"Ultra low power" but also ultra short distances. I agree with you that power lines are a non-issue, but those would create a less powerful field on your brain than a tiny transmitter inside your ear/skull. See inverse square law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I could not conclude these earbuds are harmful, but since the health effects of mobile phones continue to be researched by experts, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. I guess bluetooth is probably much stronger though.
I think the radio stations that have been pumping out megawatts for over a century kinda trump a couple of milliwatts over less than half a meter.
To play devil's advocate, not saying either is harmful, but your comparison is flawed.
Familiar with the inverse square law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source."
Regarding an electromagnetic field, its strength is affected linearly by source power and squarely by distance. So weaker but closer sources of power create much stronger fields.
"One reason scientists disagree is because the mechanisms by which the radiations from mobile phones could cause cancer are not yet understood. However, waiting for that knowledge could take decades: the biological mechanisms connecting tobacco smoke and cancer are still not fully understood, some 60 years after the first published studies linked smoking and lung cancer."
I would no more support your apparent complacency than [my alleged] paranoia. But to clarify the record, raising discussion about a point on which experts are divided does not strike me as remotely paranoid.
Care to show any credible studies that show this to be a problem?
By "this" I assume we are both referring to near-field RF radiation. According to credible sources, there is insufficient evidence currently to state that it either is or is not a problem, but one consensus of experts agree that mobile phone radiation is worthy of further exploration as a possible risk:
"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a global authority on cancer, recently concluded that radiation from mobile phones is a ‘possible’ head cancer risk. However, scientific opinion is split on the issue – many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence." -- http://www.eea.europa.eu/highl...
In Europe they have proposed regulations to reduce exposure of children to mobile phone and wifi radiation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So, yes, there are credible experts who don't share your complacent surety. Personally, I am neither convinced one way or the other and adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
But if we grant that it is a possible issue, then we must consider that these earbud things are "ultra low power," but seeing as electromagnetic field strength increases in an inverse proportion to the square of a decrease in the separation distance, putting a transmitter INSIDE your skull makes an orders of magnitude strength difference over even the few millimeters of additional separation present by holding a phone against your ear.
As I said, I avoid paranoia, but I've lived long enough to see lots of "safe" things turn out to be absolutely not safe (like BPA) or at least called into question (like saccharin).
So I raise it as a possible consideration here, but I am absolutely not saying it is a problem; run for the hills!
If we lose the night sky "we lose something precious and sacred."
Of course it would suck to lose seeing the night sky! But so would losing all of our land mass or billions of people or worldwide famine and war because humans have fucked up the global climate. Sooo, if we can't get our shit together and do something to prevent it, tough shit. There are tough decisions to be made. Sometimes you gotta break eggs to make an omelet.
Open call to doxx the judge? Anonymous, are you listening? And then if the gov't catches the hackers, they can just say, hey there was no harm!!! He said so himself!
As someone who trained people on my team in the video game industry in how to use Perforce who were already familiar with version control concepts, I would reiterate that I don't see any of the above as viable solutions for this bloke. It's exactly the point that all of these tools are going to require non-trivial training, and do you think this guy is going to be able to tell his wife... "Hey! I asked Slashdot, and they recommended Perforce (or git or SVN or CVS or VCS or PVCS or whatever!), so just teach that to your colleagues and you're all set!"
No. What they can perhaps nominally hope for is to get everyone to switch to Google Docs which does version control and concurrent editing and merging without you asking. Heck even the built-in MS Office does versioning, but again, that is going to require team training and buy-in. Meh
To reiterate, I like Perforce a lot and found the reward for spending the time to understand its core concepts worthwhile, but its learning curve is steeper than other tools out there. And if git ever got decent GUI tools, it would beat its pants off.
Ooops. I misread the OP and thought he mentioned teachers. Anyway, I think the idea applies the same to business users. A technical tool is going to only really work well for technical staff. There are tools like Google Docs that offer versioning built-in without thinking about it. Even MS Office has it available too. But in any scenario, user training is going to be needed to make people understand these features and how to use them. In that case, even something as simple as a naming convention that uses the author's initials and a timestamp would work perfectly well and maybe even better since it's "low tech."
