You seem to be conceding that this was a commonly occurring failure, and don't dispute that this wasn't fixed (i.e it was ignored), so why am I wrong?
It just needs to be said in deference to a bunch of awesome aerospace safety engineers around the world: There is no such thing as a 'commonly occurring failure' on a modern commercial airliner.
We have keyboard shortcuts to access menu options, that's not the same think as keyboard shortcuts that perform actions. Ie, where's the keyboard shortcut in Word that says "repeat the next menu operation 100 times"?
Well I can bold text with ctrl-b etc. etc. etc. But if I want a single keyboard shortcut that doesn't exist, I could, I guess, map it to a macro. But with format paint and all the other lovely toys, I can't really recall having had that problem much.
Well yes and no. The government can enforce the penalties of a breach of contract suit or whatever other penalties are written into the contract. What the government CANNOT do, is issue a gag order to prevent me from speaking about what I thought of the dentist trip I had.
I feel obliged to point out that he said it would be out then only IF there was no apocalytpic event imbetween. Personally, I think he just as an inside line on some sort of apocalyptic event;)
Quite. Several of them actually make it worse. Please note: In several occasions we've had troops in ACTIVE COMBAT OPERATIONS with lower fatality rates than the same number of troops, statistically, would have at home commuting. (The first Gulf War was estimated to have saved several hundred American lives, and there's been, I think, entire years of the current conflict where its been about break-even.) If you're not a soldier who participates in active combat operations, or have one of a very few other activities as a profession or hobby, getting in your car and commuting in a major metropolitan area is possibly the most dangerous thing you will ever do in your life by an order of magnitude. Maybe not, insofar as we've all probably done some very stupid things at some point in our lives, but certainly its the most dangerous thing you'll do on any sort of regular basis.
I, for one, welcome our robot car-driving overlords. Can't come too soon.
I only recently figured out why so many people just scoff at any application of solar energy and get boners from the idea of using nuclear fission to light a bulb: It's because solar energy just doesn't seem high-techy enough and nuclear energy brings to mind guys in lab coats and geiger counters and mushroom clouds and all that cool stuff.
So ummm, really I've always assumed that this was because deep down we still think of electricity as primarily being used to light bulbs... and that's something we typically want to do when the sun isn't up.
In other words we use 15% of our oil and burn the rest. So why should we go to all the effort of digging out our oil just to burn it, when other countries are willing to do it for us? Oil in the ground is just going up in value, a good investment in the long term wealth of our nation. Once all the other countries in the world have burned all their oil, and oil is much too expensive to burn, then we can start talking about using it properly.
And, of course, a side benefit to all this is that in the meantime we'll probably figure out more environmentally safe ways of getting at lots of that oil, so we can have our cake and eat it too!
The month appears to be irrelevant. The season is what is relevant. If the guy means to do a summer-time study in Minnesota to show that summer is when something happens, nobody is going to care what season it is in NSW. Lose the ego.
Actually quite the opposite. It is based on where the planet is in its orbit, which is based on the month, not the notional season. Unless I entirely misunderstand TFS, if the experiment had been in NSW, it would've had to be held in winter.
it's hard to not treat it like a private corporation when you have to *pay* to use it. it can't be a "service" provided by our wonderful government when it's often LESS expensive to ship something via fedex or ups instead.
i already pay my taxes. if the governments wants to charge me for their "service", i will treat it just like i treat private companies whose products and services i pay for -- such as ups.
The USPS doesn't use a dime of your tax money. (Except, IIRC, to pay the regulatory board)
Google should just buy the USPS. Then they'd have everyone's name and address, could mount cameras on the carrier's heads for mapping and insert advertising into each batch of mail.
Actually, that's what the USPS should do to raise some cash: sell us out to advertisers. It's not like I don't just throw away 95% of whats in the box anyway. Sifting past a few more dead trees wouldn't really be hard.
