it is unfortunate so many people out there think freedom means "i can do whatever the hell i want without consequence" like an immature child
Just what DO you think freedom means? Do you think freedom means "I can do whatever the hell I want, right up until the point the state decides what I'm doing is irresponsible and sends goons to beat the shit out of me, throw me in a cage, and/or kill me?" Because that's an awfully funny definition of "freedom"; it's rather similar to "despotism".
where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom
if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is
The usual way that statement works is "the large print giveth, the small print taketh away". For example, "citizens have the right to free speech / citizens have the responsibility not to speak in a way Authority doesn't like".
Wrong NOTAM, as they were in Boulder County, not Larimer County. There is a NOTAM for Lyons, but since the drone operators were operating under Boulder County SAR's authority, they were not violating it.
Besides, all the work required to chop her up would be an order of magnitude more dangerous than the ship graveyards in India where the West happily sends junk ships to be chopped up because doing it here would either be too dangerous or cost too much. Daily fatalities on each ship there are something we turn a blind eye to and the poverty there ensures that there despite the dangers is no shortage of cheap labor.
It can't cost that much to bring in another ship full of people from the third world desperate for work. Build a little temporary walled-off town to supply any needed services, and it's simple enough to continue to turn a blind eye to the conditions.
There's a big omission in Spencer's graph - datasets of ground-based temp measurements. The satellite readings have always been cooler and have needed numerous adjustments one way or the other.
That's because they haven't figured out how to put a satellite next to the exhaust from an HVAC system.
Back in the 1970s, CO2 wasn't considered a pollutant. So if you could burn things (specifically hydrocarbons) completely and produce nothing but CO2 + H2O, no problem. Now, CO2 is considered a pollutant. The only way to reduce CO2 is to not burn hydrocarbons -- burning them better is no longer an option. That's a massive difference.
2) Putting less pollutants into the air, water, and ground is a good thing.
Civilization runs on energy. Burning less hydrocarbons = less energy = less civilization. Alternatives can't even come close, not even if you bring hydro (kills fish, destroys habitats, etc, etc) or nuclear (ewww...) back into the picture.
The question has been asked before. What is the consequence of we as a collective through our governmental policy of lowering human contributed GHG producing particles?
Pascal's wager is dumb with gods and it's dumb with greenhouse gases. In any case, so far drops in greenhouse gas emissions have been the result of, not the cause of, economic ruin.
But ecisions about land use and urbanism create more efficient cities and the prospect of continued affordability and rising equality.
Those of us in the first world are negatively impacted by "rising equality" -- it means China and other countries not covered improve their own standard of living (by emitting GHGs like there's no tomorrow) at our expense.
Other things we don't ever see: Practical flying cars Huge (10x or more) advances in battery technology (charge time, power density, energy density) Practical and scalable renewable energy Practical fusion power Decent low-power lighting (that's why they had to mandate it) Diesels that don't smoke. Novel cures for diseases, put into practice.
Technological progress is going slow. It's all been hidden by the semiconductor revolution, but everything else is grinding to a halt.
All cars both old and new should be retrofitted with RFID tags that broadcast far enough to allow constant monitoring, you speed you get a chime warning you, if you don't slow, a moment later you get a electronic ticket attached to your RFID number, you park incorrectly, you get a chime, moments later you are electronically ticketed and a tow truck is called.
That ever happens I'm going to locate an Oldsmobile 442, fill the trunk with toilet paper, and break every traffic law in existence.
(Why the TP? Because I don't know how to use the 3 seashells, damnit)
Nope, the NSA controlled the servers, it led to an NSA controlled IP address and they have the hackers needed.
Don't be ridiculous. The NSA hackers were probably laughing and pointing at the FBI and snickering about how they were amateurs. Remember the NSA has only gotten caught when they've been betrayed, not because their technical means were discovered.
