The editors are, I'm sure, simply offerring the collective genius of/. a change to join the fray.
I'll bet that was an event that Dr. Arenstorf didn't anticipate. Certainly, he will be sleeping less soundly this weekend!
Somehow, your wording has made me think of a statement made my Carl Sagan in one of the Cosmos episodes. It was something to the effect that the sum of all electromatic energy received by radio telescopes, for the whole history of radio astronomy, was not enough energy to flap the wings of a mosquito even once.
But what if I pair each and every natural number to an even number so that two different numbers are paired to different even numbers (a one-to-one map)? Would that mean that 100% of all natural numbers are even? But it is done easily - I would pair each number n to 2*n.
I'm not sure what you mean by "pairing". If you mean that you start with the set: 1, 2, 3,... and do n*2 for each n, then you get: 2, 4, 6,...
That's no longer the set of whole numbers, but the set of all real "even" numbers.
Then again, it's been ages since I took a math class.
While "blue collar" often means "manual labor", a better way to think of it is that a blue-collar worker tends to be a replacable unit. In the plumber example, you can pretty much interchange them, as long as they are both certified. Of course, some have specializations, but for the most part, any certified plumber can handle your plumbing problem.
Likewise, as computers and networks become more ubiquitous, the skills become more standardized. As the skills become more standardized, the people who perform them become more interchangeable. In that sense, IT is becoming more "blue collar" because the people doing it are becoming more interchangeable.
I like broil fish. In my oven, when I "bake", the coil on the bottom of the oven gets hot. When I broil, the coil on top gets hot, and fish is exposed directly to the heat (rather than through the pan, oil, or water). It cooks pretty hot- I'm supposed to leave the oven door ajar, and it tends to cook pretty quickly.
But, bartering IS business... probably in it's purest form.
You have something I want and I have something you want. We somehow come to an exchange rate to determine how much of my stuff I give you for the stuff you give me.
The fact that we each own some stuff (ourselves, our time, our labor, some "stuff") is the basis of capitalism.
Any system is bad for individuals when it is run by corrupt people. Unfortuantely, any system tends to allow power to concentrate and power tends to corrupt.
It's a valid question, and has to be part of the total equation. One should consider the probability of a leak and the amount of damage a leak is likely to cause.
Hopefully one has insurance to cover the potential damage. So, it's possible that one's insurance company may charge a higher premium for going with a "free" plumber.
On the other hand, plumbing might not be the best analogy to software. Most pieces of software have some kind of EULA stating that the software is not suitable for any particular purpose and that the vendor is not liable for any damage resulting from use of the software.
If there's a group of people who are willing to consistently do plumbing for free, and the quality is just as good as commercial plumbers, then I expect the government to use the free plumbers.
A business is free to do as it chooses. But it's foolish to spend a lot of money on something when its competitors can get the same functionality from something that costs very little. It has to compete just that much better in everything else, and ultimately that can't be sustained.
In any business decision I make, Microsoft will have to prove to me that it's worth it to pay $250-$500 per seat for their stuff before I'll buy it. Their stuff is pretty good, but the free/libre alternatives are pretty good too.
People defending their homeland from those they percieve as their enemies will do whatever they can to keep from losing. Some shoot from mosques and churches, some give their lives, and others give up their civil liberties.
When I went through Army basic training in 1992, they taught about 1 day of hand-to-hand, and 1 day of bayonet.
Infantry probably picks up more in their AIT (Advanced Individual Training), but since I was an Intel REMF, I only got more hand-to-hand in the karate classes I took for fun.
I don't think of it as very good "peronsal transportation". But a bunch of little autonomous vehicles might be great for public transportation. Instead of waiting for a bus or train that has a fixed route/schedule, you hop in one of these and it takes you where you want to go.
Transmitters and computers in the streets could help guide them around. As it costs more to drive in big cities (the entry tax in London for example), this might offer the advantages of point-to-point transport, without the normal disadvantages of public systems. Lets face it, the biggest drawback to public transport is having to take its route and be stuck with other unhappy people while you're at it.
That reminds me of something someone else wrote on Slashdot:
A wise manager once said: "Obviously you want smart, productive people on your project. Note that dumb, unproductive people are relatively harmless, because they are not productive enough to cause much damage. What you need to watch out for are dumb, productive people."
I'm newly MBA-weilding, and hopefully former-sysadmin.
The good news is that business people ARE starting to hear about F/L/OSS. Within my own classes, I tried to inject presentations about it whenever possible. In my last class, a business strategy class, my prof allowed me to deviate from the normal "find a way to help a business" project to doing one on "what every manager needs to know about OSS".
