There is a whole book about it: http://wdp.wharton.upenn.edu/b...

TL;DR: HR managers are way too picky and specific in their requirements. They only want to hire people who are currently doing the exact same job. They increasingly expect people to be willing to commit to shorter and shorter contracts for tasks that should take far longer to do right. But primarily: HR managers have, as a group, turned into power-mad, elitist, snobs who routinely throw away resumes after barely a glance if they feel like they just wouldn't like the candidate; just because they can. The personal bias being applied here is enormous.

The worst part is that the actual hiring managers are desperate to get the role filled, and would have been happy with half of the people the HR manager rejected. But the HR manager is using their position to attempt to control the durection of the company, or just fill it with "their kind of people."

So, do everything you can to bypass HR.

The tech companies should all promise to move to Scotland or Ireland if they succeed from Great Britain and rejoin the European Union.

I say, give it more batteries, notify the public, then just see what happens.

What good is an experiment if you terminate it before you learn anything?

Computer Science is an academic disciplines. Programming is a task that uses techniques and methodologies devised by computer scientists. Because most developers learned both at the same time, I can see how they would be confused.

Yes, a computer scientist must code in order to produce proofs of concepts, but the code most computer scientists write is crap compared to what a good professional developer writes. I had to explain unit testing to my professors. They don't care about that stuff. They care about the algorithms. The logic.

So, in a way, both this author and the Standard Slashdotter have it wrong. In order to produce most of the software the world is gonna need: Yes, the kids need to learn logic, but they mostly just need to learn the mechanics of implementing that logic in whatever "language" or system they have available. Only a few of them will go on to become actual Computer Scientists. And that's OK.

Where I went to school, logic is a branch of philosophy.

The world is not as neatly categorized as you seem to think.

You are welcome to use any of this that you think may be helpful:

http://www.ideationizing.com/2...

It is not designed to resist monitoring as much as it is designed to get information in and out of remote areas. Though, it could be modified to fly under the radar, so to speak, pretty well.

Sounds as if Tesla set up a perfect Straw-man fallacy (and the owner helped): "Because the autopilot didn't do it - it MUST have been the driver." As lots of other posts here show, there are lots of other things that could have gone wrong which could have filled the logs.

That kind of denialism, though the management may think it shields them from bad press, will eventually hurt them far worse than performing a full, transparent investigation.

I've been living in Austin, TX. Moved here from Oakland, CA cause the rent was to damn high. Of course it's get'n' to damn high here too. Soooo, I just moved into an RV "park" outside of Lockhart, TX. It is very, VERY rustic, but it is $300 per month for everything.

OK, so if I was getting the $1000 per month, that would leave me only $700 for gas, car insurance, food, health care, etcetera. I would have to work at least some job, if I were to have any hope of saving or buying any kind of extra anything, like a new A/C for the RV. However, in the future that this experiment is supposedly attempting to prepare for, those jobs won't be available for most people.

And this is in a small, Texas town.

So, this is not an experiment in UBI. It is an experiment in income subsidies, which is different. The experiment cannot give them the information they are supposedly trying to gather. All $1000 (or even $2000) can do in Oakland is keep someone with a low-end job from having to live in their car. (Which is not nothing, but it's not even a minimal living income.)

Here in Lockhart, I figure I would need $1500, minimum, to really live on. And that is if I keep living in my old RV, in the rustic RV park.

What would I do with the money, if I didn't have to work? I would save up and finish my Bachelor's so I could go on for my Master's and Ph.D. in information science. Then i could finish the system I'm working on to educate the entire world's population for free, just in time for the AI and robot workers to make that entirely unnecessary.

Hereâ(TM)s a nice trick for you:

1. Open a new Excel spreadsheet.

2. Put a 1 in cell A1.

3. Copy that âoe1â down the screen by dragging on the dot in the lower right corner.

4. In cell B1 put the following formula: =SUM(A$1:A1) (Recall that the $ means absolute reference so the SUM will always start at row 1.)

5. Copy that cell down the screen in the same manner.

6. Notice how column B now shows a running total of what is in column A.

7. Drag select a bunch of cells in column A and move them over to the right somewhere past column B.

8. Notice how the running total in column B is correct in that it does not increment when there is nothing in the cell to the left of it.