That's what they should do? They already have. Junk mail pays for the postal system. Including all that lovely mail to "Current Resident", which is the snail-mail equivalent of a banner ad.
This is the US, not Germany. Tops out at 75 mph (120 km/h). Typically the right lane is on the speed limit (sometimes slightly below) and the left lane is typically around or under 80 mph. Its weird, although partially its because a lot of vehicles really just don't handle properly above that anyhow. And the mileage difference between 75 and 85 in my experience is pretty extreme for most vehicles as well.
And if they raise the limit, everyone would still be speeding.
This was one of the justifications why the default speed limit in cities (in my country) was reduced from 60km/h to 50km/h. "When it was 60, everybody is going at 70, so now everybody will be going at 60".
I noticed that those who like to drive fast (but do not want to pay a big fine) usually go at 10km/h over the limit no matter the limit (since for whatever reason fines depend on absolute difference, not a relative one) because the fines for 10km/h over are not very big.
You know I used to actually believe this. But oddly enough, there are places in the US (the Southwest is generally one of them) where most drivers obey the speed limit. It took me YEARS to actually adapt to this and believe it, but its really true.... part of that is absolutely that the speed limits are pretty high.
I guess I'm thinking more about ALL colleges/universities being tuition / graduation-debt regulated... not just the public ones. I know private companies HATE, HATE, HATE to compete with the government, but the top schools are all private and that's where I want to learn. It's tough to say what the best way of doing it might be, but my main point is that saddling students with more than $60,000 of education debt at graduation is a dick move.
This ummm, isn't strictly true. UC Berkeley is absolutely a "top school" widely considered on par with the best private institutions in the country. And by the time you get to the second rank (which is still, I assure you, plenty prestigious) there's quite a few public universities, esp. in some fields.
"Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there. If the game has top-down view, intricate RPG-like stats, but mostly consists of slaying things rather than heavy NPC interaction and advanced storyline, it's a roguelike. All of these are necessary components - e.g. Stonekeep is not a roguelike, because it's first-person.
As for the "new" definition in TFS/TFA, it's so vague as to be meaningless. Heck, it's broad enough to match contraption games (like Crazy Machines).
While I mostly agree with your definition, I'd have to add 'random dungeon generation' as a key point. In some ways THE key point, more so I'd argue than 'top-down view'. (Although 'what will the red potion do to me this time?' was always fun. Also for those who think permadead is critical, I'll point out that there were workarounds....)
No, there is a glut of PhD scientists and it's getting worse every year.
Are you sure that the average PhD programme isn't just getting easier?
You may have a glut of PhDs, but are you sure that every PhD in science should call himself a scientist, in the way he might have legitimately done 30 or 40 years ago?
Ask why is it taking so much longer to get one.
The classroom work is getting harder, but the research part is probably getting a bit easier. Why? Well the classroom work has increased because half of what they teach in grad school these days has only been KNOWN for 30 or 40 years -- but another side effect of this is that in many ways you know less when you're done, because to keep it from being truly mindboggling you're even more specialized than you used to be. The research part is probably getting a little easier, because its very hard to scope 'original research' down to something appropriate for a graduate student in many fields in terms of time and materials. In general at the top universities, though, things haven't really changed all that much. Granted there are many more mid-rank universities mucking stuff up. As to why its taking longer? Mostly because there's no real incentive to finish for anyone in the system. The professors don't want to lose their grad students, and post-doc life doesn't pay THAT much better than a senior graduate student, and in some ways has less security.
1.) It being the NSA, while they may very well monitor 'all traffic' they almost certainly throw out every packet not going outside our borders. There's a long list of reasons why this is true.
2.) I wouldn't think ANY slashdotter would be naive enough to have an expectation of privacy for the unencrypted packets they blast around the internet. And while yes, it is probably true that most encrypted packets probably have weak enough encryption that the NSA can break it.... it is almost certainly not true that the NSA has enough computing power to read EVERY encrypted packet that it comes across.
