Well we noticed that flash ads sometimes take up even more than 100% of a CPU (meaning it can spawn threads and use multicore processing), video ads perhaps even more since they may get to be gpu accelerated, as CSS3 animations. We figured if people are spending this much CPU cycles for advertising, than why not clean up all the advertising and use the CPU cycles for some protein folding and finding a cure for cancer to make a website owners, visitors and a group of researchers happy ?
While the first part covers my feelings very well about the current 'state of the nation', I'm more concerned that newly minted millionaires (not just from a recent IPO, but others too) see this as status quo as they join the Angel/VC group.
This is not the trend, and making it so is very dangerous.
Silicon Valley has a great opportunity to become an integral part of the resuscitation of the US economy. This is a bad time for a bubble burst.
If the bubble is about to burst, smart money will start making safe bets.
The Waterloo (CS/Eng) intern ecosystem is immensely strong. First year students generally work at the best companies that they can, often taking smaller startups where they are able to learn the most. There's a steady transition to final co-op terms, where most classmates end up working in Silicon Valley, Redmond, NYC, and their own startups. It's a great place to be if you want to be part of the brain drain.
Like many well-known American business schools, UW has the fortune of having graduates opting to return term-after-term to hire interns. Since UW interns are full-year round, this creates a dependency of companies to hire interns (compensation is less than full-time employees, but it's still nice).
While I understand that other schools may have 'almost' co-op programs, Waterloo's is the largest one in the continent (and perhaps the world too). By having multiple exposures to different employers, the school provides successful students the ability to quickly ascend the ranks of the corporate ladder while receiving academic instruction on how to be better at their jobs.
I understand a common problem at other universities is that courses are not always relevant to the real world. By placing students constantly in contact with production code, there is a strong backlash against badly taught and irrelevant course material. Waterloo is grounded in the real-world, as I think most of us live in it.
My only complaint is the geese and the timezone. I'd prefer to be on the west coast, but Waterloo is home (until Winter term).
The other more famous UW also does this: Google has a habit of hiring lots of UW graduates (see Jeff Dean), who then go on to hire other UW graduates...and also a very good co-op program with many willing local companies (most notably, Microsoft, but also Intel in Portland).
He got his phd from UW, just not that UW. It's in the wiki page also. University of Washington is one of the best state schools in the world, and routinely ranks in the top ten with its computer science department.
This is annoying. I really liked the WeAreHunted startup which was killed on acquisition. The Twitter app had different functionality, and wasn't able to hold a light to the WeAreHunted music recommendation service.
I feel for the WeAreHunted guys, they really had stuff going for them.
I agree, WeAreHunted provided superior service to the Music app. The ability to play the entirety of a song without a Twitter and Spotify account was awesome — it was a great new way of discovering music.
It's still a project from minority government and all institutions/cities can withdraw from it. Montreal(1.65M pop) said that it will not apply the charter in their city.
It still has a long way to go, but it's a good way to change the political agenda and pit rural areas and cities against each other.
The worst thing about this charter is not that it makes a clear separation between church and state (like in France), but rather that some religions are "more equal" than others (for example, the crucifix will remain in the legislative chamber).
So yeah, it's more of a "let's get everybody in the province riled up and angry at each other instead of creating jobs and fixing real problems." And since the separatist option is stuck at 30%, that's pretty much the best the Parti Québecois can do to please their troops.
"Not sure I'd necessarily say racist..."
"It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..."
Our Charter clearly states a person can't be judged bases off of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you call it, it's fucking wrong. I also don't care where you are from, in Canada, you don't judge people based off those things. Everyone has a right to those jobs, and to all jobs, unless they don't have the skills.
Since when is covering your face a religious issue?
My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face, nor does any of her family, most of whom have been to Hajj and are quite religious. My wife's face wasn't covered when we were married by a Sunni Imam in a Muslim ceremony.
So is requiring someone's face to be visible a religious issue? A racism issue? What is it? How about tucking in a chain? Does that infringe on someone's religious beliefs?
Should government employees have no dress code? Come in to work wearing a baseball cap?
To be entirely honest, I don't really care what your wife wears.
This is an issue regarding The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It is explicit. No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them.
I don't really see how this is hard to understand. Be accepting, and don't judge people. It has the happy side effect of making you a better person, too.
(Note, I'm not religious at all. I'm here advocating based entirely on my belief that we have an amazing Charter of Rights)
I don't subscribe to the "if you are wearing a Niqab you are a terrorist" belief. You have a better chance of choking on your own vomit then being attack by a terrorist. Politicians use the "safety" concern argument to make you accept it, but just because the news lady tells you about a single incident about a person wearing a Niqab doesn't mean anything.
the unsavory things you speak of around the world, well, they aren't here.
