I work in a consulting company and got a basic training in project management, including some risk management:
Assess the likeliness of the risk, and the impact on your project.
A) If you use an OS component sucessful for several years, developed on a stable background (e.g. Apache foundation etc.), then the risk that it wont be supported reasonably or that you have to support it alone.
B) If you use a newer, but fashionable component, there is a moderate risk that it wont be developed in the direction you like it to be
C) If you use something vey new, and special, then there is a high risk that you may end up maintaining it alone
Severity:
1) If you use a small library, which does an isolated task for you, the most severe thing which could happen is that you write this task yourself (which may be significant work, but far away from a failed project)
2) If the library is more complex and is more in the core of your functionality, doing the rewrite transparent to the user may be a hard task, and if reproducibility (e.g. of simulation results) in needed, very hard
3) Frameworks/programming languages. Well. If you bet your ass on the wrong framwork/language, and represent the whole appication logic in it, and something goes wrong there, then you are fucked. Consider that you may end up rewriting the project completely, and possibly (if there is a compatribility problem visible to the customer), loosing the customer.
Normally: Reject risks worse than A3, B2, or C1.
Customer ask for it: cover your ass, it must be in the requirements then. (iff customers insists in framework xyz, he can have it, on his responsibility)
I i work somewhere i have to be there. Its ok that i am forced to listen to things related to work. It is not ok that i am forced to listen to an evangelist assholes oversteppings, very often reaching into personal insult.
I can assure you, it is possible even to talk about religion at work, without insulting anybody.
They have stolen your Design, which Steve Jobs mentioned as that Apple would never build something of this size. The fact he mentioned it clearly proves that Apple designed it perfectly before any competitors examined thise size factor.
career and success are about etics? Sounds funny, given the amount of books out there which advise you how to do things close to lying and selling youself as somebody who you arent, books how manipulate your co-workers, etc.
No career and success are always about what you are willing to do, and what personal consequences you are willing to accept
What exactly do you think "the references in that section" *exactly* means. It means that the commision is not relyin on their gut feeling, but subsumizing the results of tens of perr reviewed studies.
If you would have read for 30 seconds, you would have found this. But please stay in you self-assertive world.
"BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE (100 k H z â"300 GHz)" of
EMF guidelines - 1998 Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522; 1998,
a) Looking up one more time: No, the value, as a mean value is roughly right (ranging from 7W/Km^2... 50W/m^2).
b) Having fever for one day is ok. Having it for one week is ok. Going into the sun, your body immediatly regulating your sweating, is ok. Unless you get some heat stroke, which is not uncommon. The question is: you body will not regulte the temperature so local and you are doing that every day. Even the briefest looking using you favourite method of searching would have told you that you immune system reacts to fever temperature, as well as many gene expressions. So yes, attempting to compare an event which the guy induded 5000 days consecutively to something you normally have 5 days per year is not at all a valid argument.
Luckily this queston is easy to answer. The maximum SAR value ranges typically from 0.4-1W/kg, which, according to the standard in EU must ne measured in a model which reproduces the shape of a typical head and its electromagnetif proerties. The 10g with the highes exposure are determined and compared to the limit of 2W/kg. so that means that we expose a few square cm to less than 20mW.
Rought estimation:
assumign a typical heat dissipation by convection ~5W/Km^2 and an inner conduction on the order of ~.5W/Km, a thermal effective length of a few cm, then we arrive at something ~20W/m^2K (dominated by the inner conduction), and an affected area on the order of 10^-3m^2, which results in a thermal condution of 10mW/K conductions. So, yes, this means that instantaneusly (that is, if the tissue surounding the 10g of higeht exposure is cold) we could get something on the order of 1K local increase (which is significant, but you dont die from it). If we assume that we now heat 100g surrounding tissue (4.2J/K/g) by the 20mW input (lowe limit since that was only the max) then we finde a timescale of (significantly) less than 20000s for an increase of the surrounding tissue by 1K. So that means that yes, phoning for six hours has easily the potential (according to the values published by the manufaturers and basic physics) to heat your tissue locally by 1-2 degree, and probably more for an old phone and dropping the approxiamtions we did above.
