Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth
Most extinction level events that could happen on earth would be easier and cheaper to safeguard against while still living here than by moving to mars. For instance, a deep sea colony would be cheaper and easier than a colony on mars and would provide most of the the same safeguards as a colony on mars.
Sure it is. Earth is closer to the sun but gets less radiation at its surface because it has a thicker atmosphere. A few feet of water on top of a dwelling would more than compensate for this. If the entire biodome had a few feet of water on top, you would get a nice glow when the sun was shining which would probably look very similiar to a foggy day on earth. There are many places on earth where foggy days like that are pretty much constant and we survive just fine.
Don't assume that he's healthy though. My mom teaches 4th grade and was complaining once that the mouse they were feeding nothing but sugar was losing weight while the mouse they were feeding healthy was gaining weight. I told her it probably was because the mouse eating nothing but sugar was slowly dying.
Yes - it is mostly religion, sadly. You'll hear a fair amount of poppycock about "wanting a better education", but if *that* was the goal, a couple of extra hours a day of (Gasp!) reading with them would be far, far better.
From my experience it seems to be an even split between the religious and the non-religious hippie types.
I never found myself capable of navigating the social realities of schools. I found that the minute I entered the workforce, I was able to deal with the social realities with ease. None of the "socialization" I got in school applied. Adult society is different from school society/youth culture.
I also never found myself capable of navigating the social realities of schoool and found that the minute I entered the workforce I was able to deal eith the social realities with ease. The difference is that I think that having to deal with the harsher realities of public school in a safe environment makes it easier to deal with the real world. Public school is an exageration of the real world and helps you be better at handling the real world.
I am who I am today because the outlining parts of my personality were not ground down by a life of conforming to other kids expectations. In home school I was allowed to be the person I am not who I "should" be.
I went to public school and I never had this problem. I never had the desire to conform so I didn't. My guess is that a large percentage of people on slashdot are the same way. Homeschooled or not, deciding to conform to society is a choice.
And how does this prevent a bomber getting a burner phone, leaving a fake name and the burner phone contact number and verifying that they're the fake identity when called?
It wouldn't but what it would do is prevent people from panicing for no reason. If a bomber was smart, they would do exactly this if they needed to leave a bomb in a public place for a long period of time. But why exactly would a bomber need to do this? The bomber really only needs enough time to get to a safe distance.
For leaving an object in a public place, the steps are 1) ask permission and 2) write your name and number on it. It's been that way for years and no, this doesn't leave a giant gap in security because despite what people want to believe it's really easy to find a lot of people all in one place and blow them up but luckily it's also an extremely rare event when someone wants to do it so you're still thousands of time more likely to die in a car accident.
True, it is a different thing, but it has a similar effect: it degrades the quality of the search results. This is perhaps the single worst aspect of Google Search.
How do you figure? That's not their goal at all. Their goal is to improve the quality of the search results. Now whether they are succeeding at this is up for debate but I don't see how it degrades it. The idea is to customize the results to the person doing the search. For instance when a video gamer searches for infinity they are probably looking for something completely different than when a mathmatician searches for infinity as is someone who is car shopping. Done correctly, it should help them get better results just as humans use context to better understand conversions.
Your search results are already tainted. Try searching for the same item on two different and well used computers. The results from Google will be different for both. Why? Simply because Google already filters your query based on past searches and visited sites.
That's optimization. It's attempting to optimize my results to give me better results. That's completely different than pushing someone to the top of the results because they paid them money even if it makes my results worse.
Sure you are. You are being paid in content, software, etc... You aren't getting nothing in return, you are getting the priviledge of using facebook, slashdot, google, etc... If a large percentage of users all started using ad blocking software then places like google, slashdot, and facebook would either have to start charging or even worse start doing secret product placement. I much prefer ads that I know are ads to tainted content and tainted search results.
Not only do I not mind some ads but I even occasionally click on ads that look interesting. One thing that I find annoying is that many times an ad catches my eye just as I'm leaving the page so I click the back button but when I do the ad that I wanted to look at has been replaced with a different ad. Advertisers (slashdot included) need to have a way for you to scroll back and look at previously shown ad. This feature could only help them but hardly anyone seems to do it.