It will take some time, but the word is getting out!
It's not the MBA that makes people stupid. Stupid people have amazing ways of getting all kinds of degrees and certifications!
science are completely useless to a LOT of people who could not care less about it, and in fact, it's OKAY that they don't care. Very few things in this world require science or high-level math past arithmetic.
Just because people don't care to use it, that doesn't mean it's useless.
For example, a car costs $16000. Which is better? $1500 cash back, with a 4.75% APR for 48 months? or 0$ APR for 48 months? (about 40 cents difference)
Or, how about the new Sawdust Diet - low carb, low fat, low protein. It's the latest rage! Guaranteed to lose weight!
Let's face it. Kids need more than computers to be smart. If education is not providing the tools to live successfully and not get ripped of, we've really let the kids down.
I don't get it. If I drive 31.5MPG and burn a gallon of Gas, I convert 1 gallon of gasoline (petrol) into CO2, H2O and all that other lovely stuff.
The difference is in "all that other lovely stuff".
There are different points of efficiency.
A hybrid only has to burn the gas to turn a generator, probably within a limited range of RPMs. It can therefore be tuned to burn the gas very efficiently (in a chemical sense), producing a better ratio of H2O and CO2 to "other stuff". A traditional car has to function at a greater range of RPM and Torque and can't be tuned so efficiently, so it produces more "other stuff".
Another point of efficiency is how the car takes that burning fuel and turns it into the car's motion.
A hybrid takes the burning fuel, turns a generator to produce electricity, which then turns a motor that turns the wheels. A traditional car takes that burning fuel, turns a set of gears, which then turns the wheels. One could measure the efficency of the process of taking the rotational energy of the engine and converting it to forward motion of the car.
So, on one hand, the hybrid, getting 31.5 MPG may be more efficient than the tradiational car because it produces less "other stuff". On the other hand, if the traditional car can be measured to be less efficient in burning, and still gets nearly the same overall mileage, then its mechanical process for converting engine rotation to car movement must be more efficient, even when taking into account the regenerative breaking.
What this points out is that hybrids need to improve the effiency of the generator-to-motor part of the puzzle.
That's much more than a tech problem. It's a societal problem.
So some guy grabs one of these beacons and proceeds to get lost in the woods in a storm. He dies of hypothermia before the rescue crews can find him. Now, somehow, it's their fault? And the guy's family rides the legal system to their pot of gold.
That's what's so f*cked up with the US. The guy posting wants to use tech to help find lost people, and in doing so opens him self up to lawsuits. It's a wonder anyone invents anything.
When you say that, I can't help but think of, "Ignore the man behind the curtain."
I just wonder if investors are going to want to know more about what's going on.
A smart investor would. But as we all know, a majority of investors are lemmings (can I still use that metaphor? http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm), and won't ask the smart questions.
or saddam hussien may look good compared to stalin, but that don't make him good (hyperbole hear )
That's why I love it when people say "well, what we're doing in Abu-Ghraib isn't as bad as Saddam Hussain". What a great yard/meter stick to measure US values by.
Charismatic leadership often plays a vital role in the success of a company. Look at examples of "charismatic" CEO's like Lee Iococa, Jack Welch, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, and even Robin Hood (not real, but a good example).
Charismatic leaders often have a vision for what they're trying to do and they're able to share that vision with their followers - who follow because they're inspired by the leader.
In fact, when a charismatic leader leaves (dies, steps down, gets fired), it can have a dramatic and often detrimental effect on the organization. Filling the shoes of a charismatic leader can be very difficult for his/her successor, and often requires changes in how the organization coordinates itself.
Some companies who are in trouble, seek "reform" through hiring a charismatic CEO. Sometimes this backfires because the organization is so different that the leader no longer has the charisma that matches the new organization. And when it does work, it can leave the orgination in trouble again when the Charismatic CEO leaves.
And yes, I played D&D... a long time ago! But I also just got my MBA. Fun stuff!
The government didn't need to investigate the flight school students. They could have acted on evidence that terrorists were planning to hijack planes. If at that point they required airlines to harden and secure the cockpit doors (with the threat of grounding if not completed in a certain time), and warned pilots of the threat, there's a good chance that the events of 9/11 could have been prevented or at least mitigated.
I prefer the government taking reasonable actions to mitigate risks over sniffing through everyone's underwear looking for boogiemen.
Slashdot Mirror
The editors are, I'm sure, simply offerring the collective genius of /. a change to join the fray.
I'll bet that was an event that Dr. Arenstorf didn't anticipate. Certainly, he will be sleeping less soundly this weekend!