3.) I would be willing to place a substantial wager that google knows more about you than the NSA, unless you make a habit of communicating with people in Pakistan or something similar.
In other words, Other Peoples' Money is free money.
This is just insulting. When I said 'cheap' I meant it. In general R&D is just expensive enough on the scale of the individual to make self-funded research very difficult, but cheap enough by the standards of business or governments. The vast majoirty of government-funded research projects are under 1 million, and most are SIGNIFICANTLY under. That is, by the way, significantly less than businesses usually invest when they get to the point of investing, a VC investment is usually 10-85 million. As to it "just being easy" no, its because really that's all there is. I'll also note that R&D isn't easy for business people either, to make first-stage (i.e. 'high risk') R&D a good investment, while any individual project is cheap, you have to invest in LOTS of them. I've worked the VC side, and I've done government research, and I've helped administer government research. Just to be clear, by the way, the people administering government research, with the exception of the dollars they're forced to waste by earmarks, probably care more about getting good value for your tax money than the average VC does. And work at least as hard for it, in my opinion, at least in DoD, can't speak for other government organizations.
This is just total BS. The vast majority of advances in engineering and science in the history of mankind have been funded by the government or the church at one level or another. Why? Because R&D is high risk, and willingness to invest in things that high-risk is rare in the private market. VCs very rarely invest in real research, but instead typically invest in the phase where you take a concept with proven theory to a real product. Most research money produces nothing immediately useful. I freely confess this. But the only way to progress is to be willing to try a hundred ideas, understanding that 50 of them will produce nothing at all. Another 40 will probably basically just produce some interesting information. 9 of them will give you an interesting concept you might develop when conditions change, or that is useful for an exceedingly limited purpose, and 1 of them will produce a product that will actually go to the general market.... But guess what? Its totally worth it. And, in the end, not very expensive.
I have to agree here. When you put a timestamp on a photo I expect it to be a representation of the time the photo was taken. (And certainly on my scientific cameras it absolutely is, the clock is synched to the shutter 'kthnx.) I'm not disputing the people who note that the timestamp is usually file-system based, but if that's so, it should have few enough significant figures to still make it accurate to the picture.... In general if someone can't get their significant figures right on a measurement, they deserve whatever pain it gets them. So while I don't disagree that in some ways this whole thing may be a little silly for determining the invalidity of the radar's measurements, there's no question that as a system its poorly designed, and since invalidating the ticket is really the only possible punishment, lets go for it.
No. Its because imperial units did not start out as a 'system' at all. They're a mish-mash of measurement standards pulled together based on prevailing preferences when England chose to standardize measurements, plus usage over time for which ones are in common use. They took these measurements, generally based on simple measuring techniques (such as the length of a booted foot (feet), the length of a piece of cloth if held from shoulder to end of outstretched arm (yard) etc.) that you would generally use for rough measure, combined with things like the link/chain/rod/furlong method of standard measures (and when you cross these with a traditional 5k foot roman mile, you end up with the 8 furlong 5280 foot imperial mile....)
That said, things (like feet) which are divided into 12 are absolutely for the convenience of fractional measures because it is the first number divisible by 1, 2, 3, and 4, so it makes arithmetic very easy for fractional measures, as you said. Metric is a much better system when you're doing detailed calculations with pen and paper or by computer, or when you're trying to change order of mangitude (but seriously, outside of an engineering calculation, why would you even really care how many feet are in a mile?)
In the modern world metric is far superior for nearly every use, and I'd totally support the US switching over. However, you can make a strong argument that for practical every day purposes, the imperial units are more often than not easier to visualize and measure at logical breaks when accurate tools are not available.
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.
Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.
I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?
It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.
So I actually went and looked up the original judgement and appellate judgement on this because it was so weird. The actual argument the HR department made was that smart people would quit quickly and they chose less smart people so they wouldn't get bored being a patroller. The Court determined that they had reached this decision on a rational basis (while noting that the truth of this was beyond the scope of the Court's right to decide, for a variety of reasons) and that since they were applying the policy evenly, there was no grounds for the officer to complain.
