So if it actually separates the oxygen what about the hydrogen? That's fuel.
If this is real it's more than just a breathing device, it's a low cost way to separate water into 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom. That is a much more significant breakthrough... then again that's a big IF.
Evidence please.
Not only that, you could burn the oxygen and hydrogen and get pure water AND energy out of it.
Somehow I think that whatever this thing is doing, it's not doing what they think it is doing.
Okay, I didn't see this post before my mocking response about anti-seat-belt arguments.
I am very skeptical of meta-studies that claim helmets increase injury rates (in fact, I'm somewhat skeptical of meta-studies in general -- they smack of running the results repeatedly through the blender until you get the consistency you want). But I haven't done extensive homework, so I can't actually dismiss what you say.
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cycling. You're assuming that uneducated and unreasonable attitudes about helmets can't be changed. They were changed for safety belts, and (to a large degree) for cigarettes; why not for helmets?
They may increase the injury rate by pulling people from the "dead" rate.
Helmets do indeed work for low impact low energy type events.
"Helmets don't reduce injuries" may be a more complicated issue.
People who are now injured by a particular impact, used to die, sometimes dead right there. And people who used to have brain injury and a life of drooling in a home somewhere, are now "not injured" or just scraped and bruised and get back up, continue, and buy another helmet. The "degree of injury" brackets shifted over one slot on a whole bunch of types of impact severity.
Similar effects can be seen with safety features on cars where drivers act more recklessly when they perceive their cars as more 'iron clad'. We've all seen that, the invincible Suzi McSoccermom barreling down the highway on her phone because she drives a Tahoe with lifted suspension and a brush guard on it to the grocery store and tanning place.
The fact the bicycle crash brain injury numbers didn't go down doesn't conclusively demonstrate helmets aren't helping.
The upside to giving him clemency is it's the first step in preserving the government of the United States.
When citizens begin to kill government officials over this stuff, the government want to show they "are sorry" and "won't do it again" by "making things right."
So basically the more pissed off people are, the more Snowden has a chance of a normal life again. (This FUD article certainly helped him, I just now went from wanting to slap people silly to wanting to hit them with a nice, sharp ax. Or , maybe go aftrica on them and use a machete. What a bunch of lies and what-ifs this article is. "we don't have any evidence he gave secrets to china so he must have!")
Clemency will be a political move by one of the American parties thinking they can get more power. Which party it is, will depend on where stuff falls out, and when stuff falls out. Whichever party that is less influential at the time will push for clemency.
No matter what happens, Snoweden is now just a pawn in a bigger game. The problem is, one can WIN the game based on what one does with the pawns.
I think at this point the burden is on you to read: "we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA’s products, or introducing potential ‘backdoors’ into our products for anyone’s use."
That seems pretty definitive to me.
Ah. The old "we didn't MEAN to do it" defense.
Works for any four year old.
Next up, "my baby din do nuffin!" defense. (Despite overwhelming evidence indicating they DID do it.)
I don't trust the article for one. I'm as paranoid as everyone else around here, but I don't think the NSA cooperated with RSA to put in a backdoor here, no matter how much Saint Snowden claims. If they NSA had such a backdoor it would be an extremely well kept secret and not left around where any low level junior contractor like Snowden would stumble across it.
Go back and re-read how Snowden got to the position he did.
The "Darnbob" version for you folks that won't bother to learn anything: Snowden was a network admin / security guy. Therefore had access to lots of stuff as his job was about the security of those things not about those things.
Seems like FB's friend/non-friend division is not a good model of real life relationships! Wow! Surprise, surprise. Makes me wonder what Google did wrong with G+ to get so little popularity - the categorization of friends into separate groups and selective per-group availability of your content seemed to be among the initial assumptions (based on press releases from long time ago, I have no idea whether it works as advertised). That seems to be the right solution. Something else must have been very wrong... Without an account on either service I can't risk a guess.
