Not if the stripper pole is properly placed as the central attraction, with mainframe pieces and server hardware installed tastefully around the room perimeter.
I'm guessing they didn't cover this in your Living Room Datacenter Engineering (for Bachelors) 201 course?
E.g. "I am bleeding to death because that asshole shot me." instead of "I am bleeding to death because I failed to duck in time."
A better analogy: "I'm bleeding to death because that asshole shot me, and I'm too busy assigning blame to put pressure on the wound and call for help and thus save myself."
For example, what if one's boss really is a jerk? No matter how hard you work to please him, you cannot. If you internalized that locus of control, you would conclude that there is something terribly wrong with you. That's not a healthy frame of mind at all.
No, that's nonsense. A confident and self assured person would simply find another job. There is no reason one has to put up with an unacceptable situation.
But the problem with this whole "internal locus of control" meme is that it's false. You cannot control having a job. You can control how well you do it, but even people doing a good job can get fired by assholes. We cannot control reality.
Bullshit. I created my own job. I have control over my own life.
That does apply to your own perception?
Of course. Which is why people who take responsibility for their own lives and future succeed, and those who blame everything on everyone else fail.
Spot on accurate. And to further expand on this, the value of a particular item changes with time and the person's circumstances. What if the weekend Photoshop user develops improved artistic/photo editing skills over time in part thanks to his access to such high quality software? What if he then turns this developed skill into a successful business, say an advertising firm? Now that he has some stable revenue flowing in it makes no sense to continue running pirated software, so he makes software purchases for the whole office.
So that initial download years ago that didn't cost Adobe a dime, actually turned out to be an investment which made them thousands of dollars in the long run. What does it matter if 10,000 other people also downloaded the software, even if maybe 10 of those people get some extensive commercial use out of the software without paying Adobe a dime? They will become registered users eventually, or stop using Photoshop, it's inevitable due to the risk and liability involved with using pirated software as an organization grows. Adobe wins in the end regardless. Piracy helps them, the same way it helped Microsoft back in the 80s and 90s to become the dominant player in its market.
The real problem is that the payload would reach 8km/s speed before leaving the atmosphere. Think frictional heating. Think sonic boom. Think shock waves hammering the rail or the structure that supports it. Sure you can embed the whole thing in the ground, then it'll be strong enough, but your payload will come out doing 8km/s horizontally, not very useful.
Well, what if you used a mountainside, and the end of the rail was at the top of a really tall mountain, say Mount Everest? That would solve a large part of the problem I think. The rest pretty much sounds like a more or less straightforward engineering problem.
It is simply whether they are literally suitably qualified, which is to say, are they working and publishing (in an ISI listed peer reviewed journal, i.e. not a phish journal like E&E) in the field, the holder of a chair in the relevant discipline etc
And why does this make a person qualified? Why is a person unqualified if he does not hold these distinctions?
And ultimately it's not what scientists say, but what the bulk of the published science says that we must defer to.
Really? We must?
Nor is there universal agreement among most expert climatologists. But the baby questions, such as is anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere rising; are mean global temperatures rising; and are the two causally linked, are now settled in the affirmative. The scientific debate has largely moved on.
Right. And according to mainstream economists, their model is the absolute best representation of how the economy works. Government spending causes economic growth, and lack of government spending causes stagnation and deflation. The mainstream economic debate has moved on from the people who claim the opposite. Except we still have booms, busts, crashes, etc, and nobody seems to know why. If someone speaks up about a competing theory's take on the situation, and this person doesn't subscribe to the mainstream theory or hold a distinguished economics position, are you saying his beliefs aren't worth listening to or thinking about just because of those two facts alone?
And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream
Clearly you personally know every single scientist in the world--including those who haven't published--are intimately familiar with all their work, life history, intelligence level, theories, etc, and are therefore able to judge the exact persons who are and who aren't "suitably qualified" to tackle this subject.
