If there's personal information, send those portions through a one-way hash and release the result. Then we can see activity-level of IP addresses or whatever else without knowing their actual value. This is pretty basic stuff, c'mon.
Unless you mean vegetables or self/wind pollinators, you are mistaken. And if you do, then you're being a bit pedantic.
And you'd sort of need to be living under a rock to not know that bees are dying off. When you rent out your bees that doesn't matter in the same way. The farmer tells you the size of the field/orchard, you bring an appropriate amount of bees. If you don't have enough because of colony collapse disorder problems, then the farmer hires multiple beekeepers. The fees might go up, sure, and maybe it affects food prices a small amount, but, we've known about the bee problem for YEARS and fees have not risen by a significant amount.
The Samsung Galaxy S5 needed a plate to cover the connectors when not in use, but beyond that, it pulled off water resistance very well. As far as durability, I'd love it if phones started getting into composites. No need for carbon-fiber; just plain old fiberglass-reinforced nylon, the stuff used in higher-end powertools, that would be enough to totally change the game.
While we're on the subject, after about 1cm, I don't give a shit about how much thinner my phone is, and I don't give a shit about how small of a bezel it has, and leaving out a headphone jack sounds like the economy-version to me. Seriously, phone industry: STAAAAAAAAAAAHP.
If someone comes up with a nice thick, rugged phone with great battery life and they market it properly, they will sweep the whole industry. I'd even buy from Apple for the first time since the 1980s if they could pull that off.
And if you REALLY are so hung up on coming up with an innovation, I sure wouldn't mind if someone would figure out a touch-screen that works well in a rainstorm; get the lab boys on that instead.
The problems with the back related to jobs involving bending and lifting tend to have a lot more to do with overstraining wussy back muscles (erector spinae) than it has to do with compression forces on the spine. Besides; this design does not offload those compression forces from the spine. In order for that to happen, it would need to have a rigid outer leg that extends to the floor. For example, a late-medieval suit of full-plate armor doesn't feel heavy because it isn't worn on the shoulders, the weight is conducted to the ground through the shoe (sabaton) when in a standing position. This is a harness, and a regular harness can't transmit downward force to your legs. It can only transmit downward force to your shoulders; meaning the same compression still takes place on the spine. The only other way to take strain off the spine and transmit it to the legs would be to have a rigid structure that digs into the top of the pelvis, or have a surgery bolting something to the leg-bone. Further, you'd need suport underneath the arms to transfer load off of the spine. A harness can transfer load to the shoulders, or it can deal with torsional, bending forces, which is what this is doing. It reduces strain of the erector muscles when you bend improperly, and depending on how it's tensioned, it may force your abs to engage when you want to bend forward, allowing you then to lift a weight without forcing the erector muscles to do that work. A better solution is to just use good technique and lift with the legs from a squat, but I basically see what they're trying to do here.
FWIW, I've constructed harnesses amateur for film-work.
As mentioned in other's comments, you are describing the intent of the back brace: lock the back to prevent improper bending at the back instead promoting squatting at the knees. This device instead appears to nullify the problems of improper bending at the back, and possibly forces the person to ab-crunch in order to bend down and regain that force on the lift. Ab muscles are designed to do work, but back muscles are not really made to do much beyond maintain upright balance and reset the leg in preparation for the next step when walking or running.
Depending on the tension level of the spring, you're either perfectly counterbalanced such that your muscles do almost zero work when bending over and returning upright, or your ab-crunch, needed to bend the spring forward, allows you to lift weight from the ground without added strain to the back muscles.
But I feel like this is the downfall of the design. It promotes bad technique that creates a dependence on the device. It reinforces a bad habit. The muscles that are best suited for work on the body are the gluts and hamstrings. They're strong because they're what do the work needed to allow us to run. You make use of them by bending at the knees and lifting with the legs, which is what we've been told to do forever. If you want to throw the abs into the mix, you do that with a 1st class lever. And if you want to throw arm muscles into the mix, use a wheelbarrow.