LOL. I was going to say Perforce too. But as a joke! I'm sure these teachers will love the process for creating "changesets" before they can check in any documents. Perforce is awesome, but not really for laymen.
The OP said he has been a web developer for over 3 years and "delivered reliable web applications." For the purposes of his question, I take him at his word. He didn't say he has been working as an engineer, and now is trying to be a web developer, so I don't see how your scenario or its reversal is relevant.
Now, if he is full of B.S. and doesn't have the skills he tells us he has, then that is a different story; his problem is he is overselling himself and the interviewers are seeing right through it.
As previously discussed, it is essential that you know how to send any type of document securely to your manager.:-P
No, but seriously, I agree with you (and I conduct interviews and hiring) that meta-skills (the abililty to learn, to problem solve, to communicate, to function on a team, and being passionate and driven) are more important than acronyms. Such jobs are out there. I'm surprised all of your interviews have only grilled you on domain specifics. That should be a portion of the interview, but only a portion. And more to assess your overall skills match with the job, which will never be 100%.
many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters “know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn’t be commenting on it.” The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility.
Obviously, no Slashdot reader would fall victim to this mistake!!! NOT because they are more Internet-savvy, but because they have been cured of any tendency to assume commenters know anything about the subject! Ha ha
SQL injection. Cross site scripting. Unpatched system vulnerabilities. Weak passwords. Poodle attacks. Session hijacking. All these things routinely compromise websites, and none involve public/private key encryption. (Maybe poodle attacks could be construed as related a bit, but not directly.) I agree, it's shocking that a developer wouldn't know anything about it. But I wouldn't call it a litmus test for being an idiot, and I would take a web dev who knew about the above and not PGP over the inverse any day.
There is a segment of the market that will buy by price--but most of the market that shifted to Uber did it because service quality is better.
I'm assuming neither of us has done a proper customer market research survey to probe this (I haven't, but hopefully Uber has), but anecdotally, among the many people I know using Uber, the only reason I hear people cite for why they use it over taxis is price.
I'm not saying a developer shouldn't likely know at least something generally about public key cryptography, but the skillset of building a secure website is VERY different from that of using GPG to send a secure email to this guy doing the interview. Does the job posting specify a need for cryptography expertise specifically? There is a vast array of technical knowledge out there and you can jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none types or specialists in one or a few areas, but not all. To therefore say that these developers are "bad at what they do" smells strongly of a frustrated, non-tech-savvy interviewer/manager who doesn't understand why he can't hire someone today to build him a perfect website that will be ready next week.
Seems like Seoul has missed the point. I don't think Uber is upending taxis worldwide because they are luxury! It's because they are cheaaaap!
How will a luxury taxi service in Seoul affect the traction that a car-sharing service could gain by undercutting standard, economy taxi pricing? (Except that apparently they have banned them from operating. That sounds like an effective obstacle.)
You'd think Berkeley would have the best recycling in the world...
They do, for needles.;-)
But regarding the OP, these "smartest regions on earth" are full of people who think they're smarter than everyone else and therefore that they know better. As John Stewart put, "This is Marin County! They're not rednecks. They're not ignorant. They practice a mindful stupidity."
Slashdot Mirror
"Ultra low power" but also ultra short distances.
I agree with you that power lines are a non-issue, but those would create a less powerful field on your brain than a tiny transmitter inside your ear/skull. See inverse square law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I could not conclude these earbuds are harmful, but since the health effects of mobile phones continue to be researched by experts, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. I guess bluetooth is probably much stronger though.
I think the radio stations that have been pumping out megawatts for over a century kinda trump a couple of milliwatts over less than half a meter.
To play devil's advocate, not saying either is harmful, but your comparison is flawed.
Familiar with the inverse square law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source."
