Does anyone care to propose a solution? How about this:
Limit RFID technology implanted in commercially available goods to a read distance of, say, 12 inches, and a mandatory lifespan of tags to 6 months, *or* require that tags be removed or disabled when the transaction is complete. The industry still gets useful technology, and we get our privacy.
Yes. I thought that Republicans were supposed to be about personal accountability and especially about parental responsibility.
I'm so confused. I always thought left-wing meant they advocated the right to do whatever you wanted, but they wanted to take all your money and redistribute it to the poor people, and their buddies in industry who got them elected. I thought right-wing meant they wanted to pass laws based on an arbitrary religion about how you must live your live, but let you keep your money.
Unfortunately, both want to take your money, spend it irresponsibly, and both want to tell you how to live your life. Very anti-freedom, isn't it? Both measures are to appeal to the baby boomers who grew up in the government-can-fix-our-problems 60's, the largest demographic, of course.
The thing is, I want (old school) social liberalism and (old school) fiscal conservatism, which are two things I simply can't have. Oh, and I don't want privatized sidewalks, so I guess the libertarians are out of the question too.
I agree with you on the religion part, but as a kid growing up, I believe I had a right to know the details of sex - exactly what is involved, and what the dangers are. Since a lot of that kind of stuff is censored, even in the school library, and the parents of my generation were under-educated, I was grateful for a thorough technical education on the subject in public school. Kids have rights too.
As long as it sticks to facts, there's no issue with teaching it. The most important part of the education, to me, was when they rolled out the actual numbers showing how ineffective some contraceptives really are. That, and a friend of mine who was a father very young, saying, "I'm a father, and I used a condom, correctly." They need THAT guy in every sex ed class.
Definitely goes in my great big "wish I thought of it first" list.
I just have a feeling that someone would have stolen the domain name, had you registered it originally. I was at a bar years ago in Ottawa, Canada talking to an employee who said that a bar with the same name in New Zealand stole their internet domain name just by sending a letter to the domain registrar asking for the admin contact and details to be changed. There was nothing they could do to get it back.
Everyone needs to stop the, "but, but what about... Clinton... or Gore, or Carter, or Kublai Khan..." Who cares about them? The current president is wiping his ass with the constitution! I'm not happy that the last twenty presidents may have done similar things, but the important thing is to stop what is happening right now.
Actually, what's stopping the US people from going back and charging those guys too? There's no statute of limitations on infringing on people's fundamental rights... just ask Milosevic and Hussein.
Perhaps you should stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh all the time.
1 - I'm Canadian. 2 - That makes me a flaming liberal, right? 3 - No fox news, no Rush. (Well, we have Rush, and it's much better than your Rush). 4 - Even I can see that the US's ACLU is left-biased. I agree with most of their actions, but I find that they don't go after left-leaning politicians when they should be.
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
That doesn't make it right for the Bush administration to be doing it, it just means the ACLU is biased, which is pretty well known. Don't blame people for being upset at Bush, blame them for not being upset at anyone else who tried the same thing.
It's quite possible that with the Patriot Act, a lot of people have been paying more attention to these issues, and it's getting some national attention now, where it wasn't before.
What's sick is that republicans were probably all over Gore at the time, but are now defending Bush, and the reverse for democrats. That's hypocrisy.
A geek isn't someone who knows how to use an iPod. A geek is someone who has all their Ogg Vorbis's on their bluetooth enabled PDA along with playlists, and he can walk from his house to his car to his cubicle without a skip in the beat because it seamlessly transfers between his home stereo, built in speakers in the PDA, his car stereo, and his computer's speakers at the office.
Extra points for writing a new compression algorithm to store more songs on the PDA. Bonus if you have neon lights under your car that are synchronised to the music.
Consider how much you know about computers, and how long it has taken you to accumulate that knowledge, some of which you just understood the first time you saw it, because you're probably interested in the subject and bright enough to pick it up. The lay-person is neither of those things (well, perhaps they're somewhat interested if they actually purchase your book).