If you want to be really clever, you could take the stuff that's heavy, but light enough for people to reasonably lift, and shelve it at roughly between waist and elbow height. Then move that stuff around with carts that keep it at roughly the same height, instead of grocery carts or floor-carts. To an extent, Lowes does exactly this.
Yeah, I had to do digging to get answers. On the test in question, you get access to a proprietary IDE and are allowed to build your code before submitting it. But, this tests all engineering realms, it tests students, not degree-holders, we have no idea what incentive test-takers are given, and all indications are that they were informed that it's an anonymous test that won't effect their lives in any way. This report is effectively just a bias-riddled advertisment for a company that provides testing and test-learning materials. And it happened to get taken up as news. And people tend to like it because it perpetuates the FUD of hiring foreign software people. This plays to the companies favor as they're happy to certify you or your institution as being one of the good ones.
It comes off as racist, but it's an Indian company. But to be sure, it's still garbage. They're really just trying to use FUD to sell their testing materials to employers, students, and schools. Maybe it's exploiting racist notions to try and get companies to pay them ("if you buy our crap, you will be able to say, 'no, we're a GOOD Indian school/company/employee. We've got the passing grades on those tests to prove it!'") But not straight up racist. Now, it _spreads_ because of that goofy narrative that Indian software people are bad, but that's a separate issue.
Not even "software people" and not even minted. This was student seniors, and they tested students across all branches of engineering. I can't even find confirmation whether or not they included CS students, or if they even bothered to get a reasonable sampling. This isn't a peer-reviewed publication. This is self-promotion of a testing company. They're trying to scare students, employers, and schools into buying their crap.
They were able to use a proprietary IDE and test-build their code as much as they like. But I couldn't find details about time-constraints, and I couldn't find details about test-taker's motivation going into the test. If it was "would you like to participate in an anonymous survey?" they don't have much incentive to actually bother to try. Also they tested all engineers, and possibly didn't include CS students. Also the company that did this research also sells the test the report is about, they sell to students, employers, employees, and academic institutions. Also this doesn't appear to be a published paper; just a press-release or vanity-release report.
They had access to an IDE with a compiler, but according to what I've been able to find (as this is garbage press-release stuff, not a proper peer-reviewed paper) it's some sort of proprietary IDE designed specifically for this mysterious test. I could not find a download for it. Also, they tested Mech-E and EE students and all the other Engineering branches that shouldn't be expected to be able to write code by default. It's certainly good for all engineers to learn a little bit of code, but until they land a job that requires it, there's no need for them to be particularly good at coding.
Not just a dupe, but a dupe of a HELUVA shady report. 1: it tests ALL engineering students, including Mech-E and EE, not just software-engineers. As far as I can tell the test doesn't include Computer-Science students. 2: it's not peer reviewed or published in a 3rd party publication of any sort, 3: the information is released by a company that sells the test both to engineering schools and to perspective employers, and sells training material to teach their tests to aspiring employees and to schools to pass on to students. As a result, it is in their best interest to scare the entire industry with low scores like this, and everything I can find indicates no effort was made to circumvent this bias.
The bay area is one of the largest centers of robotic development. Companies interested in selling their robots are not gonna be cool with the loss of sales that would come with the need for their customers to pay tax on each robot. Doing such a tax on a local-government level makes zero sense, it'll just make commercial entities pull up stakes and go to a friendlier town.
And how do you enforce this anyway? You can tax a building because it's stationary. You can tax a vehicle because it travels in public spaces. How do you prevent me from building a robot out of parts and not declare it? You just created a problem that is even trickier to implement than detecting moonshiners or meth cooks. The cost of enforcement mechanisms will exceed the revenue generated by such a tax for years to come. I guess at least training the recently unemployed will be pretty easy. All they got to learn how to do is go to factories and count robots. Call me crazy, but it sounds like a VAT tax would accomplish the same thing with a LOT fewer Hard Problems to solve.