The human race would probably be better off if a lot fewer people stared at computers all day.
I agree completely. What we really need is more physically balanced jobs. Most jobs are either desk jobs or manual labor jobs. The two extremes are both very hard on the body.
Genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS. As in, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution created a genetic predisposition to be interested or not interested in a field that has only existed for half a century?
Just because the field has only existed for half a century doesn't mean that the predispositions aren't older than that. Humans are genetically predisposed to be better at riding a bike than a fish even though both have been around for much longer. How many female professional race car drivers do you see? There are certain things about computers and cars that more boys than girls are attracted to. There are obvious exceptions like my daughter who likes sports and frogs more than her brothers but on average you will find more of one gender than the other attracted to certain activities and I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone is allowed to freely choose their own interests.
These are cultural stereotypes. I grew up with 2 younger sisters, who were, and still are, into gaming.
I forgot to mention that my daughter loves sports and to catch frogs while her brothers couldn't care less and prefer to be inside playing with legos or video games. There is also a cultural stereotype that guys like sports and nature while girls don't. Stereotypes are usually there for a reason. Stereotype is usually a way of saying "the average X is like this". There are plenty of exceptions but I can't make my daughter like computers anymore than I can make my sons like sports. My children were born with distinct likes and dislikes which I for the most part don't seem to have much influence on. For instance, one of my sons is obsessed with drawing and at 9 years old has long since surpassed my limited ability. Just like my son gravitated towards drawing for some reason and my daughter gravitated towards sports and is more tomboyish than her brothers, more boys than girls gravitate towards computers.
There may be some natural inclinational differences in girls and boys that dictate how likely they are to be interested in this stuff, but I strongly believe that the majority of the reason for the divide is a culture that continues to encourage this divide.
Having watched my own kids pick up interests with no influence from me, I disagree that culture is the majority of the reason but rather there is a strong natural inclination for different people to like different things.
Are you trying to say that girls are genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS? That doesn't seem right...
That's exactly what he's saying. I have 3 kids age 7-9. The boys love computers and video games. My girl won't touch a video game unless someone else is playing with her. It took years for someone to create a game that attracted girls. Sims was the first real hit with the female population. Girls are much more social than boys even from a very young age. They have no interest in staring at a screen all day by themself. There might be ways to encourage them. Introducing pair programming in grade school might help or doing other things that make it more social but most girls have no interest in being the stereotypical computer nerd who codes for hours in their parent's basement which is how many computer programmers became computer programmers.
You obviously didn't read the article. They are talking about non salaried teachers making up to 20k in a single day selling online courses. The summary is a bit deceiving though. The article actually talks about someone who isn't even a professor but just a random guy with a 4 year degree who started making videos.
What we would ideally need to achieve elimination of cellular aging is the ability to sequence a person's entire DNA when they are young. And later digitally replicate an exact copy of the originals and print new undifferentiated cells to replace old ones, so the telomeres are longer, and also.... there are no mutations.
Decent strategy but a DNA map of you in your youth shouldn't be necessary. The mutations only really cause problems at the cell level. If you take a few thousand/million samples from different parts of the body then you should be able to look at the averages and determine what the starting cell DNA was as different cells shouldn't have the same mutations so you should be able to average out any mutations. Once you have the good dna and can replicate it then doing as small as a 1% cell replacement per month should be more than enough to halt and/or reverse the aging process getting you back to your youth in about 8 or so years.
You don't get it, is unlikely that the treatment by itself will cause uncontrolled division, but the fact remains that the cells are still "old" and have accumulated defects with every replication, so even more replications in the same cells equates with increased cancer risk. The telomeres are simply a countdown to self destruction as a countermeasure of said risk, but as long as the root cause is not tackled the best you can hope is a few more years of pain and suffering.
The cell is going to die (and you with it). I will take an increased chance of cancer over the 100% risk of dying once you are out of telomeres. I might wait and opt to not get my telemeres increased until I'm 80 or so if the risk of cancer was high but if I'm 99 then I have alot to gain and not much to lose in getting a life extending treatment.
Meh, they need to invent a way to reverse ageing. I'm already post a prime, I don't want to be stuck like this for the rest of my much extended life!