I guess you could try looking at it from their point of view. Computers are magical to the lay-person because they have no clue how a computer "knows things". They don't understand where the letter they wrote is saved, and how it comes back up on the screen, how things are undeleted, or even how it can add 2 numbers with electricity.
I would do something like this...
1) a bit (logical and electrical representation) 2) binary number systems, how to add/subtract/multiply/divide in binary 3) boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT, XOR) 4) describe how add/subtract/multiply/divide can be done with boolean operators 5) a transistor - MOSFET is a good start, simpler than BJT if you simplify it (boy, this is getting deep) 6) now show how all the boolean gates can be created with MOSFETs 7) memory - a flip/flop is good enough, don't worry about DRAM 8) opcodes - how to store add/subtract/multiply/divide as numbers in binary, give an example from a RISC processor, like a PPC 9) ALU - algorithmic logic unit, uses opcodes to tell it what ops to perform 10) program - just a list of opcodes and data 11) memory structures - just do Array based stuff, to keep it simple, describe a random access file structure, fixed field lengths, like a bank statement or something 12) A simple program to total the debits and credits in that file structure, using the opcodes from #8 above
After a while you're going to get to the point where you're writing an introductory text book, so stop. If you want, take a look at Neal Stephenson's book, Cryptonomicon - he actually has mathematical stuff in that novel and it's written so people can get it. See what he did and build off that.
Remember, people really don't know how you can even do math in a CPU. Some programmers don't even know. But that's what the lay person is saying when they say they don't get it.
And don't expect that you can write a book that anyone can understand. I've run across people who did not understand how to use a handheld barcode scanner, and that's something so darned obvious that I never thought about how to teach someone what to do, other than point and shoot.
I believe you're talking about the front office systems. I'm sure they're all Windows based, and that's not exactly a life or death system (depends how you view life or death, I guess). However, in the embedded systems that run things like MRI machines, ventilators, radiation therapy machines, etc., the OS is usually a hard real-time system like QNX. At least I would hope so.
How is this any different than me sending someone in the UK a file, encrypting it with a password, but typing the wrong password, or using the wrong algorithm to encrypt it, thus making it unreadable at the other end.
There is nothing in the field of morality or ethics that says Spielberg shouldn't be able to send some people of his choice encrypted copies of data that he created. He did make the movie, after all.
Sheesh.
If you SELL me a movie that has encryption or DRM limiting how I can watch that movie, then there's a problem. These people in the UK never purchased a copy of the movie.
When I was in the army reserves, they told us that a person can operate indefinitely on 5 hours of sleep a night. Then they proved it to us using us as the demonstration.
In my career as an engineer I've put this to the test more times than I'd like to remember, and I definitely feel that I can do 5 hours a night for a long time, but 4 hours a night for only about 3 days, and 3 hours a night is only good for one day.
Some fellow engineers (with the help of caffeine) can go 24 to 48 hours without sleep, but I'm not one of those people.
Consider this... say you're some minority, and some well known leader in your nation starts holding rallies decrying your minority for all the problems you've caused the people of your nation just by being present. This leader proposes an "ultimate solution" to the problem, and the majority support him. Way more than 67% of the populace supports him, so changing the constitution to remove the rights of your minority becomes relatively easy. Your minority loses the right to vote, to hold public office, or to work in the government. You are forbidden from using certain public services which you've paid for in your taxes. You decide to leave the country, but it turns out that your citizenship has been revoked, including your passport documents, and you can't leave. You wait for the storm troopers to come by and pile you into trains and send you off to Aushwitz.
But that could never happen in America because there's a constitution that guarantees you your rights. Right?
It may be that the only thing that keeps lynch mobs in America from rounding up gay people (or muslims) and starting this same process with them is the fear of the law which restricts their ability to organize such a crime.