A US urban "ghetto" is easy to spot. Your first clue will be the boarded-up buildings, perhaps collapsed ones, trash-filled abandoned lots. Often enough, graffiti on everything. Any businesses will look run-down, typically will have metal gates, and the types of businesses will be characteristic -- check cashing, fried chicken joints (typically no-name ones, but sometimes Church's or Popeyes), dollar stores. If you're there during the day, there will be people just hanging around, smoking, drinking, and generally looking hostile.
Technology didn't create these. Technology just lets you avoid them before you get carjacked.
As someone above said, there seems to be this movement where UI (or in newspeak, "UX") experts are brought in with their doctrine of "right" and "wrong" interface design practices, and their egos which prevent them from re-evaluating their decisions when the entire user community tells them consistently and loudly that they don't like it.
There are right and wrong interface design practices. The problem is, nowadays the "wrong" practices are in fashion. Hint: if I have to chase UI elements around with my pointer because they oh-so-helpfully MOVE, you're doing it wrong. If the most common features are hidden three levels deep, you're doing it wrong. If I have to hit a small, invisible box to do anything, you're doing it wrong. These are not fashions or resistance to change, these are just plain bad practices. They're as wrong as a segfault.
We can limit Chinese, or any other country's, influence or control over whatever we want and we'll pay a price for doing so. How much money are we really willing to spend, as a premium, to avoid Chinese involvement?
When it comes to nuclear plants on your own soil, I suggest "whatever it takes".
There are basically zero cultural differences due to age between people in the same job in the tech industry, other than some sort of artificial picket fence manufactured by marketing to sell t-shirts to teenagers who haven't figured it out yet.
ROTFL. There's an large cultural difference between people born just after WWII and those just before, and that's less than ten years. Things change faster than that. I got the tail end of nuclear war hysteria; my younger co-workers grew up largely in a world without a Soviet Union. Things like that make a difference.
As for this article, it's crappy link-bait of course. 1) Use the phone: Hey, my father (Baby Boom generation) was using email before I even started school; maybe before I was born. If you haven't figured it out now, you're probably not in my management chain.
2) I'm Gen X, not Gen Y; please don't lump us together. The stereotype of us as cynical and disaffected slackers is unfair but not wholly without basis. We DID learn to say Please and Thank You, but we recognize them as the empty words they are.
3) No, I am not ending my emails with that hilariously ridiculous signature that you do. You do realize that the legalese nonsense at the bottom doesn't really protect you when you accidentally email trade secrets to journalists, right?
4) Again you're conflating Gen X and Gen Y. Perhaps you meant to tell me not to use 133t $p34K?
5) If you're a Boomer in my management chain, you damn well better be a digital PIONEER, not a mere immigrant. If I try to baffle you with technology-speak, you should be telling me not to teach grandmother to suck eggs -- and I'll tell the millennials the same.
6) Ha ha, yeah, "work hard", I'm sure that's how you remember it now. Except those of you who got drafted, I'm not buying it; I've heard the stories.
Sadly, I believe you'll find that --as far as education is involved-- Slashdot is not a place that welcomes people with experience. Instead, people are valued for uninformed opinions and political stances based on anecdotal experience. To them, it is better to punish a hundred people (teachers) because one of them annoyed them ten years ago than try to actually try to analyze the problems.
The "people with experience" inside the system have been running things into the ground for decades if not longer. Maybe someone should consider something else.
Never quite understood the constant gushing on about 'diversity' or how exactly this would benefit STEM.
Well, IF there's a "crisis" in that there is a shortage of qualified STEM employees at affordable prices, and IF the proportion of STEM-qualified employees in the "diversity" groups is similar to that in the majority groups (white and Asian males), and IF their relative underrepresentation is due to something employers are doing to cause their exclusion, then the "crisis" might be relieved by hiring more of the underrepresented minorities.
However, the premise of the article is that this fails on the very first "if".
There's also companies dumb enough to ask for 10 years of HTML5+CSS3 experience.
What's so dumb about that? They get thousands of resumes with exactly those qualifications for each position they post, so why should they settle for less?
(Fortunately I can still beat them out with my 5 years of Windows 8 Enterprise experience)
The highest LSAT score comes from phyics/math majors with engineering being a close second.