That does not cause a stroke immediatly, but i imagine that its probably not good, given that around 42 degrees the proteins in your body degenerate.
No that was not what i was saying. I was not judging the guy, but the question if the producer of the phone should be held liable.
I think that the phone itself is a tool which radiates withou judging to reach the next cell tower. It has a well defined range of use, and there were warnings about exactly this, namely using the phone for long times, uninterruped, close to your ear.
Yes, sure, you can ignoe warnings, but its your choice. Sure, maybe you dont read manuals, but its your choice. Yes, maybe the company distrubutes things without warnings, but its the choice of the company.
If you drink and eat fat unheatly food for 12 years, should you be able to sue? If you smoke for 50years and die of lung cancer, should you be able to sue? If you run over your own kid with the SUV, should you be able to sue the car company?
To me, making a producer responsible for *my* problems, *my* ignorance only should work if the product is unsafe in a way that in its normal use, with the precautions advised, significantly affects my heath AND that the producer *knowingly* or *carelessly* and *intentionally* misrepresents known facts.
There are essentially 2 main groups of effects related to electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range in questions:
a) direct: Influencing cell chemistry, ion channels, reactions, and disturbing neuronal functions by electromagnetic fields/absorbiont of energy quanta. They are unproven at best, and some of them are unklikely since the quanta are too low energy for most transitions of molecules in the body, yet the fluctuation is to fast to influence the pseudo-static potentials in the cells. This needs to be checked very carefully, since complex systems may have rectifying effects on fast timescales, but the last time i looked for studies there was no indication of a problematic effect.
b) indirect: the energy is absorbed by and translated to vibrational excitations (heat), heating the tissue like a chicken in the microwave oven. This effect is well known, and, even if seemingly weak, problematic on a long timescale. Studies have shown that a non-negligible temperatue increase may/will occur, which in turn may have all kinds of bad effects. The order of magnitude for this is easy to caclulate on a paper napkin. And since it is well known it was already mentioned *in the manual of my mobile phone 7 years ago* that one should not use it contineously without a headset and keep a minumum distance (i am unsure about the manual from my phone in 2003, but i believe in may have been included). It was well known to anybody paying attention to what he uses that such an extreme use will cause harm.
So yes, all this boils down to: ignore well known facts (or even the manual) about the things you use, and get medical problems. Yes, for sure you can wait until warnings have to be placed on coke bottles that drinking 3 liters per day, every day are bad. But its no excuse to not listening the 6 years befor to a proven fact with the excuse that the manufacturer does not state that using it far outside the normal use may affect you negatively - maybe he even did so on the bottom of page one of the quickstart, but you found reading unnecessary. Every thing manufactured has a an avergage use. Is you are so far outside of this that you are in a small percentile of users only, you are somewhat on your on own.
You make a library of funcitons on your own responsibility, which itselfs forms not a complete product, open source it,get more efficient in composing your products. Your customers will not care very much about it (they want that you do the job, fast) and you can complete more projects by using the shared code. With a little luck, people will start to contribute to the library and there will be a synergy.
That is how i understand most open source projects works: provide the building block open/free (on your responsibility) and build the final product (closed) for the customer.
The myths about not being able integrate GPL components into a complete commercial product is just not true. Where i work there is a process for defining and managing obligations from the usage of open sourced code. Once this is standardized, its actually not complicated or difficult at all. If a customer doesnt understand it, explain it.
I am always a little bit sceptic when parents want their kids to do things "which they are really good at". Usual that transates to "i fed my kid the stuff i am good at and which i understand so long the kid is really good at it, in contrast to other stuff which i dont know about and where i must, for polishing my self-esteem, find a rationalizatoon of reducing the teachers authority".
