Would the corollary also apply? Every dollar you spend must be matched by a corresponding dollar donation to the prosecution case. That way rich people can't buy justice by outspending the government.
Most JDs I know require a degree in a relevant field. It's used by HR as a quick filter to avoid wasting time screening out woefully underqualified people.
So what the submitter says makes some sense. If you're dealing with the person who you'll be reporting to then they'll be far more interested in relevant experience. But occasionally you have to get through HR filters too - larger companies require them for major promotions, and he might need to leave his current job if his boss gets replaced with a raving lunatic. Either way it would be very much in his interest to have enough formal education to get past the filter.
That said, I wouldn't pick CS personally. He's already a programmer and not likely to want to get into theoretical CS - there's not much demand for knowledge of asymptotic complexity in a typical programmer's job. I think a technical college or a finance / business degree would be better.
Dunno, I've been out with Samsung before and drinking was definitely expected. I could've piked but that would've been impolite. I didn't find it was required for me to drink too much - you can regulate a lot with smaller sips and that sort of thing seemed to be politely not noticed.
People pad their CVs and attach fancy words to fairly mundane things but I think in your dismissal you're missing the importance of what he is saying.
* Text analysis means he uses programs to read what people type and at least at some level infer meaning, even if it's as simple as relevant and/or sentiment.
* social network analysis means he knows who has a lot of influence so you can concentrate on them.
* web personalisation means everybody who visits the website he creates is given a different version
* Computational advertising means the decisions around ad selection are based on ROI calculations and performance rather than a marketer's gut feel.
* Online experiments is similar and just means he tries different things in parallel to see what works best.
Perhaps more interesting is what is omitted. There is no mention of semantics or indication that the text analysis is beyond superficial, nothing around text generation/synthesis to show any attempt at creating a dialogue, and no conversation planning to indicate he is going to be having a conversation. I'd describe it as very similar to traditional advertising but tuned to the individual.
I was involved in analysing the data on this for the health sector. The results, from memory, were about 5% lower pay all other things being equal (as calculated by linear regression). There was some more detailed analysis after that looking at the interaction of the genders of direct reports and glass ceilings which I wasn't involved in but was told came up with some interesting results.
One of the things I do is work out the team's efficiency and there's a big difference to how I would approach the team spending too long on client jobs (not billing enough) versus the team having big gaps between client jobs (not enough work coming in). In neither case do I care at all what personal thing people are doing, but knowing that it's personal time rather than jobs taking longer is valuable.
I don't quite get what you mean.
"... it ignores the advances we get from the technology..."
So when assessing the benefit of something (in this case networked cars) we should weigh privacy fairly against the benefit (safety)
"if we are comfortable with having no privacy, don't blame
This is where I was a bit lost. The point was having your location history accessible to the police is a loss of privacy. That loss came as a side-effect of some new technology which makes the world a safer place. I don't see why this is Google / Honda's responsibility - surely unless the new technology is regulated it is the responsibility of the people who buy it?
If Google sell me a phone which advertises that it tracks me, and I choose to buy it because/despite that, then that's a fully informed decision as a consumer, not Google's problem.
The point, as you probably are aware, is that we currently tend to reject anyone we see dirt on.
You visited a gay bar - you're not like me, I should break off our friendship. Or you posted a drunken party to Facebook, can I risk my company's image by employing you? Or
Personally I think that in a few years time this will become so prevalent that the next generation will accept and expect it, so the problem is only a transitionary one. But who knows, maybe the next generation will require their leaders to have lived their entire lives squeaky clean.
Trend perhaps, but no landslide... have a look at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/07/cls-bank-v-alice-corp.html
Yes, I get SMS spam because I didn't do this once and was too sleepy to notice I'd hit the wrong site at first.
One man's friend is another man's co-worker...
Not really disagreeing with your thesis but just noting that investors seem quite willing to let a project fail if it doesn't meet targets, regardless of what other money they have available.
Hmm, all around the same age - the variation came from the things you noted, especially siblings of friends.
Not quite sure how this relates - your point is that home-schooling leads to a wider range of friends? I would've guessed that was more community size...
Interacting with just your parents doesn't count as learning to interact with adults. At least not beyond the age of 5.