Law requires aptitude in English.
So, then, assuming the above is true, why do physics and math and engineering majors do better on the LSAT than English majors?
My answer (perhaps a wee bit egotistical) is that STEM majors are just plain smarter -- the average native English speaker who completed an engineering degree could easily have completed an English (or other liberal arts) degree whereas the average native English speaker who completed an English or other liberal arts degree would have flunked out of any STEM program by their sophomore year.
I hear IBM is violating your patent left and right. They are tracking all their field service vehicles using a system just like the one in your patent. Go get 'em.
This is a patent on "technologies for tracking vehicles and providing users with electronic updates", which isn't necessarily a "software" patent, even if the particular implementation they are going after is all software.
Sounds like "patenting the goal" to me. Also patenting something Qualcomm, at least, was doing over 20 years ago.
burning through $2000/week ($124,000/yr gross if you add 20% for taxes) isn't 'bad with numbers' it's mental illness.
The guy was in construction; the work isn't regular, so it wouldn't be $2000 every week. Anyway, it's easy enough to burn through over $2000 a week without being mentally ill... you just need a house. If that doesn't do it, get a boat.
Slashdot Mirror
And no, more and bigger thimbles won't help.
Just what DO you think freedom means? Do you think freedom means "I can do whatever the hell I want, right up until the point the state decides what I'm doing is irresponsible and sends goons to beat the shit out of me, throw me in a cage, and/or kill me?" Because that's an awfully funny definition of "freedom"; it's rather similar to "despotism".
The usual way that statement works is "the large print giveth, the small print taketh away". For example, "citizens have the right to free speech / citizens have the responsibility not to speak in a way Authority doesn't like".
Wrong NOTAM, as they were in Boulder County, not Larimer County. There is a NOTAM for Lyons, but since the drone operators were operating under Boulder County SAR's authority, they were not violating it.
Except that the main (but not only) source of the chemical is the cork.
I cheated and read the article. They WERE US Defense Contractor drones that FEMA shut down.
It can't cost that much to bring in another ship full of people from the third world desperate for work. Build a little temporary walled-off town to supply any needed services, and it's simple enough to continue to turn a blind eye to the conditions.
That's because they haven't figured out how to put a satellite next to the exhaust from an HVAC system.
Back in the 1970s, CO2 wasn't considered a pollutant. So if you could burn things (specifically hydrocarbons) completely and produce nothing but CO2 + H2O, no problem. Now, CO2 is considered a pollutant. The only way to reduce CO2 is to not burn hydrocarbons -- burning them better is no longer an option. That's a massive difference.
Civilization runs on energy. Burning less hydrocarbons = less energy = less civilization. Alternatives can't even come close, not even if you bring hydro (kills fish, destroys habitats, etc, etc) or nuclear (ewww...) back into the picture.
Pascal's wager is dumb with gods and it's dumb with greenhouse gases. In any case, so far drops in greenhouse gas emissions have been the result of, not the cause of, economic ruin.
Those of us in the first world are negatively impacted by "rising equality" -- it means China and other countries not covered improve their own standard of living (by emitting GHGs like there's no tomorrow) at our expense.
Other things we don't ever see:
Practical flying cars
Huge (10x or more) advances in battery technology (charge time, power density, energy density)
Practical and scalable renewable energy
Practical fusion power
Decent low-power lighting (that's why they had to mandate it)
Diesels that don't smoke.
Novel cures for diseases, put into practice.
Technological progress is going slow. It's all been hidden by the semiconductor revolution, but everything else is grinding to a halt.
That ever happens I'm going to locate an Oldsmobile 442, fill the trunk with toilet paper, and break every traffic law in existence.
(Why the TP? Because I don't know how to use the 3 seashells, damnit)
Don't be ridiculous. The NSA hackers were probably laughing and pointing at the FBI and snickering about how they were amateurs. Remember the NSA has only gotten caught when they've been betrayed, not because their technical means were discovered.