Google forces users to use real names.
Google tries to TRICK you into adding real information.
Then when you do, locks it up with all your other Google type service accounts; youtube. gmail, etc.
And follows it up by taking away a bunch of tools IN those service accounts.
In return for this, you get more ads related to what they think you will buy.
It's truly insidious and very likely to poison the opinion of google in any half-aware tech person.
Meanwhile, google makes it easy for the nigh-facist government to scoop up all the data. (Which, might not bother you now, but could when a different congress and a different president get in control who later decide you shouldn't be allowed to be free of IRS audits due to your beliefs on drug use.)
That's just what I picked up by reading here and other places about google+. I am never going to use it, and I instruct anybody who asks never to use it.
I wasn't going to comment until I had looked things over. But, yeah, all there is to see, is that poorly packaged humongous frigging zip file. I guess you have to download the whole damned thing, then decide if there is anything that you really want. FFS, I haven't seen anything quite so stupid in a long time.
Be patient.
They probably want to get it all out fast. By releasing it like this people will re-seed it. Had they sorted through all of it, created all the torrent seeds for it, we'd be waiting another month.
Plus, it's a lot harder to stop once the whole thing is out and about. Some of those vendors _are_ going to have a problem with this even though they have no interest in monetizing the things themselves, they'll get instantly jealous and go after them.
If you absolutely need re-packaged versions, just wait a while. Someone else will do the work for you and convenient little theme-based sections or company based sections will be released during the time you spend whining about it.
If that is true then how is it that I have 12 different fake google plus accounts with names nobody calls their children and am still able to comment wherever I want.
I'd say it's still anonymous. I've never used my real name online, not once and never will.
They haven't been flagged yet. Sooner or later someone will get around to telling Google they are fake accounts and they'll be removed.
I assume the communist state of germany will have all kinds of laws against outright firing everybody. But, being replaced by a robot is probably not protected.
Good luck idiots! Ya'll should have gotten a job at McDonalds or Wal-Mart (Or as you guys call it, "Aldi")
It is anti-bacterial. It just isn't done with antibiotics. And there isn't a resistance. Not that would be a hideous situation.
Plenty of organisms develop resistances to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, and other things we use.
I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance. Your typical seed is resistant to harsh stomach acids. Mold spores resist the hell out of crap. And water bears are on a whole other level.
You could pick just about any bacteria or virus you want and breed in resistance to ethanol, chlorine, fire, whatever. Whether or not the resulting generation of bacteria or virus does the same thing afterward is a separate issue.
That "separate issue" is the only important part. The truth is, bleach, alcohol, and a variety of other stuff that renders the life form deaded work Those things have not yet, or rarely have had a resistance develop that both allows the organism to carry on, but also live in the environment.
It simply hasn't happened. So those tools continue to work. Because they might not work due to as of yet not described mechanism the organisms might magically create isn't a good reason not to use them.
There is now a.308 (a rifle cartridge) in test markets that's a polymer case, metal primer, powder and metal bullet.
They are trying to find ways to contain the heat a bit longer, long enough to get it out of the breech on a bolt gun.
The purpose of that is to keep the rifle barrel at a lower and more stable temp longer with sustained fire, making snipers more effective because a warmer barrel puts the bullet in a different place.
It will not be long before the case and possibly the primer will be plastic. Leaving only the projectile as the last step.
If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian.
Homicides are not a good measure of defensive actions. Defensive homicides are what happens when the criminal does not back off when warned, is too violent too fast for a threat backed by a gun to work, etc. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are simply displays. Like the guy up thread with the gun on his lap. The criminals were there, and may have been working themselves up to act, but left because of the gun.
Your assertion that a gun has to kill to do it's job is both myopic and factually incorrect. Heck, often a simple display indicating this victim will not go down as easy as they thought is enough to prevent the crime.
Why would you need to LIE to support your position unless your position was wrong? You sir, are a LIAR.
