Y'know, it's kinda chic to be disgruntled if you're in IT. Think about it--if you're amongst your computer-saavy peers, is it cool to say that you're very happy working your IT job, or is it cool to bitch and moan about the lusers you need to herd on a daily basis?
<tongue_in_cheek>Don't forget to declare your new laptop to customs, though--if you don't, you'll be a damned, dirty tax cheat. Nobody likes a damned, dirty tax cheat.</tongue_in_cheek>
(Oh, bear in mind--you'll be stuck with a US QWERTY keyboard. No Euro key or Pound key, among other things--you'll need to remap and remember...)
Reuters reports that the first hardware to run Microsoft's "iPod Killer" software will be available in Europe in the second half of 2004...The players are expected to sell for between about $700 to $800. They will play MP3s as well as audio and video recorded in Microsoft's digital format. The player will be significantly larger than the iPod in order to accomodate a video screen.
There's a typo in the article. "N-Gage Killer" is misspelled.
Any suggestions as to how I can get this policy overturned without looking like someone who wants to spend my working time on my cell rather than coding?
...have you explained the importance of your cell phone to your boss or HR person? Have you asked for an exception, as yours is pretty clearly an exceptional case?
If they stonewall and ignore your concerns, then by all means, raise a stink. In the interests of civility, job security, and conservation of energy, though, you may want to try the easy way first. Don't break out the elephant gun before you've tried the flyswatter...
It's Open Mic Night at the Astrophysics Lounge!
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
But I wonder how long the time lag will be between the probe finding life, and a leak in the radioactive heater wiping all of it out.
I'd like to see the leaky probe that could rival Jupiter itself in bombarding Europa with radiation.
Awww, don't look so down. I'm sure there are plenty of other snide quips to be made about our foolish, short-sighted engineers wiping out Life As We Don't Know It.
Consider the possibility of a dihydrogen monoxide leak, for example...
Do you ever feel that your more recent work has trouble climbing out of the shadow cast by Goodwin's Law? Is there any work you've done that you feel is of greater significance than Goodwin's Law which hasn't received sufficient attention you think it deserves?
I can see it now. A poor cripple in school has this exoskeleton. Then the school bully hacks it to beat up the kid wearing it.
...dude, what makes you think that hacking an embedded system is somehow easy? It's not like some young Val Kilmer-esque rogue will be able to swipe Jeff Goldblum Jr.'s PowerBook and push the big, red, "Make Bob Beat Himself Up" button.
How do you figure one could quickly, easily and tracelessly hack a system whose only accessible inputs are things like pressure sensors?
Are you familiar with phrases such as "The South shall rise again" and "Remember the Alamo"? Familiar with neo-Nazi skinheads and other echoes of WWII that still haunt Europe today?
Yes, time will heal many conflicts. Time will also often cause these wounds to fester. Consider the continuing wars rooted in religion--conflicts rooted in differences of opinion over 1000 years old. Consider ethnic strife, such as that between the Serbs and Croats. Too many families were fractured during the years of fighting; there is so much hatred brimming there that without constant monitoring and international intervention, the ethnic war would most likely continue to play itself out for generations to come.
While you may not share the feelings of these people, and while time often mends the wound, the hatred can linger for ages. There do exist people who quite earnestly hate northern states, Germans, Mexicans, et cetera--based on hatred from conflicts that are generations old. These divisions continue to cause strife in our world.
Ask the six million Jews that Hitler gassed if violence ever settled anything. They're dead. That's pretty damn settled, now isn't it?
Why yes, indeed it did settle that matter. In fact, I can't recall hearing about a single bit of pain, suffering or conflict related to Judaism since. No, I can't think of a single person, family, nation, or Holocaust survivor who feels that things weren't settled by Hitler's actions. Not one, anywhere.
Of course, had Hitler managed to completely wipe out the Jewish race and faith, then yes, there wouldn't be an Arab-Israeli conflict today. Total genocide does make for neat, tidy endings, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you have spineless sympathizers who fail to see the necessity of eradicating those who are at odds with you.
