Yes it is maybe not the skills you care about, but it is most assuredly a measure of skill. I could see how having someone on the team that has almost immediate insight into how to solve complex problems would save an entire team time. Doesn't mean the same person is the best choice to sit down and write the enterprise level code to actually implement their insight though.
Kerning is adjusting the spaces between letters to that the apparent distance between them is even, despite the fact that letters have different shapes. Keming is kerning that is done improperly. You know, so the letters seem to run together at first glace?
don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet.
There are other ways to get malware onto a target PC, especially if the target is specific enough
Use strong encryption for sensitive files.
Keys can be lost or stolen. I think we've learned the lesson by now and 'strong' encryption means unbreakable for the forseable future, but there was a point where strong encryption was only secure for a decade or two.
Deploy security patches promptly.
Doesn't help any of the multitude of zero day exploits in the wild.
Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.
Sometimes you just can't afford to in terms of time or budget. Sometimes the available developers have a limited skill, sometimes you're contractually limited in your choices.
Not that any of your recommendations are bad or wrong. They're absolutely right. I'm just pointing out that cybersecurity 101 is not enough to build an ironclad system. And I'd argue that proper training and compensation for your users is at least as important as any of them. All the security in the world won't mean a damn if someone will pick up a USB drive off the parking lot, plug it into your secure machine, open docs and files looking for contact information, and offer to return it.
No, it doesn't. So long as the solar panels pay for themselves, they're viable.
That's not an economically rational way of looking at things. The correct thought process is something more like this: As long as the risk reward ratio for the solar panels is as good or better than similar investments, solar panels are viable. Spending a large sum of money has an opportunity cost, there are other investments you could have spent the money on and the last time I did the numbers, putting your money into a no-risk bank investment was at least on parity with putting solar on the roof.
It should be doable by using the equations that calculate the radius of an event horizon based on mass. Solve said equation for mass, pick two radii such that the total surface area change is equal to the (planck length times two) squared, then calculate the (ludicrously small) mass difference between the two.
My company adjusts pay based on cost of living. If I were to move from the sleepy midwest to the bustling west coast I'd see a raise of ~$15,000... and I'd be less able to live comfortably on it and that's just within the continental US. Maybe equal worth for equal pay makes more sense when you're talking about a globalized workforce.
I don't know, but I do know that my wage is some places would have me living like a king, in other places I'd be in a 1 room studio apartment eating ramen.
It's FTFY: Fixed That For You. Generally used when changing one or two key words of someone's statement to completely change the meaning to something you agree with or is more humorous.
e.g.
With the end of scarcity, everyone will be rich! With the end of scarcity everyone who already has money will be rich! FTFY
I don't think I could make a lower reciever out of paper mache, or wood, or a CNC mill. All of those take expertice in either firearms or machinery operation that I don't have. Granted, I could learn in a month or two I'm sure I'd be able to do it. But I can, right now, with no training or investigation, push print on a 3d printer. There is a difference.
And the point shouldn't be OMG we need gun control. The point is, gun control is borderline impossible today, but in 10 or 20 years it's going to jump completely into the completely and utterly impossible side of things. We need to prepare for that as a society, not enact another law that makes it illegal to print a gun.
I completely get that things like Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire had to be left out.
Bombadil sure, I know there are arguments to keep him in but in the end he has no real impact on the story. But the scouring of the Shire? That is what the entire story is about, the hobbits return home to find the place overrun by orcs led by the formally 2nd most powerful villain in the world (at least, that they know about). Do they run off to their allies for help? Hell no! They organize a resistance, lead it into battle and crush the invaders. They have become the larger than life heroes they worshiped, idolized, and feared at the beginning of the story. And what's more, it further emphasizes that Frodo is not the hero of the story. He does great and amazing things, but for the most part, they consist of resisting the temptation to do something (use the ring). Frodo sits out the fight against Suraman, it's the other Hobbits that save their home, just as it was the other Hobbits who fought Shelob, light the warning fires, stabbed the lich king, saved Faramir, etc, etc, etc.
