That would be a good thing. Oppression and the removal of liberties is the price we pay for getting too complacent and comfortable. And we have. Indolent and lazy, far too happy to blather about Big Brother than to actually care about freedom. Either we won't notice the lack, and will quite happily settle down as the mindless cattle that we are, or something will have to change. Unfortunately, there's some things that don't change evolutionary - when you've got a power system in place, it's a very rare individual that will willingly cede that power. Because even if they're an idealist, they'll realise that the people who accept the reins of oppression willingly are too _stupid_ to govern themselves.
So I say bring the oppression. Lets have more surveillance, more security, more monitoring. Let's have more nanny state. Because it won't roll back - it's just too much power to discard, and there's still 'good' arguments for why you need more of it. And the people making the arguments... well, they stand to gain greatly one way, but not so much the other.
That's something that will only change through revolution. Root and branch, our political system has degenerated into nepotism and cyclical cronyism - as nothing really changes, apart from the colour scheme on the propaganda, and the political class continue to gain in power.
Revolution is all that will resolve that - because those in charge like being in charge.
There is one very obvious reason why men don't like to wear condoms ("it doesn't feel as good...duh").
Actually I'd refute that one. If your objective is to blow your load as fast as possible, then sure. If your objective is to allow your partner to enjoy herself, then reduced sensitivity is actually a good thing. Indeed, there's even condoms sold with that notion in mind.
I'd say the major drawback of a condom is that they're inconvenient - when you're putting it one before hand, and when you take it off after. But hey, it's a good reason we have a study, so we can actually get a scientific approach, rather than listening to anecdotes.
Better or worse than having her on the pill, or those contraceptive injections? *shrug*. Either approach has it's drawbacks. All that's really important is that both of you talk about it, and maybe you start thinking really long term and get some of your sperm put on ice somewhere or something.
But at the end of the day, it's not like there's a shortage of children in need of adoptive parents. Individuals breeding shouldn't really be a right.
If there's a market for 'desensitising' condoms, so men don't blow their load before they've had time for the woman to finish, then surely that's an advantage to having been circumcised? Or am I missing something?
Anyway, the study covers why _men_ don't like wearing condoms. But surely that's only half the story? *shrug*. I wear condoms, because I don't want any suprise STDs or babys. With the best will in the world, brains don't work properly when partners are getting worked up, and that's really not the time to start asking questions about recent STD testing, pill use, whatever. When you're settled down with a long term partner, who you trust enough to have the discussions about birth control and to know that they've not 'caught anything nasty' in the dim and distant past... well, that's about the point where it's reasonable.
No more than burning coal does. Reactors use a mass to energy conversion, to 'unlock' energy stored as mass, much like burning coal releases stored chemical energy.
I found my current significant other through learning to dance. It's actually fairly similar in terms of 'technical-ness' - it might not seem it on the surfac, but particularly the partnered dance styles are quite clear, technically.
On the plus side, it's also a reasonable workout.
Six Sigma is actually very relevant to IT - it's about process design and engineering - of treating every given task as a process, and then looking to optimize it. To... basically minimise the scope for error - because that's what costs money in a production line.
However if you look at it from a software design or just general IT operations point of view - these lessons remain relevant. The easiest way to get a service reliable is to minimise the error rate. The way you minimise the error rate is to make it easy for the human involved to do the 'right' thing, and make it hard for them to do the 'wrong' thing accidentally. You're also looking at the place which take man hours - because those are the things that tend to cost more money. How much of that can you automate? How much of that can you reduce by 'being effective' in your IT? Things like reducing 'data entry' by transferring from one database to another.
And also figuring out what information is actually needed for a process to function - are we asking redundant questions, or worse counterproductive ones? Where do I need to get that information from - my end user is not going to know which tape their backup restore was on.
Certainly a fair bit of it is 'common sense' but it's common sense with a methodical/analytical basis. It's also not as 'OMG SCARY' as it sounds - it, like ITIL are actually quite straight forward mindsets, but ones which encourage you to stop and ask that guy over there why he's deleting 20,000 files across a hard disk 10 at a time. (Yes, really. One of my colleagues was tasked to clear up some old logfiles across a few thousand user shares)
But bottom line it's exactly what "Information Technology" really should be all about - being efficient and effective at turning data into information.
Actually I'd say relatively few people I know who finished a CS degree ended up being programmers. Most (that ended up in a techy job) have ended up in IT support/operations.
