Yeah, that's what I would do. First apply an IIR low pass filter (e.g. 200 Hz), downsample, apply a window function (e.g. Hamming, but there are probably better choices) and then autocorrelate the window. The peaks in the autocorrelation should give you the beat. If you use a higher frequency you can get the sub-beats. This should work with all music types ... kick drum or no kick drum.
My advice is to apply his engineering skills to the job hunt itself. Send out CV's every day, network, hunt, analyze data, look for patterns, etc. As he is discovering, job hunting is a full time job.
In Canada, there are organizations for older job hunters that help with resume preparation and cover letters, job hunting techniques, how to network effectively, etc. Working with others in a similar situation is great for your morale. I wish him good luck.
They only axed Silicon Valley research. Microsoft Research is still strong, but in Redmond, Israel and other locations. The Microsoft executive team fully recognizes that research is key to their future success.
The Chrome Dev Tools or Firebug are >>> the GWT debugger. The GWT Dev Mode plugins required for debugging, is also no longer supported in Chrome, and soon in Firefox. (I discovered this last week, the first time I've touched GWT in half a year. There's a newer Dev Tools alternative, but I've been unable to actually get it working.)
In summary, GWT was awesome, but I see no reason to use it today. It helped me find my current job, so I'm grateful for that. However, if you were looking for a web framework, you would be much better served (IMO) if you chose React, Angular, or Ember rather than GWT.
I have used GWT on two from scratch front ends within the last 8 months.
Well it's no longer "Google" Web Toolkit, it's now just "GWT"; they've handed it over to a steering committee.
At the time I loved using it as it had many nice features. But sadly it's very hard to migrate from. Most importantly is the vendor lock-in with the 2 framework specific RPC mechanisms used to communicate to the server.
Agreed. Even 3 decimal places wouldn't do justice to what they have done to us. Fuck those greedy bastards. If we were smart we would unionize ... err, sorry, I mean form a professional association to represent our interests. Like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.
Why has no one mentioned jail time for breaking the law and potentially damaging people's lives and livelihood? Why do we always think money is the solution. Jobs is burning in Hell, so no hope there, but anyone else this can be attributed to should do time, not pay their body servants salary and laugh at how the poor struggle to eat.
I think after 2008 it's pretty clear that executives personally don't have to fear any consequences from wrongdoing. Either someone way down the chain of command goes to jail or the shareholders pay for a settlement.
So you think $324 billion dollars is appropriate? Wouldn't that essentially bankrupt all the companies involved? Who needs to worry about jobs when some of the biggest tech firms on the planet are wiped out! Not to mention that $324 billion spread across 64000 plaintiffs is $5 million each... You wouldn't be looking for that easy windfall, now would you?
If I go with your figure of 64,000 * 5,000,000, it's not the tech-apocalypse. It's not like that money is going straight into a crack pipe.
People with a lot of technical know-how would suddenly be set loose in a cash rich environment full of new millionaires who are looking to build their own empires.
That scenario could very well be a second dotcom boom.
More to the point, when one of the little people gets caught breaking the law, we don't question the consequences their punishment will have on any industry. These companies not only broke the law but were terrible corporate citizens.
Anything that doesn't hurt a lot will not be an appropriate punishment, it'll just be considered the cost of doing business.
You go directly from "tech firms wiped out apocalypse" to "64000 plaintiffs [..] $5 million each" and don't notice the disconnect?
Frankly, that needs to happen, and not only when theres cause. We need a Netflix chaos monkey that breaks up big companies and redistributes their wealth to let creative destruction create something better.
True but it seems hard to argue that the amount can reasonably be more than all of the cash on hand, since the companies wouldn't have been able to pay the employees anything like that amount, so it can't reflect the market value of the lost salaries.
> Wouldn't that essentially bankrupt all the companies involved?
The sensible thing to do in these types of circumstances is to pay the settlement using newly issued shares in the company. That dilutes the interest of all the existing shareholders (effectively the money comes out of their pockets because the price per share goes down) but it causes no damage to the company's operations.
But I can blame companies for conspiring to hire the best trained people to do a given job at the lowest possible price. H-1B visas, offshoring, anti-compete clauses and non-poaching agreements are their key tactics.
Jeff Bezos is using Bill Gates' playbook from the 1990's: build alternatives to the most popular apps on your platform; bundle them; and improve app quality over time. This business strategy is very hard for a company like dropbox to compete against, even if they have better IP/quality/features.
Edit: we can also expect Amazon versions of "knife the baby", "cut off their air supply" and "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run".
One big thing Zacolo has over Dropbox is cheaper pricing. Dropbox for Business is $15/mo  per user (can be up to 30% cheaper if you pay in-full for a year), where-as Zacolo is $5/mo  per user. That'll put downward pressure on Dropbox's corporate pricing unless they have much better service, or much better features, than Amazon.
Afaik, it's not competitively priced for large volume. We priced around 650 users for box, and it came out to be roughly $8K annually. At $5/month/user, the Amazon offering would be roughly $40K annually. I'd actually prefer to go the Amazon route, but they're going to have to offer volume discounts to make it compelling.
I'm actually waiting for clarification on this...I think my team might've misinterpreted the quote, and if so, Amazon would be significantly cheaper. I'll update as soon as I know (most likely Monday).
It was anticompetitive for Microsoft in the mid-90s because they had a very solid monopoly over the personal computer operating system market. A case against Amazon would be much weaker because they don't even have a majority of the market much less a monopoly.
You shouldn't have to already be a monopoly to have your acts qualified as anti-trust. Just like the law should punish you for trying to scam people even though your scam didn't work.
Otherwise, everyone would at least try to scam everyone else and would at least try to become a monopoly, since it costs nothing unless you win. And if you do win, the fine won't reach the amount you put in the bank (at least in the case of monopolies, e.g Microsoft).
Speaking broadly, that's not true. Monopolies are not intrinsically illegal. Antitrust law is specifically about business practices, and the notion that monopolies have to be more restricted because they can use their domination of one market to affect related markets. What got Microsoft into trouble wasn't having 90% of the operating system market, it was the allegation that they were using that monopoly to take over the nascent browser market, force OEMs to accept terms that prevented alternative OSes from competing on level ground, and so on.
I suspect Amazon is on their way to running afoul of such laws, or would be if the current business climate wasn't comparatively hostile to the notion of this kind of regulation. I don't think, however, that Zocalo is going to be a piece that attracts much attention; it's going to be the way Amazon seems to increasingly deal with their suppliers in Walmart-esque fashion. (Walmart was notorious for going beyond merely asking for "large customer" discounts and heading into "we will tell you what wholesale price we're going to pay, and you will either make it work or you'll lose the 60-70% of your business we represent.")
While your description of antitrust law is both commonly held and comparatively reasonable, it is unfortunately not always accurate in the United States. For a particularly egregious case, see US v. Alcoa, where the aluminum company was judged to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act simply for having a high market share, despite there being no accusation of any specific anti-competitive business practices.