No, whatever he may think. Having been teached a broad selection of stuff before you are 18 is the most important thing. Nothing reduces the choice more than not being teached the basic stuff in all directions *before* entereing university. I am grateful for every subject i had in school, even if i sucked at it, or especially then, if it had a significant content.
each bussiness model has its heyday. They come and go. Sometimes slow, sometimes quick. Some company who once had an extremely sucessful de-facto walled garden was IBM. The change was quicker than expected, one should say.
Apple already had once a de-facto walled garden (Desktop Publishing), where you had to bow to theirs standards. One generation of shitty devices and it was over.
MS is making software which works more or less. I think if they focus on doing that, they will able to hibernate trough this period.
The total environment (financially, technically) for mobile apps is not the most steady market. A little rule change on the side of Apple, and only big shops survive.
Phyton is nice and used sometimes.
But what will keep your bread buttered is Java/.NET+DB+"one application area of your choice" knowledge. Most big project are started in Java/.NET, most contain DBs.
And never focus on a language which can be only used for a single platform (Objective C - Apple), They may be the hype today. They may be the hype next year. The iphone now is 6 years old. That is significantly less than the time over whcih Siemens mobiles or Nokia mobile seemed invincible and ubiqueus in Europe. And significantly less than the first phase of success for Apple. in the 80s and 90s. (yes, also Apple can bring you products, which really suck).
a) a meta-review carefully collected from over 200 studies by independent persons and peer-revirewed in an reputable journal
b) A opinion article which overstates the original statement of the study, agrees with it in larger parts, event cites from it, and is, without anonymous peer review.
Big question: will people accept b) as a valid critics to a) on the same level. Obviously yes, on slashdot. The good title would have been: "some people dont like the results (as simplified by the media) of a study and opinionate against it." News at 11. Have seen that the last twenty years *for all* subjects related to climate change, organic farming, renewable energy etc. Somehow it seems that the will to accept scientific results ends at the point where peoples assumptions, which they may have based their habits of the last 20 years on are proven wrong. I have seen that from all sides, and as a scientist it deeply annoys me.
The original statement of the study AFAIU was: peticides and other things which should *not* be there are less in organic food. However the nutritious value is *not* significantly better.
The latter claim is one i hear very often from my friends for whom organically grown crops have super-powers. Obviously not so simple (as the study has shown), but for certain types of crop you may still want to avoid the pesticides (i prefer that for *some* fruits where i know that pesticides may be used strongly).
But that is up to you, and i am sure by looking deeper into the study and the cited sudies you may get clues how to select the right organic food.
are the most unsafe place you can imagine. I worked in a lab where a small accelerator building was attached. All doors were unlocked an unsupervised (only the "tritium" room where most radioactive sample were stored) was locked. The rest was only locked/with alarms when the accelerator was running. Some (quite small, but highly active) source used for the lab courses were (in a pile of shielding material), essentially open around the clock; and that was in the mid-90s. Everybody who knew where these were could just go in the building, enter the room and take them (if you are stupid enough....). In the same building i opened a shelf (which had no warning signs) and suddenly found contaminated tools (which were marked).
If we had an open day, and the hand of a four year old would have been small enough to insert into the hole into which the samples were let down by a rod to activate them, also something bad could have happened.
At least fore radioactive stuff there was a mandatory handling lesson, and standard procedures. What really annoys me is when it comes to chemicals in science labs. You would be surprised how much radioation it takes to result in the same increase in cancer rate as for certain chemicals commonly used; which is exactly the reason why industry either banned these or is using them with very good precautions and good working equipment, while in sciene any untrained grad student just uses these without gloves.
I agree that even on a 'open door' day a door with seriously radioactive material in an large accellerator facility should be locked, but its easy for me to imagine that its not. I believe that the biggest problem is "build a fence around the facility and we know everybody inside" method. That worked in the last century during normal operation (some other person would be spotted quite reliably), but on open door days it obviously does not work and i seriously doubt it works with the current fluctuation of inhabitants of a scientific building.