You misunderstand 'evolution' - it's not a process of engineering the optimal lifeform. It's a random chance thing, where you bung a load of mutations in a pot, and see which ones die.
Engineering out or in particular traits are all well and good, but... can you ever see humans being so conformist as to have identical children with a low biodiversity such that they're susceptible to something like that?
Not that I particularly care - as far as I'm concerned for the vast majority of humanity breeding is a privilege, not a right.
I get told "You're overweight, fix that and everything else will go away". Whilst I appreciate that being fat might well not be helping my general health, it's a perpetual irritation to get fobbed off every time I go see a doctor.
It's ok to teach people who are liable to be working with FORTRAN, how to do FORTRAN. It's one of the better tools for certain tasks.
However I wouldn't include computer science people in on it. Computer Science shouldn't be about learning a language, it should be about learning a paradigm. FORTRAN is therefore a subject of curiosity, rather than a subject of study.
Standard naming conventions are ugly. Just use a proper directory structure instead. At least then you know where you need to start looking for something you want.
Although I'm seriously wondering how long it'll be before we see the 'next generation' of filesystems, that stop actually treating files and directories as the 'basic' object, and treat everything as a document - essentially 'forcing' categorization of them. Doesn't work so well in programspace, but would work fine for almost everything that _should_ be on a user/network share.
Sadly it's because Sarah Connor Chronicles weren't actually very good until about the last few episodes or so. The whole preceding two seasons were really rather weak as a whole.
Actually, it does - I'm an IT outsourcer for a big company.
Does make some stuff really easy though, as you're never caught with the really stupid requests, because anything like that becomes a chargeable project.
You missed the: ... and charge them time and materials for increase support overhead
Seriously, there's nothing that torpedos stupid requests faster... or gives you the additional resourcing you need in order to deal with something you think is just pointless time waste. If it's important enough that someone's prepared to pay (a realistic price) for it, then it's important enough that IT _should_ be doing it.
There's very little that's actively impossible in IT, but everything comes with costs - either hardware or increased man hours needed to support. Present those costs to your customer, and they'll probably re-assess what they're actually asking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a VOIP call works fine for outbound, it's not so great for inbound on your published phone number for your company mobile.
That would be a good thing. Oppression and the removal of liberties is the price we pay for getting too complacent and comfortable. And we have. Indolent and lazy, far too happy to blather about Big Brother than to actually care about freedom. Either we won't notice the lack, and will quite happily settle down as the mindless cattle that we are, or something will have to change. Unfortunately, there's some things that don't change evolutionary - when you've got a power system in place, it's a very rare individual that will willingly cede that power. Because even if they're an idealist, they'll realise that the people who accept the reins of oppression willingly are too _stupid_ to govern themselves.
So I say bring the oppression. Lets have more surveillance, more security, more monitoring. Let's have more nanny state. Because it won't roll back - it's just too much power to discard, and there's still 'good' arguments for why you need more of it. And the people making the arguments... well, they stand to gain greatly one way, but not so much the other.
That's something that will only change through revolution. Root and branch, our political system has degenerated into nepotism and cyclical cronyism - as nothing really changes, apart from the colour scheme on the propaganda, and the political class continue to gain in power.
Revolution is all that will resolve that - because those in charge like being in charge.
Seriously, what's wrong with non synthetic trees? They cost nothing to build, and are really very low maintenance indeed...
That would be 'cue' not 'queue'.
One in a million shots don't seem as bad when you've got 6 billion bullets.
Because it's the taxpayer who ends up carrying the bill for STDs and unwanted pregnancies, not the condom manufacturer.
Actually I'd refute that one. If your objective is to blow your load as fast as possible, then sure. If your objective is to allow your partner to enjoy herself, then reduced sensitivity is actually a good thing. Indeed, there's even condoms sold with that notion in mind.
I'd say the major drawback of a condom is that they're inconvenient - when you're putting it one before hand, and when you take it off after. But hey, it's a good reason we have a study, so we can actually get a scientific approach, rather than listening to anecdotes.
Particularly things carrying quite as much emotional baggage as sex. People will often lie or distort the truth when it comes to sex.
Better or worse than having her on the pill, or those contraceptive injections? *shrug*. Either approach has it's drawbacks. All that's really important is that both of you talk about it, and maybe you start thinking really long term and get some of your sperm put on ice somewhere or something.
But at the end of the day, it's not like there's a shortage of children in need of adoptive parents. Individuals breeding shouldn't really be a right.