But how can he not anticipate this question? Its been the number 1 question of RIM for the last 24 months, and he thinks its *unfair* he was asked about it?
He's either naive or an idiot.
Another possibility is that he's very aware that this has been a hot issue and had an agreement with the interviewer not to go into that. Maybe that's what he meant by "We've dealt with this" i.e. "You and I had an agreement not to talk about this". Not saying that's what happened but I wouldn't be surprised.
My impression (having watched the clip) is that he didn't object to the question per se, he objected to it being termed repeatedly a 'security problem'. Which I kinda get, but he handled it poorly.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be conceding that this was a commonly occurring failure, and don't dispute that this wasn't fixed (i.e it was ignored), so why am I wrong?
It just needs to be said in deference to a bunch of awesome aerospace safety engineers around the world: There is no such thing as a 'commonly occurring failure' on a modern commercial airliner.
And Google, very clearly, in its SEC filings, indicates that it is an advertising media company. Has since the IPO.
We have keyboard shortcuts to access menu options, that's not the same think as keyboard shortcuts that perform actions. Ie, where's the keyboard shortcut in Word that says "repeat the next menu operation 100 times"?
Well I can bold text with ctrl-b etc. etc. etc. But if I want a single keyboard shortcut that doesn't exist, I could, I guess, map it to a macro. But with format paint and all the other lovely toys, I can't really recall having had that problem much.
This is the red button my mom always talks about when she talks about what a menace I was as a toddler and she was trying to work on her Thesis??
This just proves that you can make a dish smarter. Let me know when they can actually make my smartphone smart.
FTFY
Well yes and no. The government can enforce the penalties of a breach of contract suit or whatever other penalties are written into the contract. What the government CANNOT do, is issue a gag order to prevent me from speaking about what I thought of the dentist trip I had.
I feel obliged to point out that he said it would be out then only IF there was no apocalytpic event imbetween. Personally, I think he just as an inside line on some sort of apocalyptic event ;)
I, for one, welcome our robot car-driving overlords. Can't come too soon.
I only recently figured out why so many people just scoff at any application of solar energy and get boners from the idea of using nuclear fission to light a bulb: It's because solar energy just doesn't seem high-techy enough and nuclear energy brings to mind guys in lab coats and geiger counters and mushroom clouds and all that cool stuff.
So ummm, really I've always assumed that this was because deep down we still think of electricity as primarily being used to light bulbs... and that's something we typically want to do when the sun isn't up.
And, of course, a side benefit to all this is that in the meantime we'll probably figure out more environmentally safe ways of getting at lots of that oil, so we can have our cake and eat it too!
The month appears to be irrelevant. The season is what is relevant. If the guy means to do a summer-time study in Minnesota to show that summer is when something happens, nobody is going to care what season it is in NSW. Lose the ego.
Actually quite the opposite. It is based on where the planet is in its orbit, which is based on the month, not the notional season. Unless I entirely misunderstand TFS, if the experiment had been in NSW, it would've had to be held in winter.
it's hard to not treat it like a private corporation when you have to *pay* to use it. it can't be a "service" provided by our wonderful government when it's often LESS expensive to ship something via fedex or ups instead.
i already pay my taxes. if the governments wants to charge me for their "service", i will treat it just like i treat private companies whose products and services i pay for -- such as ups.
The USPS doesn't use a dime of your tax money. (Except, IIRC, to pay the regulatory board)
Google should just buy the USPS. Then they'd have everyone's name and address, could mount cameras on the carrier's heads for mapping and insert advertising into each batch of mail. Actually, that's what the USPS should do to raise some cash: sell us out to advertisers. It's not like I don't just throw away 95% of whats in the box anyway. Sifting past a few more dead trees wouldn't really be hard.