While I agree with your principles of free speech, the laws regarding this exist because we don't want a holocaust to occur again. If you can come up with a way to protect the rights of minority groups in a country where a 67% majority can change the constitution and the bill of rights at any given time, I would certainly like to hear it.
Of course, this law does no good if a majority can rescind the law anyway.:)
The only real solution: copy-protect the actual audio output from the speakers, say by adding a high-energy ultrasonic screech which instantly obliterates all recording devices within hearing range.
Ouch, that might hurt!
Actually, any signal outside of our hearing range is easily removed by a band pass filter. Ultimately, the sound is still going to be sound at some point or we can't use it as intended. I can build a homemade microphone (even if they make it illegal to sell a microphone without built in watermark detection), that will convert the sound to an analog signal, which I can sample digitally with a homemade analog to digital converter (even if they make it illegal to sell an A/D converter without built in watermark detection). Once it's in raw digital form, I can do anything I want, sending it anywhere. I might be able to remove the watermark once it's in raw format. Or I could just share it and people with homemade speakers can still play it.
This law is such an infringement of basic freedoms, it's crazy. It's like saying I can't take a picture of my house that shows my neighbour's house because he owns the visual rights to his house and you can't make a copy.
Well, yes, but even if you slow down before the bump, the bump itself will still slow you down even more, and absorb energy. Replacing the speed bump with this would actually recover some of *that* energy. Driving a hybrid car with regenerative braking would recover a decent amount of the kinetic energy you got rid of before the bump.
It seems deliberately vague for everyone to talk about engineers these days. There are so many ways you could group people as engineers that the numbers are meaningless without a very specific ruling of who they're counting.
I graduated with a degree in computer engineering from an electrical and computer engineering department at a university. However, I don't have my professional engineer's certificate, so technically I graduated from an engineering program, but I'm not licensed to practice engineering. If a person went to law school but never passed the bar, would they be a lawyer? If someone went to med school but never got licensed to practice, are they a doctor?
Never-the-less, there is also a tendency for people who didn't take engineering programs at university to call themselves engineers. For instance, someone taking CS might call themself a software engineer. Someone taking "civil engineering technology" at a community college might call themself a civil engineer. I also worked at a company back in the late 90's where the sales people were called sales engineers.
Going back to engineering programs at universities, different countries have different bodies that certify or accredit these programs for meeting standards that have been set by national regulatory bodies. These standards differ from country to country.
As a Canadian guy in engineering, it was drilled into me that the title 'engineer' was specifically to refer to someone who was licensed by the appropriate licensing body. I have noticed that this definition is less respected in the US, but Canada does have it's share of sanitation engineers picking up garbage on the curbside (which is an honest living, but the job title is incorrect).
To get to the point... I think all the numbers including these are probably useless, and we should stop comparing numbers of engineering graduates. I would rather compare average scores on international math and science tests.
I *hate* cell phones. I wish we could un-invent them. Actually, if you could only call out to 911 on them and not receive calls, that would be perfect. I don't know about others, but the reason I'm almost compelled to answer a cell phone is that if I don't, they'll leave a message, and it's even more fucking annoying to check voicemail than to talk to them in fucking person.
First of all it alerts you right away when they leave a message, and if you silence the alert, you'll have no other notification that you have a message, so you'll forget later when you're free to check the message that you even have a fucking message. If you don't silence the alert, it alerts you every 18.3 fucking seconds and wears out your battery (I leave my cell on vibrate all the time because I can't stand fucking cell phone rings).
Secondly, when checking voicemail, it takes an extra 30 fucking seconds just to get to the first fucking message.
Third, it's either a message from my wife wanting to know if I'm on my way home yet (yes honey, that's me pulling into the fucking driveway), or a message from someone I already left a fucking message with asking me to call them back -- telephone tag, which annoys the fuck out of me.
Finally, if I don't answer the phone and it's my boss or a customer who needs to talk to someone, I always hear about it later, that they provide the phones for us as a fucking priviledge, and we should kiss their feet for the opportunity to talk on a cell phone while driving. The job is otherwise good, but I really fucking hate the cell phone part.