After one or two years in science, the first thing which i did when entering a new working space in an unknown area was to clean the table very carefully and look in all drawers on my desk. (and radioactivity was the least of my concerns....).
Sad but true. The West has demonstrated to the russian people over the 90s that capitalism and freedom means the freedom to exploit economic power to grab from the poor. I am afraid that this lesson stuck with them. Putin mangaged to redirect the (oil,gas) companies to pay enough taxes that a once bancrupt country is debt-free. The west has the habit of shaking the hands of dictators and oligarchs without considering moral whenever there seems to be profit and the wonder why the people in the tese countries can not get used to the idea of freedom and democracy.
then pay for it. Writing and automatic installer and or/packaging software takes additional time. The more standardized and better working you like it the more work it takes.
Until at least 25, try to build skills. Main focus should be learning fundamental things, not on earning money. That *includes*, but no way *is fulfilled* by learnign the "framework of the year".
Make sure you get a *solid* (that includes *mainly* theory) knowledge about database systems. Even if it may be or may not be your trade (it isnt mine) it will be crucial in understanding and communicating ideas and approaches from and to others, and also very much structuring your problems. We may like it or not, relational algebra and systems are behind a larger part of what is going on in IT world.
Make sure you have sufficient experience in functional, object oriented, and imperative programming to make a qualified choice for each problem.
Learn sofware tools (compiler gernerators, interface generators, and *all* the fundamental stuff)
So after "what should you aim for" lets come to "how to go there". The best way is to learn from people who do thing longer than you. So, try to go for a normal job. Pick up some skills, change what you are doing over time according to what you can learn, accept a bad payment for some time and make sure that there one or two areas in which you will be very good. Then, you will later never have to worry about how to earn money, and you still can decide how you can serve the customers which you have seen before betetr than in the company you worked for. If you dont have an idea what will be special about your frelancing, then avoid it.
My personal prediction: Just being "a guy who knows how to code" will suck as a freelancer. I have seen freelancers failing (either financially or by nerveous breakdowns) if they where anythin other than significantly above the average level. For all other freelancing was self-exploitation, with long working hours and nasty customers.
IMHO its better to develop as a badly paid programmer in a company for some time and then offer your spefic idea to the world than being a morderalty paid freelance programmer whos only adavntage in the eye of the boss will be his easy replacability.
If you have the idea what you can offer better than anybody else, you may be very happy.
he most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility. This probably wont happen until far into the future but if we make it into the future with powerful AI and technology, and we understand human thinking and feeling, at least theoretically we will eventually know the true motivations behind all actions. If the universe is predetermined and a lot of actions are based on genes, consequences, what brain type you have, environment, and situations, none of which an individual has full control over, just what is responsible for crime?
Dotn mix a physical idea with philosophy. From the complexity viewpoint the universe is complex enough that it is selforganizing on many scales. One of them are societies. There is as much wrong with that as ther would be wrong with a complex self-copying turing machine found by an evolutionary process.
With what we have the main point: There should be criminal responsibility. Yes, there are people who a) can not recognize a crime (psychoipaths) b) have no control over what they are doing or c) have episodes during which their perceived reality differs significantly from the commonly accepted one.
But: Most crimes are perceived by people who commit them willingly, planned and having the option not to do them. They should bear the responsibility for their crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I work in a consulting company and got a basic training in project management, including some risk management:
Assess the likeliness of the risk, and the impact on your project.
A) If you use an OS component sucessful for several years, developed on a stable background (e.g. Apache foundation etc.), then the risk that it wont be supported reasonably or that you have to support it alone.