A botnet. There, that was easy. Even if the clicks are coming from Facebook they'll have routed them through some 3rd party, and botnets are the only 3rd party around who would be willing to do it.
Injecting stem cells randomly into the body is probably not a good idea. Stem cells aren't magically fix everything machines. There's a significant risk of cancer if nothing else and I'd be shocked if there weren't other potential issues as well. Why do we have people running around defending hack doctor's rights to inject them on unsuspecting and uninformed patients? And don't say the patients are informed, the research on risks hasn't even been completed yet, how could they possibly be informed of risks that the administering doctor doesn't even know about?
Lets go to an extreme, how would you feel about the FDA telling a doctor that they can't inject stomach acid into a person's blood stream? Other than the risks being more obvious, what's the difference?
Yeah, I was surprised when I heard it to but the more you think about it the more it makes sense. A person's bone marrow is firmly rooted inside their bones, pretty much the only way to kill it without killing the person immediately, is to attack it with something that kills fast dividing cells preferentially. That can be done with extremely high doses of some chemotherapy drugs (read as 'poison') or, more commonly, through radiation. It's a very, very thin line between killing someone's bone marrow and killing them all together. In fact, if the transplant fails (or god forbid, the donor backs out at the last second) you've basically signed the patients death sentence, it's unlikely you'll be able to keep the patient's blood counts high for any length of time.
I read that the donors for these two men do not have the gene that gives resistance; that their possible cure is a result of them staying on their anti-retroviral meds throughout the transplant process, so that the virus never got the chance to establish itself in the new immune system. Actually quite a bit more interesting than the Berlin patient given how hard it is to find a matching bone marrow donor, let alone one that also has the HIV resistance gene. Actually, this is a big boost for just how effective those drugs are at blocking new infections. Think about it, this isn't a finger prick, microscopic amount of HIV infected blood, their bodies were flooded with the virus and the new immune system still didn't get infected thanks to the drugs. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.
I was told the death rate is ~10% from the radiation to kill the patient's current bone marrow, ~5% due to graft vs host disease, and the rest of the fatality rate is due to the cancer not really being gone when they do the transplant. So the actual fatality rates would be much closer to the 15%, less still if you are doing it to otherwise healthy patients, and if you have a perfect match (from a sibling generally) the graft vs host disease rate will go to near zero. I bet you could push it down to 5%, still probably not worth it for most people... but I could imagine women who want to have kids taking the risk for one thing (though a bone marrow transplant might make getting pregnant risky in and of itself, just using it as an example).
That all depends on a host of factors. If the transplant came from a brother or sister (or from yourself, which is becoming more and more common these days) the rate of rejection is very low (still not 0, but close to it). If it's coming from a stranger rejection is more likely, though that again depends on how good the match is and how the new immune system reacts. There are even cases where doctors will chose a 'less good' match for patients with persistent cancer because it increases the chances of the new immune helping to finish off the cancer. At least, that's what they told me when I was in to donate.
Incidentally, it's not the host's body that rejects the bone marrow, it's generally the other way around. The new bone marrow rejects the host, called graft vs host disease.
In all seriousness JP Aerospace has done some very very tentative research into what they call Airship to Orbit. Which would indeed be an enormously large, ultra-sonic zeppelin.
Hmm, I must be quite lucky then. My completely untrained dog has had exactly one false positive at night (during the day, not so good but during the day doesn't matter so much) and several 'true positives' where friends and family have come in without warning and gotten barked and growled at. He's about 20lbs so it's probably a good thing he does the barking and growling from out of sight around the corner, but he's certainly loud enough to get me out of bed.
