Who hired that idiot? I keep seeing people here state that Childs is a total egomaniac and deserves punishment for that. But who is responsible for Childs? His managers, of course.
Managers exist to manage people. Childs had the obligation to know how to manage routers, his managers had the obligation to know how to manage Childs.
Childs was one part in a big system, if he wasn't performing correctly someone else should have noticed this and replaced him, just like Childs should replace a router that wasn't performing correctly in the network he managed.
I like the, "redundant", moderation which implies its obviously the truth, and therefore redundant.
Most likely the "redundant" comes from variations of this joke appearing every time there's an article about any sort of temperature change in any place other than the earth.
A joke may be funny or not the first time you hear it but it's never funny after you hear it several times.
I sincerely hope moderators understand tongue in cheek humor.
Yes, they do understand it. They understand it so well you don't need to repeat again the same old joke that inevitably appears here every time there's an article about the sun.
This is slashdot, not preschool. You can use your big-boy words with us.
About half of the responses so far are jokes about the Oracle/Sun merger. The other half are oil industry shills claiming that, since the solar activity varies, then it's obvious that no human activity can have any effect on climate.
No, I think it's better to use car analogies instead of big words here.
In a pure theory aspect, less tire on the road, less rolling resistance.
In theory *and* practice these tyres have conical threads, which means the inner side rolls at a slightly different speed than the outer side of the thread.
The consequence is that at least part of the thread is slipping while the car is on a straight, with higher rolling resistance, higher tyre wear, and possibly less *lateral* resistance, making it less safe to drive.
Yes, I know, race cars usually have cambered tyres, but race cars are optimized for turning faster curves, which is where races are usually lost or won. It's amazing how much faster the car can turn into a curve if you accept the fact that the tyres must be replaced every 200 km.
Absolutely. Nothing is worse than finding that an SQL table which supposedly contained the raw data to some experiment is actually a collection of BLOBs from which only the long departed creator once knew the details of the structure.
Text files, text files all the way and all hail the Unix philosophy!
When I saw this story I had just finished watching this movie.
There's a part when the Canned Heat is playing that a guy jumps on the stage and hugs the singer. He embraces the invader and keeps singing. When the instrumental part starts the singer whispers something in the guy's ear and the security people carry him away. Those were civilized times.
Freedom works, that's how the Cold War was won from the Soviet Empire.
In the freedom vs. security war a thousand battles are lost by the freedom side every day everywhere but in the end freedom always wins.
System administrators are the big brothers who keep us all safe, but we are better off if we have at least some bit of insecurity. I think a peer to peer network is the best idea, not because it's practical in a day to day basis, but because, practical or not, the unwashed masses always know better.
It's a shame that these days "Electric Universe" has become the new "conspiracy theory", triggering an instantaneous holier-than-thou ridicule from people who are not familiar with it and have never seriously studied it.
No scientist has any obligation to study each new theory that someone publishes. If they did that they wouldn't have any time left to do science. That's why there are scientific publications that are "peer reviewed".
When someone sends a paper to one of those magazines, the editor first checks the sender's credentials, to make sure he has done the preliminary work to study enough of the matter to get a degree, then he sends a copy of the paper to someone who knows enough of the subject to form an opinion.
If you want to publish an entirely new and revolutionary theory, like that "electric universe" thing, well, the burden of the proof is with you. It's not enough that your theory explains a grass fire that happened in 1859. Your theory also has to explain everything else that "conventional" physics (i.e. what's in peer researched papers) explain.
The "electric universe" isn't viewed as a "conspiracy theory" by scientists. It's just another of those thousands of theories that fail to explain the known facts of the universe.
What if patents had to list inventors, and they were non-transferable from those individuals?
The corporations would hire those inventors or they would create new corporations with the inventors holding a minority of the stock. "--Sign here, Schultz! --I know NOTHING!"
If a pharma company releases a drug that is later proven to be a bad idea then you can do a recall and destroy all known stocks. With GM crops you can't do this as once it is in the wild it is in the wild
A GM plant is one that has received genes that came from other plants the wild. What Monsanto does is what living beings have been doing ever since sex came about, only in a purposeful way rather than at random.
Farmers have been selecting the best seeds since agriculture was invented, a corn plant would be just like grass if it weren't for selective breeding by human farmers.
I don't think there's something inherently wrong in creating GM plants. What I'm worried about aren't the Monsanto scientists, I'm worried about the Monsanto lawyers and finance managers.
If you let business be you don't have a patent system. A patent system is a state-granted monopoly, the exact opposite of what the free market stands for.
We know that the top of Earth's atmosphere receives 342 watts of energy per square meter
I remember solar radiation at the earth surface being around 1000 watts/meter.
What he meant was that, of the somewhat more than 1000 watts/square meter that reach the top of earth's atmosphere, 342 watts are absorbed there and the rest passes through to the lower levels.
I, for one, welcome our new measurement scale overlord: candy bars per swimming pool. We have all grown tired of Volkswagens per Library of Congress by now.
