Not sure, but I think Google does hire its chefs directly. I thought I saw a job posting for one once on Google's careers website, but I could be wrong.

That's under current law. Given that the populace have voted that it's okay to fail the driving test 59 times as long as you pass the 60th, and you can be half-blind and senile and still drive, current law may very well be revised.

Of course we're dealing with FEDERAL bureaucrats, who are less accountable to the public than STATE ones, but democracy still works in the long run. Right now only rich weirdos fly their own planes, so we're okay f*ing them in the ass with safety regulations. If everyone, or a lot of people, realized they could potentially own and operate a flying car but for "red tape", we as a society will get the balance between safety and accessibility we choose.

Your post is an amalgamation of unfalsifiable nonsense. Humans aren't dogs; we didn't typically immediately eat everything we killed. They took it back to the cave/shelter/whatever and (once we had fire) cooked it and shared it with the non-hunters. Yeah the tribal leader(s) probably got to eat more or better parts of the animal, but, unlike with dogs, robbing him of this by eating it first would probably result in some long-term consequences. And for a large part of our history -- maybe most of it -- we weren't even primarily hunters at all. Look at the modern diet of chimpanzees. Your speculation also does not account for eating less salad -- why not simply eat more of everything? And as far as eating quicker, that's not even in the summary (and probably not the article either, but I don't care enough to check). You seem to have just pulled that out of an orifice not used for eating.

My speculation is It's probably more a case of mirroring. People mirror those around them (and you can speculate on why exactly this is the case as well if you want), and mirroring a fat person means -- at least in someone's mind -- eating less healthy and more calorie-dense food. But that's just unfalsifiable speculation on my part. All we know for sure is that people do it. And that's thanks to this study.

Also? Not going to a university because you don't like one study by one professor in one department is just too stupid for further comment.

Uh, no it's not, dude. Netscape was the original browser to use the Mozilla rendering engine, now called Gecko, and Firefox uses Gecko, but that doesn't make Firefox Netscape. There are other non-Netscape browsers based on Gecko, like SeaMonkey and K-Meleon. Calling Firefox Netscape is about as accurate as calling Chrome, Safari, or Opera Konqueror.

If you want a Netscape-like browser, by the way, you should look into SeaMonkey. I keep toying with the idea of switching to it but never get around to it because I've got over 100 tabs open.

Re Netscape:

What the hell? Dude, Netscape's been dead for 6 years. The browser is completely unmaintained and everything past 7.2 was a crappy respin of Firefox anyway. All that's left of the brand is a crappy web portal: http://netscape.aol.com/

I liked it, too. I used Netscape 7.2 long past its sell-by date. But why would you possibly be using Netscape in 2014?

My only experience with Gentoo was on SPARC. "Shit randomly breaking" described that setup perfectly.

Slackware has "rolling releases" just like Gentoo, by the way. You just update against Slackware-current. Technically that's the beta tree but it's completely usable. And we do still have udev, just no systemd :)

Come over to Slackware; the water's great! We got rid of that GNOME shit ages ago.

Drug addicted prostitute was probably on Medicaid to begin with. At least now she can get free birth control.

I don't understand. You think he's responsible for the stock market increases? If so, wouldn't that indicate competence of some sort?

I remember reading a few years ago during the "great recession" that someone was going all-in shorting the market thinking there was going to be another 1929. I wonder how that worked out for him. Guess it wasn't you, but if you think he's so bad ... why DID you go long?

Would this be OS X, where porting it so it could run on high-end Mac Pros might make a modicum of sense, or iOS, where you'd have to be on multiple psychedelic substances to believe that would be a good use of resources?

"He must have forgotten to update it."

HTF does that make any sense? Once a language gets "too old" it gets erased from your memory even if you knew it before?

I'm firmly in the camp that you can pick up a language in a weekend. I was once given an interview question to implement a hydrocarbon naming application in Ruby. This was a take-home question, btw, I emailed them my answer:

Given a diagram of a hydrocarbon, give its (algorithmically generatable) name. Trivial? Not really. I didn't know Ruby. I didn't know enough organic chemistry to really understand the question. They knew I didn't know either of these things (they asked).