A US urban "ghetto" is easy to spot. Your first clue will be the boarded-up buildings, perhaps collapsed ones, trash-filled abandoned lots. Often enough, graffiti on everything. Any businesses will look run-down, typically will have metal gates, and the types of businesses will be characteristic -- check cashing, fried chicken joints (typically no-name ones, but sometimes Church's or Popeyes), dollar stores. If you're there during the day, there will be people just hanging around, smoking, drinking, and generally looking hostile.
Technology didn't create these. Technology just lets you avoid them before you get carjacked.
There are right and wrong interface design practices. The problem is, nowadays the "wrong" practices are in fashion. Hint: if I have to chase UI elements around with my pointer because they oh-so-helpfully MOVE, you're doing it wrong. If the most common features are hidden three levels deep, you're doing it wrong. If I have to hit a small, invisible box to do anything, you're doing it wrong. These are not fashions or resistance to change, these are just plain bad practices. They're as wrong as a segfault.
When it comes to nuclear plants on your own soil, I suggest "whatever it takes".
The NSA had a copy of this one from the beginning, too.
ROTFL. There's an large cultural difference between people born just after WWII and those just before, and that's less than ten years. Things change faster than that. I got the tail end of nuclear war hysteria; my younger co-workers grew up largely in a world without a Soviet Union. Things like that make a difference.
As for this article, it's crappy link-bait of course.
1) Use the phone: Hey, my father (Baby Boom generation) was using email before I even started school; maybe before I was born. If you haven't figured it out now, you're probably not in my management chain.
2) I'm Gen X, not Gen Y; please don't lump us together. The stereotype of us as cynical and disaffected slackers is unfair but not wholly without basis. We DID learn to say Please and Thank You, but we recognize them as the empty words they are.
3) No, I am not ending my emails with that hilariously ridiculous signature that you do. You do realize that the legalese nonsense at the bottom doesn't really protect you when you accidentally email trade secrets to journalists, right?
4) Again you're conflating Gen X and Gen Y. Perhaps you meant to tell me not to use 133t $p34K?
5) If you're a Boomer in my management chain, you damn well better be a digital PIONEER, not a mere immigrant. If I try to baffle you with technology-speak, you should be telling me not to teach grandmother to suck eggs -- and I'll tell the millennials the same.
6) Ha ha, yeah, "work hard", I'm sure that's how you remember it now. Except those of you who got drafted, I'm not buying it; I've heard the stories.
The "people with experience" inside the system have been running things into the ground for decades if not longer. Maybe someone should consider something else.
Browse a few tame (preferably Victorian-level tame, but Playboy is probably tame enough) porn sites and "accidentally" leave them in your history.
Well, IF there's a "crisis" in that there is a shortage of qualified STEM employees at affordable prices, and IF the proportion of STEM-qualified employees in the "diversity" groups is similar to that in the majority groups (white and Asian males), and IF their relative underrepresentation is due to something employers are doing to cause their exclusion, then the "crisis" might be relieved by hiring more of the underrepresented minorities.
However, the premise of the article is that this fails on the very first "if".
What's so dumb about that? They get thousands of resumes with exactly those qualifications for each position they post, so why should they settle for less?
(Fortunately I can still beat them out with my 5 years of Windows 8 Enterprise experience)
So, then, assuming the above is true, why do physics and math and engineering majors do better on the LSAT than English majors?
My answer (perhaps a wee bit egotistical) is that STEM majors are just plain smarter -- the average native English speaker who completed an engineering degree could easily have completed an English (or other liberal arts) degree whereas the average native English speaker who completed an English or other liberal arts degree would have flunked out of any STEM program by their sophomore year.
Dear Mr. Jones:
I hear IBM is violating your patent left and right. They are tracking all their field service vehicles using a system just like the one in your patent. Go get 'em.
Best Regards,
Darl McBride
Sounds like "patenting the goal" to me. Also patenting something Qualcomm, at least, was doing over 20 years ago.
The guy was in construction; the work isn't regular, so it wouldn't be $2000 every week. Anyway, it's easy enough to burn through over $2000 a week without being mentally ill... you just need a house. If that doesn't do it, get a boat.