Re: Name the movie...
Hollow Man - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Man
32 posts • joined 3 Mar 2010
Karren Brady (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karren_Brady)
is not the same person as
Karen Bradley, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Just a thought - feel free to borrow it as you seem a bit hard of thinking...
Also TOSHIBA and HP - was caught by this on a TOSHIBA laptop recently.
Not helped by most review/shopping sites not giving you a screen shot of the underside either.
I have found that http://www.notebookcheck.net are good about providing ease of maintenance/upgrading on laptops they review.
(I seem to recall reading somewhere that consumer models are tending to this, while "business" models are still provided with access hatches.)
"What makes starting a family so different?"
Mainly the fact a lot more people are likely to be interested in doing it than flying a plane or digging a well for an African village.
It's a hard nosed business decision that says making your workplace family friendly is likely to influence a large pool of people who might be choosing to stay or join you.
Whereas a campaign stating they will provide extra paid time off for anyone digging a well in Africa is not likely to affect many people directly - it may however give them a warm and fuzzy PR boost.
Besides, become senior, valued, critical or important enough and organisations do start to offer things like paid MBA's and time off for the CEO to pursue his yacht racing indulgence.
.. and I had the same thought also.
Be nice occasionally to see an honest job advert - "would suit unambitious mid level dev who requires some direction but generally won't break anything or be too fancy with their designs"
I'm sure Dominic will pop along to tell us why recruiters feel the need to push every job as once in a lifetime, top gun challenge.
Rule of Thumb - if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck, except using s/duck/wanker/g here
And that bit of regex probably exceeds his total hard technical knowledge)
Please god, someone go along to him for a chat and ask pointed questions about silicon wafer purity, doping, lithography, anything....
If she was indeed 15 when she took the photo and sent it to another individual - wouldn't that make her technically guilty of
1) producing child porn
2) distributing child porn
like the various sexting cases which have been reported and prosecuted in the past?
If so, it's interesting there seems to have been no moves to charge her unlike less "celebrity" youngsters
What about http://tubecrush.net
Where 55% of their readers thought it was harmless fun
Flame - cause I see a flame war on the way.
You think you've diversified your risk by using several different suppliers for your various services, until the day comes you find out they've each moved all their IS infrastructure into one of the few big cloud providers, one of which has just suffered an outage....
What's the odds some bright(?) spark at CloudA is already pricing an entry level cloud hosting package which is actually a slice of competitor CloudB's larger package.
I'm highly skeptical that he could have burnt through all the cash and assets mentioned.
£1000 is a joke given how directly and personably responsible he seems to be have been found for the inadequate security provisions.
I'd like to know how this "self certify my abiilty to pay" works as I'd love to use it on my next tax bill.
"Secondly, if someone from Pixar applied for a job at LucasFilm, then LucasFilm would inform Pixar. And thirdly if either firm made a job offer, the rival company would not try to better that offer."
Gee - let me think how this could play out badly for the peon.
The second point could make things more difficult for the employee if they decide to stay and their manager has decided they're no longer worth rewarding or investing in due a perceived lack of loyalty.
The third point would seem to be a restraint on an employee finding their true market value by preventing an open auction for their talents to occur.
I'm sure others can describe further scenarios...
If not sure what this Fibonacci approach to sentencing is meant to achieve and how.
If it's meant to make the threat of prison more intimidating since the stakes are higher then I don't see how it would affect this guy. He'd been in prison 23 times - cumulatively he must have spent a great chunk of time out of society anyway and it didn't seem to deter him. In fact other posters have pointed out it possibly made him more likely to offend through being institutionalised.
Isn’t this similar to the 3 strikes type of approaches tried in other countries – did they work?
You could try making the conditions less appealing and increasing the deterrence potency – e.g. if you gave every inmate a harmless but painful electric shock every day ala Pavlov, would that strengthen the resolve never to re-offend?
Also isn’t this just going to increase the prison costs – I don’t see outsourcing to India or Siberia as a low cost option, why are they going to do it except for the opportunity to make a profit?
Anyway, this all hinges on whether, in the words of a former minister,”Prison Works”. The article shows that for this guy it doesn’t and I’d like to see numbers on how many it does. Without raw data, you can’t determine if you’re putting resources into a cost-effective solution – is it worth tripling the prison bill to get the crime rate down by 2% ? The bulk of crime being committed by a small core of repeat offenders would appeal to a different solution than a profile which described most criminals as low-level habitual
1) If someone committed consecutive 4 crimes with raw sentence tariffs of 1 year each, do they get 1, 2, 2, 2 or 1, 2, 3, 4 years – I guess the 2nd as your argument is that the prior *assigned* sentence didn’t work?
2) If the initial conviction is found to be unsafe, will they be able to claim compensation for the subsequent accumulated years?
I think the concerning thing is that situations like this show how sometimes prison isn't enough - either as a deterrent or a rehabilitive solution.
F.F.S 23 times! - as other posters point out, he's unlikely to change his ways now, the betting money is on containment and control - do you tag him 24/7, issue some kind of control order?
I confident in the States he'd be banged up for life by now under a 3 strikes law - not that I think they're a road we necessaily want to go down.
Disclaimer - I, and most of my city resident friends and acquaintances, have been burgled at least once and I don't know a single person who didn't feel the violation of their personal residence was at least as significant than the monetary loss and wouldn't have cheerfully taken a baseball bat to the offender given half a chance. So part of me thinks for violating 23 peoples peace of mind, spending the rest of his life on Rockall with a monthly food drop wouldn't be inhumane.
