The difference being that a tether snapping and raining superstrong microscopic diamond fibers 100's of km long in a path across the equator is several orders of magnitude more destructive than a bridge collapsing.
Yep, it's two different things, and I find that the two sources compliment each other quite well.
The internet is great for getting instant answers and examples for specific questions, and that instant gratification is great for keeping me from being frustrated from being hung up on some stupid little thing for hours that the book forgot to mention. It comes with the downsides of learning how to do things but not why they're done (basically copying and modifying as opposed to creating), and feeling like I know more than I actually do (I know there's a term for this but I don't remember what it's called). There's also the loss of experiences gained through struggling with the code for hours at a time. A lot of the things I remember best I remember because I spent all day and all night fighting with it only to find out it was some stupid thing I'd missed somewhere else
On the other hand, books are good for getting a broad overview of the subject. Since it's a lot harder to search a specific question and find the answer distilled down to a sentence and a few lines of sample code, there's generally a lot of reading of things that aren't entirely relevant to my question. Even though said things aren't relevant then, I often encounter them later and think "oh yeah, this is that thing the book was talking about". The downside to books though is that it's a lot harder (compared to following some internet quickstart tutorial) to just dive in and start, and that in turn makes it hard to contextualize and store the information presented in the book.
Thinking back on my education, the best programming classes I took were the ones that combined a lecture and a lab segment. Get the broad overview of the concepts in the lecture and book portions, then get some practical examples that provide a base with which to test the lecture concepts on.
The meaning of trolling has changed now from "pretending to take an inflammatory stance on a subject with the intent of pissing people off" to "offending people".
But you're right in that whichever definition you use, this seems like a bad idea. If the "troll" fits in the traditional definition, they've basically won the game by getting someone so riled up that they took out an entire billboard about it and put their comment in a kind of hall of fame. If they fit the modernized definition and actually believe their own nonsense, they'll probably be happy to see their comments reaching a wider audience.
Best case it might raise awareness in parents in the sense of them seeing it and thinking "that's terrible! I wonder what timmy posts online?" and maybe looking at their kids comment history for once.
Scrum can work if the team actually works together. A 'blocker' can be nothing but a statement of fact - this can't get done until that is in place. It sounds like you've got an organization that worries more about politics and individual success than actually shipping.
Literally anything can work if the team actually works together. The question here is more "does scrum lend itself to fingerpointing and politics in an imperfect team more than comparable methodologies".
I might have misread somewhere, but the impression I got is that one pilot fat fingered a number and just so happened to enter the same number that the other came up with by failure to carry a 1.
iirc the lowest band police radar transmit in is 10ghz, with some of the other bands being as high as 24ghz. The SDR dongles generally have a response frequency of around double digit MHZ to a bit over 2.4 ghz. That's almost an order of magnitude lower than what you'd need to detect a radar gun. From what I know of radar detector detectors, they work based on listening for the detector to emit slight echos whenever its oscillator is oscillated by an incoming beam. As such, I doubt there's any interaction between one of these SDRs and a police radar gun since they're not even communicating in the same frequency ranges.
That's what I wish they would define. An example of a "meaningful" attack might be a flurry of portscans from a single IP address hitting all of their known public IP addresses in sequence in a short timeframe (indicating they were the specific target of the scan). Otherwise they just sound like a software firewall trying to justify its own existence.
That's why I wish they defined what a "cyberattack" is. The fact that there were only 40 of them makes me think that they may have limited the definition to "attacks" that are actually meaningful, but it's all pointless speculation without the details.
If two consenting individuals love each other and want to get married we're supposed to let them with no questions asked, so it stands to reason that if two consenting individuals hate each other and want to slug it out we should allow that too. Right?
Which is why I'd love to see more engineering backstory and less blather about how they'd always wanted to build a robot since they were 5, or how they overcame the fact that they had boobs (as if that's somehow relevant) to design something and enter the competition.
Tested had some decent footage on youtube of the various builders talking about their robots and showing off the internals and design challenges, which I found more interesting than the actual battles. If ABC doesn't want to show the engineering stuff on air, they should at least strongly encourage some of the well known science and engineering youtubers to come out and do it for them.
Think about it. Would a sane person really want to give up belonging to an association that protects good workers just because it also protects bad workers? Especially if it's your job that's protected, no matter how good or bad you are perceived to be?