Regarding an electromagnetic field, its strength is affected linearly by source power and squarely by distance. So weaker but closer sources of power create much stronger fields.
This isn't really the right website to start talking about 'harmful' rf radiation without any sort of proof.
Proof exists only in mathematics. Science relies on evidence.
The limited evidence so far produced has left experts divided:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highl...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
"One reason scientists disagree is because the mechanisms by which the radiations from mobile phones could cause cancer are not yet understood. However, waiting for that knowledge could take decades: the biological mechanisms connecting tobacco smoke and cancer are still not fully understood, some 60 years after the first published studies linked smoking and lung cancer."
I would no more support your apparent complacency than [my alleged] paranoia. But to clarify the record, raising discussion about a point on which experts are divided does not strike me as remotely paranoid.
Care to show any credible studies that show this to be a problem?
By "this" I assume we are both referring to near-field RF radiation. According to credible sources, there is insufficient evidence currently to state that it either is or is not a problem, but one consensus of experts agree that mobile phone radiation is worthy of further exploration as a possible risk:
"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a global authority on cancer, recently concluded that radiation from mobile phones is a ‘possible’ head cancer risk. However, scientific opinion is split on the issue – many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence." -- http://www.eea.europa.eu/highl...
In Europe they have proposed regulations to reduce exposure of children to mobile phone and wifi radiation: http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
So, yes, there are credible experts who don't share your complacent surety. Personally, I am neither convinced one way or the other and adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
But if we grant that it is a possible issue, then we must consider that these earbud things are "ultra low power," but seeing as electromagnetic field strength increases in an inverse proportion to the square of a decrease in the separation distance, putting a transmitter INSIDE your skull makes an orders of magnitude strength difference over even the few millimeters of additional separation present by holding a phone against your ear.
As I said, I avoid paranoia, but I've lived long enough to see lots of "safe" things turn out to be absolutely not safe (like BPA) or at least called into question (like saccharin).
So I raise it as a possible consideration here, but I am absolutely not saying it is a problem; run for the hills!
Yet another form of near-field radiation being transmitted across the brain.
Not to seem paranoid, but my reaction to this is a bit skeptical.
If we lose the night sky "we lose something precious and sacred."
Of course it would suck to lose seeing the night sky! But so would losing all of our land mass or billions of people or worldwide famine and war because humans have fucked up the global climate. Sooo, if we can't get our shit together and do something to prevent it, tough shit. There are tough decisions to be made. Sometimes you gotta break eggs to make an omelet.
Open call to doxx the judge? Anonymous, are you listening?
And then if the gov't catches the hackers, they can just say, hey there was no harm!!! He said so himself!
This story is so F*ed up! It makes me sad, angry, and scared!!!
I there any further appeal going to take place, or is this it?!
So Sony added a wired controller?! Because, yeah, nothing is sexier than wearing something on your head with wires coming off it.
As someone who trained people on my team in the video game industry in how to use Perforce who were already familiar with version control concepts, I would reiterate that I don't see any of the above as viable solutions for this bloke. It's exactly the point that all of these tools are going to require non-trivial training, and do you think this guy is going to be able to tell his wife... "Hey! I asked Slashdot, and they recommended Perforce (or git or SVN or CVS or VCS or PVCS or whatever!), so just teach that to your colleagues and you're all set!"
No. What they can perhaps nominally hope for is to get everyone to switch to Google Docs which does version control and concurrent editing and merging without you asking. Heck even the built-in MS Office does versioning, but again, that is going to require team training and buy-in. Meh
To reiterate, I like Perforce a lot and found the reward for spending the time to understand its core concepts worthwhile, but its learning curve is steeper than other tools out there. And if git ever got decent GUI tools, it would beat its pants off.
Ooops. I misread the OP and thought he mentioned teachers. Anyway, I think the idea applies the same to business users. A technical tool is going to only really work well for technical staff. There are tools like Google Docs that offer versioning built-in without thinking about it. Even MS Office has it available too. But in any scenario, user training is going to be needed to make people understand these features and how to use them. In that case, even something as simple as a naming convention that uses the author's initials and a timestamp would work perfectly well and maybe even better since it's "low tech."