Is an inkjet printer a robot? Sounds like it is. It selects a sheet of paper, advances it, moves to programmed locations, applies an appropriate volume of ink based on the program, cleans the printer-head, alerts on conditions like out-of-paper or low-ink....sounds like a complex series of actions completed automatically to me. Shoot, I cant even create what a printer can make.
It's a measurement of the proportions of the different fuel sources in use. And as you say, there's zero surprise that the numbers stayed constant in transportation from 1975-2005. I think the author didn't fully grasp that. Nearly all vehicles used gas & diesel in the same proportions that entire time, so of course the number will stay constant. Everyone already knew that. The exciting thing is seeing how that number changes from 2005 and into the future, as that is when we saw increased adoption of hybrid & natural gas vehicles. And moving forward is when we'll start to see increased adoption of electric vehicles.
Right, I used RSS on Opera back when that was my main browser. Then I switched to Google Reader because it was just really nice. When that closed, I stopped using RSS, and as a result, I stopped thinking to visit a lot of websites I used to frequent, including slashdot for a few years.
Yeah, when Google Reader closed shop, and I was too lazy to find something else I liked, there were a couple years where I didn't bother with slashdot anymore. I only finally drifted back to reading/. manually around the time Dice sold it.
I think summary became more and more common as people figured out that there was no monetization metrics when people stick to RSS. Without that proof that human eyes are looking at an ad, that check for a fraction of a penny doesn't get cashed.
The American people have decided that we don't want to lose lives on this one. We also don't want to see a major boost in our taxes or debt. So yeah: slow down, that's dangerous, that's expensive.
I don't really see anything new here. You can't kill any idea, good or bad. Even if you 1984-style destroy all evidence of the idea's existence and everyone who's ever thought the idea, and everyone who ever knew anyone who ever thought it, someone can just come up with the idea again. If you're attempting to fight an idea you believe to be bad, the trick is to come up with a better idea, and give it more spreadable characteristics. This is marketing, propaganda, and rhetoric 101. The techniques involved are pretty much the same stuff since Aristotle. Your idea doesn't need to be "good" or "logical" to spread. Make it rhyme, make it rage-inducing, get beautiful popular celebrities to endorse it, keep repeating it, make people feel like everyone is doing it, blah blah blah.
I find it amusing that this article even Evokes Richard Dawkins, and yet fails to acknowledge that this whole thing is basically a rehash of Dawkins' meme-theory.
Yeah, I mentioned the out of state thing. And you'd already explained how common these laws are. And I agree that it's isn't/wasn't "likely" that I found something overlooked. I was saying that it's at least possible.
For what it's worth, I found the part that explains how DIY activities on your own property are OK; that's in 672.060. I also found where they mention that you can refer to yourself as an engineer as long as you immediately thereafter clarify that you are unregistered to practice engineering in the state of Oregon. The laws are still poorly written, in that they could've tweaked the wording in such a way as to not require a massive list of exceptions. And they could've made mention of the exceptions section within 672.020. I read through the equivalent laws for my state, and I'm not hitting the same roadblocks of confusion since the statutes are better ordered and organized. My state also explicitly mentions taking things like good faith into account, which, potentially could have allowed this guy to avoid such a large fine. Regardless, the guy paid the fine, so that's over. It's just the question of the 1st amendment lawsuit and it sounds like whether or not it is won depends on the specifics of what he is arguing for. His arguments to try and avoid the fine weren't very good at all, but it sounds like he's got better legal help now.
I left out the other requirements to register, but they are clearly connected with the word "and", meaning you must fulfill all the requirements listed to qualify. It's not cherrypicking to only quote the parts of something that are problematic. Cherrypicking would be if I used only those problematic parts to conclude something like "therefore all Oregon law is junk".