Sure, if they think about it for more than 2 seconds and aren't a selfish asshole. In the case of having bad co-workers, that makes the job demoralizing and stressful. And if you're the bad co-worker, you're a horrible human being for inflicting yourself like an impossible to remove parasite on the people who actually get things done.
Sure there are cases when a union has correctly protected a good teacher, but (in my state at least) that's far outweighed by the harm they're causing by not policing their own.
They don't form protective organizations. In fact, they're often anti-union
Wait what? The reason they're anti-union (in california anyway, assuming you can even find anti-union folks here) is because the unions go all out to protect even the bad teachers, to the point of preventing the school districts from firing teachers for some truly outrageous and inappropriate behavior. They'll sometimes even shame the good teachers for making the mediocre ones look bad by contrast. Nothing to do with this Randian stuff you seemingly pulled out of nowhere.
but with the same work ethic and intellectual ability that they require, one could easily make more money in other fields.
Definitely. But then given the choice between a job that's mentally unstimulating but socially demanding vs a job that's mentally stimulating where my co-workers and I are expected to be a bit odd, I'd go with the latter every time, even given significant financial motivation to do otherwise.
I would theorize that while hunter-gatherer societies might be expending the same raw amount of mental effort, they're doing it in such a way that lack of sleep doesn't impair them. Their mental activities are more "bursty", whereas ours as software developers are sustained for much longer periods of time. I'd suspect that the hunter-gatherers can wake up, do the heavy thinking and planning for the next hunt, then operate on autopilot once it's been started. That doesn't quite work for software developing since it often involves sustained that level of mental activity for 8+ hours.
But how many times do you need to launch fuel from the moon to cover the cost of all the launches of fuel generating equipment required to build the infrastructure to build the fuel processing plant?
iirc radio stations used to (and maybe they still do, I haven't kept up with it) have a guy in charge of advertising. One of his main jobs was vetting the things and making sure obnoxious stuff didn't get through. The problem was that if an ad spot was too annoying, people just flip the station and now you've lost a listener for the rest of the commercial break.
The fact that the radio stations were allowed to vet ads basically forced the advertisers to walk a line between annoying and something that the radio stations would actually air. Unfortunately with websites, the owners aren't able to vet ads that go on their sites and so one of the natural limits is removed from the equation.
The same goes for almost everything, I can safely assume that everyone likes cheese but that is not true, but if we put a rating to that it may come up with a 9 out of 10 or maybe more. But that does not mean everybody should buy it and eat it, it just means a lot of people like it, you have to try it for yourself to see if YOU like it.
This is why I find the actual written reviews on IMDB to be vastly more useful than a number. To continue your analogy, if the people who give cheese 9/10 go on to describe why they like it (taste/texture/etc.), someone who hates cheese could skim the reviews and realize "everyone gave cheese 9/10 doesn't mind that their food is literally a giant mass of dead bacteria, this probably isn't a food that I'll like"
Though oddly enough, I find the inverse of the scenario much easier. i.e. 9/10 people say they love cheese and it tastes great but don't give much feedback other than that. However, the one in ten posts a rant about how disgusting it is because it's literally just mold and bacteria. Generally the rants are more honest and on point about what it actually was that made them hate it, meaning I'd read the review from the guy who hates cheese and go "makes sense, but I don't care what it's made of as long as it tastes good so in my case it's worth a try".
To make it more fair, put an "if found" text document in the root of the USB, then some other juicy folders ("passwords", "account information", etc) and set the thing to trigger the pulses only if those folders are accessed. Then you don't nail innocents who were just trying to find the owner of the stick, and the people who you actually are targeting will be more likely to keep the stick plugged in long enough for it to do its damage.
There's an option to turn that off right there in the settings. Even with it not turned off it's not invasive in the sense that it takes up other screen space, since it's a separate closable window that comes up once when steam is launched.
Giant solar sails would dim the light from the star (small object occluding at a distance and all that), and the brightness could actually be a giant laser array constructed to propel the ship faster towards us.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference being that a tether snapping and raining superstrong microscopic diamond fibers 100's of km long in a path across the equator is several orders of magnitude more destructive than a bridge collapsing.
Yep, it's two different things, and I find that the two sources compliment each other quite well.