Somehow, your wording has made me think of a statement made my Carl Sagan in one of the Cosmos episodes. It was something to the effect that the sum of all electromatic energy received by radio telescopes, for the whole history of radio astronomy, was not enough energy to flap the wings of a mosquito even once.
But what if I pair each and every natural number to an even number so that two different numbers are paired to different even numbers (a one-to-one map)? Would that mean that 100% of all natural numbers are even? But it is done easily - I would pair each number n to 2*n.
...
I'm not sure what you mean by "pairing". If you mean that you start with the set:
1, 2, 3,...
and do n*2 for each n, then you get:
2, 4, 6,
That's no longer the set of whole numbers, but the set of all real "even" numbers.
Then again, it's been ages since I took a math class.
While "blue collar" often means "manual labor", a better way to think of it is that a blue-collar worker tends to be a replacable unit. In the plumber example, you can pretty much interchange them, as long as they are both certified. Of course, some have specializations, but for the most part, any certified plumber can handle your plumbing problem.
Likewise, as computers and networks become more ubiquitous, the skills become more standardized. As the skills become more standardized, the people who perform them become more interchangeable. In that sense, IT is becoming more "blue collar" because the people doing it are becoming more interchangeable.
According to Google's Define:broil, it's to cook by exposure to radiant heat.
I like broil fish. In my oven, when I "bake", the coil on the bottom of the oven gets hot. When I broil, the coil on top gets hot, and fish is exposed directly to the heat (rather than through the pan, oil, or water). It cooks pretty hot- I'm supposed to leave the oven door ajar, and it tends to cook pretty quickly.
I wonder how much the Italian government will pay the newspapers to publish this information.
But, bartering IS business... probably in it's purest form.
You have something I want and I have something you want. We somehow come to an exchange rate to determine how much of my stuff I give you for the stuff you give me.
The fact that we each own some stuff (ourselves, our time, our labor, some "stuff") is the basis of capitalism.
Any system is bad for individuals when it is run by corrupt people. Unfortuantely, any system tends to allow power to concentrate and power tends to corrupt.
It's a valid question, and has to be part of the total equation. One should consider the probability of a leak and the amount of damage a leak is likely to cause.
Hopefully one has insurance to cover the potential damage. So, it's possible that one's insurance company may charge a higher premium for going with a "free" plumber.
On the other hand, plumbing might not be the best analogy to software. Most pieces of software have some kind of EULA stating that the software is not suitable for any particular purpose and that the vendor is not liable for any damage resulting from use of the software.
If there's a group of people who are willing to consistently do plumbing for free, and the quality is just as good as commercial plumbers, then I expect the government to use the free plumbers.
A business is free to do as it chooses. But it's foolish to spend a lot of money on something when its competitors can get the same functionality from something that costs very little. It has to compete just that much better in everything else, and ultimately that can't be sustained.
In any business decision I make, Microsoft will have to prove to me that it's worth it to pay $250-$500 per seat for their stuff before I'll buy it. Their stuff is pretty good, but the free/libre alternatives are pretty good too.
People defending their homeland from those they percieve as their enemies will do whatever they can to keep from losing. Some shoot from mosques and churches, some give their lives, and others give up their civil liberties.
When I went through Army basic training in 1992, they taught about 1 day of hand-to-hand, and 1 day of bayonet.
Infantry probably picks up more in their AIT (Advanced Individual Training), but since I was an Intel REMF, I only got more hand-to-hand in the karate classes I took for fun.
I don't think of it as very good "peronsal transportation". But a bunch of little autonomous vehicles might be great for public transportation. Instead of waiting for a bus or train that has a fixed route/schedule, you hop in one of these and it takes you where you want to go.
Transmitters and computers in the streets could help guide them around. As it costs more to drive in big cities (the entry tax in London for example), this might offer the advantages of point-to-point transport, without the normal disadvantages of public systems. Lets face it, the biggest drawback to public transport is having to take its route and be stuck with other unhappy people while you're at it.
Of course, it would put taxis out of business.
Why can't scientists just make up their minds already?
Because if they did, they'd be theologians, not scientists.
That reminds me of something someone else wrote on Slashdot:
A wise manager once said: "Obviously you want smart, productive people on your project. Note that dumb, unproductive people are relatively harmless, because they are not productive enough to cause much damage. What you need to watch out for are dumb, productive people."
I'm newly MBA-weilding, and hopefully former-sysadmin.
The good news is that business people ARE starting to hear about F/L/OSS. Within my own classes, I tried to inject presentations about it whenever possible. In my last class, a business strategy class, my prof allowed me to deviate from the normal "find a way to help a business" project to doing one on "what every manager needs to know about OSS".
It will take some time, but the word is getting out!