In the span of a week, working about 2 hours a day and keeping them up-to-date on my progress as I went, I researched hydrocarbons, their naming scheme, and Ruby, and implemented a pretty awesome little program that named hydrocarbons. You needed graph theory (which I /did/ know) to do the solution, and the algorithm was, as usual, much more intellectually challenging than the programming language or vagaries of the problem domain. The question would have been a little easier if I'd known the implementation language or the hydrocarbon naming rules beforehand, but not by much.

The only languages worth learning if you don't foresee using them immediately are ones that expand your brain. Those include your first functional language, Prolog, APL, the first language you learn with pointers, and the first assembly language. You should ideally get those in college, although I missed out on Prolog and APL and never did pick them up (ONE of these days...). Perl 6, Ruby, Python, C#, Java, COBOL, FORTRAN, Octave/Matlab, PHP (ugh), Pascal, and other "normal" languages do very little to really expand your cognitive model of programming.

The first functional programming language with garbage collection was released in 1958. The fundamentals of CS change slowly. VERY slowly. It's important to keep up with them when they change. That's not hard, though.

My attitude toward jobs and training is this: I will know the fundamentals, meaning the basic concepts and building blocks in the field. I will remain current with them because I'm working in the field and, even if not, I enjoy doing relevant stuff in my spare time. You get that when you hire me. You also get whatever skills I happen to know because I needed them for something in the past.

You need me to start coding PHP? COBOL? Visual Basic 6? Whitespace? Fine. But you'll have to pay me to flail around for a week or so while I figure a few things out. Languages and libraries are "learned" through memorization. Memorized facts go away when you don't use them. I'm not going to waste my time learning COBOL. I'll forget it before I need it.

Something fundamental changes? I'm on it. Nothing fundamental changes? I'll pick up whatever suits my hobby.

I'm sorry, did you say "four hours a day honing your skills"? Are you nuts? What do you do, learn a new programming language every week and make flash cards to memorize library APIs?

It's hard for me to gauge exactly how much time I spend "honing my skills", because a lot of it mentally falls under "playing" and "cool hobby projects", but I'd guesstimate more like 10 hours a month. If you have a family and your "first loyalty" is to them, spend some time with them on weekends instead of shutting yourself in a room and filling your brain with useless knowledge that 90% of you'll never use and the other 10% you could pick up when you actually had a need for it.

Sunglasses royally fuck up most face detection software. It's even better than putting your hair in front of one eye a la Dr. Blight in Captain Planet. Someone else linked to this, which is another, even better option (once they make them more "stylish" so you won't be drawing attention to yourself by wearing them): http://petapixel.com/2013/06/1...

Both humans and dogs have had ample opportunity to cross-breed. Dogs' opinions of people are likely to based on the primitive, intuitive brain. I don't know how different their criteria would be. Their main purposes in judging people are probably going to be something like, "Is this person going to feed me, kick me, or kill me or my master?" Hardly conducive to a job interview situation. If you really think the dog is better at judging new hires than yourself or other humans, I suggest you let the dog perform an interview. I would make sure first, though. "You know, that DOG never liked this SOB from the start!" is likely to be subject to some pretty severe confirmation bias if you're not keeping records.

It's pretty easy to experimentally verify this. Whenever you hire someone new, gauge how the dog likes the person, and how you like the person, and write that down in a journal. Six months down the road, go back and see who was right. After a sample size of 20 or so, decide whether to let the dog participate in the interview process. You might want to do this subtly so as not to freak the candidates out, but it would be pretty easy to be, like, "Hey, we have a dog! Doggy, say hi to !" without making it obvious you're getting the dog's opinion for hiring purposes. I'm surprised you haven't done this already. It's important to get as many people's -- er, creatures' -- opinions as possible when hiring someone.

Personally, I'd be pretty pissed if someone passed me over for a job because a dog didn't like me, but unless the dog's being racist or sexist, I wouldn't have a leg to hump or to stand on in a lawsuit. Actually if I somehow found out that happened, I'd probably think some really negative things about the company and be kind of glad. But, hey, don't let broader society stop you. Do the experiments, then go with Dog.