So, luckily I do most of my driving at 65 mph down an interstate in the middle of 3 lanes and I don't have to think about changing lanes, red lights, parking, etc., so I generally just answer the damned phone if I'm in that situation. People who drive around downtown traffic with their cell, well that scares me.
Here's how I'd fix it (other than banning cell phones period)... I should be able to quickly (toggle switch) change the phone to "driving mode", and the voicemail message should say, "The person you are trying to reach is currently driving a car and really can't talk to you, and prefers not to use some cackling antiquated crappy nextel voice service that will inevitable drop out 10 times during our fucking conversation, and doesn't even want to get a message from you for that matter. He would prefer if you got with the new millenium and sent him a fucking email that he checks more often than his fucking annoying fucking voicemail, and can respond to in a safe and calm environment without hearing your nagging fucking voice."
Actually I think I'm just going to set that as my new answer message for all incoming calls...
Johnson noise is the noise created by the fact that current is moving across a PN junction.
Not quite. I did a lot of work on this for a true random bit generator years ago, and Johnson (thermal) noise is the noise in a resistor, caused by brownian motion of ionized particles. The PN junction noise is different, and is caused by individual electrons jumping the potential barrier at the PN junction, sometimes called shot noise. See here. There's also avalanche noise, which is noise across a reverse biased PN junction after breakdown occurs, such as in a zener diode. This is typically much larger than regular shot noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone care to propose a solution? How about this:
Limit RFID technology implanted in commercially available goods to a read distance of, say, 12 inches, and a mandatory lifespan of tags to 6 months, *or* require that tags be removed or disabled when the transaction is complete. The industry still gets useful technology, and we get our privacy.
Yes. I thought that Republicans were supposed to be about personal accountability and especially about parental responsibility.
I'm so confused. I always thought left-wing meant they advocated the right to do whatever you wanted, but they wanted to take all your money and redistribute it to the poor people, and their buddies in industry who got them elected. I thought right-wing meant they wanted to pass laws based on an arbitrary religion about how you must live your live, but let you keep your money.
Unfortunately, both want to take your money, spend it irresponsibly, and both want to tell you how to live your life. Very anti-freedom, isn't it? Both measures are to appeal to the baby boomers who grew up in the government-can-fix-our-problems 60's, the largest demographic, of course.
The thing is, I want (old school) social liberalism and (old school) fiscal conservatism, which are two things I simply can't have. Oh, and I don't want privatized sidewalks, so I guess the libertarians are out of the question too.
I agree with you on the religion part, but as a kid growing up, I believe I had a right to know the details of sex - exactly what is involved, and what the dangers are. Since a lot of that kind of stuff is censored, even in the school library, and the parents of my generation were under-educated, I was grateful for a thorough technical education on the subject in public school. Kids have rights too.
As long as it sticks to facts, there's no issue with teaching it. The most important part of the education, to me, was when they rolled out the actual numbers showing how ineffective some contraceptives really are. That, and a friend of mine who was a father very young, saying, "I'm a father, and I used a condom, correctly." They need THAT guy in every sex ed class.
Definitely goes in my great big "wish I thought of it first" list.
I just have a feeling that someone would have stolen the domain name, had you registered it originally. I was at a bar years ago in Ottawa, Canada talking to an employee who said that a bar with the same name in New Zealand stole their internet domain name just by sending a letter to the domain registrar asking for the admin contact and details to be changed. There was nothing they could do to get it back.
Everyone needs to stop the, "but, but what about... Clinton... or Gore, or Carter, or Kublai Khan..." Who cares about them? The current president is wiping his ass with the constitution! I'm not happy that the last twenty presidents may have done similar things, but the important thing is to stop what is happening right now.
Actually, what's stopping the US people from going back and charging those guys too? There's no statute of limitations on infringing on people's fundamental rights... just ask Milosevic and Hussein.