Again, crappy culture.
The benefit of a socialism like Iceland is that people from problematic groups are brought into a situation where it is easy and beneficial for them to grow up and become productive members of society.
There is the concept of being able to move from a lower economic class into a higher one by hard work. Some call it the American dream.
The ironic thing is that the U.S. have one of the most rigid class structures in the west. The movement from one class to another is rarer than in most other nations. If you want to actually live that dream you are better off living in Iceland or Norway or some other nation that doesn't treat you like a criminal just because you are poor.
It might be noteworthy that Iceland didn't import slaves by the boatload and create an antagonistic racial divide, where today the descendants of the slaves see accepting "white man's culture" -- getting educated, holding a job, raising kids in a two-parent home -- as becoming an Uncle Tom and betraying your kin.
They also don't have a president creating an antagonistic racial divide by sticking his nose in an ordinary self-defense case.
Sorry. That is illegal. You cannot transfer a gun without a serial number.
Wrong. It's illegal to manufacture them for sale without serial numbers. Likewise, there are lots of circumstances where transfers can legally occur without concern for the serial number at all. (Face to face, within the state, for example.)
And, one can put a serial number on a gun one builds from say, a shovel.
In any case, building with intention for personal use, then giving away or selling is perfectly legal, unless you are in one of the retard states.
You are asking the wrong question. When you know what "grandma" is, then the question of "when is it not 'grandma' ?" becomes quite obvious. You'll never get to the answer if you keep asking the wrong questions.
Document your correspondences to your boss when you notify vital security issues. Make sure your e-mails are not only backed-up, but you get read receipts or something showing your boss opened the e-mail (and might have read it). Keep those receipts archived. When poop hits the fan, at least, you are protected.
Yes, this is obvious. Then print out the replies to the emails, take them home and make more copies.
Look for another job maybe, depends on what other aspects of the job you like / dislike.
Last time I checked, COPPA doesn't throw anybody in jail, and would fine the company, not the employees.
I might keep a journal at home about the events (on paper) that you can go back to and use to recall how things went.
Then, when the mommy brigade shows up to lynch the company and the feds get involved, throw your boss under the bus with gusto.
I might try mentioning to the higher ups that there are problems like this ONCE but don't be a pest about it. Chances are they know already an also don't care.
just label 4 of the guys as part of the factory production team. that's what they are.
Yeah, this is the problem.
Programmers, while from a layman's point of view are "IT", they are not helping to complete to the IT work load. They may help build the business processes, but they aren't pulling cables or tracking down DNS issues. So as far as what they do in IT, it's "zero".
Submitter's description outlines ONE "IT person" in the organization. (him / her)
I would approach this with a two step process; first, get a ticketing system and get all desktop support on it. That will let you show the programmers don't do shit for it, and what the work load is.
THAT sets you up to add other tasks the programmers, the manager, and the subby do on the ticketing, and when the workload is high, just say "sorry, can't do that doing this" and it's all documented.
Then you just do what is important, mark off your hours of the day, and go home. When the shit stays broken and people get pissed about it, they go "why?" and they will see the answer is "not enough people for this." If it's YOUR idea, they won't do it. If it's THEIR idea, they will.
I assume the subby doesn't want to be the person to do the desktop support. So from there, you hire a local goon for a day / evening per week, or a local firm, or some place in India, or whatever. THEY work on the ticket backlog of desktop issues.
Also, you may find that when people have to articulate what is wrong, their problems suddenly go away. People who get help with computers are VERY VERY LAZY and will not learn something. Suddenly rebooting the computer will seem worthwhile compared to (ugh!) writing clear English. Lastly, you can find out which few people are causing the most problems and have evidence to get them to change their ways (or at least stop screwing up their computers). You know, that one guy that always gets the virus of the day (always the same guy, always "i don't know what happened!"), and that one person who's keyboard, monitor, mouse, or whatever needs replacing just because (as a status symbol).