B) If you use a newer, but fashionable component, there is a moderate risk that it wont be developed in the direction you like it to be
C) If you use something vey new, and special, then there is a high risk that you may end up maintaining it alone
Severity:
1) If you use a small library, which does an isolated task for you, the most severe thing which could happen is that you write this task yourself (which may be significant work, but far away from a failed project)
2) If the library is more complex and is more in the core of your functionality, doing the rewrite transparent to the user may be a hard task, and if reproducibility (e.g. of simulation results) in needed, very hard
3) Frameworks/programming languages. Well. If you bet your ass on the wrong framwork/language, and represent the whole appication logic in it, and something goes wrong there, then you are fucked. Consider that you may end up rewriting the project completely, and possibly (if there is a compatribility problem visible to the customer), loosing the customer.
Normally: Reject risks worse than A3, B2, or C1.
Customer ask for it: cover your ass, it must be in the requirements then. (iff customers insists in framework xyz, he can have it, on his responsibility)
No it is not discrimination.
I i work somewhere i have to be there. Its ok that i am forced to listen to things related to work. It is not ok that i am forced to listen to an evangelist assholes oversteppings, very often reaching into personal insult.
I can assure you, it is possible even to talk about religion at work, without insulting anybody.
I think that the word which you are looking for is not "nazi", but "fascist" and yes, there are a lot of fascists who are not nazi.
The question is if the new host will be better. Make sure to not limit the price in an unreasonable way.
They have stolen your Design, which Steve Jobs mentioned as that Apple would never build something of this size. The fact he mentioned it clearly proves that Apple designed it perfectly before any competitors examined thise size factor.
side remark: the consqequences of taking ADHD medicine can be severe.
career and success are about etics? Sounds funny, given the amount of books out there which advise you how to do things close to lying and selling youself as somebody who you arent, books how manipulate your co-workers, etc.
No career and success are always about what you are willing to do, and what personal consequences you are willing to accept
What exactly do you think "the references in that section" *exactly* means. It means that the commision is not relyin on their gut feeling, but subsumizing the results of tens of perr reviewed studies.
If you would have read for 30 seconds, you would have found this. But please stay in you self-assertive world.
The refrences in the section
"BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE (100 k H z â"300 GHz)" of
EMF guidelines - 1998
Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522; 1998,
to be found on http://www.icnirp.de/PubEMF.htm#
gives a brief overview about the library-filling study results which cause the ICNIRP to set the recommended limits as they are set today.
a) Looking up one more time: No, the value, as a mean value is roughly right (ranging from 7W/Km^2 ... 50W/m^2).
b) Having fever for one day is ok. Having it for one week is ok. Going into the sun, your body immediatly regulating your sweating, is ok. Unless you get some heat stroke, which is not uncommon. The question is: you body will not regulte the temperature so local and you are doing that every day. Even the briefest looking using you favourite method of searching would have told you that you immune system reacts to fever temperature, as well as many gene expressions. So yes, attempting to compare an event which the guy induded 5000 days consecutively to something you normally have 5 days per year is not at all a valid argument.
Luckily this queston is easy to answer. The maximum SAR value ranges typically from 0.4-1W/kg, which, according to the standard in EU must ne measured in a model which reproduces the shape of a typical head and its electromagnetif proerties. The 10g with the highes exposure are determined and compared to the limit of 2W/kg. so that means that we expose a few square cm to less than 20mW.
Rought estimation:
assumign a typical heat dissipation by convection ~5W/Km^2 and an inner conduction on the order of ~.5W/Km, a thermal effective length of a few cm, then we arrive at something ~20W/m^2K (dominated by the inner conduction), and an affected area on the order of 10^-3m^2, which results in a thermal condution of 10mW/K conductions. So, yes, this means that instantaneusly (that is, if the tissue surounding the 10g of higeht exposure is cold) we could get something on the order of 1K local increase (which is significant, but you dont die from it). If we assume that we now heat 100g surrounding tissue (4.2J/K/g) by the 20mW input (lowe limit since that was only the max) then we finde a timescale of (significantly) less than 20000s for an increase of the surrounding tissue by 1K. So that means that yes, phoning for six hours has easily the potential (according to the values published by the manufaturers and basic physics) to heat your tissue locally by 1-2 degree, and probably more for an old phone and dropping the approxiamtions we did above.