It's imho an illogical assumption that the universe needed an intelligent creator, but that the intelligent creator didn't need one himself
I agree, but that's a second step in the argument. If they first demonstrate that intelligence can emerge from a non-intelligent system, then it's an obvious corollary that intelligence wasn't necessary to create the non-intelligent system in the first place.
The speed is just boosted by selectively choosing the ones that match whatever it is you want to get at the end.
There's a huge difference in purpose.
You can move around at random, like a particle floating in the sea. If you follow that particle long enough you'll visit every port of the ocean.
Now assume you want to go somewhere. Your movement will be constantly changed by random factors so you will need to make corrections but in the end you'll get to the place you wanted.
No two ships follow exactly the same route in the ocean, their path may differ by a few meters or by several kilometers, but in the end they will get to the same port.
I think you gave an answer to a question someone asked above:
"Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?".
I think your questions, my answers, and your retort are a perfect counterexample to what he was saying.
This is a very simple demonstration that something can evolve from simple beginnings, if the creator was intelligent enough.
A not-so-intelligent designer, OTOH, would probably prefer to create its beings in their final state because it takes more effort to create a system capable of evolution.
so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?
What I've seen is usually that the "anti-warmists" claim that this insult comes up, but every refutation I've seen comes with consistent scientific arguments.
CO2 must then have some enormous heating mechanism.
Yes, it's called "the sun", not to be confused by the company recently acquired by Oracle.
Has this heating been confirmed in the lab and/or is there a physical explanation ?
Yes and yes. The physical mechanism is the different rate by which CO2 absorbs radiation at different wavelenghts. At visible light wavelength, at which the sun throws energy upon the earth, CO2 absorbs little radiation, so sunlight strikes the earth warming it. At longer wavelenghts, at which the earth radiates energy into the space, CO2 absorbs more radiation, so the heat is trapped.
This can be confirmed by very simple tabletop experiments. You can do it yourself in your kitchen with two transparent plastic bottles, some vinegar and baking soda or any other means to generate CO2, an incandescent lamp or even sunshine as a source of radiation, and a couple of digital thermometers.
The weather-forecasters doesn't seem to be able to predict how much rain there will be in, say, 2 days, with high accuracy
That's because rain is binary, it either rains or not. What they predict is the probability of rain during a given period over a given area. Try averaging their predictions over a few weeks or months.
A simple analogy: no one can predict with better than 50% accuracy if a thrown coin will show heads or tails, but if you try enough times it will be 50% of each, for sure. What the weather people do is to analyze that coin and say, "hmmm, this coin is crooked, it will show 'rain' 75% of the time".
Slashdot Mirror
Who hired that idiot? I keep seeing people here state that Childs is a total egomaniac and deserves punishment for that. But who is responsible for Childs? His managers, of course.
Managers exist to manage people. Childs had the obligation to know how to manage routers, his managers had the obligation to know how to manage Childs.
Childs was one part in a big system, if he wasn't performing correctly someone else should have noticed this and replaced him, just like Childs should replace a router that wasn't performing correctly in the network he managed.
Most likely the "redundant" comes from variations of this joke appearing every time there's an article about any sort of temperature change in any place other than the earth.
A joke may be funny or not the first time you hear it but it's never funny after you hear it several times.
Yes, they do understand it. They understand it so well you don't need to repeat again the same old joke that inevitably appears here every time there's an article about the sun.
About half of the responses so far are jokes about the Oracle/Sun merger. The other half are oil industry shills claiming that, since the solar activity varies, then it's obvious that no human activity can have any effect on climate.
No, I think it's better to use car analogies instead of big words here.
In theory *and* practice these tyres have conical threads, which means the inner side rolls at a slightly different speed than the outer side of the thread.
The consequence is that at least part of the thread is slipping while the car is on a straight, with higher rolling resistance, higher tyre wear, and possibly less *lateral* resistance, making it less safe to drive.
Yes, I know, race cars usually have cambered tyres, but race cars are optimized for turning faster curves, which is where races are usually lost or won. It's amazing how much faster the car can turn into a curve if you accept the fact that the tyres must be replaced every 200 km.
Absolutely. Nothing is worse than finding that an SQL table which supposedly contained the raw data to some experiment is actually a collection of BLOBs from which only the long departed creator once knew the details of the structure.
Text files, text files all the way and all hail the Unix philosophy!
When I saw this story I had just finished watching this movie.
There's a part when the Canned Heat is playing that a guy jumps on the stage and hugs the singer. He embraces the invader and keeps singing. When the instrumental part starts the singer whispers something in the guy's ear and the security people carry him away. Those were civilized times.
Freedom works, that's how the Cold War was won from the Soviet Empire.
In the freedom vs. security war a thousand battles are lost by the freedom side every day everywhere but in the end freedom always wins.
System administrators are the big brothers who keep us all safe, but we are better off if we have at least some bit of insecurity. I think a peer to peer network is the best idea, not because it's practical in a day to day basis, but because, practical or not, the unwashed masses always know better.