Until they hire some marketing people able to explain why consumers should buy the thing, and some UX people making the users feel at home when using it, nobody -not even geeks- will want to buy one.
You're right that he needs to hire a good marketing person, but the device does have value as it stands. I'd love to have one for personal use. It's Linux based; I don't care about the interface, that can be changed.
I can definitely see where some businesses might like to purchase something like this for use in an integrated system; for instance this caught my eye because among other things I'm designing a restaurant which uses a tablet-based ordering system, and proprietary solutions (as well as anything requiring Java) are completely off the table.
There's plenty of Chinese suppliers already out there who I am sure have all types of Linux tablets available, but this guy has already done the legwork of putting together a more or less finished product that is ready for market. All that's needed is to customize it to the specific application.
And its people like you who cause the kind of issues that these restrictions are designed to prevent.
And it's people like you who spend so much goddamn time worrying about little "issues", that if given the power to do so by the company management, you'd drag the entire business down from accomplishing its actual goals all in the name of preventing these "issues."
Why do you need to transfer executables via email? And if you do have a good reason to require this, are they from random people or are they from a select group? Can you do it via other channels which allow IT to vet the files for malicious content?
And when you introduce bureaucracy into every goddamn file copy operation, and require justification and paperwork for every stupid special situation that comes up, what kind of parasitic overhead does this introduce to the business as a whole?
Seriously, if a restriction is in place, don't go acting like a 3 year old with a hissy fit, act like a grown adult and put your case in as to why you require circumvention of the security policies. If your reasons are valid then IT will work with you, if they are just childish "I don't like your restrictions and going to bitch about it till I get my way" reasons then they will tell you no.
In other words, I.T. technicians play all the same political bullshit games that every other group does, while of course, usually also being the ones who cry loudest about what whatever those assholes over in H.R., management, etc are doing. (The victim mentality is popular here, due to the overabundance of beta-male types.) Your attitude is: "If you are kind to me and can eloquently explain your 'need', then I MAY be so kind as to grant you your humble request.....OR if you don't treat me with the respect I feel I *deserve*, I will make your life hell." This petty clannish behavior does nothing more than make you an obstacle, not a solution finder or problem solver. How does it feel to be directly dragging down the company bottom line?
I.T. is a liability, NOT an asset; always remember that. The real assets are a) the knowledgeable and skilled people directly involved in the company's main business, b) the capital i.e. the computer systems you are hired to maintain. Well, the computer is only valuable as long as it's facilitating the operator in accomplishing his job. Who cares how virus-free or clean and well maintained the computer is, if it adds 30% onto the company's labor overhead due to the silly restrictions and arbitrary bullshit the I.T. department has dreamed up? How big of a problem is a virus infestation compared to developers quitting in disgust due to your unwarranted and heavy handed intrusion upon their dignity and job description?
This is exactly why smart CEOs and executives keep their I.T. departments (just like the engineers and other special interest groups) on a leash and don't let them dictate these type of decisions.
You job description, in a sane organization, is "fix computers." Your job is to come up with solutions to computer and network problems. People are trying to email.EXEs and other behaviors you find reprehensible? You don't say. Well maybe that's because there's some kind of *need* they are trying to fulfill, a problem they are trying to solve. You might even discover that, shock and horror, these people aren't even able to articulate to you exactly the nature of what that need is, but they know it exists and it's not going away just because you "don't see any logical reason" why that need should exist. So you don't come up with any kind of real solution at all and just hand-wave it away, acting more as a roadblock than anything, a stick in the spokes of those people whose jobs directly contribute to the company's bottom line.
And you wonder why I.T. tends to be so universally hated in the corporate world?
I would like to humbly introduce ".. in tree rings" as a catch phrase for research that goes into technological wonders of experimental advancement for a dubious cause.
Of course, being from a nordic, free and socialist... excuse me, communist, freedom hating degenerate land of free sex as your types likes to put it, we also trust that people understand that it's for their own good, and there is no punishment associated with it. You can ride a bike without a helmet, and police can legally stop you and tell you to get a helmet. But no fine.