If "violence never settled anything", people wouldn't use it!!!!. And it sure as shit get used all the damn time.
If violence settles things, why the hell do we keep coming back to it? You'd think violence would have settled our differences centuries ago. What happened--was it an outbreak of accursed peace or something?
Violence only succeeds when you completely eradicate your opposition. If you don't, all it does is breed hatred amongst the survivors. Unless you track down and kill every last person who opposes your will, you're going to have to deal with those who hate you because you've destroyed their lives and families. Is this what you're advocating--the wholesale slaughter of every terrorist, their families, and all those who cared about them? Think you can keep up the pace?
I invite you to register for a free Slashdot account. Even a pseudonym lends credence to one's comments.
Awww, c'mon. What of the sudden rash of Chechen suicide widows? Y'know, the wives of the guys who had their brains splattered all over the place by the Russians. They should've killed them at the time, too.
...and the children, as too many of them would grow up and want to do nothing more than avenge their parents' deaths...
And the brothers and sisters...
And the best man from their wedding...
And their drinking buddies...
Hold up a sec--you're gonna need another clip or two.
Which do you think will win the War on Terror--guns or minds?
It makes sense that they'd do this. After all, there have to be a few people at the Pentagon who understand that you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint, and that they'd do well to have a simulator that allows them to get a feel for the social environments where terrorist organizations have the best luck in recruiting. The more they understand the role society plays in terrorism, the better they'll be able to counteract it.
Break recruitment, and you're dealing with a handful of international criminals rather than a terrorist network.
Exposure also resulted in a marked increase in brain cell apoptosis, or "cell suicide," a process in which a cell self-destructs because it can't repair itself.
I'd say that apoptosis is better characterized as "natural cell death". It's a natural and essential part of the cell's life cycle, and certainly isn't as alarming as the article's tone suggests.
In fact, we have a word for cells that don't undergo apoptosis: Cancer.
Ah, but there are groups working on ceramic field fabrication units, which solves a great deal of the durability problem for high-energy applications (like engine parts and such.) It's still a very young technology, but ceramics can be even more durable and sturdy than metal.
In any case, while the current round of technology isn't anywhere near being able to fabricate the parts for an AK-47, I can't say I'd be surprised if the technology reached this point during my lifetime...
Eh, this is really outside their area of expertise. They should pass this problem off to the French and instead work on making email flavorless and rubbery.
hence, the qualification "when the technology reaches a point where you can".
That said, they're already working on prototypes capable of printing highly durable ceramic parts for vehicles. Yes, it's a young, expensive technology, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see what it could lead to.
Consider, too, that the advent of ceramics-based firearms would render many weapon detection systems obsolete...
I used the AK-47 as an example for that very reason. It's already an easy weapon to manufacture and use, but you still need some form of metalworking facility to build one, and you need some experience with metalworking and gunsmithing to be able to produce a functional weapon.
Now, if we reach the point where John Q. Malcontent can download and print the various parts of an AK-47 in the comfort of his own studio apartment in a matter of hours...
I wonder how you're planning on getting the raw materials for all that, this isn't about turning straw into gold.
Well, shit. There go my plans for a straw-fueled desktop fabricator.
If only there were some cheap, readily available metal...or perhaps a resin of some kind that wouldn't force me to mortgage my mom's basement...hell, I'd even settle for some kind of plastic that I can get my hands on for less than fifty thousand dollars an ounce.
"...if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates." Oh, sure. "Trust us, we're scientists." "The noble pursuit of science." The notion that scientists are completely objective is a very shaky one at best.
Fair enough, seeing as at no point have I even suggested that scientists are "completely objective". I said they were more likely than anyone else to be able to present a rational, objective analysis of the situation. Clearly, you disagree.
So, as twenty Nobel laureates are so clearly incapable of critical, objective thought, who should we look to for rational analysis of the role of science in today's government?