In my experience, the best thing is to let the structure stand as it was the first time you stored the data.
Later, when you discover more and more relationships around that data, you may create, change, and destroy those symbolic links as you wish.
I usually refrain from moving the data itself. Raw data should stand untouched, or you may delete it by mistake. Organize the links, not the data.
Agreed. It's not only that we have more information, we have more easily accessed information.
Instead of wasting time looking for information generated by humans, I can devote my time to looking for information hidden in nature.
As I understood from TFA, they gave Hurd the boot. So, finally, someone is booting it, it's working!
No scientist has any obligation to study each new theory that someone publishes. If they did that they wouldn't have any time left to do science. That's why there are scientific publications that are "peer reviewed".
When someone sends a paper to one of those magazines, the editor first checks the sender's credentials, to make sure he has done the preliminary work to study enough of the matter to get a degree, then he sends a copy of the paper to someone who knows enough of the subject to form an opinion.
If you want to publish an entirely new and revolutionary theory, like that "electric universe" thing, well, the burden of the proof is with you. It's not enough that your theory explains a grass fire that happened in 1859. Your theory also has to explain everything else that "conventional" physics (i.e. what's in peer researched papers) explain.
The "electric universe" isn't viewed as a "conspiracy theory" by scientists. It's just another of those thousands of theories that fail to explain the known facts of the universe.
The corporations would hire those inventors or they would create new corporations with the inventors holding a minority of the stock. "--Sign here, Schultz! --I know NOTHING!"
The Wired article has a sidebar with "Featured Articles", one of them is "Flying Cars are Coming".
Does this tell anyone about how soon this laser will have real world applications?
A GM plant is one that has received genes that came from other plants the wild. What Monsanto does is what living beings have been doing ever since sex came about, only in a purposeful way rather than at random.
Farmers have been selecting the best seeds since agriculture was invented, a corn plant would be just like grass if it weren't for selective breeding by human farmers.
I don't think there's something inherently wrong in creating GM plants. What I'm worried about aren't the Monsanto scientists, I'm worried about the Monsanto lawyers and finance managers.
If you let business be you don't have a patent system. A patent system is a state-granted monopoly, the exact opposite of what the free market stands for.
What he meant was that, of the somewhat more than 1000 watts/square meter that reach the top of earth's atmosphere, 342 watts are absorbed there and the rest passes through to the lower levels.
I, for one, welcome our new measurement scale overlord: candy bars per swimming pool. We have all grown tired of Volkswagens per Library of Congress by now.
I agree, but that's a second step in the argument. If they first demonstrate that intelligence can emerge from a non-intelligent system, then it's an obvious corollary that intelligence wasn't necessary to create the non-intelligent system in the first place.
There's a huge difference in purpose.
You can move around at random, like a particle floating in the sea. If you follow that particle long enough you'll visit every port of the ocean.
Now assume you want to go somewhere. Your movement will be constantly changed by random factors so you will need to make corrections but in the end you'll get to the place you wanted.
No two ships follow exactly the same route in the ocean, their path may differ by a few meters or by several kilometers, but in the end they will get to the same port.
I think you gave an answer to a question someone asked above:
"Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?".
I think your questions, my answers, and your retort are a perfect counterexample to what he was saying.
I would tag this as "Intelligent Design".
This is a very simple demonstration that something can evolve from simple beginnings, if the creator was intelligent enough.
A not-so-intelligent designer, OTOH, would probably prefer to create its beings in their final state because it takes more effort to create a system capable of evolution.
What I've seen is usually that the "anti-warmists" claim that this insult comes up, but every refutation I've seen comes with consistent scientific arguments.
When you have sources with plenty of reliable scientific data, when you have graphs like this you don't need to call names.
Seen the news lately? Global warming is causing huge floods, massive wild fires, and enormous landslides. These are three of the top news items today.
Global warming is a pact with the devil. There's no way you can profit from that.
Yes, it's called "the sun", not to be confused by the company recently acquired by Oracle.
Yes and yes. The physical mechanism is the different rate by which CO2 absorbs radiation at different wavelenghts. At visible light wavelength, at which the sun throws energy upon the earth, CO2 absorbs little radiation, so sunlight strikes the earth warming it. At longer wavelenghts, at which the earth radiates energy into the space, CO2 absorbs more radiation, so the heat is trapped.
This can be confirmed by very simple tabletop experiments. You can do it yourself in your kitchen with two transparent plastic bottles, some vinegar and baking soda or any other means to generate CO2, an incandescent lamp or even sunshine as a source of radiation, and a couple of digital thermometers.
That's because rain is binary, it either rains or not. What they predict is the probability of rain during a given period over a given area. Try averaging their predictions over a few weeks or months.
A simple analogy: no one can predict with better than 50% accuracy if a thrown coin will show heads or tails, but if you try enough times it will be 50% of each, for sure. What the weather people do is to analyze that coin and say, "hmmm, this coin is crooked, it will show 'rain' 75% of the time".
People have thrown the keys in the toilet and flushed after being fired.
No one ever got four years in prison for doing it.