That does not cause a stroke immediatly, but i imagine that its probably not good, given that around 42 degrees the proteins in your body degenerate.
No that was not what i was saying. I was not judging the guy, but the question if the producer of the phone should be held liable.
I think that the phone itself is a tool which radiates withou judging to reach the next cell tower. It has a well defined range of use, and there were warnings about exactly this, namely using the phone for long times, uninterruped, close to your ear.
Yes, sure, you can ignoe warnings, but its your choice. Sure, maybe you dont read manuals, but its your choice. Yes, maybe the company distrubutes things without warnings, but its the choice of the company.
If you drink and eat fat unheatly food for 12 years, should you be able to sue? If you smoke for 50years and die of lung cancer, should you be able to sue? If you run over your own kid with the SUV, should you be able to sue the car company?
To me, making a producer responsible for *my* problems, *my* ignorance only should work if the product is unsafe in a way that in its normal use, with the precautions advised, significantly affects my heath AND that the producer *knowingly* or *carelessly* and *intentionally* misrepresents known facts.
There are essentially 2 main groups of effects related to electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range in questions:
a) direct: Influencing cell chemistry, ion channels, reactions, and disturbing neuronal functions by electromagnetic fields/absorbiont of energy quanta. They are unproven at best, and some of them are unklikely since the quanta are too low energy for most transitions of molecules in the body, yet the fluctuation is to fast to influence the pseudo-static potentials in the cells. This needs to be checked very carefully, since complex systems may have rectifying effects on fast timescales, but the last time i looked for studies there was no indication of a problematic effect.
b) indirect: the energy is absorbed by and translated to vibrational excitations (heat), heating the tissue like a chicken in the microwave oven. This effect is well known, and, even if seemingly weak, problematic on a long timescale. Studies have shown that a non-negligible temperatue increase may/will occur, which in turn may have all kinds of bad effects. The order of magnitude for this is easy to caclulate on a paper napkin. And since it is well known it was already mentioned *in the manual of my mobile phone 7 years ago* that one should not use it contineously without a headset and keep a minumum distance (i am unsure about the manual from my phone in 2003, but i believe in may have been included). It was well known to anybody paying attention to what he uses that such an extreme use will cause harm.
So yes, all this boils down to: ignore well known facts (or even the manual) about the things you use, and get medical problems. Yes, for sure you can wait until warnings have to be placed on coke bottles that drinking 3 liters per day, every day are bad. But its no excuse to not listening the 6 years befor to a proven fact with the excuse that the manufacturer does not state that using it far outside the normal use may affect you negatively - maybe he even did so on the bottom of page one of the quickstart, but you found reading unnecessary. Every thing manufactured has a an avergage use. Is you are so far outside of this that you are in a small percentile of users only, you are somewhat on your on own.
You make a library of funcitons on your own responsibility, which itselfs forms not a complete product, open source it,get more efficient in composing your products. Your customers will not care very much about it (they want that you do the job, fast) and you can complete more projects by using the shared code. With a little luck, people will start to contribute to the library and there will be a synergy.
That is how i understand most open source projects works: provide the building block open/free (on your responsibility) and build the final product (closed) for the customer.
The myths about not being able integrate GPL components into a complete commercial product is just not true. Where i work there is a process for defining and managing obligations from the usage of open sourced code. Once this is standardized, its actually not complicated or difficult at all. If a customer doesnt understand it, explain it.
I am always a little bit sceptic when parents want their kids to do things "which they are really good at". Usual that transates to "i fed my kid the stuff i am good at and which i understand so long the kid is really good at it, in contrast to other stuff which i dont know about and where i must, for polishing my self-esteem, find a rationalizatoon of reducing the teachers authority".
No, whatever he may think. Having been teached a broad selection of stuff before you are 18 is the most important thing. Nothing reduces the choice more than not being teached the basic stuff in all directions *before* entereing university. I am grateful for every subject i had in school, even if i sucked at it, or especially then, if it had a significant content.
each bussiness model has its heyday. They come and go. Sometimes slow, sometimes quick. Some company who once had an extremely sucessful de-facto walled garden was IBM. The change was quicker than expected, one should say.