The internet is great for getting instant answers and examples for specific questions, and that instant gratification is great for keeping me from being frustrated from being hung up on some stupid little thing for hours that the book forgot to mention. It comes with the downsides of learning how to do things but not why they're done (basically copying and modifying as opposed to creating), and feeling like I know more than I actually do (I know there's a term for this but I don't remember what it's called). There's also the loss of experiences gained through struggling with the code for hours at a time. A lot of the things I remember best I remember because I spent all day and all night fighting with it only to find out it was some stupid thing I'd missed somewhere else
On the other hand, books are good for getting a broad overview of the subject. Since it's a lot harder to search a specific question and find the answer distilled down to a sentence and a few lines of sample code, there's generally a lot of reading of things that aren't entirely relevant to my question. Even though said things aren't relevant then, I often encounter them later and think "oh yeah, this is that thing the book was talking about". The downside to books though is that it's a lot harder (compared to following some internet quickstart tutorial) to just dive in and start, and that in turn makes it hard to contextualize and store the information presented in the book.
Thinking back on my education, the best programming classes I took were the ones that combined a lecture and a lab segment. Get the broad overview of the concepts in the lecture and book portions, then get some practical examples that provide a base with which to test the lecture concepts on.
The meaning of trolling has changed now from "pretending to take an inflammatory stance on a subject with the intent of pissing people off" to "offending people".
But you're right in that whichever definition you use, this seems like a bad idea. If the "troll" fits in the traditional definition, they've basically won the game by getting someone so riled up that they took out an entire billboard about it and put their comment in a kind of hall of fame. If they fit the modernized definition and actually believe their own nonsense, they'll probably be happy to see their comments reaching a wider audience.
Best case it might raise awareness in parents in the sense of them seeing it and thinking "that's terrible! I wonder what timmy posts online?" and maybe looking at their kids comment history for once.
Scrum can work if the team actually works together. A 'blocker' can be nothing but a statement of fact - this can't get done until that is in place. It sounds like you've got an organization that worries more about politics and individual success than actually shipping.
Literally anything can work if the team actually works together. The question here is more "does scrum lend itself to fingerpointing and politics in an imperfect team more than comparable methodologies".
I might have misread somewhere, but the impression I got is that one pilot fat fingered a number and just so happened to enter the same number that the other came up with by failure to carry a 1.
iirc the lowest band police radar transmit in is 10ghz, with some of the other bands being as high as 24ghz. The SDR dongles generally have a response frequency of around double digit MHZ to a bit over 2.4 ghz. That's almost an order of magnitude lower than what you'd need to detect a radar gun. From what I know of radar detector detectors, they work based on listening for the detector to emit slight echos whenever its oscillator is oscillated by an incoming beam. As such, I doubt there's any interaction between one of these SDRs and a police radar gun since they're not even communicating in the same frequency ranges.
What is a meaningful attack though?
That's what I wish they would define. An example of a "meaningful" attack might be a flurry of portscans from a single IP address hitting all of their known public IP addresses in sequence in a short timeframe (indicating they were the specific target of the scan). Otherwise they just sound like a software firewall trying to justify its own existence.
That's why I wish they defined what a "cyberattack" is. The fact that there were only 40 of them makes me think that they may have limited the definition to "attacks" that are actually meaningful, but it's all pointless speculation without the details.
If two consenting individuals love each other and want to get married we're supposed to let them with no questions asked, so it stands to reason that if two consenting individuals hate each other and want to slug it out we should allow that too. Right?
Which is why I'd love to see more engineering backstory and less blather about how they'd always wanted to build a robot since they were 5, or how they overcame the fact that they had boobs (as if that's somehow relevant) to design something and enter the competition.
Tested had some decent footage on youtube of the various builders talking about their robots and showing off the internals and design challenges, which I found more interesting than the actual battles. If ABC doesn't want to show the engineering stuff on air, they should at least strongly encourage some of the well known science and engineering youtubers to come out and do it for them.
So no teacher has ever been fired where there are teachers' unions? Really?Should be easy enough to demonstrate.
Holy fuck. Where did I even come close to saying that? Re-read what I wrote and then get back to me if you actually want to have a discussion.
Think about it. Would a sane person really want to give up belonging to an association that protects good workers just because it also protects bad workers? Especially if it's your job that's protected, no matter how good or bad you are perceived to be?
