Bah, I hate it when
Hopefully the community do not slaughter me for that mistake *prays*...
Bah, I hate it when
The iDot... Apple's new (patent and copyright pending) way to end sentences and provide a break between the integer and fractional parts of a number. According to Apple, it looks better than the old "decimal point" that it replaces, it has more caché, has been designed with usability in mind, and it runs the latest version of iOS.
It is also fully compatible with your web browser and email system, and all such systems will be automatically upgraded to work with the new symbol.
A small licensing fee will be levied by Apple for the use of this incredible and ground-breaking new technology, and their lawyers will be in contact with each and every one of you in due course, to arrange your payment of this licensing fee, along with the pre-defined hourly rate for the lawyers' time spent on the case.
Failure to pay the licence fee and other associated fees will cause a general reduction in your attractiveness to the opposite sex, and infestation of Locusts to descend on your house, you will be afflicted with Cooties, and you will henceforth be referred to by anyone who hears about the failure to pay the license fee for such a useful and necessary implement as "that iDot".
Oh and if you believe the Urban Dictionary, ying-yang is the erroneous spelling of the phrase "yin-yang", which is the simplified form of "ynyáng", the Pnyn (phonetic method of representing Chinese characters in western script) spelling of the Chinese characters which define Yin and Yang. So, it looks like the OP is not the "iDot" in this case...
I think about bitcoin more as "commodity" or "liquid trade asset" than currency. And yes, we going to have all types of market. The traditional exchanges (trading, clearing, settlement processes, etc) and Over-the-counter trading as well. I don't know why government and legislators are get freaking out about the pseudo-anonymity that bitcoin got. Bitcoin has a global and immutable ledger that would be a very good start for trading transparency and economics flow analysis.
Btw how "darkpools" really works ?
Anonymity (for a Government that fears either its own people or someone else's) is, in my opinion, a direct threat to that government, because they seek leverage/power over those individuals or institutions that they fear, as a means of control. But that is my very Orwellian 1984-type negative opinion of people who seek power through political office speaking... I am sure that nobody in the US political machine is actually like that...
As for dark pools, they work on a double-blind system, for fungible assets (a fungible asset is one that is directly and equally swapable for any other identical asset - a $10 bill can be swapped for any other $10 bill in the system without gaining or losing any value, with the only real difference being that one is slightly dirtier, more crumpled and more bacteria-ridden than the other - a bank will still give you $10 for it if you take it in).
In simple terms, a dark pool allows me to say that I want to sell 100 of a particular item at a particular price, usually shares in a company, but fundamentally it could be anything fungible. You might post that you want to buy 150 of that particular item, again at a particular price. Neither of us sees that the other has posted something relevant to our request, but the dark pool system will see both requests and pair them up if the prices we are both looking for match. Once the trade has been completed and ownership is transferred, then the trade can be examined to see who the two parties in the transaction were (if you want truly anonymous trading, then most of the major trading exchanges for fungible assets - NASDAQ, LSE, NYSE, and so on - have anonymous exchange trading platforms which keep the identities of the parties involved in the transactions secret even after the trade has completed, although this information can be obtained by law enforcement agencies with a court order, or probably by the NSA without one...).
For many people/sheeple, they derive comfort from the idea that they are (a) Right, and (b) in the majority (with "right" being determined at the time with incomplete information by who is either in the majority or who shouts loudest).
Things like the medieval opinion that the world is flat, that women or specific ethnic/indigenous groups are unimportant/inferior, or the Standard Model of particle physics, and even with religion, show that there is great comfort in being in the majority.
Choosing to go against the majority can be a brave decision to stick up for your principles, or it can simply be a sign of bloody-mindedness with no better reason than a desire to not conform (guess who usually plays the Devil's Advocate in one-sided discussions?)
In many instances, humans exhibit a profound "herd animal" instinct, where the outsider/outlier is attacked, from children in the playground picking on the smallest or the one who is different because one powerful individual does so, to the people in a meeting rounding on a dissenting voice because their manager does the same. For those people, conforming to another person's idea is an easy thing to do because then it is not necessary to think about the situation and come up with your own opinion, especially if that opinion might align with the one being attacked so that you either have to support that individual and yourself face attack or willingly go against your opinion... better to not think at all and "go with the flow".