" ... the wings of the cicada Psaltoda claripennis could shred certain types of rod-shaped bacteria... "
" ... the wings of the Diplacodes bipunctata or Wandering Percher dragonfly were even more deadly, killing both rod-shaped and spherical bacteria... "
I am very curious.
Since the structures on the WINGS of the insects, do they have some yet-to-be-discovered aero-dynamic functionality, apart from their ability to shred bacteria ?
My first thought was "I wonder how the structure changes the reflection of sound?"
Maybe the wings are deadened for sound in defense against bats. (Which would create massive selective pressure, bats are extremely efficient predators of insects.)
I could understand how even the smallest bacterial infection on an insect wing could compromise it's owner, but it seems like those structures would be everywhere, because a bacterial infection ANYWHERE can compromise it's owner. So why wouldn't the same structures be everywhere on a creature capable of growing them?
Slashdot Mirror
Too good to be true.
So if it actually separates the oxygen what about the hydrogen? That's fuel.
If this is real it's more than just a breathing device, it's a low cost way to separate water into 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom. That is a much more significant breakthrough... then again that's a big IF.
Evidence please.
Not only that, you could burn the oxygen and hydrogen and get pure water AND energy out of it.
Somehow I think that whatever this thing is doing, it's not doing what they think it is doing.
Okay, I didn't see this post before my mocking response about anti-seat-belt arguments.
I am very skeptical of meta-studies that claim helmets increase injury rates (in fact, I'm somewhat skeptical of meta-studies in general -- they smack of running the results repeatedly through the blender until you get the consistency you want). But I haven't done extensive homework, so I can't actually dismiss what you say.
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cycling. You're assuming that uneducated and unreasonable attitudes about helmets can't be changed. They were changed for safety belts, and (to a large degree) for cigarettes; why not for helmets?
They may increase the injury rate by pulling people from the "dead" rate.
Helmets do indeed work for low impact low energy type events.
"Helmets don't reduce injuries" may be a more complicated issue.
People who are now injured by a particular impact, used to die, sometimes dead right there. And people who used to have brain injury and a life of drooling in a home somewhere, are now "not injured" or just scraped and bruised and get back up, continue, and buy another helmet. The "degree of injury" brackets shifted over one slot on a whole bunch of types of impact severity.
Similar effects can be seen with safety features on cars where drivers act more recklessly when they perceive their cars as more 'iron clad'. We've all seen that, the invincible Suzi McSoccermom barreling down the highway on her phone because she drives a Tahoe with lifted suspension and a brush guard on it to the grocery store and tanning place.
The fact the bicycle crash brain injury numbers didn't go down doesn't conclusively demonstrate helmets aren't helping.
People don't know what "correlation" and "causation" mean in the first place.
Let alone used together.
We will be said to have dined primarily on high fructose corn syrup.
Somehow I think there's going to be some big holes in what they actually do "know" about what those folks ate.
Yeah, like a search engine that produces porn pics, no matter what search term you enter.
The "Rule 34" Option.
The upside to giving him clemency is it's the first step in preserving the government of the United States.
When citizens begin to kill government officials over this stuff, the government want to show they "are sorry" and "won't do it again" by "making things right."
So basically the more pissed off people are, the more Snowden has a chance of a normal life again. (This FUD article certainly helped him, I just now went from wanting to slap people silly to wanting to hit them with a nice, sharp ax. Or , maybe go aftrica on them and use a machete. What a bunch of lies and what-ifs this article is. "we don't have any evidence he gave secrets to china so he must have!")
Clemency will be a political move by one of the American parties thinking they can get more power. Which party it is, will depend on where stuff falls out, and when stuff falls out. Whichever party that is less influential at the time will push for clemency.
No matter what happens, Snoweden is now just a pawn in a bigger game. The problem is, one can WIN the game based on what one does with the pawns.
