My experience (35 years worth) differs from Mr Anonymous.
I explicitly will not hire any programmer who knows only one programming language (C and C++ count as 1 for that score.) Learning a different programming language introduces you to alternative ways to think about problems and solutions. Lisp or Scheme, Ada or Eiffel, COBOL or MUMPS, all provide a different perspective on software design, coding, test and integration.
Too many hiring managers play "buzzword bingos" in search of "flying purple unicorns," candidates whose buzzwords match their current search list. Sure, you can make a living chasing buzzwords that way, with a combination of (primarily) resume engineering and (secondarily) training. And some people who do this are actually pretty good developers. But many more don't know how to apply the technology, they're just able to produce toy programs learned from " for Idiots" who produce the stuff documented on http://thedailywtf.com/ But the people I want are those who can think creatively about a problem, using more tools than just one hammer, and who can learn new stuff on the job. What's the half-life of a technology these days, 3 years?
He doesn't necessarily need to win to produce some tangible change. If he gets enough votes in the primaries, that alone will send a clear signal to mainline Dems that they should pay more attention to the left.
I want that to be the case. However we have seen that the Democratic party has continued to march further and further to the right as time has marched on, completely marginalizing the actual progressives and liberals in this country. Hell, we thought that we were electing a progressive president in 2008, and instead ended up with someone implementing an economic policy that is more conservative than Reaganomics.
The funny thing is, he is the liberal democrat that the conservative majority in this country always try to paint every other democrat to be. I would love to see what they would do if he actually gained power beyond his seat in the Senate.
The 2-year-old boy who used a family gun to accidentally shoot himself in the face on Thursday night was in stable but critical condition on Friday morning, according to Peoria police.
The bit you're apparently not grasping is something called a spatial light modulator.
You've probably encountered one as a digital cinema projector, or possibly even own one for PowerPoint presentations.
Couple it with a microwave radar or ultrasound sonar, and you can track individual raindrops and then cast shadows on them.
Sounds unnecessarily expensive for consumer automotive, but might be nice for buses/locomotives, emergency vehicles or passenger aircraft.
I need more coffee. I read this title as "Google Launches a Marketplace To Buy Parents... " and was in the act of clicking on it before realizing my error.
As my grandpa would say, when he gave me a quarter:
"Try not to spend it all in one place."
He thought it was hilarious.
(This was circa 1975, admittedly. Back when a quarter could still buy something of value.)
What I particularly love though - and what this thread is all about - is how they are not bothered in the least by the hypocrisy.
For that matter we saw similar arguments fall flat against the Bush family in earlier times. But since the argument is now being used against a Democrat, this is of course all different, right?
In other words, either you or Stoolpigeon will be the one turning the lights off.
I call not it. I have no investment in this site - well, beyond my $5 subscription - so I don't want to be left liable for cleaning up the mess when it finally folds for real.
And I'll add, if it's your idea to create an anonymous but secure connection using PKI to send your biometric identity, that's no better than a password. Infact, it's worse than a password, because (as was the original point), all it takes is your super secret biometric identity to be compromised once, at which point your screwed.
Yes, but how do you validate that the public key I send you is actually my public key? You have to already have it or it has to be stores somewhere that the other party trusts, bringing us right back to our original problem.
PKI lets two parties communicate securely without having ever spoken, and it lets one party validate that something was actually sent by another party _if they have the other parties public key and can trust it_.
Biometrics doesn't add anything useful to this equation that I see. Sure you can use some biometric information as a private key and generate a public key, but what does that give you over using some random number to generate a public key. It still comes down to the party at the other end having that public key and being reasonably sure it's yours.