company X discriminated against this guy on the basis of his age, and that their hiring practices are discriminatory. It's not about the average age at all, it's about the hiring process.
Think about it. If this guy wins the result will not be Google being forced to hire more older workers to bring the average up. The result will be changing the hiring policies that are discriminatory. In other words, the aim is fairness, not numbers.
His phone interview went poorly--he was contacted by a person who had limited english skills, used a speakerphone with a poor connection (or maybe it was Google Voice) and refused to switch to the handset. He asked him to read code to him over the phone rather than using Google Docs.
Allegedly. What are the laws regarding recording such phone conversations in the US? In the UK it would almost certainly have been recorded and would be available to use at the trial. I could be extremely interesting. Without a recording it's just he said-she said.
No-body is suggesting a quota. Slashdot seems to have this strange reaction to numbers where they are always assumed to be a quota. In reality the stats mentioned in TFA are just there to give journalists some easy to understand and digest facts for their articles, and are unlikely to be major points in the lawsuit. The lawsuit has to rely on establishing a pattern of behaviour or specific policies that discriminate, merely pointing out that the average is low is not enough.
It's really unfortunate that every single article on equality likes to have a stat in it, because then people like you assume a quota is being called for. It isn't, it never is. The stat is just a simple illustration that clueless journos can understand without having to really get into the details of the issue to pen their throwaway article.
Sweeping generalizations about age groups are what lead to age discrimination. I know you don't mean to be actively discriminate against the young with your post, but it sets up a frame of mine in which it happens. It's exactly the same thing as is alleged in many discrimination suits by older people, where the mindset is that their generate are has-beens who are stuck in their ways and unable to adapt or fit in.
I've known good and bad programmers of all ages. Age does not correlate with quality, it's just a bias people use to explain and re-enforce their perceptions when they don't have objective data. Data is not the plural of anecdote.
I wonder if Apple will exit the PC business in a few years, once iOS and OS X have converged. Instead of PCs they will just sell oversized tablets. Maybe something like a Surface, but a little bigger, to replace their laptop range.
They don't seem that interested in the serious end of the PC market. Most of their serious software has been discontinued or crippled now. The Mac Pro launched with kinda average specs and was clearly designed as more of an appliance than a PC, to be discarded rather than upgraded. OS X is becoming more and more like iOS with every revision... I bet they would love to lock it down in the same way.
I can see Apple declaring the PC dead at some point. Maybe not in the near future, but in the next decade.
The OS is supposed to sandbox apps so that if they do get 0wned the damage is limited and the rest of the OS and apps are not compromised. Apple has attempted to do that on OS X, but clearly it hasn't worked as well as they were hoping. Even if an app get compromised that isn't supposed to let the code take full control of the OS.
I've not see a mess like that in ages. Not only is your Latin impressively wrong, your application of logic is impossibly bad.
It all goes to hell at the very beginning with "Ad prop". I don't even know what you were trying to say. It's complete gibberish. (If I had to guess, you were trying to use the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" which directly translates to "after this, therefore, because of this". Though that has nothing to do with the rest of your post.)
Moving on, the logic is as incomprehensible as your latin. "If this then that" (to which you thought that nonsense you wrote translates) is perfectly acceptable. Consider, for example, the modus ponens form: a -> b; a;
I should also note, for the sake of my own sanity, that an invalid argument asserts nothing about the truth of the conclusion. Shouting "logical fallacy!" is silly under the best of circumstances. It's absurd when you clearly don't understand basic logic.
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes
