I, , of County, Ohio, Form

I was selected for a summer internship 2016.I tried to be very open while filling the preference form: I choose many products as my favorite products and I said I'm open about the team I want to join.I even was very open in the  location and start date to get host matching interviews (I negotiated the start date in the interview until both me and my host were happy.) You could ask your recruiter to review your form (there are very cool and could help you a lot since they have a bigger experience).Do a search on the potential team.Before the interviews,  try to find smart question that you are going to ask for the potential host (do a search on the team  to find nice and deep questions to impress your host). Prepare well your resume.You are very likely not going to get algorithm/data structure questions like in the first round. It's going to be just some friendly chat if you are lucky. If your potential team is working on something like machine learning, expect that  they are going to ask you questions about machine learning, courses related to machine learning you have and relevant experience (projects, internship). Of course you have to study that before the interview. Take as long time as you need if you feel rusty. It takes some time to get ready for the host matching (it's less than the technical interview)  but it's worth it of course.

Just register on the admission portal and during registration you will get an option for the entrance based course. Just register there. There is no separate form for DU CIC.

NOOOOOOO. You are talking to a military romance scammer. I received an email from the US Army that directly answers your question that is pasted below please keep reading.I believe you are the victim of a military Romance Scam whereas the person you are talking to is a foreign national posing as an American Soldier claiming to be stationed overseas on a peacekeeping mission. That's the key to the scam they always claim to be on a peacekeeping mission.Part of their scam is saying that they have no access to their money that their mission is highly dangerous.If your boyfriend girlfriend/future husband/wife is asking you to do the following or has exhibited this behavior, it is a most likely a scam:Moves to private messaging site immediately after meeting you on Facebook or SnapChat or Instagram or some dating or social media site. Often times they delete the site you met them on right after they asked you to move to a more private messaging siteProfesses love to you very quickly & seems to quote poems and song lyrics along with using their own sort of broken language, as they profess their love and devotion quickly. They also showed concern for your health and love for your family.Promises marriage as soon as he/she gets to state for leave that they asked you to pay for.They Requests money (wire transfers) and Amazon, iTune ,Verizon, etc gift cards, for medicine, religious practices, and leaves to come home, internet access, complete job assignments, help sick friend, get him out of trouble, or anything that sounds fishy.The military does provide all the soldier needs including food medical Care and transportation for leave. Trust me, I lived it, you are probably being scammed. I am just trying to show you examples that you are most likely being connned.Below is an email response I received after I sent an inquiry to the US government when I discovered I was scammed. I received this wonderful response back with lots of useful links on how to find and report your scammer. And how to learn more about Romance Scams.Right now you can also copy the picture he gave you and do a google image search and you will hopefully see the pictures of the real person he is impersonating. this doesn't always work and take some digging. if you find the real person you can direct message them and alert them that their image is being used for scamming.Good Luck to you and I'm sorry this may be happening to you. please continue reading the government response I received below it's very informative.   You have contacted an email that is monitored by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command. Unfortunately, this is a common concern. We assure you there is never any reason to send money to anyone claiming to be a Soldier online. If you have only spoken with this person online, it is likely they are not a U.S. Soldier at all. If this is a suspected imposter social media profile, we urge you to report it to that platform as soon as possible. Please continue reading for more resources and answers to other frequently asked questions:  How to report an imposter Facebook profile: Caution-https://www.facebook.com/help/16... < Caution-https://www.facebook.com/help/16... >   Answers to frequently asked questions:  - Soldiers and their loved ones are not charged money so that the Soldier can go on leave.  - Soldiers are not charged money for secure communications or leave.  - Soldiers do not need permission to get married.  - Soldiers emails are in this format: john.doe.mil@mail.mil < Caution-mailto: john.doe.mil@mail.mil > anything ending in .us or .com is not an official email account.  - Soldiers have medical insurance, which pays for their medical costs when treated at civilian health care facilities worldwide – family and friends do not need to pay their medical expenses.  - Military aircraft are not used to transport Privately Owned Vehicles.  - Army financial offices are not used to help Soldiers buy or sell items of any kind.  - Soldiers deployed to Combat Zones do not need to solicit money from the public to feed or house themselves or their troops.  - Deployed Soldiers do not find large unclaimed sums of money and need your help to get that money out of the country.  Anyone who tells you one of the above-listed conditions/circumstances is true is likely posing as a Soldier and trying to steal money from you.  We would urge you to immediately cease all contact with this individual.  For more information on avoiding online scams and to report this crime, please see the following sites and articles:   This article may help clarify some of the tricks social media scammers try to use to take advantage of people: Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/61432/< Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/61432/>   CID advises vigilance against 'romance scams,' scammers impersonating Soldiers  Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/180749 < Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/180749 >   FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center: Caution-http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx< Caution-http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx>   U.S. Army investigators warn public against romance scams: Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/130...< Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/130...>   DOD warns troops, families to be cybercrime smart -Caution-http://www.army.mil/article/1450...< Caution-http://www.army.mil/article/1450...>   Use caution with social networking  Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/146...< Caution-https://www.army.mil/article/146...>    Please see our frequently asked questions section under scams and legal issues. Caution-http://www.army.mil/faq/ < Caution-http://www.army.mil/faq/ > or visit Caution-http://www.cid.army.mil/ < Caution-http://www.cid.army.mil/ >.  The challenge with most scams is determining if an individual is a legitimate member of the US Army. Based on the Privacy Act of 1974, we cannot provide this information. If concerned about a scam you may contact the Better Business Bureau (if it involves a solicitation for money), or local law enforcement. If you're involved in a Facebook or dating site scam, you are free to contact us direct; (571) 305-4056.   If you have a social security number, you can find information about Soldiers online at Caution-https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/sc... < Caution-https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/sc... > . While this is a free search, it does not help you locate a retiree, but it can tell you if the Soldier is active duty or not.  If more information is needed such as current duty station or location, you can contact the Commander Soldier's Records Data Center (SRDC) by phone or mail and they will help you locate individuals on active duty only, not retirees. There is a fee of $3.50 for businesses to use this service. The check or money order must be made out to the U.S. Treasury. It is not refundable. The address is:  Commander Soldier's Records Data Center (SRDC) 8899 East 56th Street Indianapolis, IN 46249-5301 Phone: 1-866-771-6357  In addition, it is not possible to remove social networking site profiles without legitimate proof of identity theft or a scam. If you suspect fraud on this site, take a screenshot of any advances for money or impersonations and report the account on the social networking platform immediately.  Please submit all information you have on this incident to Caution-www.ic3.gov < Caution-http://www.ic3.gov > (FBI website, Internet Criminal Complaint Center), immediately stop contact with the scammer (you are potentially providing them more information which can be used to scam you), and learn how to protect yourself against these scams at Caution-http://www.ftc.gov < Caution-http://www.ftc.gov > (Federal Trade Commission's website)

Might as well spit into the wind for all the good it will do.For it to work people will have to observe the law. In Washington and Oregon, similar laws are already on the books. The majority of the county sheriffs have publicly stated they will not enforce the law. Further the average citizen has to obey it - who will find an FFL during his business hours, pay the fees for the check, to loan his fully legal brother a gun for Sunday afternoon? Then perhaps have to repeat the process, and fees, some hours later?Obeying any law is voluntary. Yes, there is always a possible “or else” to not obeying, but the actual act to obey or not is voluntary. When a law is onerous, unconstitutional, or downright stupid, we ignore it. This will be one such law if by some miracle it gets past the Senate and Trump doesn’t veto it.Those who we really NEED to obey the law categorically won’t. They don’t obey current laws, and certainly won’t obey the new one. I mean the criminals out there. In 2010 just 48,000 felons tried to get a gun through background checks, out of 14.4 MILLION such checks. That’s .33 percent of checks. That’s 1/3 of 1 percent…! Plus of those, just 44 were prosecuted for it. Criminals just do not go through background checks. There is essentially no penalty if they do.https://www.washingtonpost.com/b...https://www.fbi.gov/file-reposit...Criminals have rap sheets for a reason, same reason ordinary citizens don’t. Now and again they get caught.Ordinary citizens don’t do anything to get caught for. So what good will it do to create a law for which ordinary citizens aren’t a problem in the first place, and criminals will, yet again, just not observe?

Yes there is, in the same way that people who own nitroglycerine pills are more likely to have a heart attack than those who don’t have such pills, or that people who own numerous diet foods are more likely to be morbidly obese than people with no diet foods in their house. Or that people with lighters in their pockets or purses are more likely to die of lung cancer.[1] Which is not to say that nitroglycerine pills cause heart attacks, nor that diet foods cause morbid obesity, nor that lighters cause lung cancer - nor that owning a gun causes someone to get shot.The study which found that “a gun in the home nearly triples the risk of homicide”, authored by Arthur Kellerman, failed to account for reverse causation, namely, that people who tended to have guns in the home were more likely to either have chosen a criminal lifestyle or to have credible threats against their lives, e.g. estranged ex-spouses, or just plain living in a bad area of town.Of course, the study, originally published in the ‘prestigious’ New England Journal of Medicine, Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home | NEJM has been widely cited in the media, and still persists in the form of memes such as the OP. Thanks, in no small part, to the prestige commanded by the NEJM.It is amusing to read the letters to the editor in rebuttal to that article. They are available here: Guns and Homicide in the Home | NEJM Incredibly, the author responds to the criticism of reverse causation in response to these rebuttals in the following way: “If a gun in the home affords substantial protection from homicide (whether it is used to injure, kill, or frighten intruders or simply discourage them from entering), we should have found that homes in which a homicide occurred were less likely to contain a gun than similar households in which a homicide did not occur. The opposite was true.” (!!)It is also amusing and quite illuminating to apply that same tortured logic to the cases I open this response by citing: “If nitroglycerine pills actually treated heart conditions, we should have found that people who had them in their possession would have had a lower incidence of heart attacks than in those people who did not possess that medication. Instead, the opposite was true.” … “If diet foods prevented morbid obesity, we should have found that households filled with such products had fewer morbidly obese people than households lacking such products. Instead, the opposite was true.”If firefighters actually put out house fires, we should have found that houses surrounded by firefighters should have been burning less often than houses not surrounded by firefighters.If the Flight For Life actually saved people’s lives, we should have found that people being transported on such flights died at a rate less often than people not taking such flights.Such cases obviously draw the wrong conclusions - and yet, they employ the same “logic” as is used by Kellerman in his study. For some reason, the media, even including Scientific American (which one might think would employ editors in logic at least well enough to recognize this logical fallacy), continue to cite the study as if it were incontrovertible.Here is what Scientific American had to say:“So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence ShowsThis case is possibly an object lesson why medical professionals are not the correct group to consider “gun violence”, especially considering that the NEJM took an editorial position against private gun ownership in the same issue, i.e. removing any doubt as to their lack of their objectivity on the subject.And also considering that some of the cases Kellerman counted as “increasing the risk of homicide” (i.e. cases of actual homicide) were actually legally justifiable homicides of criminal attackers - i.e. exactly the sort of homicides that underly the right of self-defense, rather than ones to be minimized or prohibited.Of course, this creates an enormous gulf between medical cases and ‘gun violence’ - there are no “good” or “justifiable” cases of plague or malaria or ebola, etc. Yet there are criminal homicides and justifiable homicides - which are night and day different both morally and legally; there is a world of difference between someone murdering others, and someone else who kills such a person in the act. The latter, of course, would never happen in households lacking guns - and yet, Kellerman expects us to view this as a good thing, a homicide avoided, when we are told “a gun in the home nearly triples the risk of homicide.”Unless and until the medical establishment can admit the difference between criminal and justifiable homicides, they should be kept away from ‘studying gun violence’, lest they produce more junk science studies as defective as the one giving rise to the OP question.Indeed, the possibility can not be ruled out that the authors maliciously overlook the reverse causation flaw in an attempt to disparage and denigrate the value of privately-owned guns for self-defense. Kellerman is no stranger to doing the latter, e.g. finding that “a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill friends, acquaintances or family than an unknown intruder” - counting suicides, and considering rival drug dealers as “acquaintances”, estranged ex-spouses as “family”, and only counting the *killings* of unknown intruders, thereby ignoring the vastly larger number of crimes successfully deterred or thwarted by merely showing the gun, or non-fatally shooting the criminal suspect. It makes no more sense to judge the value of private gun ownership by relative body counts than it does to judge the success of a police force by body counts, and yet, that is exactly what Kellerman does in this other study.(This sort of thing is why the NRA forced Congress to stop funding the CDC to do “gun violence research” - and rightly so. Note also how the Scientific American text gushes with the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, (dean of medicine at a University; published in the New England Journal of Medicine; funded by the CDC) rather than so much as taking a moment to look at what Kellerman’s article actually says - what the claim actually is, what the experimental design was, and whether the claim was actually supported by the results. Frankly, Scientific American should be ashamed of itself for citing such a study, and should not only apologize but also, to make amends, spend an article explaining to its readership what the experimental design actually was and what conclusions could rightly be drawn from it. They are welcome to use my answer here as guidance.)[1] This answer was suggested by my 13-year-old.