Seriously, how annoying will it be when they invest booster spice and all the people under 30 can live that way forever?
One step at a time. My guess is that any age halting method would probably have some improvement for those post prime but even if it all it does is halt your aging at your current age that buys you more time until they can actually figure out how to reverse the aging process. At this point in life with death starting to loom on the horizon, if I had to do it all over again, I would probably opt to go into the medical field and research aging. With a finite lifespan, a complete career change is no longer a good option for me but if someone did manage to halt aging then there is no reason I couldn't go back to school and start studying how to reverse aging.
I doubt you have a current understanding of how police stations work. They usually have one desk sergeant, behind a counter. This is to clear fix it tickets and take statements or escalate.
Yes, during normal business hours, but this location previously wasn't open 24/7 and my guess is that now that the room is open 24/7 that doesn't mean that you can pay your parking fines 24/7 but rather that the lobby is open 24/7 but they just close the teller window now instead of the whole building.
I think the key with this proposal (vs. others which are just a pure money grab or in the Australian income tax case, double dipping) is the credit for taxes paid abroad.
Personal income already works this way. There is a credit for foreign taxes paid which reduces taxes owed dollar for dollar. The also do this at the state level where you can deduct taxes paid in other states on your return. This is probably the best you can do but it still causes a few problems: 1) For an expat, it means that even if you've been living in a foreign country for 20 years that technically you are still suppose to file USA taxes which seems stupid. 2) If you live in a state with high sales taxes like TX but low income tax then you can't take a credit for the income tax but you still basically get double taxed as you end up paying the higher sales tax in one place and higher income tax in another place. 3) This also doesn't allow someone to "vote with their feet" and move to a place with less taxes.
I think the key is that you shouldn't be allowed to do trickery that allows you to get the benefits of taxes like roads, security, a customer base, etc... without also paying your fair share of taxes but if you legitimately set up shop in a lower tax place and actually do business there with no trickery then this should be allowed.
A single incident can cost a lot more for them than just having an officer on hand when the transaction takes place. It's not like they're checking IDs and doing background checks here.
I doubt they even have an officer on hand. I live in Columbia and I know which lobby they are talking about. It's a small room at the entrance to the police headquarters. It's basically a small concrete room with several cameras. The only thing in the room is a teller window (which will presumably be closed) and a couple doors leading elsewhere. There is probably an alarm button too which would definitely get someone there in a hurry (as that is their main station where they park their cars so someone is always there). It's a good move as it basically costs them nothing. I'm actually surprised that it wasn't already open 24/7. The lobby of our post office across the street I'm pretty sure is already open 24/7. The only real reason not to keep it open 24/7 is to prevent vandalism but you would have to be pretty stupid to go and try to vandalize a police station full of cameras even if noone was present.
When I've done craigslist transactions, I've always met at a bank or a gas station as I know both have security cameras but if you're really worried, the police station is better, and as the article mentions, just by the location it should reduce illegal and stolen transactions as very few criminals would be comfortable selling something stolen in a police station.
If it's a stable piece of software with 4 people who understand it then even if you need to hire a dozen more programmers to support a new OS, this shouldn't be a huge issue.
Until the OS's that you want to virtualize will not operate well in it. Then you will need to switch.
It's open source and still supported by at least 4 developers so when that time comes it should be simple enough to add support for the new OS. 4 developers seems plenty to support a stable software platform even if there is a new OS every few years that needs to be added. It's probably not enough to do a major rewrite but that's not really needed at this point. The primary thing I use virtualbox for is to support legacy OSes. As long as they can add support for new OSes before they become discontinued, virtualbox is fine for my use case. Also, for my particular use case, because of moore's law, performance isn't a big deal either as by the time an OS is discontinued, the current cpus are usually an order of magnitude faster than the cpu the OS was designed for so virtualbox is plenty fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it does make sense to live on some other planet, and eventually other solar system. If an extinction level event occurs on the Earth
Most extinction level events that could happen on earth would be easier and cheaper to safeguard against while still living here
than by moving to mars. For instance, a deep sea colony would be cheaper and easier than a colony on mars and would
provide most of the the same safeguards as a colony on mars.