I think at this point the burden is on you to read: "we also categorically state that we have never entered into any contract or engaged in any project with the intention of weakening RSA’s products, or introducing potential ‘backdoors’ into our products for anyone’s use."
That seems pretty definitive to me.
Ah. The old "we didn't MEAN to do it" defense.
Works for any four year old.
Next up, "my baby din do nuffin!" defense. (Despite overwhelming evidence indicating they DID do it.)
I don't trust the article for one. I'm as paranoid as everyone else around here, but I don't think the NSA cooperated with RSA to put in a backdoor here, no matter how much Saint Snowden claims. If they NSA had such a backdoor it would be an extremely well kept secret and not left around where any low level junior contractor like Snowden would stumble across it.
Go back and re-read how Snowden got to the position he did.
The "Darnbob" version for you folks that won't bother to learn anything: Snowden was a network admin / security guy. Therefore had access to lots of stuff as his job was about the security of those things not about those things.
Seems like FB's friend/non-friend division is not a good model of real life relationships! Wow! Surprise, surprise. Makes me wonder what Google did wrong with G+ to get so little popularity - the categorization of friends into separate groups and selective per-group availability of your content seemed to be among the initial assumptions (based on press releases from long time ago, I have no idea whether it works as advertised). That seems to be the right solution. Something else must have been very wrong... Without an account on either service I can't risk a guess.
Google forces users to use real names.
Google tries to TRICK you into adding real information.
Then when you do, locks it up with all your other Google type service accounts; youtube. gmail, etc.
And follows it up by taking away a bunch of tools IN those service accounts.
In return for this, you get more ads related to what they think you will buy.
It's truly insidious and very likely to poison the opinion of google in any half-aware tech person.
Meanwhile, google makes it easy for the nigh-facist government to scoop up all the data. (Which, might not bother you now, but could when a different congress and a different president get in control who later decide you shouldn't be allowed to be free of IRS audits due to your beliefs on drug use.)
That's just what I picked up by reading here and other places about google+. I am never going to use it, and I instruct anybody who asks never to use it.
I wasn't going to comment until I had looked things over. But, yeah, all there is to see, is that poorly packaged humongous frigging zip file. I guess you have to download the whole damned thing, then decide if there is anything that you really want. FFS, I haven't seen anything quite so stupid in a long time.
Be patient.
They probably want to get it all out fast. By releasing it like this people will re-seed it. Had they sorted through all of it, created all the torrent seeds for it, we'd be waiting another month.
Plus, it's a lot harder to stop once the whole thing is out and about. Some of those vendors _are_ going to have a problem with this even though they have no interest in monetizing the things themselves, they'll get instantly jealous and go after them.
If you absolutely need re-packaged versions, just wait a while. Someone else will do the work for you and convenient little theme-based sections or company based sections will be released during the time you spend whining about it.
If that is true then how is it that I have 12 different fake google plus accounts with names nobody calls their children and am still able to comment wherever I want. I'd say it's still anonymous. I've never used my real name online, not once and never will.
They haven't been flagged yet. Sooner or later someone will get around to telling Google they are fake accounts and they'll be removed.
What bloody good is 12 fake Google+ accounts?
This will just hasten the coming of the robots.
I assume the communist state of germany will have all kinds of laws against outright firing everybody. But, being replaced by a robot is probably not protected.
Good luck idiots! Ya'll should have gotten a job at McDonalds or Wal-Mart (Or as you guys call it, "Aldi")
It is anti-bacterial. It just isn't done with antibiotics. And there isn't a resistance. Not that would be a hideous situation.
Plenty of organisms develop resistances to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, and other things we use. I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance. Your typical seed is resistant to harsh stomach acids. Mold spores resist the hell out of crap. And water bears are on a whole other level. You could pick just about any bacteria or virus you want and breed in resistance to ethanol, chlorine, fire, whatever. Whether or not the resulting generation of bacteria or virus does the same thing afterward is a separate issue.