Apple already had once a de-facto walled garden (Desktop Publishing), where you had to bow to theirs standards. One generation of shitty devices and it was over.
MS is making software which works more or less. I think if they focus on doing that, they will able to hibernate trough this period.
This.
The total environment (financially, technically) for mobile apps is not the most steady market. A little rule change on the side of Apple, and only big shops survive.
Phyton is nice and used sometimes.
But what will keep your bread buttered is Java/.NET+DB+"one application area of your choice" knowledge. Most big project are started in Java/.NET, most contain DBs.
And never focus on a language which can be only used for a single platform (Objective C - Apple), They may be the hype today. They may be the hype next year. The iphone now is 6 years old. That is significantly less than the time over whcih Siemens mobiles or Nokia mobile seemed invincible and ubiqueus in Europe. And significantly less than the first phase of success for Apple. in the 80s and 90s. (yes, also Apple can bring you products, which really suck).
i also thought the same thing:
we have
a) a meta-review carefully collected from over 200 studies by independent persons and peer-revirewed in an reputable journal
b) A opinion article which overstates the original statement of the study, agrees with it in larger parts, event cites from it, and is, without anonymous peer review.
Big question: will people accept b) as a valid critics to a) on the same level. Obviously yes, on slashdot. The good title would have been: "some people dont like the results (as simplified by the media) of a study and opinionate against it."
News at 11. Have seen that the last twenty years *for all* subjects related to climate change, organic farming, renewable energy etc. Somehow it seems that the will to accept scientific results ends at the point where peoples assumptions, which they may have based their habits of the last 20 years on are proven wrong. I have seen that from all sides, and as a scientist it deeply annoys me.
The original statement of the study AFAIU was: peticides and other things which should *not* be there are less in organic food. However the nutritious value is *not* significantly better.
The latter claim is one i hear very often from my friends for whom organically grown crops have super-powers. Obviously not so simple (as the study has shown), but for certain types of crop you may still want to avoid the pesticides (i prefer that for *some* fruits where i know that pesticides may be used strongly).
But that is up to you, and i am sure by looking deeper into the study and the cited sudies you may get clues how to select the right organic food.
are the most unsafe place you can imagine. I worked in a lab where a small accelerator building was attached. All doors were unlocked an unsupervised (only the "tritium" room where most radioactive sample were stored) was locked. The rest was only locked/with alarms when the accelerator was running. Some (quite small, but highly active) source used for the lab courses were (in a pile of shielding material), essentially open around the clock; and that was in the mid-90s. Everybody who knew where these were could just go in the building, enter the room and take them (if you are stupid enough....). In the same building i opened a shelf (which had no warning signs) and suddenly found contaminated tools (which were marked).
If we had an open day, and the hand of a four year old would have been small enough to insert into the hole into which the samples were let down by a rod to activate them, also something bad could have happened.
At least fore radioactive stuff there was a mandatory handling lesson, and standard procedures. What really annoys me is when it comes to chemicals in science labs. You would be surprised how much radioation it takes to result in the same increase in cancer rate as for certain chemicals commonly used; which is exactly the reason why industry either banned these or is using them with very good precautions and good working equipment, while in sciene any untrained grad student just uses these without gloves.
I agree that even on a 'open door' day a door with seriously radioactive material in an large accellerator facility should be locked, but its easy for me to imagine that its not. I believe that the biggest problem is "build a fence around the facility and we know everybody inside" method. That worked in the last century during normal operation (some other person would be spotted quite reliably), but on open door days it obviously does not work and i seriously doubt it works with the current fluctuation of inhabitants of a scientific building.