Radiation is not easy to protect against.
Sure it is. Earth is closer to the sun but gets less radiation at its surface because it has a thicker atmosphere.
A few feet of water on top of a dwelling would more than compensate for this. If the entire biodome had
a few feet of water on top, you would get a nice glow when the sun was shining which would probably
look very similiar to a foggy day on earth. There are many places on earth where foggy days like that
are pretty much constant and we survive just fine.
Don't assume that he's healthy though. My mom teaches 4th grade and was complaining once that the mouse they
were feeding nothing but sugar was losing weight while the mouse they were feeding healthy was gaining weight.
I told her it probably was because the mouse eating nothing but sugar was slowly dying.
Yes - it is mostly religion, sadly. You'll hear a fair amount of poppycock about "wanting a better education", but if *that* was the goal, a couple of extra hours a day of (Gasp!) reading with them would be far, far better.
From my experience it seems to be an even split between the religious and the non-religious hippie types.
I never found myself capable of navigating the social realities of schools. I found that the minute I entered the workforce, I was able to deal with the social realities with ease. None of the "socialization" I got in school applied. Adult society is different from school society/youth culture.
I also never found myself capable of navigating the social realities of schoool and found that the minute I entered the workforce I was able to deal
eith the social realities with ease. The difference is that I think that having to deal with the harsher realities of public school in a safe environment
makes it easier to deal with the real world. Public school is an exageration of the real world and helps you be better at handling the real world.
I am who I am today because the outlining parts of my personality were not ground down by a life of conforming to other kids expectations. In home school I was allowed to be the person I am not who I "should" be.
I went to public school and I never had this problem. I never had the desire to conform so I didn't. My guess is that a
large percentage of people on slashdot are the same way. Homeschooled or not, deciding to conform to society is
a choice.
His employer is paying him probably $100,000 per year, and he shouldn't be able to make a suggestion regarding a $700/two year expense?
His empoyer is paying him $100k a year and he can't afford to buy his own phone? See this works both ways.
And how does this prevent a bomber getting a burner phone, leaving a fake name and the burner phone contact number and verifying that they're the fake identity when called?
It wouldn't but what it would do is prevent people from panicing for no reason. If a bomber was smart, they would do exactly this
if they needed to leave a bomb in a public place for a long period of time. But why exactly would a bomber need to do this?
The bomber really only needs enough time to get to a safe distance.
For leaving an object in a public place, the steps are 1) ask permission and 2) write your name and number on it. It's been that
way for years and no, this doesn't leave a giant gap in security because despite what people want to believe it's really easy
to find a lot of people all in one place and blow them up but luckily it's also an extremely rare event when someone wants to do
it so you're still thousands of time more likely to die in a car accident.
True, it is a different thing, but it has a similar effect: it degrades the quality of the search results. This is perhaps the single worst aspect of Google Search.
How do you figure? That's not their goal at all. Their goal is to improve the quality of the search
results. Now whether they are succeeding at this is up for debate but I don't see how it
degrades it. The idea is to customize the results to the person doing the search. For instance
when a video gamer searches for infinity they are probably looking for something completely
different than when a mathmatician searches for infinity as is someone who is car shopping.
Done correctly, it should help them get better results just as humans use context to better
understand conversions.
Your search results are already tainted. Try searching for the same item on two different and well used computers. The results from Google will be different for both. Why? Simply because Google already filters your query based on past searches and visited sites.
That's optimization. It's attempting to optimize my results to give me better results.
That's completely different than pushing someone to the top of the results because
they paid them money even if it makes my results worse.
*I* wasn't paid for *my* time!
Sure you are. You are being paid in content, software, etc... You aren't getting nothing in return, you
are getting the priviledge of using facebook, slashdot, google, etc... If a large percentage of users all
started using ad blocking software then places like google, slashdot, and facebook would either have
to start charging or even worse start doing secret product placement. I much prefer ads that I know
are ads to tainted content and tainted search results.
I don't mind some ads...
Not only do I not mind some ads but I even occasionally click on ads that look interesting.