Perhaps you should stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh all the time.
1 - I'm Canadian.
2 - That makes me a flaming liberal, right?
3 - No fox news, no Rush. (Well, we have Rush, and it's much better than your Rush).
4 - Even I can see that the US's ACLU is left-biased. I agree with most of their actions, but I find that they don't go after left-leaning politicians when they should be.
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
That doesn't make it right for the Bush administration to be doing it, it just means the ACLU is biased, which is pretty well known. Don't blame people for being upset at Bush, blame them for not being upset at anyone else who tried the same thing.
It's quite possible that with the Patriot Act, a lot of people have been paying more attention to these issues, and it's getting some national attention now, where it wasn't before.
What's sick is that republicans were probably all over Gore at the time, but are now defending Bush, and the reverse for democrats. That's hypocrisy.
As another poster has said, there are 2 types of books the OP could be talking about:
1) A book about how to USE a computer.
2) A book about how a computer works.
You interpreted him as meaning #1, and I interpreted him as meaning #2. I do not think that makes me "crazy".
A geek isn't someone who knows how to use an iPod. A geek is someone who has all their Ogg Vorbis's on their bluetooth enabled PDA along with playlists, and he can walk from his house to his car to his cubicle without a skip in the beat because it seamlessly transfers between his home stereo, built in speakers in the PDA, his car stereo, and his computer's speakers at the office.
Extra points for writing a new compression algorithm to store more songs on the PDA. Bonus if you have neon lights under your car that are synchronised to the music.
Wow. Just Wow. That's a huge task.
Consider how much you know about computers, and how long it has taken you to accumulate that knowledge, some of which you just understood the first time you saw it, because you're probably interested in the subject and bright enough to pick it up. The lay-person is neither of those things (well, perhaps they're somewhat interested if they actually purchase your book).
I guess you could try looking at it from their point of view. Computers are magical to the lay-person because they have no clue how a computer "knows things". They don't understand where the letter they wrote is saved, and how it comes back up on the screen, how things are undeleted, or even how it can add 2 numbers with electricity.
I would do something like this...
1) a bit (logical and electrical representation)
2) binary number systems, how to add/subtract/multiply/divide in binary
3) boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT, XOR)
4) describe how add/subtract/multiply/divide can be done with boolean operators
5) a transistor - MOSFET is a good start, simpler than BJT if you simplify it (boy, this is getting deep)
6) now show how all the boolean gates can be created with MOSFETs
7) memory - a flip/flop is good enough, don't worry about DRAM
8) opcodes - how to store add/subtract/multiply/divide as numbers in binary, give an example from a RISC processor, like a PPC
9) ALU - algorithmic logic unit, uses opcodes to tell it what ops to perform
10) program - just a list of opcodes and data
11) memory structures - just do Array based stuff, to keep it simple, describe a random access file structure, fixed field lengths, like a bank statement or something
12) A simple program to total the debits and credits in that file structure, using the opcodes from #8 above
After a while you're going to get to the point where you're writing an introductory text book, so stop. If you want, take a look at Neal Stephenson's book, Cryptonomicon - he actually has mathematical stuff in that novel and it's written so people can get it. See what he did and build off that.
Remember, people really don't know how you can even do math in a CPU. Some programmers don't even know. But that's what the lay person is saying when they say they don't get it.
And don't expect that you can write a book that anyone can understand. I've run across people who did not understand how to use a handheld barcode scanner, and that's something so darned obvious that I never thought about how to teach someone what to do, other than point and shoot.
Good luck!
I believe you're talking about the front office systems. I'm sure they're all Windows based, and that's not exactly a life or death system (depends how you view life or death, I guess). However, in the embedded systems that run things like MRI machines, ventilators, radiation therapy machines, etc., the OS is usually a hard real-time system like QNX. At least I would hope so.
How is this any different than me sending someone in the UK a file, encrypting it with a password, but typing the wrong password, or using the wrong algorithm to encrypt it, thus making it unreadable at the other end.
