This is not strictly always true. If the company you are working for is doing well and isn't in the business of cutting for the sake of cutting, then you CAN get a raise if you can articulate the accomplishments and value you add AND (this is important so pay attention) you _ask_ for a raise.

If any one piece of that chain isn't true, your chance of getting a raise is slim. You actually have to accomplish some things and add value. You DO need to be able to explain them and why they add value. Example: "I added new automation which saves us 20 man hours per week. This has allowed us to be more productive and save the company money." You must remember that this isn't a game where everyone gets a trophy just for competing. This is the real world where if you want to be shown you are valued more, you need to add more value. Just showing up isn't enough.

The whole asking part is an art that few possess. You need to be prepared for what happens if they say no and how you will react both immediately and in the days afterwards. It wouldn't hurt to have other job opportunities you're pursuing in mind. If you can have an offer in hand, then that's even better because you're negotiating from a position of power.

This is a game of chess, so don't play checkers. Changing jobs for raises is not a good long term plan to do frequently.

Hi.

the Nyquist limit of the audio sampling hardware of a cell phone over instruction rate of a modern CPU is a pretty small fraction.

The "audio" in question is most likely all below 24 kHz, that being the Nyquist limit for the 48 kHz sampling hardware, unless it happens that some phones can actually sample faster, and have microphones that can respond to higher frequencies.

The instruction rate of the CPUs in question is many times that frequency.

It doesn't sound likely.

Using multiple cores turns out to help the attack (by shifting down the signal frequencies).

Say what? Through what mechanism would multiple cores shift down the frequency? And what about parallel instruction streams contributing to noise?

TEMPEST was a details-secret government requirement meant to defeat means of eavesdropping on classified computer data from its electromagnetic emissions. I guess they need to include audio too.

My impression is that the noise comes from the power supply, not the CPU. I can certainly hear it with some computers, and it is related to work on the video card in my experience. I'm astonished that you can actually pull data from that, and in fact I'd like to see independent confirmation before I believe it.

In 1955, Philip K. Dick wrote a short story, "Autofac", about self-replicating machinery. Still a good read, IMO.

The world today is so far removed from anything the Founding Fathers knew that it is absurdly silly to try to weight their intentions on current situations and necessities. Moreover, the moment the Constitution was inked, arguments about what it meant began and have never ceased. Even when they were still alive debates persisted.

But most importantly -- the fact that they created a framework of amendments means that they NEVER intended the Constitution to be a static document. So whether you agree with current interpretations of the Constitution as it is written or not, you should probably avoid saying "The Founding Fathers never would have ...". Totally irrelevant. They built the document knowing full well (or should have known) that one day it could be changed and morphed into something they would NEVER have wanted.

Funny, I had the same reaction when I read it. He seemed like a salesman for Google or something.

Dear Prince Bernard, If you're talking about my bank account, you're barking up the wrong tree :)

Fair use cases are very fact specific. If you start monkeying with the facts, Judge Chin might not feel the same way about it.

I don't know but please hire me as your lawyer when you do.

Thatswhatappealscourtsarefor