After one or two years in science, the first thing which i did when entering a new working space in an unknown area was to clean the table very carefully and look in all drawers on my desk. (and radioactivity was the least of my concerns....).
i have no idea what the specific needs may be. Hire somebody who equips industrial buildings for a living!
what comes to my mind wrt to IT/building intelligence:
a) separate electronics power circuit (in case some devices make a bad powerline noise)
b) at least twice as many etherenet ports as you count you will need (its cheap to fit these while you are at it)
c) well protected/easily replacable ethernet sockets (not sure what metal dust maydo to these
d) The building automation/control bus of your choice/your main vendors choice
e) smart metering (in case you want to know what you spend the power for)
f) room temperature,CO2,humidity,VOC sensors - in cas you ever are interested if the air conditioning is running too much
g) plan for vibration dampers (not sure what kind of CNC your workshop does.....) for servers?
DLD = Deutsche Linux-Distribution
Sad but true. The West has demonstrated to the russian people over the 90s that capitalism and freedom means the freedom to exploit economic power to grab from the poor. I am afraid that this lesson stuck with them. Putin mangaged to redirect the (oil,gas) companies to pay enough taxes that a once bancrupt country is debt-free. The west has the habit of shaking the hands of dictators and oligarchs without considering moral whenever there seems to be profit and the wonder why the people in the tese countries can not get used to the idea of freedom and democracy.
then pay for it. Writing and automatic installer and or/packaging software takes additional time. The more standardized and better working you like it the more work it takes.
Until at least 25, try to build skills. Main focus should be learning fundamental things, not on earning money. That *includes*, but no way *is fulfilled* by learnign the "framework of the year".
Make sure you get a *solid* (that includes *mainly* theory) knowledge about database systems. Even if it may be or may not be your trade (it isnt mine) it will be crucial in understanding and communicating ideas and approaches from and to others, and also very much structuring your problems. We may like it or not, relational algebra and systems are behind a larger part of what is going on in IT world.
Make sure you have sufficient experience in functional, object oriented, and imperative programming to make a qualified choice for each problem.
Learn sofware tools (compiler gernerators, interface generators, and *all* the fundamental stuff)
So after "what should you aim for" lets come to "how to go there". The best way is to learn from people who do thing longer than you. So, try to go for a normal job. Pick up some skills, change what you are doing over time according to what you can learn, accept a bad payment for some time and make sure that there one or two areas in which you will be very good. Then, you will later never have to worry about how to earn money, and you still can decide how you can serve the customers which you have seen before betetr than in the company you worked for. If you dont have an idea what will be special about your frelancing, then avoid it.
My personal prediction: Just being "a guy who knows how to code" will suck as a freelancer. I have seen freelancers failing (either financially or by nerveous breakdowns) if they where anythin other than significantly above the average level. For all other freelancing was self-exploitation, with long working hours and nasty customers.
IMHO its better to develop as a badly paid programmer in a company for some time and then offer your spefic idea to the world than being a morderalty paid freelance programmer whos only adavntage in the eye of the boss will be his easy replacability.
If you have the idea what you can offer better than anybody else, you may be very happy.
he most radical idea I'm going to propose is that we get rid of the idea of criminal responsibility. This probably wont happen until far into the future but if we make it into the future with powerful AI and technology, and we understand human thinking and feeling, at least theoretically we will eventually know the true motivations behind all actions. If the universe is predetermined and a lot of actions are based on genes, consequences, what brain type you have, environment, and situations, none of which an individual has full control over, just what is responsible for crime?
Dotn mix a physical idea with philosophy. From the complexity viewpoint the universe is complex enough that it is selforganizing on many scales. One of them are societies. There is as much wrong with that as ther would be wrong with a complex self-copying turing machine found by an evolutionary process.
With what we have the main point: There should be criminal responsibility. Yes, there are people who a) can not recognize a crime (psychoipaths) b) have no control over what they are doing or c) have episodes during which their perceived reality differs significantly from the commonly accepted one.
But: Most crimes are perceived by people who commit them willingly, planned and having the option not to do them. They should bear the responsibility for their crime.