When the prevailing opinion on a subject matter is contrary to your own, the onus is on you to demonstrate the facts and "win hearts and minds."
Getting e-angry and insulting your detractors isn't going to help change popular perception of nuclear safety in the slightest.
Re:One word - ads
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But you are shelling out real money to watch TV.
18 minutes of your time for every hour of television you watch. When you consider that the average American watches 28 hours of TV weekly, you're looking at 8.4 hours of your time wasted every week. 436 hours a year. 11.3 workplace-years (2080h/yr) of you life, wasted watching advertisement.
In terms of income, a median American earner will pay $363,000 in lost opportunity cost over 65 years of television viewing.
One way or another you *are* paying for your entertainment.
Technology works both ways, you know. A lack of privacy empowers the people by providing them detailed knowledge about the activities and whereabouts of their legislators. Senators won't be so keen on taking that free lunch from a lobbyist when the details of that lunch will be published online hours later.
Corruption dies with privacy. It's when a government attempts to make the loss privacy a one-way affair that you need to be concerned.
Re:You can't win if you don't play
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
This is a naive way of looking at a social networking service. People are going to pursue the behavior that results in their getting the best jobs.
Re:You can't win if you don't play
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As sites like LinkedIn grow in popularity, and as users learn to game the system to their advantage, I expect that the value of such services for hiring decisions will be diminished to the point where actual word of mouth matters as much as it did before the existence of the service.
Depending on how you define workspace, Windows1.0 also qualifies as prior art.
Or you can look to the history of the physical facsimile of software "multiple workplaces," the KVM, invented sometime in the early 80s and ubiquitous by the late 80s.
And that's the real issue, that as a company grows it's ability to innovate is stifled because the cooperative spirit fostered by meaningful work and appropriate compensation is replaced by bureaucratic overhead and a sense of corporate entitlement.
If a corporation wants employees to innovate it needs to be innovative in it's approach. Offer 1%, siphon workers into funded shell companies and "buy" them back once they're successful, or just develop a reputation for awarding huge bonuses (i'm talking multiples of annual salary) to employees whose willingness to invest their ideas and effort into the company pay off in spades.
All these are just methods of making reward commensurate with effort, and making an employee's work meaningful. Miss that, and the company misses out.
It's extremely disingenuous to call a hypothesis a principle, especially when the hypothesis is as controversial as this one.
I lack the credentials to argue whether or not the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life is a valid one, but overbearing terminology like this makes me extremely wary of people arguing in favor of the hypothesis.
If these attitudes towards security didn't fly in the corporate world we wouldn't see weekly articles detailing the millions of customers data lost by hapless corporations.
And before making blanket statements like "good security requires redundancy," I'd like to see some statistics detailing the amount of personal data and passcodes stored in databases worldwide and the amount of personal data "stolen" annually, with the data stolen being weighted according to its usefulness for fulfilling criminal endeavors. Sreegs.
It could be that the reason we react so strongly to stories about millions of records being lost is that its a new risk, and our human risk analysis intuition hasn't yet adapted to the reality of the situation.
The problem with beaming data from the Earth to the Moon is that anyone with an antenna can listen to the signal. Unless Astrobotic has a unique way of obfuscating the data stream so that only they know what's being beamed back, what's to stop a government from simply erecting a few antennae and getting all the information for free?
And another question, if the cost of paying people to decode the obfuscated datastream is cheaper than the cost of buying the information directly from Astrobotic, how can the company realistically expect to have any customers?
Your parallels between Android and Linux are flawed. To most, Linux is a frustrating platform for which no commercial software exists and has a significant barrier to entry for even the hobbyist programmer to create a useful application. Just look at how long it took the FOSS community to put together a decent office suite and photo editing software.
Android's extensibility is better compared to Firefox. You know, the web browser for which any old shmoe could write an extension, which over the course of three years leapt from 0.5% to 20% market share? Application development is in most cases swift and non-essential for the easy operation of the device. Without having played around with Android I can't say for sure, but I suspect Google focused on making the basic features of the device quick and intuitive, leaving the "killer app" (adblock?) to the creative collective.
Inversely, spreading your data around in different clouds and different mediums is directly related to the risk of having it stolen/compromised.
People extend trust to corporations and business entities under the assumption that they have redundancies and contingencies that they don't have the time and money to arrange. Incidents like these just illustrate that no single entity can be trusted with data, but in 2008 I would expect a little better from the average corp.
The article describes the methods these officers will be using to control for normal levels of travel anxiety. And "Grilling" is hardly an appropriate term for the process used to identify people for secondary screening. Questions such as "How are you today?" and "Are all these bags yours" are completely innocuous.
I'm glad the TSA has graduated from racial profiling to emotional profiling.
Slashdot Mirror
When the prevailing opinion on a subject matter is contrary to your own, the onus is on you to demonstrate the facts and "win hearts and minds."