I understand your skepticism, but honestly, your life will be largely fruitless if you refuse to place your trust in other people. There's no way any one of us is qualified to make more than a small fraction of the decisions one typically faces in the modern world--there's simply too much you'd need to learn to make your own rational decisions to the exclusion of the advice of others.
Personally, I can't think of many groups of people as learned and diverse as a full twenty Nobel laureates--these people don't grow on trees, and while there are a few exceptions, the majority of them are frighteningly intelligent people. I trust them to know what they're talking about when it comes to conducting and analyzing scientific research...
There's the problem: ANYBODY thinking that "nobel laureate" means NEUTRAL.
Come on, now. I never suggested they were neutral parties. Address what I say, not some extrapolated extreme.
These twenty Nobel laureates are, in my opinion, considerably more likely than anybody else to be able to present a rational, objective view of the role of science in government today. If you disagree with my assessment, please state who you think is better positioned to produce a rational, obejctive view of this situation. Kindly refrain from saying I'm wrong because there's no way that Nobel laureates are devoid of political opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, doesn't "competing heavily" imply that there's, well, an active competition in the first place?
Eye, fore won, think their is hope two bee had.
Y'know, it's kinda chic to be disgruntled if you're in IT. Think about it--if you're amongst your computer-saavy peers, is it cool to say that you're very happy working your IT job, or is it cool to bitch and moan about the lusers you need to herd on a daily basis?
Try the Apple Store in Soho. They'll have great laptops.
<tongue_in_cheek>Don't forget to declare your new laptop to customs, though--if you don't, you'll be a damned, dirty tax cheat. Nobody likes a damned, dirty tax cheat.</tongue_in_cheek>
(Oh, bear in mind--you'll be stuck with a US QWERTY keyboard. No Euro key or Pound key, among other things--you'll need to remap and remember...)
Hell, my money would be on the iPod...
There's a typo in the article. "N-Gage Killer" is misspelled.
If they stonewall and ignore your concerns, then by all means, raise a stink. In the interests of civility, job security, and conservation of energy, though, you may want to try the easy way first. Don't break out the elephant gun before you've tried the flyswatter...
I'd like to see the leaky probe that could rival Jupiter itself in bombarding Europa with radiation.
Awww, don't look so down. I'm sure there are plenty of other snide quips to be made about our foolish, short-sighted engineers wiping out Life As We Don't Know It.
Consider the possibility of a dihydrogen monoxide leak, for example...
Oy, color me a schmuck. My apologies to Mr. Godwin.
Do you ever feel that your more recent work has trouble climbing out of the shadow cast by Goodwin's Law? Is there any work you've done that you feel is of greater significance than Goodwin's Law which hasn't received sufficient attention you think it deserves?
How do you figure one could quickly, easily and tracelessly hack a system whose only accessible inputs are things like pressure sensors?
Yes, time will heal many conflicts. Time will also often cause these wounds to fester. Consider the continuing wars rooted in religion--conflicts rooted in differences of opinion over 1000 years old. Consider ethnic strife, such as that between the Serbs and Croats. Too many families were fractured during the years of fighting; there is so much hatred brimming there that without constant monitoring and international intervention, the ethnic war would most likely continue to play itself out for generations to come.
While you may not share the feelings of these people, and while time often mends the wound, the hatred can linger for ages. There do exist people who quite earnestly hate northern states, Germans, Mexicans, et cetera--based on hatred from conflicts that are generations old. These divisions continue to cause strife in our world.
Why yes, indeed it did settle that matter. In fact, I can't recall hearing about a single bit of pain, suffering or conflict related to Judaism since. No, I can't think of a single person, family, nation, or Holocaust survivor who feels that things weren't settled by Hitler's actions. Not one, anywhere.
Of course, had Hitler managed to completely wipe out the Jewish race and faith, then yes, there wouldn't be an Arab-Israeli conflict today. Total genocide does make for neat, tidy endings, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you have spineless sympathizers who fail to see the necessity of eradicating those who are at odds with you.
If "violence never settled anything", people wouldn't use it!!!!. And it sure as shit get used all the damn time.
