If you really think you're on a dead track, changing course might be a reasonable idea.. If you do, just make sure you are well-prepared. Check your finances, can you support it? You should make the final decision, though.
In the meanwhile, you can always follow university lectures on youtube, like this one.
Has anyone ever used a PWR to make plutonium for weapons?
If not, then what is all the hassle with Iran's nuclear reactor? I always assumed it was for the inherent plutonium production.. I too stand open for corrections..
You should search for "Thorium fluoride" in the googletechtalks channel on youtube. There are at least two talks covering the subject, it really made me reconsider the nuclear option. In short, nuclear fission plants were *designed* to produce plutonium. It's actually an advantage when you're in a cold war race. But does it need to? Using molten salts, it is possible to let the nuclear reactions happen in a fluid, making really interesting cycles a possibility. And you wouldn't need to mine uranium any more.
1) Make up an unrealistic story. Make sure it is not testable and that it conflicts with common reality (this will help select your target audience: gullible people).. 2) Distance them from reality and non-believers (physically or mentally). 3) Empty their pockets (aka. Profit!)
Everyone, please introspect if you are being conned using the same scheme.
the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
That reminds me, there is an interesting (but two hour long) video that explains the total collapse of intelligent design, and Ken Miller mentions a heated argument on a paleontologist convention where some new skeletons were presented. The discussion was wether they were reptilian-like mammals or mammal-like reptilians.
There's no mention of the price tag anywhere. I think the strategy is to first get people worrying so much that they don't care anymore, and then they'll tell us.
I am aware that this analogy is not perfect (as most analogies are). I could have spent some extra time wondering about how to come up with a better one, or I could just write it down as it is, and hope I wouldn't need too much time afterward defending it to other people. Which way is faster? There is no clear answer to that..
Quote from a PM: You're not paid to think! (seriously)
I would not let that opportunity pass to let him know *exactly* what I *think*. And I would start updating my resume immediately. And use that quote in job interviews to let my future employer know where I stand.
You might be more accepting, but personally, that's one of the few things that can make me angry. I didn't spend all those years in college to just throw away my brain the moment I get out.
Well, IMHO, it's an optimization problem. Suppose you want to place a tile floor in your kitchen. Not being an expert, it goes quite slowly. As things progress, you discover some tricks that make the work progress better and more quickly, and by the end the pace will be faster. Now, do you spend more time at the beginning with experimentation to find these tricks (a.k.a. "tinkering", or "wasting time"), or do you just turn off your brain and work as hard as you can? What will get the work done faster?
There is no clear answer to this, as placing a tile floor is not something you do every day. On the other hand, if you want to make it your profession, you want to learn these tricks as soon as possible, as you will benefit from it every day for the rest of your career. So it all depends on the scale of the project.
Coming back to a software project, if you can isolate some key concepts and abstract & implement them well, these ADT's will give you a great advantage later on. But you will "waste" time dong so early on.
The key to good software is contemplation. You can feel the social pressure at the workplace to be typing all the time, but it's wrong to give in. If they want someone who's banging on his keyboard all the time, let them hire a typist.
I have installed such an rsync backup server at home. I don't see a security risk here: the machine is not running most of the time, and when it does, not a single network service is running on it. Only outgoing ssh connections are made. (Or am I missing something)?
The only risk I'm taking here is that in case of a fire it won't help much, but how many people actually keep off-site backups for home use?
Likewise, when they want to "come down" again, after a brief thrust, it gradually spirals back down to earth.
I read it like this: a short push is followed by a gradual change in orbit. I can only see this as a fundamental lack of understanding of highschool physics, or alternatively as a confused mind unable to speak unambiguously.
I really want to be open minded about this, but at the same time my BS detector is telling me otherwise.
Erm.. Have you even heard about Newtons laws? If you do, could you quickly explain them to me so I can estimate your knowledge of physics? After that, I can explain further, but right now I'm a bit baffled.
With new technologies Big Brother becomes more and more feasible. You can be tracked with your cellphone. What happens when you combine security cameras and face recognition? What if banking becomes all digital and your accounts can be switched off? Data mining of your google search terms? Those are real risks, and slowly we could end up in such a world if we don't watch out..
Slashdot Mirror
So they cannot damage the glass.. Can they damage the dashboard?
Reincarnation has created a special place for the neo-conservatives..
If you really think you're on a dead track, changing course might be a reasonable idea.. If you do, just make sure you are well-prepared. Check your finances, can you support it? You should make the final decision, though.
In the meanwhile, you can always follow university lectures on youtube, like this one.
Has anyone ever used a PWR to make plutonium for weapons?
