Chemical poisons such as mercury and cadmium stay toxic forever. We handle them industrially without wrecking the world. Nuclear waste is a smaller issue than chemical industry waste.
Perfect example of your point: bismuth. It has a half life in the quadrillions of years. Pepto-Bismol users swallow it.
Watch as mainstream sources urge people to program their children to be "good citizens", while the people who run the mainstream sources engineer their children for "leadership abilities".
Further, we have direct satellite measurements of solar output since 1978. There's been no clear trend to it while temperatures on Earth have gone up steadily.
Well, if the goal of privacy law is to preserve people's expectations, then the two cases are different. People yelling expect to be heard. Non-technical people with a cell phone don't expect to be tracked like a bear with a radio collar.
Geeks know bitterly first hand what bullying is about. The incidents described were not awkward mistakes, they were intentional bullying. Nobody sets out to "pick up girls" by grabbing their crotches and walking away.
Liars can make things up faster than honest people can check them, and the liars know it.
Liars have nothing to lose. Their followers won't abandon them. Their followers will be too busy retweeting the next lie to notice that the previous one was disproven.
Fact checking yields the initiative to the liars and lets them set the agenda. Fact checking hands the liars blank checks payable with the fact checker's time.
Better to build reputation scores for public figures based on a reasonable sample of their utterances, and stop paying attention to the ones who prove themselves to have no credibility.
Having at least a toehold in a field of study, be it poetry or physics, means the door is open to you to learn more and thus have access to the wealth humanity has amassed in that field. Not teaching the foundations is a form of impoverishment.
Besides, "Education is what remains after you've forgotten everything you learned in school".
If your idea of having sexuality is to create a hostile environment, that's pathetic, but maybe you should do it on your own time, with women who are free to walk away or mace you?
Normal, mature human beings don't create the situation in the first place.
Let's discuss an example from one of my previous workplaces. A security guard blocked a woman's car in in the parking lot and started saying over and over "Would your husband mind?". The company was a military contractor and the guard had a gun on his hip. Perhaps you have some ideas in mind about how she should have handled the situation herself? Calling the police isn't handling it herself.
> If you have 2 or 3 people like this in a group of a hundred, that's enough to win the culture.
Which of course is not a substitute for management doing their job, and on top of that I've seen an exception. That exception was an example of a management failure: the CEO had quietly (but word does get around) settled zillions of complaints against him personally.
Formal training is vital legally but doesn't always reach people.
Making an example of someone is something you should be ready to do. Sounds like you'll need to. Do it early.
Brainstorming about preventive measures to *supplement* your policy: start memes like "nerds don't bully nerds" or "would you say that to your sister?". Hire an outspoken victim that nerds can identify with to talk (not lecture) about what the impact is.
The photo on your driver's license is a biometric.
It doesn't have to be kept secret.
The security comes from the verification process. If you're pulled over while carrying someone else's driver's license, then holding up a picture of that person to the police officer is not going to let you impersonate that person.
The reason we're used to thinking in terms of secrecy is that it's the only way to make passwords exclusive to particular users.
I've even seen security professionals get this wrong.
Then suppose "wedding" is an al-Qaeda code word for a planned outrage.
Then suppose someone in government is capable of making a mistake.
Or, what if you were talking to family about one of those things you only talk about within the family? Could something like that be used against you?
Someone who would get credit if I could remember their name pointed out that the more the authorities know about you, the more incorrect information they have.
Their loudest complaint was about US troops in Saudi Arabia.
I asked an Arab co-worker whether that was for real, and he gave me one of those "How could you even ask?!" looks. Nobody really likes foreign troops, and when those include women carrying guns and driving, it causes certain kinds of mind to explode.
We capitulated to them on that issue almost immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
Chemical poisons such as mercury and cadmium stay toxic forever. We handle them industrially without wrecking the world. Nuclear waste is a smaller issue than chemical industry waste.
Perfect example of your point: bismuth. It has a half life in the quadrillions of years. Pepto-Bismol users swallow it.
I seem to remember something about a patent office in Switzerland, too.
If crippling diseases are in fact necessary for human progress, we could always discontinue polio vaccinations.
If, on the other hand, it is challenges that are important, then science, engineering, and sport can provide endless spurs to human achievement.
Watch as mainstream sources urge people to program their children to be "good citizens", while the people who run the mainstream sources engineer their children for "leadership abilities".
Put the antenna higher up or use a directional one. Absorption by the environment is usually even worse than inverse square losses.