That's what they should do? They already have. Junk mail pays for the postal system. Including all that lovely mail to "Current Resident", which is the snail-mail equivalent of a banner ad.
This is the US, not Germany. Tops out at 75 mph (120 km/h). Typically the right lane is on the speed limit (sometimes slightly below) and the left lane is typically around or under 80 mph. Its weird, although partially its because a lot of vehicles really just don't handle properly above that anyhow. And the mileage difference between 75 and 85 in my experience is pretty extreme for most vehicles as well.
And if they raise the limit, everyone would still be speeding.
This was one of the justifications why the default speed limit in cities (in my country) was reduced from 60km/h to 50km/h. "When it was 60, everybody is going at 70, so now everybody will be going at 60".
I noticed that those who like to drive fast (but do not want to pay a big fine) usually go at 10km/h over the limit no matter the limit (since for whatever reason fines depend on absolute difference, not a relative one) because the fines for 10km/h over are not very big.
You know I used to actually believe this. But oddly enough, there are places in the US (the Southwest is generally one of them) where most drivers obey the speed limit. It took me YEARS to actually adapt to this and believe it, but its really true.... part of that is absolutely that the speed limits are pretty high.
I guess I'm thinking more about ALL colleges/universities being tuition / graduation-debt regulated... not just the public ones. I know private companies HATE, HATE, HATE to compete with the government, but the top schools are all private and that's where I want to learn. It's tough to say what the best way of doing it might be, but my main point is that saddling students with more than $60,000 of education debt at graduation is a dick move.
This ummm, isn't strictly true. UC Berkeley is absolutely a "top school" widely considered on par with the best private institutions in the country. And by the time you get to the second rank (which is still, I assure you, plenty prestigious) there's quite a few public universities, esp. in some fields.
"Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there. If the game has top-down view, intricate RPG-like stats, but mostly consists of slaying things rather than heavy NPC interaction and advanced storyline, it's a roguelike. All of these are necessary components - e.g. Stonekeep is not a roguelike, because it's first-person.
As for the "new" definition in TFS/TFA, it's so vague as to be meaningless. Heck, it's broad enough to match contraption games (like Crazy Machines).
While I mostly agree with your definition, I'd have to add 'random dungeon generation' as a key point. In some ways THE key point, more so I'd argue than 'top-down view'. (Although 'what will the red potion do to me this time?' was always fun. Also for those who think permadead is critical, I'll point out that there were workarounds....)
No, there is a glut of PhD scientists and it's getting worse every year.
Are you sure that the average PhD programme isn't just getting easier?
You may have a glut of PhDs, but are you sure that every PhD in science should call himself a scientist, in the way he might have legitimately done 30 or 40 years ago?
Ask why is it taking so much longer to get one.
The classroom work is getting harder, but the research part is probably getting a bit easier. Why? Well the classroom work has increased because half of what they teach in grad school these days has only been KNOWN for 30 or 40 years -- but another side effect of this is that in many ways you know less when you're done, because to keep it from being truly mindboggling you're even more specialized than you used to be. The research part is probably getting a little easier, because its very hard to scope 'original research' down to something appropriate for a graduate student in many fields in terms of time and materials. In general at the top universities, though, things haven't really changed all that much. Granted there are many more mid-rank universities mucking stuff up. As to why its taking longer? Mostly because there's no real incentive to finish for anyone in the system. The professors don't want to lose their grad students, and post-doc life doesn't pay THAT much better than a senior graduate student, and in some ways has less security.
2.) I wouldn't think ANY slashdotter would be naive enough to have an expectation of privacy for the unencrypted packets they blast around the internet. And while yes, it is probably true that most encrypted packets probably have weak enough encryption that the NSA can break it.... it is almost certainly not true that the NSA has enough computing power to read EVERY encrypted packet that it comes across.
3.) I would be willing to place a substantial wager that google knows more about you than the NSA, unless you make a habit of communicating with people in Pakistan or something similar.