In November, 2011 the court released its 335 pages long decision, which was that the polygamy abolition law is indeed constitutional, but that it should not be used to persecute minors for having taken part of a polygamous marriage. Chief Justice Robert Bauman conceded that there is a conflict between this law and some civil right principles, but stated that there are other and "more important" issues which in this case takes precedence. He wrote (as quoted by CBC news):
"I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. More specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage".
Bauman argued that there are cases where the "wives" (who may be rather young; sometimes as young as 12 years) are abducted and abused, but because they believe in a faith promoting polygamy, they are not willing to bring complaints to the authorities. He reasons that these offences sometimes may be stopped by applying anti-polygamy legislation.
The decision was welcomed by the attorney general of British Columbia, and by a representative for the group Stop Polygamy in Canada. Likewise, according to the CBC news, some polyamorous groups in Canada expressed their relief, since Bauman had stated that the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.
I understand this angle, but the harm described here has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do with oppressive, criminal behaviour. A man could easily commit the same crime on a single woman, there's nothing inherent to polygamy that is more harmful than a monogamous relationship.
> Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional
Which doesn't stop it from being a religious issue.
> Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?
Whether something is a bona fide religious issue is not, alone, dispositive of the treatment it should have by the State. So pointing out that other religious practices are prohibited by the State is irrelevant when the discussion at hand was over whether the issue was really a religious issue.
I don't think polygamy is specifically disallowed by the state, depending on how you define polygamy. Since marriage comes with tax and legal benefits, the state has an active interest in controlling what is legally defined as marriage (specifically, how many people are party to one marriage. I'm not talking about controlling any kind of two-party marriages like one man and one woman, two men, or two women).
For the religious definition of marriage, there are no laws saying you can't be married in your religion to multiple people. The only stipulation is that you can only be legally married to one person because of the aforementioned legal and tax benefits. There's no law prohibiting me from having six female roommates who are exclusively in a relationship with me. There is a law saying I can only be legally married to one of them at a time. The rest of the women would be legally single and religiously married.
It doesn't, but it is a little anecdote to illustrate that what some people claim is an essential religious belief isn't necessarily so.
Plenty of questionable behaviour gets glossed over as a 'religious' belief. Carrying weapons, polygamy, subjecting women and minorities, violence, etc... There absolutely has to be a line in the sand concerning what we as a society are willing to accept.
Some fundamentalist Christians think they should burn witches and homosexuals, and in the past, did. Yet our society no longer considers that acceptable.
Completely off topic, but what is your issue with polygamy? This is something that is illegal in Canada, and I find it puzzling. TBH, I don't see the issue with it. If you take away the fact that Warren Jeffs is complete fuck tart, polygamists seem to have the same issues you would find in monogamous relationships. Are there stories that are horrible, yes, but you find that everywhere else. When you look at the facts, are there more/worse issues in plural marriages?
"Polygamy" is a word that really isn't used to mean the thing its component parts imply (marriage for polyamorous people.)
Instead, it's usually both mixed-age and arranged: effectively, families coercing their daughters to join the harem of a rich man. (There may also be a dowry, in which case the family is selling their daughter into the harem of a rich man.)
This is a pretty bad thing, but it's hard to write a fully-general (e.g. gender-neutral) legal definition of it that doesn't also cause problems for regular poly people.
I have no issue with Polygamy. But some people do, and our governments evidently do as well.
Polygamy is accepted by many religions, and we have no problem trouncing those rights, yet we will bend over backwards for other questionable 'rights' (like the Burqa/Niqab, which is not 'required' except by extremist sects - and is nearly universally regarded as a tool of oppression).
Since when is covering your face a religious issue?
The proposal forbids a variety of religious adornments, for more than those involving face covering. I have no problem identifying someone in a hijab (headscarf), for example, which would also be outlawed for government employees under this proposal.
This will result in a brain drain for Quebec. There are many people who wear "religious symbols" that I know that are doctors, engineers in Quebec to whom their religion matters. They will most likely leave the province if this comes into effect.
So Quebec now wants to regulate which hat you can wear and which shapes your earrings can be. Good work. I propose Pastafarians to adopt a religious dogma that one should wear clothes while in public. Let's see Quebec deal with that.
I mean I am an Indian who emigrated here, athiest now.
But honestly what difference does it make. Do we want to live in a society where we have to concious about what religious symbol offended who.
I find incredibly hypocritical that Quebec doesn't want a "Canadian" identity, they want their own. Yet they will prevent you from having our own identity. Since when was the state responsible for culture and identity. I thought that was for the people.....
Since when was the state responsible for culture and identity. I thought that was for the people.....
Maybe you have to live here, to see the scope of how much the government thinks that it is their business.
I received mail from the government, touting "Nos Valeurs", a pamphlet that was printed and then mailed to me using my tax money. This is just plain old propaganda. The government has decided that these are "our" values, and it will use the power of the State to enforce it.
Keep spinning it that way, if you'd like. But the people who are (for example) Muslim or Sikh in Quebec tend to not be white. The Jewish population is another matter, but the Quebec nationalists have it in for them, too, and that goes back decades.