Which, incidentally, made the one false positive actually pretty terrifying. If your dog isn't one to bark and growl for no reason suddenly starts up at 1AM it definitely gets your attention. Came hustling down the stars and there he is, staring out the back window, hackles raise, growling and barking. Flick on the back light and... there's a bucket. Just a plain blue bucket that had been left on the porch the previous afternoon. I'd never seen a dog actually look embarrassed before that moment. Gave him a treat, told him good boy and went back to bed.
Government and private investment in renewable and clean(er) energy sources is having a larger than expected (though really quite small) impact on carbon emissions (within the US).
80s? Ha, trying playing WoW today. Male armor gets more and more bad ass as it gets better and better. Female armor inexplicably gets skimpier and skimpier (despite being the same physical piece of armor). I you could argue that they're parodying the stuff from the 80s... if there were one or two pieces like that, but it's pretty much all the high level stuff.
Quite frankly, all but the extremely endowed will have minimal problems in the chest area. They're not exactly wearing pushup bras into combat obviously, and most women wearing a sports bra don't have an appreciably bigger chest than the average male body builder (though obviously the dimensions will be different and there will always be outliers). The areas they are concerned about are those that either cause the body army to slip out of position by not being adjustable to smaller frames (shoulders and waist) or hamper mobility (torso length).
More important than being physically capable of carrying the information, many of the pins are discrete. It's a lot easier to make an accessory that puts the volume up pin high than it is to make an accessory that wraps up a USB packet containing the 'volume up' command.
Don't forget, if the price of everything will be cheaper tomorrow than it is today, I'm better off to hold off buying anything until the last possible moment. Deflation harms the economy by slowing consumer spending. Granted, don't see many people in the US capable of thinking that long term, but that is the prevailing theory.
There's no requirement that Samsung gives Apple a license at any price, let alone the price Apple thinks they should pay. And if someone's been busy trying to sue you out of existence in every nation on the planet, how likely would you be to sell them a license?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it an effective metric to rank skill?
Yes it is maybe not the skills you care about, but it is most assuredly a measure of skill. I could see how having someone on the team that has almost immediate insight into how to solve complex problems would save an entire team time. Doesn't mean the same person is the best choice to sit down and write the enterprise level code to actually implement their insight though.
Kerning is adjusting the spaces between letters to that the apparent distance between them is even, despite the fact that letters have different shapes. Keming is kerning that is done improperly. You know, so the letters seem to run together at first glace?
don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet.
There are other ways to get malware onto a target PC, especially if the target is specific enough
Use strong encryption for sensitive files.
Keys can be lost or stolen. I think we've learned the lesson by now and 'strong' encryption means unbreakable for the forseable future, but there was a point where strong encryption was only secure for a decade or two.
Deploy security patches promptly.
Doesn't help any of the multitude of zero day exploits in the wild.
Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.
Sometimes you just can't afford to in terms of time or budget. Sometimes the available developers have a limited skill, sometimes you're contractually limited in your choices.
Not that any of your recommendations are bad or wrong. They're absolutely right. I'm just pointing out that cybersecurity 101 is not enough to build an ironclad system. And I'd argue that proper training and compensation for your users is at least as important as any of them. All the security in the world won't mean a damn if someone will pick up a USB drive off the parking lot, plug it into your secure machine, open docs and files looking for contact information, and offer to return it.
No, it doesn't. So long as the solar panels pay for themselves, they're viable.
That's not an economically rational way of looking at things. The correct thought process is something more like this: As long as the risk reward ratio for the solar panels is as good or better than similar investments, solar panels are viable. Spending a large sum of money has an opportunity cost, there are other investments you could have spent the money on and the last time I did the numbers, putting your money into a no-risk bank investment was at least on parity with putting solar on the roof.
plus they're fully deductible as a business expense
So is buying power from the power company, or installing a diesel generator. The rest of your point, however, stands.
It should be doable by using the equations that calculate the radius of an event horizon based on mass. Solve said equation for mass, pick two radii such that the total surface area change is equal to the (planck length times two) squared, then calculate the (ludicrously small) mass difference between the two.