In other words, Other Peoples' Money is free money.
This is just insulting. When I said 'cheap' I meant it. In general R&D is just expensive enough on the scale of the individual to make self-funded research very difficult, but cheap enough by the standards of business or governments. The vast majoirty of government-funded research projects are under 1 million, and most are SIGNIFICANTLY under. That is, by the way, significantly less than businesses usually invest when they get to the point of investing, a VC investment is usually 10-85 million. As to it "just being easy" no, its because really that's all there is. I'll also note that R&D isn't easy for business people either, to make first-stage (i.e. 'high risk') R&D a good investment, while any individual project is cheap, you have to invest in LOTS of them. I've worked the VC side, and I've done government research, and I've helped administer government research. Just to be clear, by the way, the people administering government research, with the exception of the dollars they're forced to waste by earmarks, probably care more about getting good value for your tax money than the average VC does. And work at least as hard for it, in my opinion, at least in DoD, can't speak for other government organizations.
This is just total BS. The vast majority of advances in engineering and science in the history of mankind have been funded by the government or the church at one level or another. Why? Because R&D is high risk, and willingness to invest in things that high-risk is rare in the private market. VCs very rarely invest in real research, but instead typically invest in the phase where you take a concept with proven theory to a real product. Most research money produces nothing immediately useful. I freely confess this. But the only way to progress is to be willing to try a hundred ideas, understanding that 50 of them will produce nothing at all. Another 40 will probably basically just produce some interesting information. 9 of them will give you an interesting concept you might develop when conditions change, or that is useful for an exceedingly limited purpose, and 1 of them will produce a product that will actually go to the general market.... But guess what? Its totally worth it. And, in the end, not very expensive.
I have to agree here. When you put a timestamp on a photo I expect it to be a representation of the time the photo was taken. (And certainly on my scientific cameras it absolutely is, the clock is synched to the shutter 'kthnx.) I'm not disputing the people who note that the timestamp is usually file-system based, but if that's so, it should have few enough significant figures to still make it accurate to the picture.... In general if someone can't get their significant figures right on a measurement, they deserve whatever pain it gets them. So while I don't disagree that in some ways this whole thing may be a little silly for determining the invalidity of the radar's measurements, there's no question that as a system its poorly designed, and since invalidating the ticket is really the only possible punishment, lets go for it.
That said, things (like feet) which are divided into 12 are absolutely for the convenience of fractional measures because it is the first number divisible by 1, 2, 3, and 4, so it makes arithmetic very easy for fractional measures, as you said. Metric is a much better system when you're doing detailed calculations with pen and paper or by computer, or when you're trying to change order of mangitude (but seriously, outside of an engineering calculation, why would you even really care how many feet are in a mile?)
In the modern world metric is far superior for nearly every use, and I'd totally support the US switching over. However, you can make a strong argument that for practical every day purposes, the imperial units are more often than not easier to visualize and measure at logical breaks when accurate tools are not available.
Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.
I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?
It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.
So I actually went and looked up the original judgement and appellate judgement on this because it was so weird. The actual argument the HR department made was that smart people would quit quickly and they chose less smart people so they wouldn't get bored being a patroller. The Court determined that they had reached this decision on a rational basis (while noting that the truth of this was beyond the scope of the Court's right to decide, for a variety of reasons) and that since they were applying the policy evenly, there was no grounds for the officer to complain.
But how can he not anticipate this question? Its been the number 1 question of RIM for the last 24 months, and he thinks its *unfair* he was asked about it? He's either naive or an idiot.
Another possibility is that he's very aware that this has been a hot issue and had an agreement with the interviewer not to go into that. Maybe that's what he meant by "We've dealt with this" i.e. "You and I had an agreement not to talk about this". Not saying that's what happened but I wouldn't be surprised.
My impression (having watched the clip) is that he didn't object to the question per se, he objected to it being termed repeatedly a 'security problem'. Which I kinda get, but he handled it poorly.