There is nothing in the field of morality or ethics that says Spielberg shouldn't be able to send some people of his choice encrypted copies of data that he created. He did make the movie, after all.
Sheesh.
If you SELL me a movie that has encryption or DRM limiting how I can watch that movie, then there's a problem. These people in the UK never purchased a copy of the movie.
The mere belief that a God doesn't exist, is a religion
Yes, like "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, and being bald is a hair color. - Not my words, someone else said it first.
Uh, then you better start coding, Buddy. ;)
When I was in the army reserves, they told us that a person can operate indefinitely on 5 hours of sleep a night. Then they proved it to us using us as the demonstration.
In my career as an engineer I've put this to the test more times than I'd like to remember, and I definitely feel that I can do 5 hours a night for a long time, but 4 hours a night for only about 3 days, and 3 hours a night is only good for one day.
Some fellow engineers (with the help of caffeine) can go 24 to 48 hours without sleep, but I'm not one of those people.
Consider this... say you're some minority, and some well known leader in your nation starts holding rallies decrying your minority for all the problems you've caused the people of your nation just by being present. This leader proposes an "ultimate solution" to the problem, and the majority support him. Way more than 67% of the populace supports him, so changing the constitution to remove the rights of your minority becomes relatively easy. Your minority loses the right to vote, to hold public office, or to work in the government. You are forbidden from using certain public services which you've paid for in your taxes. You decide to leave the country, but it turns out that your citizenship has been revoked, including your passport documents, and you can't leave. You wait for the storm troopers to come by and pile you into trains and send you off to Aushwitz.
:)
But that could never happen in America because there's a constitution that guarantees you your rights. Right?
It may be that the only thing that keeps lynch mobs in America from rounding up gay people (or muslims) and starting this same process with them is the fear of the law which restricts their ability to organize such a crime.
While I agree with your principles of free speech, the laws regarding this exist because we don't want a holocaust to occur again. If you can come up with a way to protect the rights of minority groups in a country where a 67% majority can change the constitution and the bill of rights at any given time, I would certainly like to hear it.
Of course, this law does no good if a majority can rescind the law anyway.
How many of you would be willing to place that kind of warranty on YOUR CODE?
Well, as long as I get to set the flat fee, then yes, I'd be willing to put that warrantee on my code. But not a guarantee.
Add to this that Jesus was actually born in late spring/early summer!
:)
So Jesus was Australian, what's your point?
The only real solution: copy-protect the actual audio output from the speakers, say by adding a high-energy ultrasonic screech which instantly obliterates all recording devices within hearing range.
Ouch, that might hurt!
Actually, any signal outside of our hearing range is easily removed by a band pass filter. Ultimately, the sound is still going to be sound at some point or we can't use it as intended. I can build a homemade microphone (even if they make it illegal to sell a microphone without built in watermark detection), that will convert the sound to an analog signal, which I can sample digitally with a homemade analog to digital converter (even if they make it illegal to sell an A/D converter without built in watermark detection). Once it's in raw digital form, I can do anything I want, sending it anywhere. I might be able to remove the watermark once it's in raw format. Or I could just share it and people with homemade speakers can still play it.
This law is such an infringement of basic freedoms, it's crazy. It's like saying I can't take a picture of my house that shows my neighbour's house because he owns the visual rights to his house and you can't make a copy.
Well, yes, but even if you slow down before the bump, the bump itself will still slow you down even more, and absorb energy. Replacing the speed bump with this would actually recover some of *that* energy. Driving a hybrid car with regenerative braking would recover a decent amount of the kinetic energy you got rid of before the bump.
It seems deliberately vague for everyone to talk about engineers these days. There are so many ways you could group people as engineers that the numbers are meaningless without a very specific ruling of who they're counting.