The critical thinker who is appreciated in their own lifetime is typically the one who comes with a blindingly obvious idea which improves things all round, whose idea does not cause the loud shouters to lose prestige or influence because they did not themselves see that idea. Given that most critical thinkers' ideas piss off at least a few people and show them as being wrong, it takes time until those loud people lose their influence (or those people find a way to adopt the new idea without losing face) before the critical thinker's contribution has a real chance of being acknowledged and properly valued.
I thought Intel, Samsung and TSMC claim that the upcoming 350mm wafer going to bring along another round of cost saving.
Are they telling the truth, or are they blowing smoke ?
Yes and no... as a bona fide cynic, I will believe that the sun is made of twinkie foam before believing anything that any CEO says about increased costs justifying higher prices or smaller price reductions. But at the same time, a 350mm wafer means more chips per wafer, not smaller chips. That does help them increase yield (number of viable chips per wafer), so that each wafer is worth more (but also costs more, because it is larger... the increased value is greater than the increased cost, however, for Silicon wafers and slightly better but not as good as Silicon for the more exotic wafer types - Gallium Arsenide, Cadmium Telluride, etc. because of the extra manufacturing complexity inherent in larger wafer production for compound wafers).
So the cost per chip with larger wafers comes down, but as you refine the process node and make your devices smaller, those devices become more sensitive to tiny imperfections in the wafer, whether it is a break in the crystal lattice caused by the wafer cutting or a foreign body lying across the surface of the wafer, so those process node enhancements typically drive yield down.
It comes out a bit like Intel's tick-tock processor release model - improve the process nodes to drive down the die size and make smaller devices but which result in lower per-wafer yields as the "tick" phase, then larger wafers with the same process node to drive per-wafer yields back up as the tock phase.
Given that the investment in each process node improvement costs many many billions of dollars, probably every 3 years, that is a huge capital cost that needs to be recouped or written off, and not many companies are going to be able to write off that kind of expense regularly (which is why we have so few companies at the cutting edge of semiconductor fabrication)...
When you buy a Bitcoin you are not buying equity in the Bitcoin environment. Wonder what model BoA valuers have in mind for this. It weirds me out.
Almost certainly they are using a Commodity Futures Contract model that is used for precious metals, oil/petroleum, wheat and so on, on places like the Chicago Board of Trade or the London Metals Exchange. With those, there is a finite new supply of "product" and for the vast majority of people dealing with them, there is no physical product - the contracts being traded are for future delivery of a specific quantity of a specific product on a specific date. The product will be delivered to a specified place, and it is the responsibility of the person receiving the product (the contract owner as of the contract maturity date/product delivery date) to move it from that delivery point to a storage location of their choice.
As such, the traders who buy and sell these contracts do not want to hold them until maturity, because they have no storage space, so they buy the contracts (for example) 12 months before the delivery date for a specified price, and sell them before maturity, hopefully for a profit.
With bitcoins, there are no physical deliverables, but in every other important sense they resemble these Commodities Futures contracts.
If they became widely accepted and centrally traded, with a central body guaranteeing transaction integrity (basic ESCROW systems would probably be the starting point for that), they would almost certainly be traded as a "standard" currency on FX markets (exchanging Bitcoins for US Dollars, Euros, Japanese Yen, etc.), but without that central body guaranteeing the transactions, they would probably be traded as Commodities Futures.
The "problem" with both of those routes is that there is heavy auditing on every stage of every transaction, so the anonymity aspect of Bitcoin goes right out of the window. The parties involved in any given transaction would be known and recorded, and even if those are brokers acting on behalf of the real Bitcoin owners, the brokers would still need to have records showing who the real owner is.
In the world of athletics, the athlete is responsible for verifying beforehand that any substances entering their body are free from performance-enhancing drugs and a range of other substances. In this case, that same rule seems to have been applied to software - the admins are responsible for code entering the body of the application.
Aside form anything else, my opinion is that someone on the project should have oversight of new code submissions before they are committed to the main codebase. If that is not happening here, then this is a lesson in stupidity for the admins. If it is happening, then the admins really are facilitating, because they have explicitly allowed that functionality into the application. Flipping the coin again, if the admins explicitly allowed the content without realizing what it does, then they have commited code without understanding the purpose or impact of the code, and we are back to the lesson in stupidity again...
As it has no motive power of its own (it has to be towed into position), it is not really a ship. But it is still a really cool feat of engineering, designed to ride out the typhoon season off the Australian coast and keep LNG production going for 25 years or so...