That would never work in the United States. Tax.....er, fining, arresting, and imprisoning people for "bad behavior" is how a large and growing portion of our population makes its living. What would those poor prison guards and armed thugs do with themselves if they didn't have potheads and speeders to bust and dollars to collect from seat belt violations? Which come in handy BTW as a convenient excuse to further intrude upon the crimin...er, citizen's rights during the "routine" traffic stop, by nosing around into other aspects of his/her business. "Papers please, operating license, proof of taxes paid to vehicle licensing bureau, proof of bribes paid to insurance cartel. Where are you going? Where are you coming from? You got anything you're not supposed to have? Any drugs or weapons? Mind if I have a look around? Why not? What are you hiding? I smell marijuana. Step out of the vehicle please."
Clearly our country is much more of a communist, freedom hating, degenerate land of free sex than yours is. So put a sock in it, cause America's still NUMBER ONE, gawddurnit!
By nuking them with fusion, we could cleanly demonstrate just how dangerous such power is in the hand of those who might abuse it WITHOUT leaving behind any fissionable materials that may be traced back to us or cause 'collateral damage'.
Please tell me you are NOT from the United States. I don't want to believe this is what really passes for "ethics" amongst my "fellow" Americans these days.
You might want to rethink what the scenario you outlined above actually demonstrates, and about who.
Who do you think has been behind the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists? Please don't tell me you believe Iran is killing off its own top scientists to "make us look bad."
Why are you distressed by this? Witness what actually happened (logical and rational discourse) vs what you claim the "troll" "intended to happen" (chaos and name calling?), and note the discussion here is in fact a big win for the group. The comments to this article are 80-90% good/insightful, and the nonsense is being drowned out in a sea of intelligent and logical replies. Meanwhile the lurkers out there who just read and don't post are getting a great education on a number of current pressing issues, thus informing their conscience and their vote. Everyone benefits.
What this guy you replied to stated was basically a calm, neutral reading of exactly what is happening in the Iran scenario. Not a conspiracy theory in the least.
You do realize that Iran can't maintain it's own oil infrastructure, and peaceful relations with them would mean more money given to American oilfield service companies like Haliburton, right?
Of course. But then there wouldn't be a war, to distract the extremely disgruntled American people from their currently solidying intent to overthrow their corporate and political masters. This nuke thing is all a charade; it's bread and circuses. Nobody is seriously worried that Iran is going to commit suicide by nuking another country; no, they want a nuke to protect themselves from our aggression. It's our politicians and media who are distorting the picture and making it out to look like Iran are the bad guys here, and they are doing it with the specific intent to drag us into a war.
Leaders in other countries across the world are doing the exact same thing as we speak, riling up the populations against perceived theats and enemies, to distract the masses from their internal problems, all the inevitable result of the economy and the second worldwide Great Depression we're sliding right into, clawing and scraping all the way down. This is resulting in an explosive political situation (just like the 1930s) which will likely (if things continue as they are) result in the Third World War we've all fearing and dreading (but not enough I suppose..) since the last two. This one is going to be just as ugly....and the U.S. will take a beating this time around. We are too smug, too arrogant, too complacent for far too long, and we're about to reap what we've sown.
Say what you want about America, we have shown incredible restraint in the use of unconventional weapons after 1945, and even then it wasn't a decision that was taken lightly.
I'm sure all the people who've had limbs or their bodies blown to pieces by our conventional munitions just think we're the greatest country ever for showing such "restraint" with our arsenal.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if the stripper pole is properly placed as the central attraction, with mainframe pieces and server hardware installed tastefully around the room perimeter.
I'm guessing they didn't cover this in your Living Room Datacenter Engineering (for Bachelors) 201 course?
E.g. "I am bleeding to death because that asshole shot me." instead of "I am bleeding to death because I failed to duck in time."