I'm not trying to act as though "lol, I'm smarter than the legislators, I deserve a cookie." or any such snarky attitude. I merely started to read the laws, found that, unlike many others that I've read, these have some confusing aspects, and I shared them. I absolutely could be misreading them but I don't think that means I'm being stupid. Laws are written to be overly-broad all the time, and they are thrown out by judicial review all the time for being overly broad too. Is it so hard to believe that this could be one of those situations? To every single one of my arguments, you've basically said "no that's not true" without providing any reasoning or counter-evidence. You've merely described your interpretation of the intention of the law. I'm not asking you to walk me through anything, but it would've been nice to see some sort of informative correction of my understanding before you started insulting me.
ORS 672.005 defines practicing engineering as "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects."
So if I have a creative work, and on it I perform investigation, planning, or design during the construction in connection with that private project that I myself own, by the letter of the law, I am practicing engineering. Again, this is because the wording is poorly written so as to be overly broad. You can't just say "that's alright because no one will report you for that." I should not need to investigate the complete history of case-law in the state of Oregon just to figure out whether or not I'm able to build a potato cannon in my own backyard without risking a $500 fine.
The average person believes that if you have a degree in engineering, that makes you an engineer. I fully understand that requiring engineers to be registered and certified is for the purpose of protecting life, health & property. But the law should stipulate that the laws only apply to circumstances that present a possibility of risk to other people or their property.
And further, 672.098 states that in order to register as an engineer, (which again, is required to practice engineering in Oregon), you must have "Have a work record of four years or more of active practice in engineering work satisfactory to the board". So I guess the only way to become an engineer in Oregon is to either break the law for four years, or spend four years practicing engineering in a state that doesn't have such poorly written laws!
Slashdot Mirror
If there's personal information, send those portions through a one-way hash and release the result. Then we can see activity-level of IP addresses or whatever else without knowing their actual value. This is pretty basic stuff, c'mon.
Unless you mean vegetables or self/wind pollinators, you are mistaken. And if you do, then you're being a bit pedantic.
And you'd sort of need to be living under a rock to not know that bees are dying off. When you rent out your bees that doesn't matter in the same way. The farmer tells you the size of the field/orchard, you bring an appropriate amount of bees. If you don't have enough because of colony collapse disorder problems, then the farmer hires multiple beekeepers. The fees might go up, sure, and maybe it affects food prices a small amount, but, we've known about the bee problem for YEARS and fees have not risen by a significant amount.
Food pollination is typically performed by cultivated bees. Farms do not depend on pollination from the wild.
The Samsung Galaxy S5 needed a plate to cover the connectors when not in use, but beyond that, it pulled off water resistance very well. As far as durability, I'd love it if phones started getting into composites. No need for carbon-fiber; just plain old fiberglass-reinforced nylon, the stuff used in higher-end powertools, that would be enough to totally change the game.
If someone comes up with a nice thick, rugged phone with great battery life and they market it properly, they will sweep the whole industry. I'd even buy from Apple for the first time since the 1980s if they could pull that off.
And if you REALLY are so hung up on coming up with an innovation, I sure wouldn't mind if someone would figure out a touch-screen that works well in a rainstorm; get the lab boys on that instead.
FWIW, I've constructed harnesses amateur for film-work.
Depending on the tension level of the spring, you're either perfectly counterbalanced such that your muscles do almost zero work when bending over and returning upright, or your ab-crunch, needed to bend the spring forward, allows you to lift weight from the ground without added strain to the back muscles.
But I feel like this is the downfall of the design. It promotes bad technique that creates a dependence on the device. It reinforces a bad habit. The muscles that are best suited for work on the body are the gluts and hamstrings. They're strong because they're what do the work needed to allow us to run. You make use of them by bending at the knees and lifting with the legs, which is what we've been told to do forever. If you want to throw the abs into the mix, you do that with a 1st class lever. And if you want to throw arm muscles into the mix, use a wheelbarrow.
If you want to be really clever, you could take the stuff that's heavy, but light enough for people to reasonably lift, and shelve it at roughly between waist and elbow height. Then move that stuff around with carts that keep it at roughly the same height, instead of grocery carts or floor-carts. To an extent, Lowes does exactly this.