Getting e-angry and insulting your detractors isn't going to help change popular perception of nuclear safety in the slightest.
But you are shelling out real money to watch TV.
18 minutes of your time for every hour of television you watch. When you consider that the average American watches 28 hours of TV weekly, you're looking at 8.4 hours of your time wasted every week. 436 hours a year. 11.3 workplace-years (2080h/yr) of you life, wasted watching advertisement.
In terms of income, a median American earner will pay $363,000 in lost opportunity cost over 65 years of television viewing.
One way or another you *are* paying for your entertainment.
Technology works both ways, you know. A lack of privacy empowers the people by providing them detailed knowledge about the activities and whereabouts of their legislators. Senators won't be so keen on taking that free lunch from a lobbyist when the details of that lunch will be published online hours later.
Corruption dies with privacy. It's when a government attempts to make the loss privacy a one-way affair that you need to be concerned.
This is a naive way of looking at a social networking service. People are going to pursue the behavior that results in their getting the best jobs.
As sites like LinkedIn grow in popularity, and as users learn to game the system to their advantage, I expect that the value of such services for hiring decisions will be diminished to the point where actual word of mouth matters as much as it did before the existence of the service.
In the meantime, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
There are plenty of good used electronics peripherals on craigslist and ebay.
Depending on how you define workspace, Windows1.0 also qualifies as prior art.
Or you can look to the history of the physical facsimile of software "multiple workplaces," the KVM, invented sometime in the early 80s and ubiquitous by the late 80s.
And that's the real issue, that as a company grows it's ability to innovate is stifled because the cooperative spirit fostered by meaningful work and appropriate compensation is replaced by bureaucratic overhead and a sense of corporate entitlement.
If a corporation wants employees to innovate it needs to be innovative in it's approach. Offer 1%, siphon workers into funded shell companies and "buy" them back once they're successful, or just develop a reputation for awarding huge bonuses (i'm talking multiples of annual salary) to employees whose willingness to invest their ideas and effort into the company pay off in spades.
All these are just methods of making reward commensurate with effort, and making an employee's work meaningful. Miss that, and the company misses out.
It's extremely disingenuous to call a hypothesis a principle, especially when the hypothesis is as controversial as this one.
I lack the credentials to argue whether or not the idea of this universe being particularly suited to life is a valid one, but overbearing terminology like this makes me extremely wary of people arguing in favor of the hypothesis.
If these attitudes towards security didn't fly in the corporate world we wouldn't see weekly articles detailing the millions of customers data lost by hapless corporations.
And before making blanket statements like "good security requires redundancy," I'd like to see some statistics detailing the amount of personal data and passcodes stored in databases worldwide and the amount of personal data "stolen" annually, with the data stolen being weighted according to its usefulness for fulfilling criminal endeavors. Sreegs.
It could be that the reason we react so strongly to stories about millions of records being lost is that its a new risk, and our human risk analysis intuition hasn't yet adapted to the reality of the situation.
The problem with beaming data from the Earth to the Moon is that anyone with an antenna can listen to the signal. Unless Astrobotic has a unique way of obfuscating the data stream so that only they know what's being beamed back, what's to stop a government from simply erecting a few antennae and getting all the information for free?
And another question, if the cost of paying people to decode the obfuscated datastream is cheaper than the cost of buying the information directly from Astrobotic, how can the company realistically expect to have any customers?
Your parallels between Android and Linux are flawed. To most, Linux is a frustrating platform for which no commercial software exists and has a significant barrier to entry for even the hobbyist programmer to create a useful application. Just look at how long it took the FOSS community to put together a decent office suite and photo editing software. Android's extensibility is better compared to Firefox. You know, the web browser for which any old shmoe could write an extension, which over the course of three years leapt from 0.5% to 20% market share? Application development is in most cases swift and non-essential for the easy operation of the device. Without having played around with Android I can't say for sure, but I suspect Google focused on making the basic features of the device quick and intuitive, leaving the "killer app" (adblock?) to the creative collective.
Us: If you don't like the definition, use a different word.
Google: If you don't like the definition, change the definition.
It's just how language works. If you're important enough you can do whatever you want.
Inversely, spreading your data around in different clouds and different mediums is directly related to the risk of having it stolen/compromised.
People extend trust to corporations and business entities under the assumption that they have redundancies and contingencies that they don't have the time and money to arrange. Incidents like these just illustrate that no single entity can be trusted with data, but in 2008 I would expect a little better from the average corp.
There's no such thing as a truly "law-abiding" American.
Give me a break.
The article describes the methods these officers will be using to control for normal levels of travel anxiety. And "Grilling" is hardly an appropriate term for the process used to identify people for secondary screening. Questions such as "How are you today?" and "Are all these bags yours" are completely innocuous.
I'm glad the TSA has graduated from racial profiling to emotional profiling.