If not, then what is all the hassle with Iran's nuclear reactor? I always assumed it was for the inherent plutonium production.. I too stand open for corrections..
You should search for "Thorium fluoride" in the googletechtalks channel on youtube. There are at least two talks covering the subject, it really made me reconsider the nuclear option. In short, nuclear fission plants were *designed* to produce plutonium. It's actually an advantage when you're in a cold war race. But does it need to? Using molten salts, it is possible to let the nuclear reactions happen in a fluid, making really interesting cycles a possibility. And you wouldn't need to mine uranium any more.
1) Make up an unrealistic story. Make sure it is not testable and that it conflicts with common reality (this will help select your target audience: gullible people)..
2) Distance them from reality and non-believers (physically or mentally).
3) Empty their pockets (aka. Profit!)
Everyone, please introspect if you are being conned using the same scheme.
the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
That reminds me, there is an interesting (but two hour long) video that explains the total collapse of intelligent design, and Ken Miller mentions a heated argument on a paleontologist convention where some new skeletons were presented. The discussion was wether they were reptilian-like mammals or mammal-like reptilians.
There's no mention of the price tag anywhere. I think the strategy is to first get people worrying so much that they don't care anymore, and then they'll tell us.
I am aware that this analogy is not perfect (as most analogies are). I could have spent some extra time wondering about how to come up with a better one, or I could just write it down as it is, and hope I wouldn't need too much time afterward defending it to other people. Which way is faster? There is no clear answer to that..
Quote from a PM: You're not paid to think! (seriously)
I would not let that opportunity pass to let him know *exactly* what I *think*. And I would start updating my resume immediately. And use that quote in job interviews to let my future employer know where I stand.
You might be more accepting, but personally, that's one of the few things that can make me angry. I didn't spend all those years in college to just throw away my brain the moment I get out.
Well, IMHO, it's an optimization problem. Suppose you want to place a tile floor in your kitchen. Not being an expert, it goes quite slowly. As things progress, you discover some tricks that make the work progress better and more quickly, and by the end the pace will be faster. Now, do you spend more time at the beginning with experimentation to find these tricks (a.k.a. "tinkering", or "wasting time"), or do you just turn off your brain and work as hard as you can? What will get the work done faster?
There is no clear answer to this, as placing a tile floor is not something you do every day. On the other hand, if you want to make it your profession, you want to learn these tricks as soon as possible, as you will benefit from it every day for the rest of your career. So it all depends on the scale of the project.
Coming back to a software project, if you can isolate some key concepts and abstract & implement them well, these ADT's will give you a great advantage later on. But you will "waste" time dong so early on.
Oh, well, not all signs of appreciation are monetary :).
You should seriously consider giving your manager a raise.
There's even a simple proof of that: all bugs come from coding. Therefore, the less time you spend coding, the less bugs you'll produce :-).
The key to good software is contemplation. You can feel the social pressure at the workplace to be typing all the time, but it's wrong to give in. If they want someone who's banging on his keyboard all the time, let them hire a typist.
Note to self: never, ever ask you about your hobbies.
I would go for option 3. That would be mightily cool.
Good luck!
I have installed such an rsync backup server at home. I don't see a security risk here: the machine is not running most of the time, and when it does, not a single network service is running on it. Only outgoing ssh connections are made. (Or am I missing something)?
The only risk I'm taking here is that in case of a fire it won't help much, but how many people actually keep off-site backups for home use?
Nobody said anything about "spiral orbits".
Really? Then how do you interpret this:
Likewise, when they want to "come down" again, after a brief thrust, it gradually spirals back down to earth.
I read it like this: a short push is followed by a gradual change in orbit. I can only see this as a fundamental lack of understanding of highschool physics, or alternatively as a confused mind unable to speak unambiguously.
I really want to be open minded about this, but at the same time my BS detector is telling me otherwise.
Thanks for the info, that system sure sounds like an Orwellian wet dream..
Erm.. Have you even heard about Newtons laws? If you do, could you quickly explain them to me so I can estimate your knowledge of physics? After that, I can explain further, but right now I'm a bit baffled.
"and we want to bring the Thief 4 franchise to a new level, so the challenges are huge!"
Stop quacking and start talking!
What's PROMIS?
With new technologies Big Brother becomes more and more feasible. You can be tracked with your cellphone. What happens when you combine security cameras and face recognition? What if banking becomes all digital and your accounts can be switched off? Data mining of your google search terms? Those are real risks, and slowly we could end up in such a world if we don't watch out..
So when/if I find such a device on my car it belongs to me doesn't it?
If you do, please send it to hackaday. I'm sure they'll be interested. And I would love to see how advanced/hackable they are.
Another fun thing you could do is send it off with a weather balloon.