A better analogy: "I'm bleeding to death because that asshole shot me, and I'm too busy assigning blame to put pressure on the wound and call for help and thus save myself."
For example, what if one's boss really is a jerk? No matter how hard you work to please him, you cannot. If you internalized that locus of control, you would conclude that there is something terribly wrong with you. That's not a healthy frame of mind at all.
No, that's nonsense. A confident and self assured person would simply find another job. There is no reason one has to put up with an unacceptable situation.
But the problem with this whole "internal locus of control" meme is that it's false. You cannot control having a job. You can control how well you do it, but even people doing a good job can get fired by assholes. We cannot control reality.
Bullshit. I created my own job. I have control over my own life.
That does apply to your own perception?
Of course. Which is why people who take responsibility for their own lives and future succeed, and those who blame everything on everyone else fail.
Spot on accurate. And to further expand on this, the value of a particular item changes with time and the person's circumstances. What if the weekend Photoshop user develops improved artistic/photo editing skills over time in part thanks to his access to such high quality software? What if he then turns this developed skill into a successful business, say an advertising firm? Now that he has some stable revenue flowing in it makes no sense to continue running pirated software, so he makes software purchases for the whole office.
So that initial download years ago that didn't cost Adobe a dime, actually turned out to be an investment which made them thousands of dollars in the long run. What does it matter if 10,000 other people also downloaded the software, even if maybe 10 of those people get some extensive commercial use out of the software without paying Adobe a dime? They will become registered users eventually, or stop using Photoshop, it's inevitable due to the risk and liability involved with using pirated software as an organization grows. Adobe wins in the end regardless. Piracy helps them, the same way it helped Microsoft back in the 80s and 90s to become the dominant player in its market.
And drunk, apparently
I agree, the rail gun idea is overall far better than conventional explosives. I was pretty just much just facetious.
Oh, good. It's not like there's a high likelihood the ship would ever be simultaneously under attack while using its cannon...
Seconded
The real problem is that the payload would reach 8km/s speed before leaving the atmosphere. Think frictional heating. Think sonic boom. Think shock waves hammering the rail or the structure that supports it. Sure you can embed the whole thing in the ground, then it'll be strong enough, but your payload will come out doing 8km/s horizontally, not very useful.
Well, what if you used a mountainside, and the end of the rail was at the top of a really tall mountain, say Mount Everest? That would solve a large part of the problem I think. The rest pretty much sounds like a more or less straightforward engineering problem.
Cue the angry vinylheads in 3....2....
It is simply whether they are literally suitably qualified, which is to say, are they working and publishing (in an ISI listed peer reviewed journal, i.e. not a phish journal like E&E) in the field, the holder of a chair in the relevant discipline etc
And why does this make a person qualified? Why is a person unqualified if he does not hold these distinctions?
And ultimately it's not what scientists say, but what the bulk of the published science says that we must defer to.
Really? We must?
Nor is there universal agreement among most expert climatologists. But the baby questions, such as is anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere rising; are mean global temperatures rising; and are the two causally linked, are now settled in the affirmative. The scientific debate has largely moved on.
Right. And according to mainstream economists, their model is the absolute best representation of how the economy works. Government spending causes economic growth, and lack of government spending causes stagnation and deflation. The mainstream economic debate has moved on from the people who claim the opposite. Except we still have booms, busts, crashes, etc, and nobody seems to know why. If someone speaks up about a competing theory's take on the situation, and this person doesn't subscribe to the mainstream theory or hold a distinguished economics position, are you saying his beliefs aren't worth listening to or thinking about just because of those two facts alone?
And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream
Clearly you personally know every single scientist in the world--including those who haven't published--are intimately familiar with all their work, life history, intelligence level, theories, etc, and are therefore able to judge the exact persons who are and who aren't "suitably qualified" to tackle this subject.
Until they hire some marketing people able to explain why consumers should buy the thing, and some UX people making the users feel at home when using it, nobody -not even geeks- will want to buy one.