However, Shell are apparently building an even bigger one as well. Maybe they are trying to have a ship that is longer than the Burj Khalifa?
This is why ALL government documents (law, contracts, etc) should be kept as a relatively plain text format in a Git repo, and if any party wants to change it, it should get branched, commits should be signed, and merges should should also be signed by those who approved them.
As someone who has worked with contracts, I can honestly say that what SHOULD happen (in my world, at least) is that while the contract is being negotiated, a version history showing proposed changes should be kept, but once a contract has been agreed by all parties, that history should be wiped and the agreed contract should be frozen with no further updates, and signed by all parties involved.
Any subsequent updates should result in a branch of the original, with the updates included as additional appendices clearly marked as items added after the original signing, and if those updates are replacements of the original content of the contract, the original should be retained in the main text body, but it should be indicated on that original section being replaced which appendix contains the required changes. When the update is agreed and signed off by all parties who signed the original contract, that update then gets folded into the main branch of the contract (but with the original text still in the main document body and linking to the appendix which contains the update).
It makes amendments to amendments complicated, but that is why we have contract lawyers, and if you do not keep your contract lawyers busy, they will find other things to do, and a contract lawyer with that kind of time on his hands is a dangerous beast which should be culled in the interest of public safety.
Old fart making a comment, here. As long as I can make calls with it, the rest is fluff and window dressing. If it were not for the fact that my employer has standardized on the iPhone, I would not touch one of them. The one bright spot being that, as I have an iPhone, I am better able to support my girlfriend's iPhone and the iPhones of everyone else in the family. Because as the tech guy of the group, no matter what I say they all bring their iPhones to me when they have a problem.
But... 50% Faster?
My phone makes calls, looks up numbers and addresses in my contact list, and occasionally acts as a GPS navigation aid when I am going somewhere new. That is about it. I have a few games on there for when my girlfriend's nephews and nieces are bored, and that is about it. So if my phone needs to be 50% faster to do what I need to do, then there is something wrong with the phone.
My employer pays for it, so what do I care what it costs?
I have big hands, so a smaller phone than I have feels a bit awkward.
ok, maybe not 50% bigger, but slightly larger would be a bit more comfortable. Nothing to write home about though.
Seriously, I barely notice the weight of the thing as it is. If anything, make it 50% heavier and more rugged - waterproof and drop-proof would be more interesting than lighter (and presumably more easily broken).
ok, I could take this one as a runner up to my choice. Recharging every 3-4 hours because I have been on the phone to a client for 2 hours is a bit of a pain, but I spent so long with a desk phone that I am still used to being tied to a desk when on the phone anyway.
50% of the Known Universe?
There are enough black holes in the phone's operating system already, without adding a few from the Universe. Although throwing data into a Black Hole would be a cool way of deleting it...
So my choice. 50% more secure.
In fact, don't stop at 50%. Give me 200%, or 500%. If I am making a call, I want to know that it is secure. I am not discussing National Security or making Terrorist plans to blow up America, but I do not want anyone listening in on my girlfriend and I making small talk... especially not my wife
Similarly, I want to know that whatever I load on the phone is not going to start sending my data to someone somewhere unless I specifically want it sent. My phone, my data, my control. Is that too much to ask, NSA???
My breadth of experience is similar, having started programming before i was 10 years old and writing databases in dBase 3 (Ashton Tate, anyone?) for commercial stock control systems before I hit my teens. Now that I am in my 40's, it means I have typically 8-10 years' extra experience than colleagues of the same age, and potential employers are surprised at how young I am when I arrive for an interview.
Admittedly, this is in Europe, but 5-6 years ago when working in the 'States, I got the same kind of feedback.
My feeling at the moment is that there is a lot of talent on the shelf at the moment and that companies are still a bit risk-averse when hiring, so those positions you are not getting are probably going to people who are either younger (in which case, drop your age from your CV), less expensive and maybe less capable (either wait for a job that values your skills as you do, or take a lower paid job, choice is yours), or more local to the employer (in which case, reconsider your "remote working only" stance). The only way to find out is to call and ask the recruiters. If the recruiters are internal to the organisation, good luck... I doubt you will get anything out of them as they try to avoid a discrimination lawsuit. But if the recruiters are an external company, you can probably get at least some ideas based on the people they put forward for interview and the ones the potential employer showed an interest in.
But as to the question "are you too old?", my answer is "no, because in my experience a lot of companies looking for quality rather than cheap, are seriously looking at older candidates favourably".
