I don't think any time has been sucked into Netflix thus far. They do have a lot of hard drives, but they're spread out far enough that the density is nowhere near enough to form a black hole.
Absolutely, memorization can be a very useful tool and tasks that exercise memory skills should be part of school curricula. It's just that it shouldn't be taught instead of the fundamental concepts of a subject, which is what I think happens when timed multiplication tests are given too soon.
So the 100 problem task is used to find those who did not finish because they did not have time because they did not understand the concepts.
You're assuming that the speed at which the problems are solved is positively correlated with fundamental understanding of the concepts. For problems like multiplication, this isn't really the case. Someone who memorizes the "times tables" may have a less complete understanding of the concept but finish quicker.
This is the flaw in timed math assignments with a large number of problems. It penalizes taking time to think about the problems and come up with the correct answer in favor of rote memorization. And worst of all is these tests are given before the students have had the time to fully learn the subject and recognize the patterns that would make memorization easier.
Don't most states grant access to the HOV lane for alternative fuel vehicles? I know mine does. I see at least a couple of Teslas and Leafs (Leaves?) with AFV plates pass me on my way to work every day.
That sounds great as long as it's functioning properly. What happens when someone gets into an accident and busts the phosphor coated lens? Do the headlights turn on full brightness to ensure you can see clearly or turn off to prevent the exposed laser light from blinding oncoming traffic?
Not that I'm against improved technology, but lasers do have a few potential failure modes that are much more dangerous than incandescent or LED lights.
$7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media
and have only started to realize some improvement on related sites. With ad revenue declining and not expected to pick up (read: everyone who uses Slashdot uses adblocking softwarwe), it appears that the Slashdot stewardship experiment by Dice Holdings has been a financial failure.
Since the site has been redesigned in a user-hostile fashion with a very generic styling, this reader surmises Dice Holdings is looking to transform or transfer the brand into a generic Web 3.0 technology property. The name may be more valuable than the user community (since we drive no revenue nor particularly use Dice.com's services)."
Link to Original Source
No no no, not the unemployed. They have the ability to take swift action to protect themselves. Instead, we should pay pregnant women who would otherwise get an abortion to carry to term and donate the fetus' organs to those who need transplants. And you wouldn't have all of the issues trying to find a compatible recipient close by at the right time. The organs will be able to be stored for years in their host until they're needed.
Reference for the sarcasm impaired
You make the mistake of assuming that because he studied the constitution that he admires or at least respects the values and motivations that it codifies. Wouldn't someone looking to find a way to bring it down do the same? Or he may have no direct interest at all and just thought it a good thing to have on the resume as an aspiring politician.
Do you think he deserves a chance or should his swastika tattoo forever punish him for a belief system he has rejected ?
Absolutely, he should have the opportunity to be free from future judgements based on values and beliefs he no longer holds. Especially so if he's trying to make up for past transgressions on his new found values. I just think it would make it easier to do so if he were to cover up the tattoo and wear clothes that don't give others the impression that he still carries the beliefs he has rejected.
Interesting, it seems where you live my choice of examples was a poor one. Maybe this one is extreme enough to make my point clear: If someone shows up to an interview for a position at the NAACP with a shaved head and swastika tattoos wearing a German SS style uniform, would he get the job? Should he? I think in this case the answer to both is no. He obviously wouldn't fit in with the culture of the organization and trying to ignore that would only cause disruption to the workplace environment.
True that isn't realistic example, but it illustrates the point that social groups, by definition, have some distinguishing characteristics (looks and/or behavior) and have a mostly coherent set of core values. I think using those to assess how well people will work (or socialize) together is acceptable as long as it is used carefully, erring on the side of tolerance when there is any doubt. Although, that is just my personal opinion based on how interactions between groups in the societies I have been exposed to are generally handled. Your society may have different views on this and that's okay.