You're right that he needs to hire a good marketing person, but the device does have value as it stands. I'd love to have one for personal use. It's Linux based; I don't care about the interface, that can be changed.
I can definitely see where some businesses might like to purchase something like this for use in an integrated system; for instance this caught my eye because among other things I'm designing a restaurant which uses a tablet-based ordering system, and proprietary solutions (as well as anything requiring Java) are completely off the table.
There's plenty of Chinese suppliers already out there who I am sure have all types of Linux tablets available, but this guy has already done the legwork of putting together a more or less finished product that is ready for market. All that's needed is to customize it to the specific application.
really. this wordage makes it sound as if the store will operate as charity and not with profit oriented sales.
Exactly. It's a psychological trick which is a standard piece of the Marketing tool bag.
I really don't get the irrational hatred for lawyers in society.
FTFY
And the reason is, people don't hate lawyers. They hate the law.
And its people like you who cause the kind of issues that these restrictions are designed to prevent.
And it's people like you who spend so much goddamn time worrying about little "issues", that if given the power to do so by the company management, you'd drag the entire business down from accomplishing its actual goals all in the name of preventing these "issues."
Why do you need to transfer executables via email? And if you do have a good reason to require this, are they from random people or are they from a select group? Can you do it via other channels which allow IT to vet the files for malicious content?
And when you introduce bureaucracy into every goddamn file copy operation, and require justification and paperwork for every stupid special situation that comes up, what kind of parasitic overhead does this introduce to the business as a whole?
Seriously, if a restriction is in place, don't go acting like a 3 year old with a hissy fit, act like a grown adult and put your case in as to why you require circumvention of the security policies. If your reasons are valid then IT will work with you, if they are just childish "I don't like your restrictions and going to bitch about it till I get my way" reasons then they will tell you no.
In other words, I.T. technicians play all the same political bullshit games that every other group does, while of course, usually also being the ones who cry loudest about what whatever those assholes over in H.R., management, etc are doing. (The victim mentality is popular here, due to the overabundance of beta-male types.) Your attitude is: "If you are kind to me and can eloquently explain your 'need', then I MAY be so kind as to grant you your humble request.....OR if you don't treat me with the respect I feel I *deserve*, I will make your life hell." This petty clannish behavior does nothing more than make you an obstacle, not a solution finder or problem solver. How does it feel to be directly dragging down the company bottom line?
I.T. is a liability, NOT an asset; always remember that. The real assets are a) the knowledgeable and skilled people directly involved in the company's main business, b) the capital i.e. the computer systems you are hired to maintain. Well, the computer is only valuable as long as it's facilitating the operator in accomplishing his job. Who cares how virus-free or clean and well maintained the computer is, if it adds 30% onto the company's labor overhead due to the silly restrictions and arbitrary bullshit the I.T. department has dreamed up? How big of a problem is a virus infestation compared to developers quitting in disgust due to your unwarranted and heavy handed intrusion upon their dignity and job description?
This is exactly why smart CEOs and executives keep their I.T. departments (just like the engineers and other special interest groups) on a leash and don't let them dictate these type of decisions.
You job description, in a sane organization, is "fix computers." Your job is to come up with solutions to computer and network problems. People are trying to email .EXEs and other behaviors you find reprehensible? You don't say. Well maybe that's because there's some kind of *need* they are trying to fulfill, a problem they are trying to solve. You might even discover that, shock and horror, these people aren't even able to articulate to you exactly the nature of what that need is, but they know it exists and it's not going away just because you "don't see any logical reason" why that need should exist. So you don't come up with any kind of real solution at all and just hand-wave it away, acting more as a roadblock than anything, a stick in the spokes of those people whose jobs directly contribute to the company's bottom line.
And you wonder why I.T. tends to be so universally hated in the corporate world?
NO ANSWER
I would like to humbly introduce ".. in tree rings" as a catch phrase for research that goes into technological wonders of experimental advancement for a dubious cause.
