One has to wonder whether more traditional means of crowd control wouldn't be more appropriate, such as limiting the number of participants or assigning locations not next to Jewish centers."
Link to Original Source
When we got the first build to test, I was pleased with how the high res artwork looked, but I was appalled at how slow it ran...
He converted an existing implementation that used software acceleration to use hardware acceleration instead. The original team did estimate 2 months for that change.
The Chinese folks seem to have their ducks in a row. They ain't great on the innovation part and you have to spent a LOT of time steering them, but at least they work hard.
The Indians spend most of their time emailing management about how awesome they (the Indians) are, rather than doing any actual work.
The Americans seem to be stuck in the glory days of post-WWII when America didn't have any real competition (rest of the world was smoldering ashes) so they now seem allergic to the concept of hard work.
I've found 0 (or near 0) correlation between country of origin and work ethic. This is complete bullshit and flamebait. That this was posted by an AC does not surprise me.
My company tried for almost a year to find good tech people. Begged, scrounged, tried to poach, nada. The jobs may not be the best paying, ~$120k/year
I'm not certain about the COL in silicon valley and other very expensive areas (generously assuming you're even in one), but unless the skills you were looking for was some obscure language and/or toolset I'm pretty sure this is obvious bullshit as well.
Maybe I'm missing something as I was born in '88, was there a time when politicians weren't appointing people based on who would be best for the major corps in the industry.?How is this anything but the standard Corruption which we can expect from all future presidents?
As a libertarian...
your signature states:
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY!
The amendment for direct election of senators, vs their previous election by state legislatures. These seem like contradictory ideas to me, why do you not view them that way?
But monitored by some wearable computer(s), I don't know how good current technology would have for accurately sensing and represnting various body types (plenty of critism of BMI for example) but I could see how turning excercise into a sort of game could have a future. If they can, more power to them, obesity has sadly become a significant problem and excercise is a necessary tactic for reducing it.
No bastard ever changed his country by suffering for his ideology. He changed it by making the other poor dumb bastard suffer for his ideology.
Sockso is good though when I last used it (~2 years ago) some features didn't work it didn't play all file types so I had to convert music files to, I believe,
The program itself is just an executable jar you have to configure, comes bundled with a tomcat if I remember correctly, just double click and you have a music server.
I can confirm, that at the time, it ran out of the box on 10.04 Ubuntu.
The engineer designs/builds the stuff. Someone else uses the stuff unethically.
True an engineer can't know ahead of time exactely how/when/where say an American combat rifle will be used. However, seeing that after 9/11 we invaded 2 countries that had little (Afghanistan) and no (Iraq) connection to it but do have strategic uses/oil (rich tasty oil) its pretty clear the US will use those weapons as it chooses, unilaterally (more or less) and in violation of international law and any sense of morality.
It would be like suggesting chemical weapons research for Bashar al-Assad might be used to find new cures. Technically true but the precedent suggests otherwise.
Pretty much anything can be weaponized; some things more directly than others, but in the end, whatever you design, think, build, imagine can (and likely will) be used to hurt others, be they human beings or animals.
We should build more powerful nukes because people would just knife each other anyway?
Logistics matter a great deal, saying the internet is worthless because USPS is a reliable means of transmitting information would be moronic.
if John Doe is an engineer and he's offered a military industry job, then if he turns it down, someone else will take it.
And someone else can deal with the ethics of that.
"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." Don't pretend you have higher ethics than what your actions reflect, you don't.
Also, the article implies that an engineer should think of all possible implications when working on something, including ethical use of the product. Which brings back the original statement: you can't make sure that the product will only be used in an ethical manner. It's an impossibility. The only assurance would be that no engineer builds anything anymore. And I'm pretty sure that most people would loathe shivering in a cave with only a raw pelt covering their skin. Just sayin'...
I completely agree that there could be times an engineer is working on a project and not predict how that technology, even fairly directly, could be used for purposes they would never condone. I, personally, would only ask that an engineer make an honest attempt to determine if immoral uses are possible and reasonably likely in lifetime of the technology and use that to judge the work as ethical or not. A standard would need a more concrete definition and thus more consideration than I can put into this comment.
Saying an engineer shouldn't design a better non-lethal weapon is like saying a doctor shouldn't treat a wounded soldier.
FTFY (Even that is arguable given they could be used to enforce a police state, and that non-lethal weapons can cause permanent injury)
However of course this may be impossible or impractical with current technology. Ex. I imagine it would be impractical with current technology to disable an aircraft or submarine without virtually guaranteeing the death of some/all occupants.
Wars are frequently started not for moral reasons but merely justified by citing some moral argument with no connection to reality. Designing better lethal weapons for a country (read America) that is already generations of military tech ahead of all allies and much more so enemies with the justification of "saving lives" is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.
So is "Sitting In" at a restaurant. But sometimes in life you feel like you have to do something, and sometimes you don't want to be violent.
Forcing yourself on others in any way is violence. If you don't leave, if you block a path, don't kid yourself that your are not being violent and potentially inciting a (well-deserved) violent response.
1. behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"Sitting in" does not damage anything. Disobedience is not by definition harmful and the last century has shown it can be central to movements doing great good.
It is precisely because the violent responses were so clearly undeserved and one-sided that those movements were successful.
Only in academia
No. You should read the blog post titled "If You Want to Know What a Falsified Resume Looks Like, Here's an Example"
When the compliants are 'company policy does not tolerate lying on resumes' and workers (Cheri Sidney in the blog) are hired and promoted after demonstrably lying on their resume (for 90k+ jobs not some CSR job) the point is no longer arguable.
Hypocrasy is not a subjective value.