One thing that I find annoying is that many times an ad catches my eye just as I'm leaving
the page so I click the back button but when I do the ad that I wanted to look at has been
replaced with a different ad. Advertisers (slashdot included) need to have a way for you to
scroll back and look at previously shown ad. This feature could only help them but hardly
anyone seems to do it.
The human race would probably be better off if a lot fewer people stared at computers all day.
I agree completely. What we really need is more physically balanced jobs. Most jobs are
either desk jobs or manual labor jobs. The two extremes are both very hard on the body.
Genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS. As in, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution created a genetic predisposition to be interested or not interested in a field that has only existed for half a century?
Just because the field has only existed for half a century doesn't mean that the predispositions
aren't older than that. Humans are genetically predisposed to be better at riding a bike than a fish
even though both have been around for much longer. How many female professional race car drivers
do you see? There are certain things about computers and cars that more boys than girls are
attracted to. There are obvious exceptions like my daughter who likes sports and frogs more than her brothers but on average you will find more of one gender than the other attracted to certain activities
and I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone is allowed to freely choose their own interests.
These are cultural stereotypes. I grew up with 2 younger sisters, who were, and still are, into gaming.
I forgot to mention that my daughter loves sports and to catch frogs while her
brothers couldn't care less and prefer to be inside playing with legos or video games.
There is also a cultural stereotype that guys like sports and nature while girls don't.
Stereotypes are usually there for a reason. Stereotype is usually a way of saying
"the average X is like this". There are plenty of exceptions but I can't make my
daughter like computers anymore than I can make my sons like sports. My children
were born with distinct likes and dislikes which I for the most part don't seem to
have much influence on. For instance, one of my sons is obsessed with drawing
and at 9 years old has long since surpassed my limited ability. Just like my son
gravitated towards drawing for some reason and my daughter gravitated towards
sports and is more tomboyish than her brothers, more boys than girls gravitate
towards computers.
There may be some natural inclinational differences in girls and boys that dictate how likely they are to be interested in this stuff, but I strongly believe that the majority of the reason for the divide is a culture that continues to encourage this divide.
Having watched my own kids pick up interests with no influence from me, I
disagree that culture is the majority of the reason but rather there is a strong
natural inclination for different people to like different things.
Are you trying to say that girls are genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS? That doesn't seem right...
That's exactly what he's saying. I have 3 kids age 7-9. The boys love computers and video games. My girl won't touch a video
game unless someone else is playing with her. It took years for someone to create a game that attracted girls. Sims was the
first real hit with the female population. Girls are much more social than boys even from a very young age. They have no interest
in staring at a screen all day by themself. There might be ways to encourage them. Introducing pair programming in grade
school might help or doing other things that make it more social but most girls have no interest in being the stereotypical computer
nerd who codes for hours in their parent's basement which is how many computer programmers became computer programmers.
You obviously didn't read the article. They are talking about non salaried teachers making up to 20k in a single day
selling online courses. The summary is a bit deceiving though. The article actually talks about someone who isn't
even a professor but just a random guy with a 4 year degree who started making videos.
What we would ideally need to achieve elimination of cellular aging is the ability to sequence a person's entire DNA when they are young. And later digitally replicate an exact copy of the originals and print
new undifferentiated cells to replace old ones, so the telomeres are longer, and also.... there are no mutations.
Decent strategy but a DNA map of you in your youth shouldn't be necessary. The mutations only really cause problems at the cell level.
If you take a few thousand/million samples from different parts of the body then you should be able to look at the averages and determine
what the starting cell DNA was as different cells shouldn't have the same mutations so you should be able to average out any mutations.
Once you have the good dna and can replicate it then doing as small as a 1% cell replacement per month should be more than enough to
halt and/or reverse the aging process getting you back to your youth in about 8 or so years.
You don't get it, is unlikely that the treatment by itself will cause uncontrolled division, but the fact remains that the cells are still "old" and have accumulated defects with every replication, so even more replications in the same cells equates with increased cancer risk. The telomeres are simply a countdown to self destruction as a countermeasure of said risk, but as long as the root cause is not tackled the best you can hope is a few more years of pain and suffering.
The cell is going to die (and you with it). I will take an increased chance of cancer over the 100% risk of dying once you are out of telomeres.