That "separate issue" is the only important part. The truth is, bleach, alcohol, and a variety of other stuff that renders the life form deaded work Those things have not yet, or rarely have had a resistance develop that both allows the organism to carry on, but also live in the environment.
It simply hasn't happened. So those tools continue to work. Because they might not work due to as of yet not described mechanism the organisms might magically create isn't a good reason not to use them.
But then again, I have China shut off.
There is now a .308 (a rifle cartridge) in test markets that's a polymer case, metal primer, powder and metal bullet.
They are trying to find ways to contain the heat a bit longer, long enough to get it out of the breech on a bolt gun.
The purpose of that is to keep the rifle barrel at a lower and more stable temp longer with sustained fire, making snipers more effective because a warmer barrel puts the bullet in a different place.
It will not be long before the case and possibly the primer will be plastic. Leaving only the projectile as the last step.
Sigh.
No. It is not illegal to sell a gun that you made yourself.
It is illegal to make a gun with the intention of selling it, and then sell it.
If you make it, decide you want a different grip shape, sell the gun, and use the money to buy more raw materials. Totally legal.
If you are going to participate in gun control discussion, get the basic facts correct.
You may be wrong yourself. If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian. The USA has a much higher gun death rate than other developed countries, and when you look within the USA itself, you find that Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide., or put simply more guns, more crime. All of the above citations go to original or academic sources. So what could be going on? Well, firstly, the NRA attempts to stop scientists from studying gun violence. (In a similar vein, the junk-food industry tries to limit the study of the health effects of sugar.) Secondly, the NRA keeps its own datasets to do it's own "research" to reach its own conclusions, which (call me crazy), keeps the donors happy. Those would be the gun manufacturers. Most large industries do this. I'm open minded on the issue, and follow it because I have an academic interest in cognitive bubbles. If you are interested learning a different perspective on the issue, then read this. You don't have to believe a word of it; however, if you *can* read it, and accurately repeat back the arguments made, then that would indicate enough cognitive flexibility to really be informed about the issue, and be an expert. Ideologues do not have this flexibility, but want to maintain the self-concept of being an expert, which explains most of what is wrong with politics.
You are a liar. Here, let me quote:
If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian.
Homicides are not a good measure of defensive actions. Defensive homicides are what happens when the criminal does not back off when warned, is too violent too fast for a threat backed by a gun to work, etc. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are simply displays. Like the guy up thread with the gun on his lap. The criminals were there, and may have been working themselves up to act, but left because of the gun.
Your assertion that a gun has to kill to do it's job is both myopic and factually incorrect. Heck, often a simple display indicating this victim will not go down as easy as they thought is enough to prevent the crime.
Why would you need to LIE to support your position unless your position was wrong? You sir, are a LIAR.
How many Black "youth" live in Iceland? Exactly.
Again, crappy culture. The benefit of a socialism like Iceland is that people from problematic groups are brought into a situation where it is easy and beneficial for them to grow up and become productive members of society. There is the concept of being able to move from a lower economic class into a higher one by hard work. Some call it the American dream. The ironic thing is that the U.S. have one of the most rigid class structures in the west. The movement from one class to another is rarer than in most other nations. If you want to actually live that dream you are better off living in Iceland or Norway or some other nation that doesn't treat you like a criminal just because you are poor.
It might be noteworthy that Iceland didn't import slaves by the boatload and create an antagonistic racial divide, where today the descendants of the slaves see accepting "white man's culture" -- getting educated, holding a job, raising kids in a two-parent home -- as becoming an Uncle Tom and betraying your kin.
They also don't have a president creating an antagonistic racial divide by sticking his nose in an ordinary self-defense case.
Here is an in-depth analysis of this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743
Sorry. That is illegal. You cannot transfer a gun without a serial number.