I must confess that when I saw the badly formed para closing tag - </p - I initially thought it was some kind of emoticon representing the mental shortcomings of the user who can't handle operating an encrypted USB stick - something like a dunce cap paired with a tongue sticking out in extreme concetration.
I'm neutral about Google, but I am curious about what people see as the alternative outcomes?
Search is worth big money as a business, which means it will attract other competitors (Bing, Yahoo) and other approaches (Wolfram Alpha). If Google tweak or alter their results/algorithms to the point where people feel they're not useful or relevant, then a superior solution will step into the breach - that's how they got their foothold remember - by building a better mousetrap.
However, as far as I can see it boils down to the fact that there are only a certain number of results that can appear on the first page and there will always be more peple who feel that slot belongs to then than can be satisfied.
The above commment is a perfect example. In the days of the yellow pages, you'd pick a business from a local directory. Nowadays the net provides you with a global customer base but it also means you're competing in a global supplier pool.
What is there about that business that makes it *more* relevant than the ones appearing above it? I accept the point about adwords, but page rank has been shown to be a valid way to sift results. I can't see how a solution where searching for an source of specific items returns a page of global suppliers randomly organised is superior.
Think about the pre-search-engine days - you'd be relying on people guessing your URL or you spending money to buy the single relevant URL for your sector to be found. Propose your vision of a better solution
Give us a clue what you make and I'd be interested to play with seaching criteria to see what scenario would mean you appear as one of my top three results.
And I think they missed one of the best bits - which is that the bank hired a "social marketing manager" a year ago.
So presumably this wasn't a policy formulated by HR and lawyers who don't understand the InterWebs - it had input by an "expert"
Something occurs to me which a few people have mentioned in passing but I think needs bringing to prominence.
1) The size of the IT/CS field has changed but I'm not sure expectations from companies & recruiters have quite tracked reality. Consider the job adverts mentioned where they ask for
* literally impossible amounts of experience in certain technologies (or specific versions thereof)
* fail to understand the similarities between different technologies (If you're looking for somebody with experience of Oracle and the role isn't a DBA, it is such a big leap to consider somebody with experience of DB2 or SQLServer or even a different version of Oracle?). Even more bold, want C# developers, why not consider experienced Java developers - not that big a learning curve.
* fail to understand the differences between technologies - hiring a C++ developer to work on your trading system, doesn't mean you automatically get somebody who can admin your database and design your web UI also. Which brings me onto my next thought...
2) If you consder other professional fields such as law and medicine, nobody questions the concept and value of specialisation. If I have a heart problem I see a cardiac specialist, not a dermatologist. If I have a company contract dispute, I don't see a divorce lawyer. Most people accept this as a valid approach. I would agree that keeping your skills up to date and possessing a curiosity about the field are valuable attitudes - but I do wonder if this willingness to turn our hands to any problem solving doesn't cost us some perceived respect when non-technical people assume it must be easy since we could do it.
Which brings me to my final point
3) All this love of the field and continual updating of skills and training is fine. But how much of it is on our own time and expense and not our employers? How many lawyers do you expect practice litigation in their spare time, or doctors perform surgery on friends and family members to try out new things or even accountants play at bookkeeping for fun when they get home just for their love of the field. I'd imagine they normally get this kind of training and development on their employers time and dime. Google's idea of 20% personal time to experiment is great, but how many companies are brave enough to do that?
From the original news story, she claims that after her husband found out, he left her.
This caused her such emotional distress that her work performance suffered.
Then her company fired her for poor performance.
I suspect that the concept of remoteness under law may kick in here for her.
He is technically correct.
You could be investing in new tech to improve the productivity of the *existing* workforce - do more with the same number of people and avoid having to hire more.
Doesn;t always have to be "do the same with less people".
Paris - because she's a "do more with people" kind of girl
* Claimed for astrology software on expenses.
* Believes homeopathy can treat HIV and malaria
* Believes scientists disagree with him over alternative medicine because they're "racially prejudiced"
* Accepted a bribe to ask question in commons
How he has a majority is beyond me - wouldn't surprise me if he thought dunking for witches was a much maligned approach
But as a counter argument to the people saying it's a waste of police time and the case should be thrown out.
1) It's his choice to plead not guilty, prolonging the case and wasting court time and money, to an incident which he previously admitted to.
2) If you're one of the people who has their trip/holiday b*ggered up because of a need to investigate a suspicious parcel (idiot forgot luggage) or verify a suspected threat (idiot makes bomb related comment) - I suspect you may not be so charitable and forgiving.
3) It's easier to find a needle in a haystack, if you cut down on the idiots tipping more straw on top - and comments like this persons are adding to the pile.
I do think jail time is probably not the best sentence for him - esp if it's suspended (which negates the deterent in my opinion) - but a hefty fine would concentrate his mind wonderfully
He could do the right thing, admit he was an idiot, plead mercy and walk away from it with a valuable lesson for the future about the consequences of being a kn*b
"Road warriors - sales people and the like - got a new PC every two years, she said. Engineers had to wait three years,"
Why does somebody who presumably only needs to run office apps need a 2 yearly upgrade when the employees running more demanding VLSI design apps, emulators, simulators, compilers, etc have to wait an extra year?
It's the same old story in software, every company I worked has simply bought desktop boxes as people joined, meaning the new marketing hire gets a quad core 4GB machine, while the dev who joined 2 years ago is still making do with a dual core 2GB box. The obvious solution of repurposing the dev's box to marketing doesn't seem to happen.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019