"So, can Adams succeed in convincing the U.S. where Dr. Jack failed?"
Probably not, in my opinion.
The conservative Christian religious community mostly see "suicide" as a mortal sin, and usually suffering as a Good Thing, in preparation for a life in Heaven. So no traction there.
The medical companies will get a nice little income stream from keeping these breathing corpses "alive" as long as they can (or at least, as long as they can pay). So no traction there.
The Government (of any orientation, not just the current administration) will listen primarily to whomever shouts the loudest or waves the most cash, which in this case are going to be the lobby groups and religious groups who represent the two aforementioned groups, and anyone who tries to generate an organised response to that will be faced with accusations of murder, regicide, patricide, and Oedipus Complex, and watching too many Horror movies and playing too many violent computer games. So no traction there.
While I agree that assisted suicide could be abused by unscrupulous people for personal gain, I am also damned sure that the people who would abuse the system are going to find other ways to get the job done, so not having such a system does not stop the abusers from being abusers, but it does stop the people who care about their loved ones' ability to maintain a certain quality of life or die with some dignity and minimal suffering from doing the best thing for their family member.
There are valid options for many cases, but in the US these amount to State-specific DNR (Do Not Resucitate) forms prepared, filled and signed by the patient ahead of time and properly anotated by appropriate medical professionals. However, in the case of dementia, Parkinsons, paralysis, Locked-In syndrome, or other conditions which are not in themselves life-threatening, but which do result in a massive loss of quality of life, there is little or no option other than the sufferer literally starving themselves to death or taking active steps to commit suicide in such a way that there is no sign of assistance in the act by other people (who, of course, could then be charged with murder in many cases).
Personally, I feel this is something that does need to be looked at and debated seriously, because many people would describe the conditions that lots of these people live under as akin to mental, physical or psychological torture, and they themselves would not want to live under such conditions but in later life find themselves forced to do so by the different morality of other individuals who say that human life is sacred and we are not allowed to take our own or another life (unless you happen to be an executioner in one of the States that allows the death penalty...).
It is right and proper to have doubts about new announcements like this. That is the basis of science - the idea of "replicate, then trust, but verify" at the core of scientific approaches. If this turns out to be either an error, a late April-fools joke, a scam, a one-off result that cannot be replicated, or a valid result within a small range of constraints, then it will be labelled as such.
However, if subsequent independent experiments show a robust and consistent process that can be replicated easily, then I for one will welcome our new (1 atom-thick) tinfoil hat-wearing overlords...
The manager is the one who has made this comment, so I would surmise that one of two scenarios is at work here:
1. The manager has either noticed for themselves, or they have received feedback about you, to the effect that you do not communicate effectively with others within the company.
2. The manager is looking for a reason to give you a less-than-excellent performance review (a couple of potential reasons for this, the most common one being that the less than perfect review impacts your bonus, thus saving money for the company; alternatively, this could simply be a manager who just does not give excellent reviews because they think it leads to complacent employees).
In both cases, the best thing to do is ask the manager for their advice. You are a young, (relatively) inexperienced person on the team, and from my perspective it is safe to assume that you are interested in improving yourself and doing the best job that you can - that means that if you could self-identify things you can do better, you would have done so and be doing them. So take the manager to one side and explain that you are looking for some specific input about what areas of communication could be improved. Usually in my experience, where it is not a matter of the manager finding fault to save on bonus payments, it is not about communicating more, but more effectively. If that is the case, the best advice I could give is to look up a public speaking organisation - Toastmasters (www.toastmasters.org) is one of the more common ones, and one that I have worked with for a few years. You can learn more about effective communication, and also about leadership as well, both of which will carry your career a lot further if you are a good programmer, than just being a good programmer.
Yes, the publicizing of the NSA and GCHQ's surveillance capabilities COULD in theory help paedophiles avoid detection... but I suspect that most paedophiles are not so technically savvy that the details will be important to them. For the majority of them, just as for the majority of the general population, the message they will take away is that "Big Brother Is Watching You", and if they do not assume that from the very start, then they are very naive.
The other side of the coin would be an interesting one - perhaps a Freedom Of Information request to GCHQ, to ask how many man-hours as a percentage of their total work is spent tracking and investigating paedophiles. I would wager a lot of money that, if they were to give an honest answer to that, it would be 0. GCHQ are not, and never will be, interested in tracking paedophiles.