With clear line of sight and no Fresnel zone obstruction, a quarter mile should be completely possible. Look up the distance record, it's remarkable.
Further, we have direct satellite measurements of solar output since 1978. There's been no clear trend to it while temperatures on Earth have gone up steadily.
Well, if the goal of privacy law is to preserve people's expectations, then the two cases are different. People yelling expect to be heard. Non-technical people with a cell phone don't expect to be tracked like a bear with a radio collar.
Above Mach 5 or so you have to start considering different physics about the air flow.
???
Women who are out of high school know the difference between men whose development is arrested at age 15 and men who are predators.
Anyone afraid of being taken for a predator should carefully examine why.
Geeks know bitterly first hand what bullying is about. The incidents described were not awkward mistakes, they were intentional bullying. Nobody sets out to "pick up girls" by grabbing their crotches and walking away.
It works for jury duty.
How many terrorists has the TSA caught?
If the number is large, then your question is relevant. Otherwise they are the magic rock that keeps the tigers away.
Liars can make things up faster than honest people can check them, and the liars know it.
Liars have nothing to lose. Their followers won't abandon them. Their followers will be too busy retweeting the next lie to notice that the previous one was disproven.
Fact checking yields the initiative to the liars and lets them set the agenda. Fact checking hands the liars blank checks payable with the fact checker's time.
Better to build reputation scores for public figures based on a reasonable sample of their utterances, and stop paying attention to the ones who prove themselves to have no credibility.
Having at least a toehold in a field of study, be it poetry or physics, means the door is open to you to learn more and thus have access to the wealth humanity has amassed in that field. Not teaching the foundations is a form of impoverishment.
Besides, "Education is what remains after you've forgotten everything you learned in school".
Understanding the world well enough to vote requires knowing enough math to tell when statistics are being used appropriately.
That requires some degree of algebra, though factoring polynomials doesn't help with it, and it's a different set of skills than pre-calculus.
Google "total solar irradiance". We've had direct satellite measurements of solar flux since 1978.
> They were never innovative. Never.
Had anyone done something like Bob before? :-)
>Why should a company always try to become bigger even in areas that are not its strength?
Because those new areas may compete with the old areas, and because stagnation is death.
If your idea of having sexuality is to create a hostile environment, that's pathetic, but maybe you should do it on your own time, with women who are free to walk away or mace you?
Normal, mature human beings don't create the situation in the first place.
Let's discuss an example from one of my previous workplaces. A security guard blocked a woman's car in in the parking lot and started saying over and over "Would your husband mind?". The company was a military contractor and the guard had a gun on his hip. Perhaps you have some ideas in mind about how she should have handled the situation herself? Calling the police isn't handling it herself.
> If you have 2 or 3 people like this in a group of a hundred, that's enough to win the culture.
Which of course is not a substitute for management doing their job, and on top of that I've seen an exception. That exception was an example of a management failure: the CEO had quietly (but word does get around) settled zillions of complaints against him personally.
Formal training is vital legally but doesn't always reach people.
Making an example of someone is something you should be ready to do. Sounds like you'll need to. Do it early.
Brainstorming about preventive measures to *supplement* your policy: start memes like "nerds don't bully nerds" or "would you say that to your sister?". Hire an outspoken victim that nerds can identify with to talk (not lecture) about what the impact is.
The photo on your driver's license is a biometric.
It doesn't have to be kept secret.
The security comes from the verification process. If you're pulled over while carrying someone else's driver's license, then holding up a picture of that person to the police officer is not going to let you impersonate that person.
The reason we're used to thinking in terms of secrecy is that it's the only way to make passwords exclusive to particular users.
I've even seen security professionals get this wrong.
OK, suppose you're planning a wedding.
Then suppose "wedding" is an al-Qaeda code word for a planned outrage.
Then suppose someone in government is capable of making a mistake.
Or, what if you were talking to family about one of those things you only talk about within the family? Could something like that be used against you?
Someone who would get credit if I could remember their name pointed out that the more the authorities know about you, the more incorrect information they have.
Their loudest complaint was about US troops in Saudi Arabia.
I asked an Arab co-worker whether that was for real, and he gave me one of those "How could you even ask?!" looks. Nobody really likes foreign troops, and when those include women carrying guns and driving, it causes certain kinds of mind to explode.
We capitulated to them on that issue almost immediately.
The ones I know are unemployable due to medical reasons.