Sure, if they think about it for more than 2 seconds and aren't a selfish asshole. In the case of having bad co-workers, that makes the job demoralizing and stressful. And if you're the bad co-worker, you're a horrible human being for inflicting yourself like an impossible to remove parasite on the people who actually get things done.
Sure there are cases when a union has correctly protected a good teacher, but (in my state at least) that's far outweighed by the harm they're causing by not policing their own.
They don't form protective organizations. In fact, they're often anti-union
Wait what? The reason they're anti-union (in california anyway, assuming you can even find anti-union folks here) is because the unions go all out to protect even the bad teachers, to the point of preventing the school districts from firing teachers for some truly outrageous and inappropriate behavior. They'll sometimes even shame the good teachers for making the mediocre ones look bad by contrast. Nothing to do with this Randian stuff you seemingly pulled out of nowhere.
but with the same work ethic and intellectual ability that they require, one could easily make more money in other fields.
Definitely. But then given the choice between a job that's mentally unstimulating but socially demanding vs a job that's mentally stimulating where my co-workers and I are expected to be a bit odd, I'd go with the latter every time, even given significant financial motivation to do otherwise.
I would theorize that while hunter-gatherer societies might be expending the same raw amount of mental effort, they're doing it in such a way that lack of sleep doesn't impair them. Their mental activities are more "bursty", whereas ours as software developers are sustained for much longer periods of time. I'd suspect that the hunter-gatherers can wake up, do the heavy thinking and planning for the next hunt, then operate on autopilot once it's been started. That doesn't quite work for software developing since it often involves sustained that level of mental activity for 8+ hours.
But how many times do you need to launch fuel from the moon to cover the cost of all the launches of fuel generating equipment required to build the infrastructure to build the fuel processing plant?
iirc radio stations used to (and maybe they still do, I haven't kept up with it) have a guy in charge of advertising. One of his main jobs was vetting the things and making sure obnoxious stuff didn't get through. The problem was that if an ad spot was too annoying, people just flip the station and now you've lost a listener for the rest of the commercial break.
The fact that the radio stations were allowed to vet ads basically forced the advertisers to walk a line between annoying and something that the radio stations would actually air. Unfortunately with websites, the owners aren't able to vet ads that go on their sites and so one of the natural limits is removed from the equation.
Watch the video
Ha! Since when did we start bothering to rtfa or wtfv around here?
The same goes for almost everything, I can safely assume that everyone likes cheese but that is not true, but if we put a rating to that it may come up with a 9 out of 10 or maybe more. But that does not mean everybody should buy it and eat it, it just means a lot of people like it, you have to try it for yourself to see if YOU like it.
This is why I find the actual written reviews on IMDB to be vastly more useful than a number. To continue your analogy, if the people who give cheese 9/10 go on to describe why they like it (taste/texture/etc.), someone who hates cheese could skim the reviews and realize "everyone gave cheese 9/10 doesn't mind that their food is literally a giant mass of dead bacteria, this probably isn't a food that I'll like"
Though oddly enough, I find the inverse of the scenario much easier. i.e. 9/10 people say they love cheese and it tastes great but don't give much feedback other than that. However, the one in ten posts a rant about how disgusting it is because it's literally just mold and bacteria. Generally the rants are more honest and on point about what it actually was that made them hate it, meaning I'd read the review from the guy who hates cheese and go "makes sense, but I don't care what it's made of as long as it tastes good so in my case it's worth a try".
To make it more fair, put an "if found" text document in the root of the USB, then some other juicy folders ("passwords", "account information", etc) and set the thing to trigger the pulses only if those folders are accessed. Then you don't nail innocents who were just trying to find the owner of the stick, and the people who you actually are targeting will be more likely to keep the stick plugged in long enough for it to do its damage.
There's an option to turn that off right there in the settings. Even with it not turned off it's not invasive in the sense that it takes up other screen space, since it's a separate closable window that comes up once when steam is launched.
Wait what? I haven't seen a single product promotion on steam except for when I've looked at the frontpage of the store.
(I was making a reference to one of the best hard sci-fi books ever written)
Besides, Ringworlds are much more efficient.
But ringworlds are unstable!
Giant solar sails would dim the light from the star (small object occluding at a distance and all that), and the brightness could actually be a giant laser array constructed to propel the ship faster towards us.