I might wait and opt to not get my telemeres increased until I'm 80 or so if the risk of cancer was high but if I'm 99 then I have alot to gain
and not much to lose in getting a life extending treatment.
Meh, they need to invent a way to reverse ageing. I'm already post a prime, I don't want to be stuck like this for the rest of my much extended life!
Seriously, how annoying will it be when they invest booster spice and all the people under 30 can live that way forever?
One step at a time. My guess is that any age halting method would probably have some improvement for those post prime but even
if it all it does is halt your aging at your current age that buys you more time until they can actually figure out how to reverse the aging process.
At this point in life with death starting to loom on the horizon, if I had to do it all over again, I would probably opt to go into the medical
field and research aging. With a finite lifespan, a complete career change is no longer a good option for me but if someone did manage to
halt aging then there is no reason I couldn't go back to school and start studying how to reverse aging.
> I doubt they even have an officer on hand.
I doubt you have a current understanding of how police stations work. They usually have one desk sergeant, behind a counter. This is to clear fix it tickets and take statements or escalate.
Yes, during normal business hours, but this location previously wasn't open 24/7 and my guess
is that now that the room is open 24/7 that doesn't mean that you can pay your parking fines
24/7 but rather that the lobby is open 24/7 but they just close the teller window now instead of
the whole building.
I think the key with this proposal (vs. others which are just a pure money grab or in the Australian income tax case, double dipping) is the credit for taxes paid abroad.
Personal income already works this way. There is a credit for foreign taxes paid which reduces taxes owed dollar for dollar.
The also do this at the state level where you can deduct taxes paid in other states on your return.
This is probably the best you can do but it still causes a few problems:
1) For an expat, it means that even if you've been living in a foreign country for 20 years that technically you are still
suppose to file USA taxes which seems stupid.
2) If you live in a state with high sales taxes like TX but low income tax then you can't take a credit for the income
tax but you still basically get double taxed as you end up paying the higher sales tax in one place and higher income
tax in another place.
3) This also doesn't allow someone to "vote with their feet" and move to a place with less taxes.
I think the key is that you shouldn't be allowed to do trickery that allows you to get the benefits of taxes like
roads, security, a customer base, etc... without also paying your fair share of taxes but if you legitimately
set up shop in a lower tax place and actually do business there with no trickery then this should be allowed.
A single incident can cost a lot more for them than just having an officer on hand when the transaction takes place. It's not like they're checking IDs and doing background checks here.
I doubt they even have an officer on hand. I live in Columbia and I know which lobby they are talking about. It's a small room at the
entrance to the police headquarters. It's basically a small concrete room with several cameras. The only thing in the room is a teller
window (which will presumably be closed) and a couple doors leading elsewhere. There is probably an alarm button too which would
definitely get someone there in a hurry (as that is their main station where they park their cars so someone is always there).
It's a good move as it basically costs them nothing. I'm actually surprised that it wasn't already open 24/7. The lobby of our post
office across the street I'm pretty sure is already open 24/7. The only real reason not to keep it open 24/7 is to prevent vandalism
but you would have to be pretty stupid to go and try to vandalize a police station full of cameras even if noone was present.
When I've done craigslist transactions, I've always met at a bank or a gas station as I know both have security cameras but if you're
really worried, the police station is better, and as the article mentions, just by the location it should reduce illegal and stolen transactions
as very few criminals would be comfortable selling something stolen in a police station.
If it's a stable piece of software with 4 people who understand it then even if you need
to hire a dozen more programmers to support a new OS, this shouldn't be a huge issue.
Until the OS's that you want to virtualize will not operate well in it. Then you will need to switch.
It's open source and still supported by at least 4 developers so when that time comes it should be simple enough to add support for the new OS.
4 developers seems plenty to support a stable software platform even if there is a new OS every few years that needs to be added.
It's probably not enough to do a major rewrite but that's not really needed at this point. The primary thing I use virtualbox for is to support
legacy OSes. As long as they can add support for new OSes before they become discontinued, virtualbox is fine for my use case.
Also, for my particular use case, because of moore's law, performance isn't a big deal either as by the time an OS is discontinued, the
current cpus are usually an order of magnitude faster than the cpu the OS was designed for so virtualbox is plenty fast.