LOL. I was going to say Perforce too. But as a joke!
I'm sure these teachers will love the process for creating "changesets" before they can check in any documents. Perforce is awesome, but not really for laymen.
The OP said he has been a web developer for over 3 years and "delivered reliable web applications." For the purposes of his question, I take him at his word. He didn't say he has been working as an engineer, and now is trying to be a web developer, so I don't see how your scenario or its reversal is relevant.
Now, if he is full of B.S. and doesn't have the skills he tells us he has, then that is a different story; his problem is he is overselling himself and the interviewers are seeing right through it.
As previously discussed, it is essential that you know how to send any type of document securely to your manager. :-P
No, but seriously, I agree with you (and I conduct interviews and hiring) that meta-skills (the abililty to learn, to problem solve, to communicate, to function on a team, and being passionate and driven) are more important than acronyms. Such jobs are out there. I'm surprised all of your interviews have only grilled you on domain specifics. That should be a portion of the interview, but only a portion. And more to assess your overall skills match with the job, which will never be 100%.
The upgrade they completed DOUBLES the energy!
many readers, especially those who are less Internet-savvy, assume commenters “know something about the subject, because otherwise they wouldn’t be commenting on it.” The mere act of commenting, then, can confer an unearned aura of credibility.
Obviously, no Slashdot reader would fall victim to this mistake!!!
NOT because they are more Internet-savvy, but because they have been cured of any tendency to assume commenters know anything about the subject! Ha ha
I comment, therefore, I am... smart.
SQL injection. Cross site scripting. Unpatched system vulnerabilities. Weak passwords. Poodle attacks. Session hijacking. All these things routinely compromise websites, and none involve public/private key encryption. (Maybe poodle attacks could be construed as related a bit, but not directly.) I agree, it's shocking that a developer wouldn't know anything about it. But I wouldn't call it a litmus test for being an idiot, and I would take a web dev who knew about the above and not PGP over the inverse any day.
There is a segment of the market that will buy by price--but most of the market that shifted to Uber did it because service quality is better.
I'm assuming neither of us has done a proper customer market research survey to probe this (I haven't, but hopefully Uber has), but anecdotally, among the many people I know using Uber, the only reason I hear people cite for why they use it over taxis is price.
Thanks for the research!
And, BTW, such a classic, funny Asian name. Just like Tokyo is officially named: Tokyo Happy Special Fun Town City.
I'm not saying a developer shouldn't likely know at least something generally about public key cryptography, but the skillset of building a secure website is VERY different from that of using GPG to send a secure email to this guy doing the interview. Does the job posting specify a need for cryptography expertise specifically? There is a vast array of technical knowledge out there and you can jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none types or specialists in one or a few areas, but not all. To therefore say that these developers are "bad at what they do" smells strongly of a frustrated, non-tech-savvy interviewer/manager who doesn't understand why he can't hire someone today to build him a perfect website that will be ready next week.
Seems like Seoul has missed the point. I don't think Uber is upending taxis worldwide because they are luxury! It's because they are cheaaaap!
How will a luxury taxi service in Seoul affect the traction that a car-sharing service could gain by undercutting standard, economy taxi pricing? (Except that apparently they have banned them from operating. That sounds like an effective obstacle.)
You'd think Berkeley would have the best recycling in the world...
They do, for needles. ;-)
But regarding the OP, these "smartest regions on earth" are full of people who think they're smarter than everyone else and therefore that they know better. As John Stewart put, "This is Marin County! They're not rednecks. They're not ignorant. They practice a mindful stupidity."
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/vid...
The second-to-last sentence of the post is so mangled, I have no idea what you are saying (asking?).
"Computer monitors" fit the bill but are almost all 55") LCDs in the sub-$3,000 range anymore?
Windows - the most insecure OS in the world.
True, but only because Adobe never made an OS.