Do you really think the bad guys don't know these things?
Suspecting it and actually confirming it for them with an official US government document are two separate things. And you still haven't given a reason why it should be released.
God I hate that comparison. It's apples and oranges. If a game had 25 hours of original content in them it might be valid. But in most games you spend 24 of those 25 hours doing the exact same thing without advancing the story. This is why movies based on games are usually shit. There isn't even 90 minutes worth of story in most games.
I was going to post essentially the same thing. There are secrets that are secret for a reason that isn't evil of nefarious. Take the list of critical US infrastructure that Wikileaks published. There is nothing to be gained by having 100% transparency on that and everything to lose since it's basically a blue print on how to attack the US.
2. Give two view points but from unequal sources. A Prepared speech for one side and a rebuttel for a unprepared party.
Related to this, they (most media outlets, to be fair) are very fond of taking one person from each side of an issue and pretending like both sides have equal weight. Take global warming, on one side they have a climate scientist with the backing of most of the scientific community (including most major scientific societies), on the other side they have some nut job who represents the views of a tiny minority. The way they present it, you'd think the scientific community is 50/50 on the issue when in reality it's more like 99/1.
Considering news presented by a business requires bearing in mind at all times their main focus isn't to inform you, but to profit from your buying their advertisers product.
Also having specialized in-company knowledge is a good way to stay employed - particularly knowing how to maintain badly-coded dinosaur applications.
Pro Tip: Be the one to create the badly-coded dinosaur in the first place and you can cruise all the way to retirement telling junior coders that they just aren't smart enough to appreciate your genius design!
That would be more in line with what I've seen. A department head is told their budget must be cut by $X, so they should look at who they can do without.
First, all companies make a few bad hiring decisions. Just because you managed to slip your way past a Yahoo interview doesn't mean you're any good. Secondly, if you need to cut 4% of your workforce, you start with the least productive 4%.
There is an exception to this which is when a company decides they are no longer going to work on X and they lay-off everybody who was working on that. In that case very talented people who are very good at X may get laid-off because the company's not doing X anymore. Of course, the very best people the company will try to find another place for.
It makes sense if all (other) things are equal which, of course, it never is. The person who is currently employed might cost you more (because you have to tempt them away from their current employer with better pay / benefits) but they might be a more talented and useful worker which is why their current employer is holding on to them.
People with companies including Aprendi Learning, Tucows.com, DirecTV, Combine Couture, OMGPOP.com, and Uptake.com all posted Twitter messages expressing interest in hiring former Yahoo employees.
Great idea! I'm sure Yahoo laid-off all their best people first.
Here's another hint: not all deliveries fit in 2 meter long metal capsules either. So what's your point? Trucks are much more flexible and can go out and make several deliveries in one trip (another hint: this is something UPS and FedEx have mastered). Current trucks could be replaced with more environmentally friendly trucks and run on existing infrastructure for a fraction of the cost of the proposed system.
Underground is very expensive and much harder to maintain. Especially when we already have above ground channels for those last mile situations. We call them roads.
Undoubtedly the current train system could be much more automated and much more efficient. The authors should work on that rather than recreating a system that, essentially, already exists.
A robot train is probably several orders of magnitude less complicated than a robot car.
But the last mile is the hardest and most expensive part. Do you want a tube burrowed under your house? It makes much more sense to use it as the backbone with trucks for the last mile. In other words, trains.
Or what if one package of chocolate crashing into another package of peanut butter? You've got chocolate in my peanut butter! You've got peanut butter in my chocolate!
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. I too am shocked at how many people would take that at face value.
To just teach the Spanish to speak English? Why do I have to make accommodations because of their choice to speak gibberish?
Indeed. Sometimes a bad translation is worse than no translation since it might convince you that you do actually understand the foreign text.
Do you really think the bad guys don't know these things?
Suspecting it and actually confirming it for them with an official US government document are two separate things. And you still haven't given a reason why it should be released.
God I hate that comparison. It's apples and oranges. If a game had 25 hours of original content in them it might be valid. But in most games you spend 24 of those 25 hours doing the exact same thing without advancing the story. This is why movies based on games are usually shit. There isn't even 90 minutes worth of story in most games.
And don't drop the soap in the shower.
I was going to post essentially the same thing. There are secrets that are secret for a reason that isn't evil of nefarious. Take the list of critical US infrastructure that Wikileaks published. There is nothing to be gained by having 100% transparency on that and everything to lose since it's basically a blue print on how to attack the US.
2. Give two view points but from unequal sources. A Prepared speech for one side and a rebuttel for a unprepared party.
Related to this, they (most media outlets, to be fair) are very fond of taking one person from each side of an issue and pretending like both sides have equal weight. Take global warming, on one side they have a climate scientist with the backing of most of the scientific community (including most major scientific societies), on the other side they have some nut job who represents the views of a tiny minority. The way they present it, you'd think the scientific community is 50/50 on the issue when in reality it's more like 99/1.
Considering news presented by a business requires bearing in mind at all times their main focus isn't to inform you, but to profit from your buying their advertisers product.
FTFY
No, because they (claim to) have different facts than me.
Whoosh! I do love serious responses to what is obviously a joke.
You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News.
You have to run it on a completely different machine. Can't get much more secure than that.
Also having specialized in-company knowledge is a good way to stay employed - particularly knowing how to maintain badly-coded dinosaur applications.
Pro Tip: Be the one to create the badly-coded dinosaur in the first place and you can cruise all the way to retirement telling junior coders that they just aren't smart enough to appreciate your genius design!
That would be more in line with what I've seen. A department head is told their budget must be cut by $X, so they should look at who they can do without.
First, all companies make a few bad hiring decisions. Just because you managed to slip your way past a Yahoo interview doesn't mean you're any good. Secondly, if you need to cut 4% of your workforce, you start with the least productive 4%.
There is an exception to this which is when a company decides they are no longer going to work on X and they lay-off everybody who was working on that. In that case very talented people who are very good at X may get laid-off because the company's not doing X anymore. Of course, the very best people the company will try to find another place for.
It makes sense if all (other) things are equal which, of course, it never is. The person who is currently employed might cost you more (because you have to tempt them away from their current employer with better pay / benefits) but they might be a more talented and useful worker which is why their current employer is holding on to them.
Great idea! I'm sure Yahoo laid-off all their best people first.
Here's another hint: not all deliveries fit in 2 meter long metal capsules either. So what's your point? Trucks are much more flexible and can go out and make several deliveries in one trip (another hint: this is something UPS and FedEx have mastered). Current trucks could be replaced with more environmentally friendly trucks and run on existing infrastructure for a fraction of the cost of the proposed system.
Underground is very expensive and much harder to maintain. Especially when we already have above ground channels for those last mile situations. We call them roads.
Trains solve weight*distance/energy. This purports to solve #ofdestinations/energy.
Ahhhh! So they're trucks then? Yeah, we've solved that problem too.
Undoubtedly the current train system could be much more automated and much more efficient. The authors should work on that rather than recreating a system that, essentially, already exists.
A robot train is probably several orders of magnitude less complicated than a robot car.
But the last mile is the hardest and most expensive part. Do you want a tube burrowed under your house? It makes much more sense to use it as the backbone with trucks for the last mile. In other words, trains.
Or what if one package of chocolate crashing into another package of peanut butter? You've got chocolate in my peanut butter! You've got peanut butter in my chocolate!
You could have an above ground solution which would be much easier to maintain. You could call them "TRAINS".