My company adjusts pay based on cost of living. If I were to move from the sleepy midwest to the bustling west coast I'd see a raise of ~$15,000... and I'd be less able to live comfortably on it and that's just within the continental US. Maybe equal worth for equal pay makes more sense when you're talking about a globalized workforce.
I don't know, but I do know that my wage is some places would have me living like a king, in other places I'd be in a 1 room studio apartment eating ramen.
It's FTFY: Fixed That For You. Generally used when changing one or two key words of someone's statement to completely change the meaning to something you agree with or is more humorous.
e.g.
With the end of scarcity, everyone will be rich!
With the end of scarcity everyone who already has money will be rich! FTFY
I don't think I could make a lower reciever out of paper mache, or wood, or a CNC mill. All of those take expertice in either firearms or machinery operation that I don't have. Granted, I could learn in a month or two I'm sure I'd be able to do it. But I can, right now, with no training or investigation, push print on a 3d printer. There is a difference.
And the point shouldn't be OMG we need gun control. The point is, gun control is borderline impossible today, but in 10 or 20 years it's going to jump completely into the completely and utterly impossible side of things. We need to prepare for that as a society, not enact another law that makes it illegal to print a gun.
I completely get that things like Tom Bombadil and the scouring of the Shire had to be left out.
Bombadil sure, I know there are arguments to keep him in but in the end he has no real impact on the story. But the scouring of the Shire? That is what the entire story is about, the hobbits return home to find the place overrun by orcs led by the formally 2nd most powerful villain in the world (at least, that they know about). Do they run off to their allies for help? Hell no! They organize a resistance, lead it into battle and crush the invaders. They have become the larger than life heroes they worshiped, idolized, and feared at the beginning of the story. And what's more, it further emphasizes that Frodo is not the hero of the story. He does great and amazing things, but for the most part, they consist of resisting the temptation to do something (use the ring). Frodo sits out the fight against Suraman, it's the other Hobbits that save their home, just as it was the other Hobbits who fought Shelob, light the warning fires, stabbed the lich king, saved Faramir, etc, etc, etc.
A botnet. There, that was easy. Even if the clicks are coming from Facebook they'll have routed them through some 3rd party, and botnets are the only 3rd party around who would be willing to do it.
Injecting stem cells randomly into the body is probably not a good idea. Stem cells aren't magically fix everything machines. There's a significant risk of cancer if nothing else and I'd be shocked if there weren't other potential issues as well. Why do we have people running around defending hack doctor's rights to inject them on unsuspecting and uninformed patients? And don't say the patients are informed, the research on risks hasn't even been completed yet, how could they possibly be informed of risks that the administering doctor doesn't even know about?
Lets go to an extreme, how would you feel about the FDA telling a doctor that they can't inject stomach acid into a person's blood stream? Other than the risks being more obvious, what's the difference?
Yeah, I was surprised when I heard it to but the more you think about it the more it makes sense. A person's bone marrow is firmly rooted inside their bones, pretty much the only way to kill it without killing the person immediately, is to attack it with something that kills fast dividing cells preferentially. That can be done with extremely high doses of some chemotherapy drugs (read as 'poison') or, more commonly, through radiation. It's a very, very thin line between killing someone's bone marrow and killing them all together. In fact, if the transplant fails (or god forbid, the donor backs out at the last second) you've basically signed the patients death sentence, it's unlikely you'll be able to keep the patient's blood counts high for any length of time.
I read that the donors for these two men do not have the gene that gives resistance; that their possible cure is a result of them staying on their anti-retroviral meds throughout the transplant process, so that the virus never got the chance to establish itself in the new immune system. Actually quite a bit more interesting than the Berlin patient given how hard it is to find a matching bone marrow donor, let alone one that also has the HIV resistance gene. Actually, this is a big boost for just how effective those drugs are at blocking new infections. Think about it, this isn't a finger prick, microscopic amount of HIV infected blood, their bodies were flooded with the virus and the new immune system still didn't get infected thanks to the drugs. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.