Wrong. It's illegal to manufacture them for sale without serial numbers. Likewise, there are lots of circumstances where transfers can legally occur without concern for the serial number at all. (Face to face, within the state, for example.)
And, one can put a serial number on a gun one builds from say, a shovel.
In any case, building with intention for personal use, then giving away or selling is perfectly legal, unless you are in one of the retard states.
So, when is Grandma no longer Grandma?"
Define "grandma"
You are asking the wrong question. When you know what "grandma" is, then the question of "when is it not 'grandma' ?" becomes quite obvious. You'll never get to the answer if you keep asking the wrong questions.
If you are a philosopher, you are a poor one.
Document your correspondences to your boss when you notify vital security issues. Make sure your e-mails are not only backed-up, but you get read receipts or something showing your boss opened the e-mail (and might have read it). Keep those receipts archived. When poop hits the fan, at least, you are protected.
Yes, this is obvious. Then print out the replies to the emails, take them home and make more copies.
Look for another job maybe, depends on what other aspects of the job you like / dislike.
Last time I checked, COPPA doesn't throw anybody in jail, and would fine the company, not the employees.
I might keep a journal at home about the events (on paper) that you can go back to and use to recall how things went.
Then, when the mommy brigade shows up to lynch the company and the feds get involved, throw your boss under the bus with gusto.
I might try mentioning to the higher ups that there are problems like this ONCE but don't be a pest about it. Chances are they know already an also don't care.
no.
just label 4 of the guys as part of the factory production team. that's what they are.
Yeah, this is the problem.
Programmers, while from a layman's point of view are "IT", they are not helping to complete to the IT work load. They may help build the business processes, but they aren't pulling cables or tracking down DNS issues. So as far as what they do in IT, it's "zero".
Submitter's description outlines ONE "IT person" in the organization. (him / her)
I would approach this with a two step process; first, get a ticketing system and get all desktop support on it. That will let you show the programmers don't do shit for it, and what the work load is.
THAT sets you up to add other tasks the programmers, the manager, and the subby do on the ticketing, and when the workload is high, just say "sorry, can't do that doing this" and it's all documented.
Then you just do what is important, mark off your hours of the day, and go home. When the shit stays broken and people get pissed about it, they go "why?" and they will see the answer is "not enough people for this." If it's YOUR idea, they won't do it. If it's THEIR idea, they will.
I assume the subby doesn't want to be the person to do the desktop support. So from there, you hire a local goon for a day / evening per week, or a local firm, or some place in India, or whatever. THEY work on the ticket backlog of desktop issues.
Also, you may find that when people have to articulate what is wrong, their problems suddenly go away. People who get help with computers are VERY VERY LAZY and will not learn something. Suddenly rebooting the computer will seem worthwhile compared to (ugh!) writing clear English. Lastly, you can find out which few people are causing the most problems and have evidence to get them to change their ways (or at least stop screwing up their computers). You know, that one guy that always gets the virus of the day (always the same guy, always "i don't know what happened!"), and that one person who's keyboard, monitor, mouse, or whatever needs replacing just because (as a status symbol).
From the TFA:
" ... the wings of the cicada Psaltoda claripennis could shred certain types of rod-shaped bacteria ... "
" ... the wings of the Diplacodes bipunctata or Wandering Percher dragonfly were even more deadly, killing both rod-shaped and spherical bacteria ... "
I am very curious.
Since the structures on the WINGS of the insects, do they have some yet-to-be-discovered aero-dynamic functionality, apart from their ability to shred bacteria ?
My first thought was "I wonder how the structure changes the reflection of sound?"
Maybe the wings are deadened for sound in defense against bats. (Which would create massive selective pressure, bats are extremely efficient predators of insects.)
I could understand how even the smallest bacterial infection on an insect wing could compromise it's owner, but it seems like those structures would be everywhere, because a bacterial infection ANYWHERE can compromise it's owner. So why wouldn't the same structures be everywhere on a creature capable of growing them?