9. Move that bunch of cells back to where they were. Do not just press Ctrl-Z.

10. Notice how the running totals next to those returned cells are now incorrect. In fact, they still show what was there before you returned the moved cells.

11. Click in an incorrect cell in column B.

12. Notice that the formula has been inexplicably changed. All the formulas in the cells next to the moved then returned cells (except for the last one) will have been changed. This means that you canâ(TM)t trust Excel 2010 to not change formulas on you if you ever move things around in the spreadsheet. Excel 2013 has the same bug, BUT LibreOffice Calc does not.

Please note: This is NOT a misunderstanding of the use of absolute references on my part. The cells with the formulas were not moved.

Free will is doing whatever your brain decides, regardless of whether the conscious part of your brain was aware of it as the unconscious part was making the decision. Researchers and philosophers regularly bring this up because it creates controversy, and thus attention to their work. But their premises is always based on redefining "free will" to mean "what you are consciously aware of thinking, and had complete control of the entire thought process." Hell, that definition never applies, and they know it.

I wrote a blog post about this fallacy-based conclusion way back in 2011: http://www.ideationizing.com/2...

Exactly. Funny how /.ers only think someone needs a degree if they don't agree with them.

You are assuming that all these nested simulations must run in real time and must be synchronized. This is not necessarily so. It is not even necessary for any one simulation to run at a constant speed. All that is required is for the activity simulated to be consistent with the passing of time AS PERCEIVED BY those in the simulation. Let's say it takes a billion clock cycles to calculate each of Microsecond X through Microsecond X+9, and it takes 10 billion clock cycles to calculate Microsecond X+10. As long as the simulation correctly simulates THE PERCEPTION of one microsecond passing for each of those eleven microseconds, then the entities inside the simulation will be none the wiser.

The simulation doesn't need to use actual energy. Only calculations about how much energy would be used. The energy cost to run the computers running the simulation would be negligible to the parent universe, in which the simulation was being run, and would be irrelevant to the simulated universe.

Actually liberals (and everyone else) should hate wealthy, powerful people. That is the narrowest description for the group of people who have wreaked the most havoc, been the most cruel to the most people, etcetera. However, for some reason (I suspect because the winners write history) that has been deflected upon the much larger group called "white men." This is incredibly convenient for the wealthy because now everyone's hate is directed at a huge group of people who, mostly, had nothing to do with, and did not really profit from the sins of the wealthy. Were/are a lot of white men racist? Yes. Did a lot of white men actually own slaves? No. But those slave owners were able, through their power, to control the conversation and convince a lot of white people that Africans were subhuman, and thus it was OK for the wealthy to enslave Africans rather than pay those non-wealthy white people to work on the plantations.

Is racism bad? Yes. Do I think racists are assholes? Most vehemently! But i still understand that their racism is the result of a massive, multi-generational propaganda campaign instituted by the wealthy slave owners to rationalize their crimes against humanity: Not just against the slaves, but also against the poor white people who the wealthy put out of work and replaced with slaves.

Similar interpretations can be applied across the board. All these situations boil down to nothing but a massive campaign to both divide and conquer, and to serve as a distraction to keep us all from coming after the wealthy with pitchforks in our hands.

The only thing I've seen people do with Apple watches is check notifications. But when they do, they make darn sure that everyone sees them do it. They use exaggerated gestures and hold their whole arm up. They spend all their time getting interrupted so they can show off their new iElitist iCandy. When i ask them about it, they say it is really handy because they don't have to get out their phone as often. But all they'd really have to do is turn off all those damned notifications.

Note: These aren't texts, because they don't respond to them. Just notifications from other apps. Still yet, they raise their arm, read the notification with intense interest, nod their head as if acknowledging that the missles have been launched, swipe the notification away with an exaggerated flick, then sit up straight, content in the knowledge that they have a new Pinterest friend.

I think these have achieved exactly what Apple meant for them to achieve: Wringing a few more hundred dollars out of people who actually think it will make them look more important. But there is only so much blood in that turnip.