Yeah, I had to do digging to get answers. On the test in question, you get access to a proprietary IDE and are allowed to build your code before submitting it. But, this tests all engineering realms, it tests students, not degree-holders, we have no idea what incentive test-takers are given, and all indications are that they were informed that it's an anonymous test that won't effect their lives in any way. This report is effectively just a bias-riddled advertisment for a company that provides testing and test-learning materials. And it happened to get taken up as news. And people tend to like it because it perpetuates the FUD of hiring foreign software people. This plays to the companies favor as they're happy to certify you or your institution as being one of the good ones.
It comes off as racist, but it's an Indian company. But to be sure, it's still garbage. They're really just trying to use FUD to sell their testing materials to employers, students, and schools. Maybe it's exploiting racist notions to try and get companies to pay them ("if you buy our crap, you will be able to say, 'no, we're a GOOD Indian school/company/employee. We've got the passing grades on those tests to prove it!'") But not straight up racist. Now, it _spreads_ because of that goofy narrative that Indian software people are bad, but that's a separate issue.
Not even "software people" and not even minted. This was student seniors, and they tested students across all branches of engineering. I can't even find confirmation whether or not they included CS students, or if they even bothered to get a reasonable sampling. This isn't a peer-reviewed publication. This is self-promotion of a testing company. They're trying to scare students, employers, and schools into buying their crap.
They were able to use a proprietary IDE and test-build their code as much as they like. But I couldn't find details about time-constraints, and I couldn't find details about test-taker's motivation going into the test. If it was "would you like to participate in an anonymous survey?" they don't have much incentive to actually bother to try. Also they tested all engineers, and possibly didn't include CS students. Also the company that did this research also sells the test the report is about, they sell to students, employers, employees, and academic institutions. Also this doesn't appear to be a published paper; just a press-release or vanity-release report.
They had access to an IDE with a compiler, but according to what I've been able to find (as this is garbage press-release stuff, not a proper peer-reviewed paper) it's some sort of proprietary IDE designed specifically for this mysterious test. I could not find a download for it. Also, they tested Mech-E and EE students and all the other Engineering branches that shouldn't be expected to be able to write code by default. It's certainly good for all engineers to learn a little bit of code, but until they land a job that requires it, there's no need for them to be particularly good at coding.
Not just a dupe, but a dupe of a HELUVA shady report. 1: it tests ALL engineering students, including Mech-E and EE, not just software-engineers. As far as I can tell the test doesn't include Computer-Science students. 2: it's not peer reviewed or published in a 3rd party publication of any sort, 3: the information is released by a company that sells the test both to engineering schools and to perspective employers, and sells training material to teach their tests to aspiring employees and to schools to pass on to students. As a result, it is in their best interest to scare the entire industry with low scores like this, and everything I can find indicates no effort was made to circumvent this bias.
And how do you enforce this anyway? You can tax a building because it's stationary. You can tax a vehicle because it travels in public spaces. How do you prevent me from building a robot out of parts and not declare it? You just created a problem that is even trickier to implement than detecting moonshiners or meth cooks. The cost of enforcement mechanisms will exceed the revenue generated by such a tax for years to come. I guess at least training the recently unemployed will be pretty easy. All they got to learn how to do is go to factories and count robots. Call me crazy, but it sounds like a VAT tax would accomplish the same thing with a LOT fewer Hard Problems to solve.
Is an inkjet printer a robot? Sounds like it is. It selects a sheet of paper, advances it, moves to programmed locations, applies an appropriate volume of ink based on the program, cleans the printer-head, alerts on conditions like out-of-paper or low-ink....sounds like a complex series of actions completed automatically to me. Shoot, I cant even create what a printer can make.