Why don't you leave Canada, go live in Arizona or Utah.
Have you read the Charter of Rights of Freedom, you know that law the entire country including Quebec is suppose to follow. I mean your to busy undermining the values of the country so you can have your own crappy value system. Why don't you people go live somewhere else like France where this sorta thing is so popular and productive.
Doesn't seem like the rest of Canada agrees with you. And I'd argue letting Quebec do whatever the fuck they want is the reason this is an issue in the first place.
I have read the charter, yes. have you? Do you forget that the religious freedoms part is mean that neither the citizens nor government dictate what religions to follow or practice. What Quebec is trying to change is how the government dictates how the government may represent itself, that is as secular. It still does not affect you personally, or how you identify yourself publicly at all; unless you work in government, but why would you want to work for the government? Doesn't pay well and is shit.
I don't think you understand cognitive dissonance at all. Do you presume to know how all of Canada feels? Perhaps the majority of people nearest you do share the same thoughts on the subject, and that you don't feel it's right. Just because someone happens to offer a different viewpoint than you, and you happen to disagree with it, doesn't mean that I have cognitive dissonance. I'm more than capable of accepting new ideas. This idea in particular is different than the one I grew up with and I happen to see value it in.
You clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I don't care what people practice, or how they are in their own homes or out in public. I don't feel untoward or speak ill of anyone who is religious or wants to wear things they consider to be part of whatever it is they consider to be their identity. What I do think is fair is that anyone representing government not display their beliefs. It's not fair that quebec has made distinctions between what is acceptable and not. Nothing should be worn by individuals. It doesn't matter nor does it help to perform your job. If you work somewhere, it'll most likely have a dress code. Consider this an extension of that.
I don't mind that many canadians feel this is a violation of the charter; maybe they should be thinking about what they value more: how government represents and polices itself or social identity. This has nothing to do with how the government treats citizens. Yes, citizens make up the government; but guess what - you're not representing segments and races: you're representing canada.
But isn't canada made up of many races? Am I seriously suggesting people not represent things they cannot change, which is skin colour or whatnot. no. but what are you really trying to accomplish in government? represent canada or whatever background you happened to be born into without choice.
you don't like my thoughts since it doesn't fit your ideal and initial world view: that's cognitive dissonance. I can accept people for who they are, and I really don't care about this issue as much as it may seem, despite replying to your bait and various others. At the end of the day, Quebec isn't going to get what they want, and canada is going to keep on rolling; you'll have your way, and I won't care what Quebec's decision is.
Still want me to leave? I bet you'd relish the thought. I'll stick around long enough to challenge your views though. enjoy.
Some other suggestions along the same lines as you suggest:
Interrupt a court case so that the courtroom can appreciate the
plight of dying African children before they get back to quibbling
over legal wording.
Speak at a conference for accountants so that they can appreciate
the plight of dying African children before they get back to
fiddling with spreadsheets.
Share this in sexual abuse groups so that they can appreciate the
plight of dying African children before they get back to discussing
their own troubles.
Visit schools and interrupt classrooms so that they can appreciate
the plight of dying African children before they get back to
learning about math, English, or history.
Or... how about we keep human interest stories that would otherwise be covered by major media off of HN unless there is a component of the story which is particularly hackerish and gratifies one's intellectual curiosity? As it stands, this story is little more than "large underground aquifers exist" which is unlikely to gratify anyone's intellectual curiosity any more than "large deposits of coal exist". If finding this aquifer was accomplished via innovative new technology, let's see the story on that.
How about a discussion on Alain Gachet's WATEX publications which I understand to be the technological basis that enabled this find:
I think there's a very good reason why pg and the editors actively curate HN (eg: blocking certain sites from submission) and don't let democracy do its thing: it doesn't stand a chance against Eternal September.
(Besides which: those publications, like this story, aren't all that interesting from an intellectually gratifying perspective.)
Cmon, you can't really expect an audience base that is probably mostly introverted and cynical to actually find joy in reading about a positive find in a third world country could you? In all seriousness though, I think this can be well developed if it isn't exploited by privatization. Since, ya know, most things that would be greatly beneficial to developing countries usually are.
There's a difference between caring about something and thinking it's intellectually stimulating. There's no need to insult people because they think HN is a bad place to post good news that has no takeaway value.
(I feel dirty for using the word 'takeaway' but I can't think of anything that fits better to mean an overly-broad version of 'learning'.)
You're ignoring the 'think it's important that the point is raised' factor. If there was a user-visible flagging mechanism, then a hate-to-be-that-guy would use it and never feel any urge to make an annoying post, win-win. I strongly doubt that most people claiming to 'hate to be that guy' are lying.
I do realize that, which is why I said 'user-visible'. Flagging as HN currently has it can be used for moderation purposes, and for downvotes in extreme situations. But a user-visible flag would provide a warning to users that an article is fluff or otherwise problematic, and possibly attract more discriminating attention.