It's not the MBA that makes people stupid. Stupid people have amazing ways of getting all kinds of degrees and certifications!
As if the books Christianity and Judaism are innocent and peace-loving?
They're not talking about getting high.
I'm not sure that BC is far enough away. I hear the Netherlands are nice, though.
I'll bet he never does that again!
One user educated... several millions to go!
science are completely useless to a LOT of people who could not care less about it, and in fact, it's OKAY that they don't care. Very few things in this world require science or high-level math past arithmetic.
Just because people don't care to use it, that doesn't mean it's useless.
For example, a car costs $16000. Which is better?
$1500 cash back, with a 4.75% APR for 48 months?
or 0$ APR for 48 months?
(about 40 cents difference)
Or, how about the new Sawdust Diet - low carb, low fat, low protein. It's the latest rage! Guaranteed to lose weight!
Let's face it. Kids need more than computers to be smart. If education is not providing the tools to live successfully and not get ripped of, we've really let the kids down.
I don't get it. If I drive 31.5MPG and burn a gallon of Gas, I convert 1 gallon of gasoline (petrol) into CO2, H2O and all that other lovely stuff.
The difference is in "all that other lovely stuff".
There are different points of efficiency.
A hybrid only has to burn the gas to turn a generator, probably within a limited range of RPMs. It can therefore be tuned to burn the gas very efficiently (in a chemical sense), producing a better ratio of H2O and CO2 to "other stuff". A traditional car has to function at a greater range of RPM and Torque and can't be tuned so efficiently, so it produces more "other stuff".
Another point of efficiency is how the car takes that burning fuel and turns it into the car's motion.
A hybrid takes the burning fuel, turns a generator to produce electricity, which then turns a motor that turns the wheels. A traditional car takes that burning fuel, turns a set of gears, which then turns the wheels. One could measure the efficency of the process of taking the rotational energy of the engine and converting it to forward motion of the car.
So, on one hand, the hybrid, getting 31.5 MPG may be more efficient than the tradiational car because it produces less "other stuff". On the other hand, if the traditional car can be measured to be less efficient in burning, and still gets nearly the same overall mileage, then its mechanical process for converting engine rotation to car movement must be more efficient, even when taking into account the regenerative breaking.
What this points out is that hybrids need to improve the effiency of the generator-to-motor part of the puzzle.
Sorry about that last rant. I wasn't directing it at you.
That's much more than a tech problem. It's a societal problem.
So some guy grabs one of these beacons and proceeds to get lost in the woods in a storm. He dies of hypothermia before the rescue crews can find him. Now, somehow, it's their fault? And the guy's family rides the legal system to their pot of gold.
That's what's so f*cked up with the US. The guy posting wants to use tech to help find lost people, and in doing so opens him self up to lawsuits. It's a wonder anyone invents anything.
When you say that, I can't help but think of, "Ignore the man behind the curtain."
I just wonder if investors are going to want to know more about what's going on.
A smart investor would. But as we all know, a majority of investors are lemmings (can I still use that metaphor? http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm), and won't ask the smart questions.
or saddam hussien may look good compared to stalin, but that don't make him good (hyperbole hear )
That's why I love it when people say "well, what we're doing in Abu-Ghraib isn't as bad as Saddam Hussain". What a great yard/meter stick to measure US values by.
Charismatic leadership often plays a vital role in the success of a company. Look at examples of "charismatic" CEO's like Lee Iococa, Jack Welch, Sam Walton, Bill Gates, and even Robin Hood (not real, but a good example).
Charismatic leaders often have a vision for what they're trying to do and they're able to share that vision with their followers - who follow because they're inspired by the leader.
In fact, when a charismatic leader leaves (dies, steps down, gets fired), it can have a dramatic and often detrimental effect on the organization. Filling the shoes of a charismatic leader can be very difficult for his/her successor, and often requires changes in how the organization coordinates itself.
Some companies who are in trouble, seek "reform" through hiring a charismatic CEO. Sometimes this backfires because the organization is so different that the leader no longer has the charisma that matches the new organization. And when it does work, it can leave the orgination in trouble again when the Charismatic CEO leaves.
And yes, I played D&D... a long time ago! But I also just got my MBA. Fun stuff!
The government didn't need to investigate the flight school students. They could have acted on evidence that terrorists were planning to hijack planes. If at that point they required airlines to harden and secure the cockpit doors (with the threat of grounding if not completed in a certain time), and warned pilots of the threat, there's a good chance that the events of 9/11 could have been prevented or at least mitigated.
I prefer the government taking reasonable actions to mitigate risks over sniffing through everyone's underwear looking for boogiemen.