I was told the death rate is ~10% from the radiation to kill the patient's current bone marrow, ~5% due to graft vs host disease, and the rest of the fatality rate is due to the cancer not really being gone when they do the transplant. So the actual fatality rates would be much closer to the 15%, less still if you are doing it to otherwise healthy patients, and if you have a perfect match (from a sibling generally) the graft vs host disease rate will go to near zero. I bet you could push it down to 5%, still probably not worth it for most people... but I could imagine women who want to have kids taking the risk for one thing (though a bone marrow transplant might make getting pregnant risky in and of itself, just using it as an example).
That all depends on a host of factors. If the transplant came from a brother or sister (or from yourself, which is becoming more and more common these days) the rate of rejection is very low (still not 0, but close to it). If it's coming from a stranger rejection is more likely, though that again depends on how good the match is and how the new immune system reacts. There are even cases where doctors will chose a 'less good' match for patients with persistent cancer because it increases the chances of the new immune helping to finish off the cancer. At least, that's what they told me when I was in to donate.
Incidentally, it's not the host's body that rejects the bone marrow, it's generally the other way around. The new bone marrow rejects the host, called graft vs host disease.
In all seriousness JP Aerospace has done some very very tentative research into what they call Airship to Orbit. Which would indeed be an enormously large, ultra-sonic zeppelin.
Hmm, I must be quite lucky then. My completely untrained dog has had exactly one false positive at night (during the day, not so good but during the day doesn't matter so much) and several 'true positives' where friends and family have come in without warning and gotten barked and growled at. He's about 20lbs so it's probably a good thing he does the barking and growling from out of sight around the corner, but he's certainly loud enough to get me out of bed.
Which, incidentally, made the one false positive actually pretty terrifying. If your dog isn't one to bark and growl for no reason suddenly starts up at 1AM it definitely gets your attention. Came hustling down the stars and there he is, staring out the back window, hackles raise, growling and barking. Flick on the back light and... there's a bucket. Just a plain blue bucket that had been left on the porch the previous afternoon. I'd never seen a dog actually look embarrassed before that moment. Gave him a treat, told him good boy and went back to bed.
Government and private investment in renewable and clean(er) energy sources is having a larger than expected (though really quite small) impact on carbon emissions (within the US).
Better?
Something you have and something you know is the current standard, I see no problem with adding "something you are" into the mix as a third layer.
80s? Ha, trying playing WoW today. Male armor gets more and more bad ass as it gets better and better. Female armor inexplicably gets skimpier and skimpier (despite being the same physical piece of armor). I you could argue that they're parodying the stuff from the 80s... if there were one or two pieces like that, but it's pretty much all the high level stuff.
Quite frankly, all but the extremely endowed will have minimal problems in the chest area. They're not exactly wearing pushup bras into combat obviously, and most women wearing a sports bra don't have an appreciably bigger chest than the average male body builder (though obviously the dimensions will be different and there will always be outliers). The areas they are concerned about are those that either cause the body army to slip out of position by not being adjustable to smaller frames (shoulders and waist) or hamper mobility (torso length).
More important than being physically capable of carrying the information, many of the pins are discrete. It's a lot easier to make an accessory that puts the volume up pin high than it is to make an accessory that wraps up a USB packet containing the 'volume up' command.
Don't forget, if the price of everything will be cheaper tomorrow than it is today, I'm better off to hold off buying anything until the last possible moment. Deflation harms the economy by slowing consumer spending. Granted, don't see many people in the US capable of thinking that long term, but that is the prevailing theory.
There's no requirement that Samsung gives Apple a license at any price, let alone the price Apple thinks they should pay. And if someone's been busy trying to sue you out of existence in every nation on the planet, how likely would you be to sell them a license?