It's a measurement of the proportions of the different fuel sources in use. And as you say, there's zero surprise that the numbers stayed constant in transportation from 1975-2005. I think the author didn't fully grasp that. Nearly all vehicles used gas & diesel in the same proportions that entire time, so of course the number will stay constant. Everyone already knew that. The exciting thing is seeing how that number changes from 2005 and into the future, as that is when we saw increased adoption of hybrid & natural gas vehicles. And moving forward is when we'll start to see increased adoption of electric vehicles.
Right, I used RSS on Opera back when that was my main browser. Then I switched to Google Reader because it was just really nice. When that closed, I stopped using RSS, and as a result, I stopped thinking to visit a lot of websites I used to frequent, including slashdot for a few years.
Yeah, when Google Reader closed shop, and I was too lazy to find something else I liked, there were a couple years where I didn't bother with slashdot anymore. I only finally drifted back to reading /. manually around the time Dice sold it.
I think summary became more and more common as people figured out that there was no monetization metrics when people stick to RSS. Without that proof that human eyes are looking at an ad, that check for a fraction of a penny doesn't get cashed.
Exactly. I really really liked Google Reader and used it on a daily basis. When it left, I never got around to finding a replacement that I liked.
The American people have decided that we don't want to lose lives on this one. We also don't want to see a major boost in our taxes or debt. So yeah: slow down, that's dangerous, that's expensive.
I find it amusing that this article even Evokes Richard Dawkins, and yet fails to acknowledge that this whole thing is basically a rehash of Dawkins' meme-theory.
For what it's worth, I found the part that explains how DIY activities on your own property are OK; that's in 672.060. I also found where they mention that you can refer to yourself as an engineer as long as you immediately thereafter clarify that you are unregistered to practice engineering in the state of Oregon. The laws are still poorly written, in that they could've tweaked the wording in such a way as to not require a massive list of exceptions. And they could've made mention of the exceptions section within 672.020. I read through the equivalent laws for my state, and I'm not hitting the same roadblocks of confusion since the statutes are better ordered and organized. My state also explicitly mentions taking things like good faith into account, which, potentially could have allowed this guy to avoid such a large fine. Regardless, the guy paid the fine, so that's over. It's just the question of the 1st amendment lawsuit and it sounds like whether or not it is won depends on the specifics of what he is arguing for. His arguments to try and avoid the fine weren't very good at all, but it sounds like he's got better legal help now.
I'm not trying to act as though "lol, I'm smarter than the legislators, I deserve a cookie." or any such snarky attitude. I merely started to read the laws, found that, unlike many others that I've read, these have some confusing aspects, and I shared them. I absolutely could be misreading them but I don't think that means I'm being stupid. Laws are written to be overly-broad all the time, and they are thrown out by judicial review all the time for being overly broad too. Is it so hard to believe that this could be one of those situations? To every single one of my arguments, you've basically said "no that's not true" without providing any reasoning or counter-evidence. You've merely described your interpretation of the intention of the law. I'm not asking you to walk me through anything, but it would've been nice to see some sort of informative correction of my understanding before you started insulting me.
So if I have a creative work, and on it I perform investigation, planning, or design during the construction in connection with that private project that I myself own, by the letter of the law, I am practicing engineering. Again, this is because the wording is poorly written so as to be overly broad. You can't just say "that's alright because no one will report you for that." I should not need to investigate the complete history of case-law in the state of Oregon just to figure out whether or not I'm able to build a potato cannon in my own backyard without risking a $500 fine.
The average person believes that if you have a degree in engineering, that makes you an engineer. I fully understand that requiring engineers to be registered and certified is for the purpose of protecting life, health & property. But the law should stipulate that the laws only apply to circumstances that present a possibility of risk to other people or their property.
And further, 672.098 states that in order to register as an engineer, (which again, is required to practice engineering in Oregon), you must have "Have a work record of four years or more of active practice in engineering work satisfactory to the board". So I guess the only way to become an engineer in Oregon is to either break the law for four years, or spend four years practicing engineering in a state that doesn't have such poorly written laws!