原件：海关盖章的RECHNUNG地址如下：
复印件：护照的首页、签证页、出入境页
Amazon.de
Umsatzsteuererstattung
Im Gewerbepark D 55
93059 Regensburg
Deutschland
To qualify for the refund, the following legal deadline must be met: the item must be exported before the third calendar month following the month in which the goods were received has expired.
For legal reason, we require proof that:
*your residence is abroad (*non*EU) as far as this is not evident from the export certificate, and
*that the items you purchased from Amazon.de have been declared at the customs
Please send both documents as well as the original invoice (essential!) to the following address:
Amazon.de
Umsatzsteuererstattung
Im Gewerbepark D 55
93059 Regensburg
Deutschland
We will keep the original invoice and the confirmation for our records. If you need a copy of your invoices, please tell us the respective order numbers and we will send you the copies.
The socket also ties up that particular src/dst IP address and port so it cannot be reused for the duration of the TIME_WAIT interval. (This is the intended purpose of the TIME_WAIT state.) Tying up the port is not usually an issue unless you need to reconnect a with the same port pair. Most often one side will use an ephemeral port, with only one side anchored to a well known port. However, a very large number of TIME_WAIT sockets can exhaust the ephemeral port space if you are repeatedly and frequently connecting between the same two IP addresses. Note this only affects this particular IP address pair, and will not affect establishment of connections with other hosts.
In general, optimizing the original code to a single 32-bit load on little endian targets is not safe: the pointer may not be aligned. However, even after marking the pointer aligned, clang still misses the optimization.
Clang can successfully forward loads and stores when the accessed object is known.
Finally, Clang also optimizes the opposite: turning this code into a "bswapl" on x86.
Yahoo! expects to realize approximately $375 million of annualized savings upon completion of all employee transitions. The company currently expects to recognize the majority of an estimated $125 to $145 million pretax cash charge relating to employee severance...
I did not directly work on Wave but here's the story to the best of my knowledge:
Lars Rasmussen was getting ready to leave Google and Google was highly motivated for him to stay on board so they bent a lot of rules and handed him the Google Wave project with very little oversight or control from the Google HQ.
Part of the deal initially was that Wave would be compensated much like a startup, base salaries were supposed to be low but with heavy performance linked bonuses which would have made the Wave team rich upon Wave's success.
During the course of negotiations and building the Wave product, the "heavily reward for success" part of the equation remained but the "punish upon failure" got gradually watered down into irrelevance, making the entire project a win-win bigger proposition.
Because large parts of the performance bonus were tied to intermediate performance goals, the Wave team was more motivated to hit deadlines than to ship good product. Product began to suffer as the team pushed to fill in a feature checklist on time.
The Wave team also largely dogfooded the product only internally within the Wave team who were already familiar with the basic paradigms and any outside user testing that demonstrated problems was carefully marginalized.
Lars was also a true believer and genuinely did believe Wave would become a massive success.
Upon Wave's cancellation, Lars stayed around just long enough to make sure his team was "adequately" compensated and then immediately decamped to Facebook.
In short, Google was experimenting with a drastically new model in an attempt to retain key talent and ended up getting the incentives so perversely aligned that it both directly contributed to a failed product and also compensated that failure more than what a moderate success would have been.
The results of the experiment argue in favor of situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed the situation caused the participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities.
If you give an interview you cannot pass, how do you distinguish between the quality of different correct responses?Because the candidate is able to explain their answer at your level.
That's how you know they actually know what they're talking about - the ability to explain it to their grandmother.
Using this same principle though we can argue that someone who knows nothing about brain surgery, such as myself, is qualified to hire brain surgeons based on whether they can explain how to do it in a way that I personally think makes sense to me. I might like to commend myself for being able to hire brain surgeons by virtue of my own ignorance, but it seems to me that the flaw here is I don't really know whether what he explained is true, or if it just sounds good.
So basically you hire the best bull shitter?
One reason for this is that many companies review and reward employees based on their "influence" or "visibility" -- what better way to maximize both than be in the air-traffic controller role?