From your description, it seems like Cape Town has a rather unique culture that is far more accepting of superficial differences than those of most other places. Actually it reminds me a bit of Austin Texas or Portland Oregon. Both of those cities have adopted the slogan "Keep $CITY_NAME Weird". Where I live (Southwest US) is more moderate in that regard. Some people walk around in a cowboy hat and boots with a six shooter strapped to their hip, but it isn't that common and there is a general expectation that how you dress is associated with your career. Although, we aren't anywhere near as restrictive as in (for example) New England. There, especially in New York, it's expected that anyone who is a professional will wear a suit and tie to work and keep up a similar style of appearance after hours.
Which of these approaches is better? I don't know of a good way to judge that. There isn't much correlation with successful economic outcomes. And it seems most people tend to prefer whichever system they're a part of, though the trend does seem to be toward more tolerance of personal style than away from it right now.
As far as the "power relationship" thing goes in employment, I think that is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the local economy. In places with a limited number of employers who dominate the market and little, if any, employee organization it is a serious issue and could warrant more stringent regulation on how they can discriminate during hiring. Other places are on the opposite end with the employers beholden to strong unions who set the hiring policies and, in that case, the unions should probably be required to accept any qualified member. But there's also a third option that I think doesn't require as much regulation. When there are a large number of employers with different corporate cultures and expectations and there is enough employee freedom to organize or not as they see fit, there are enough options that employers and employees are on roughly equal footing and strictly regulating their interactions isn't necessary.
I don't know if you can tell, but I'm more Libertarian than Anarchist. There are some interesting parallels and differences between those philosophies, that volumes could be written on (and have) without adequately addressing.
By the way, this has been a good conversation. It's not often that a discussion concerning topics people are passionate about can go on this long without flames erupting and name calling, especially on the internet.
So you're saying that if someone who likes to wear suits and ties goes to a metal concert, he wouldn't get funny looks or be judged negatively for it? Of course he'll be considered an outsider. He's giving off an image that represents something antithetical to values of the group. You're doing the same, or rather expressing views orthogonal to the group. It puts you at a disadvantage compared to those that conform to the image of the group they're trying to become a part of. I'm not advocating that you should change to fit in if it would betray your personal values, that would be hypocritical. Just understand that image is a useful tool in conveying what you value and that will be used to your advantage or disadvantage as it aligns or conflicts with the values of the groups you interact with.
Basically, all I'm saying is that you can't have your cake and eat it too.
In the narrow scope of job interviews for technical positions (without face to face customer interaction), judging solely on technical competence and phone etiquette probably is the best approach. Appearance isn't a critical factor in their job performance. Outside of that environment, society doesn't and shouldn't function that way. Personal appearance is a medium to convey a message, just like language. Society being blind to that would only limit a person's ability to express himself, not give him more freedom.
Instead, it seems what you want is to send a message with your appearance, but then expect people to ignore the parts that don't suit your goals. Communication just doesn't work that way. It's up to you to convey the message that you want others to understand. Either that or challenge the status quo (as you appear to be doing quite successfully) and accept that there may be some misunderstandings along the way (this is the part you seem to be objecting to).
By the way, I'm an engineer as well and have had long hair and a beard. No fancy colors though.
P.S. (pedantic statement) - In your prior post it's clincher, not clencher.
Clinch - seal, close or end conclusively
Clench - grasp or hold tightly, contract or tighten (esp. in reference to a body part)
(Sorry, I had to get that out there. Any time I see those sorts of substitution errors in grammar, every muscle in my body involuntarily clenches)
So your answer is that he should sacrifice the most important and basic of human freedoms: the right of self expression, to fit a norm he doesn't agree with, or accept being discriminated against because of something that has exactly ZERO bearing on his abilities or the value he ads ?
You're making the assumption that AC disagrees with the norm in his profession, but essentially yes he should accept that that is the way the world works.
Do I think it would be better if everyone was judged with no regard for their appearance? Actually, no. That would be a horribly inefficient way for a society to run. Quick judgements are necessary and how people present themselves should be taken into consideration. It would be better, however, if we were better at discounting stereotypes based on inherent physical characteristics like race and sex. And I try all I can to understand and minimize any such unfounded biases in my own decisions. But it would be foolhardy to cultivate a personal style that is far outside the norm or one that is antithetical to the norm in my chosen profession and expect people not to consider it in their opinion of me.