Rejected
Of course, being from a nordic, free and socialist... excuse me, communist, freedom hating degenerate land of free sex as your types likes to put it, we also trust that people understand that it's for their own good, and there is no punishment associated with it. You can ride a bike without a helmet, and police can legally stop you and tell you to get a helmet. But no fine.
That would never work in the United States. Tax.....er, fining, arresting, and imprisoning people for "bad behavior" is how a large and growing portion of our population makes its living. What would those poor prison guards and armed thugs do with themselves if they didn't have potheads and speeders to bust and dollars to collect from seat belt violations? Which come in handy BTW as a convenient excuse to further intrude upon the crimin...er, citizen's rights during the "routine" traffic stop, by nosing around into other aspects of his/her business. "Papers please, operating license, proof of taxes paid to vehicle licensing bureau, proof of bribes paid to insurance cartel. Where are you going? Where are you coming from? You got anything you're not supposed to have? Any drugs or weapons? Mind if I have a look around? Why not? What are you hiding? I smell marijuana. Step out of the vehicle please."
Clearly our country is much more of a communist, freedom hating, degenerate land of free sex than yours is. So put a sock in it, cause America's still NUMBER ONE, gawddurnit!
By nuking them with fusion, we could cleanly demonstrate just how dangerous such power is in the hand of those who might abuse it WITHOUT leaving behind any fissionable materials that may be traced back to us or cause 'collateral damage'.
Please tell me you are NOT from the United States. I don't want to believe this is what really passes for "ethics" amongst my "fellow" Americans these days.
You might want to rethink what the scenario you outlined above actually demonstrates, and about who.
"Keep the politics out of it"? War IS politics. Wow, the naivety you display is shocking.
When has Israel ever attacked Iran?
Who do you think has been behind the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists? Please don't tell me you believe Iran is killing off its own top scientists to "make us look bad."
Why are you distressed by this? Witness what actually happened (logical and rational discourse) vs what you claim the "troll" "intended to happen" (chaos and name calling?), and note the discussion here is in fact a big win for the group. The comments to this article are 80-90% good/insightful, and the nonsense is being drowned out in a sea of intelligent and logical replies. Meanwhile the lurkers out there who just read and don't post are getting a great education on a number of current pressing issues, thus informing their conscience and their vote. Everyone benefits.
What this guy you replied to stated was basically a calm, neutral reading of exactly what is happening in the Iran scenario. Not a conspiracy theory in the least.
You do realize that Iran can't maintain it's own oil infrastructure, and peaceful relations with them would mean more money given to American oilfield service companies like Haliburton, right?
Of course. But then there wouldn't be a war, to distract the extremely disgruntled American people from their currently solidying intent to overthrow their corporate and political masters. This nuke thing is all a charade; it's bread and circuses. Nobody is seriously worried that Iran is going to commit suicide by nuking another country; no, they want a nuke to protect themselves from our aggression. It's our politicians and media who are distorting the picture and making it out to look like Iran are the bad guys here, and they are doing it with the specific intent to drag us into a war.
Leaders in other countries across the world are doing the exact same thing as we speak, riling up the populations against perceived theats and enemies, to distract the masses from their internal problems, all the inevitable result of the economy and the second worldwide Great Depression we're sliding right into, clawing and scraping all the way down. This is resulting in an explosive political situation (just like the 1930s) which will likely (if things continue as they are) result in the Third World War we've all fearing and dreading (but not enough I suppose..) since the last two. This one is going to be just as ugly....and the U.S. will take a beating this time around. We are too smug, too arrogant, too complacent for far too long, and we're about to reap what we've sown.
Say what you want about America, we have shown incredible restraint in the use of unconventional weapons after 1945, and even then it wasn't a decision that was taken lightly.
I'm sure all the people who've had limbs or their bodies blown to pieces by our conventional munitions just think we're the greatest country ever for showing such "restraint" with our arsenal.