If violence settles things, why the hell do we keep coming back to it? You'd think violence would have settled our differences centuries ago. What happened--was it an outbreak of accursed peace or something?
Violence only succeeds when you completely eradicate your opposition. If you don't, all it does is breed hatred amongst the survivors. Unless you track down and kill every last person who opposes your will, you're going to have to deal with those who hate you because you've destroyed their lives and families. Is this what you're advocating--the wholesale slaughter of every terrorist, their families, and all those who cared about them? Think you can keep up the pace?
I invite you to register for a free Slashdot account. Even a pseudonym lends credence to one's comments.
And the brothers and sisters...
And the best man from their wedding...
And their drinking buddies...
Hold up a sec--you're gonna need another clip or two.
It makes sense that they'd do this. After all, there have to be a few people at the Pentagon who understand that you can't make people stop hating you at gunpoint, and that they'd do well to have a simulator that allows them to get a feel for the social environments where terrorist organizations have the best luck in recruiting. The more they understand the role society plays in terrorism, the better they'll be able to counteract it.
Break recruitment, and you're dealing with a handful of international criminals rather than a terrorist network.
I'd say that apoptosis is better characterized as "natural cell death". It's a natural and essential part of the cell's life cycle, and certainly isn't as alarming as the article's tone suggests.
In fact, we have a word for cells that don't undergo apoptosis: Cancer.
In any case, while the current round of technology isn't anywhere near being able to fabricate the parts for an AK-47, I can't say I'd be surprised if the technology reached this point during my lifetime...
Je blague, mes amis...
Lackey: Sir, we're not catching enough flies!
President: Very well. Activate the Vinegar Device!
That said, they're already working on prototypes capable of printing highly durable ceramic parts for vehicles. Yes, it's a young, expensive technology, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see what it could lead to.
Consider, too, that the advent of ceramics-based firearms would render many weapon detection systems obsolete...
Now, if we reach the point where John Q. Malcontent can download and print the various parts of an AK-47 in the comfort of his own studio apartment in a matter of hours...
Well, shit. There go my plans for a straw-fueled desktop fabricator.
If only there were some cheap, readily available metal...or perhaps a resin of some kind that wouldn't force me to mortgage my mom's basement...hell, I'd even settle for some kind of plastic that I can get my hands on for less than fifty thousand dollars an ounce.
Think, dammit, think...
Imagine downloading and printing a new bowl for your food processor, or a new toy for your kid.
Imagine, too, the anguished hand-wringing of corporations over the illegal distribution of copyrighted object designs over the Internet.
Imagine, too, the anguished hand-wringing of governments when the technology reaches a point where you can print parts for an AK-47.
My bet is it's going to be quite the roller-coaster ride when it gets here, and that it's closer than we think...
Fair enough, seeing as at no point have I even suggested that scientists are "completely objective". I said they were more likely than anyone else to be able to present a rational, objective analysis of the situation. Clearly, you disagree.
So, as twenty Nobel laureates are so clearly incapable of critical, objective thought, who should we look to for rational analysis of the role of science in today's government?
I understand your skepticism, but honestly, your life will be largely fruitless if you refuse to place your trust in other people. There's no way any one of us is qualified to make more than a small fraction of the decisions one typically faces in the modern world--there's simply too much you'd need to learn to make your own rational decisions to the exclusion of the advice of others.
Personally, I can't think of many groups of people as learned and diverse as a full twenty Nobel laureates--these people don't grow on trees, and while there are a few exceptions, the majority of them are frighteningly intelligent people. I trust them to know what they're talking about when it comes to conducting and analyzing scientific research...
Come on, now. I never suggested they were neutral parties. Address what I say, not some extrapolated extreme.
These twenty Nobel laureates are, in my opinion, considerably more likely than anybody else to be able to present a rational, objective view of the role of science in government today. If you disagree with my assessment, please state who you think is better positioned to produce a rational, obejctive view of this situation. Kindly refrain from saying I'm wrong because there's no way that Nobel laureates are devoid of political opinion.