I graduated with a degree in computer engineering from an electrical and computer engineering department at a university. However, I don't have my professional engineer's certificate, so technically I graduated from an engineering program, but I'm not licensed to practice engineering. If a person went to law school but never passed the bar, would they be a lawyer? If someone went to med school but never got licensed to practice, are they a doctor?
Never-the-less, there is also a tendency for people who didn't take engineering programs at university to call themselves engineers. For instance, someone taking CS might call themself a software engineer. Someone taking "civil engineering technology" at a community college might call themself a civil engineer. I also worked at a company back in the late 90's where the sales people were called sales engineers.
Going back to engineering programs at universities, different countries have different bodies that certify or accredit these programs for meeting standards that have been set by national regulatory bodies. These standards differ from country to country.
As a Canadian guy in engineering, it was drilled into me that the title 'engineer' was specifically to refer to someone who was licensed by the appropriate licensing body. I have noticed that this definition is less respected in the US, but Canada does have it's share of sanitation engineers picking up garbage on the curbside (which is an honest living, but the job title is incorrect).
To get to the point... I think all the numbers including these are probably useless, and we should stop comparing numbers of engineering graduates. I would rather compare average scores on international math and science tests.
:^) Thankfully people are slowly learning not to call me unless it's a real emergency, so it's fine. I was more going for a +5 Funny... ;)
I *hate* cell phones. I wish we could un-invent them. Actually, if you could only call out to 911 on them and not receive calls, that would be perfect. I don't know about others, but the reason I'm almost compelled to answer a cell phone is that if I don't, they'll leave a message, and it's even more fucking annoying to check voicemail than to talk to them in fucking person.
First of all it alerts you right away when they leave a message, and if you silence the alert, you'll have no other notification that you have a message, so you'll forget later when you're free to check the message that you even have a fucking message. If you don't silence the alert, it alerts you every 18.3 fucking seconds and wears out your battery (I leave my cell on vibrate all the time because I can't stand fucking cell phone rings).
Secondly, when checking voicemail, it takes an extra 30 fucking seconds just to get to the first fucking message.
Third, it's either a message from my wife wanting to know if I'm on my way home yet (yes honey, that's me pulling into the fucking driveway), or a message from someone I already left a fucking message with asking me to call them back -- telephone tag, which annoys the fuck out of me.
Finally, if I don't answer the phone and it's my boss or a customer who needs to talk to someone, I always hear about it later, that they provide the phones for us as a fucking priviledge, and we should kiss their feet for the opportunity to talk on a cell phone while driving. The job is otherwise good, but I really fucking hate the cell phone part.
So, luckily I do most of my driving at 65 mph down an interstate in the middle of 3 lanes and I don't have to think about changing lanes, red lights, parking, etc., so I generally just answer the damned phone if I'm in that situation. People who drive around downtown traffic with their cell, well that scares me.
Here's how I'd fix it (other than banning cell phones period)... I should be able to quickly (toggle switch) change the phone to "driving mode", and the voicemail message should say, "The person you are trying to reach is currently driving a car and really can't talk to you, and prefers not to use some cackling antiquated crappy nextel voice service that will inevitable drop out 10 times during our fucking conversation, and doesn't even want to get a message from you for that matter. He would prefer if you got with the new millenium and sent him a fucking email that he checks more often than his fucking annoying fucking voicemail, and can respond to in a safe and calm environment without hearing your nagging fucking voice."
Actually I think I'm just going to set that as my new answer message for all incoming calls...
Johnson noise is the noise created by the fact that current is moving across a PN junction.
Not quite. I did a lot of work on this for a true random bit generator years ago, and Johnson (thermal) noise is the noise in a resistor, caused by brownian motion of ionized particles. The PN junction noise is different, and is caused by individual electrons jumping the potential barrier at the PN junction, sometimes called shot noise. See here. There's also avalanche noise, which is noise across a reverse biased PN junction after breakdown occurs, such as in a zener diode. This is typically much larger than regular shot noise.
Currently it would seem there is some resistance to your pun.
:)
But you must admit it does have potential.