If there's a market for 'desensitising' condoms, so men don't blow their load before they've had time for the woman to finish, then surely that's an advantage to having been circumcised? Or am I missing something?
Anyway, the study covers why _men_ don't like wearing condoms. But surely that's only half the story? *shrug*. I wear condoms, because I don't want any suprise STDs or babys. With the best will in the world, brains don't work properly when partners are getting worked up, and that's really not the time to start asking questions about recent STD testing, pill use, whatever. When you're settled down with a long term partner, who you trust enough to have the discussions about birth control and to know that they've not 'caught anything nasty' in the dim and distant past... well, that's about the point where it's reasonable.
There's no shortage of children in the world in need of decent parents. Dropping your _own_ sprog really shouldn't be a 'right'.
No more than burning coal does. Reactors use a mass to energy conversion, to 'unlock' energy stored as mass, much like burning coal releases stored chemical energy.
I found my current significant other through learning to dance. It's actually fairly similar in terms of 'technical-ness' - it might not seem it on the surfac, but particularly the partnered dance styles are quite clear, technically.
On the plus side, it's also a reasonable workout.
Six Sigma is actually very relevant to IT - it's about process design and engineering - of treating every given task as a process, and then looking to optimize it. To ... basically minimise the scope for error - because that's what costs money in a production line.
However if you look at it from a software design or just general IT operations point of view - these lessons remain relevant. The easiest way to get a service reliable is to minimise the error rate. The way you minimise the error rate is to make it easy for the human involved to do the 'right' thing, and make it hard for them to do the 'wrong' thing accidentally. You're also looking at the place which take man hours - because those are the things that tend to cost more money. How much of that can you automate? How much of that can you reduce by 'being effective' in your IT? Things like reducing 'data entry' by transferring from one database to another.
And also figuring out what information is actually needed for a process to function - are we asking redundant questions, or worse counterproductive ones? Where do I need to get that information from - my end user is not going to know which tape their backup restore was on.
Certainly a fair bit of it is 'common sense' but it's common sense with a methodical/analytical basis. It's also not as 'OMG SCARY' as it sounds - it, like ITIL are actually quite straight forward mindsets, but ones which encourage you to stop and ask that guy over there why he's deleting 20,000 files across a hard disk 10 at a time. (Yes, really. One of my colleagues was tasked to clear up some old logfiles across a few thousand user shares)
But bottom line it's exactly what "Information Technology" really should be all about - being efficient and effective at turning data into information.
Actually I'd say relatively few people I know who finished a CS degree ended up being programmers. Most (that ended up in a techy job) have ended up in IT support/operations.
You misunderstand 'evolution' - it's not a process of engineering the optimal lifeform. It's a random chance thing, where you bung a load of mutations in a pot, and see which ones die. ... can you ever see humans being so conformist as to have identical children with a low biodiversity such that they're susceptible to something like that?
Engineering out or in particular traits are all well and good, but
Not that I particularly care - as far as I'm concerned for the vast majority of humanity breeding is a privilege, not a right.
One day I dream of having a post that's accumulated both -5 troll, and +5 insightful on the same post.
I get told "You're overweight, fix that and everything else will go away". Whilst I appreciate that being fat might well not be helping my general health, it's a perpetual irritation to get fobbed off every time I go see a doctor.
I am so very glad I live in a country with a national health service.
It's ok to teach people who are liable to be working with FORTRAN, how to do FORTRAN. It's one of the better tools for certain tasks.
However I wouldn't include computer science people in on it. Computer Science shouldn't be about learning a language, it should be about learning a paradigm. FORTRAN is therefore a subject of curiosity, rather than a subject of study.
Standard naming conventions are ugly. Just use a proper directory structure instead. At least then you know where you need to start looking for something you want.
Although I'm seriously wondering how long it'll be before we see the 'next generation' of filesystems, that stop actually treating files and directories as the 'basic' object, and treat everything as a document - essentially 'forcing' categorization of them. Doesn't work so well in programspace, but would work fine for almost everything that _should_ be on a user/network share.
seems to work quite nice. Also means it hits the backup, in case of muppetry.
Sadly it's because Sarah Connor Chronicles weren't actually very good until about the last few episodes or so. The whole preceding two seasons were really rather weak as a whole.
Actually, it does - I'm an IT outsourcer for a big company.
Does make some stuff really easy though, as you're never caught with the really stupid requests, because anything like that becomes a chargeable project.
You missed the:
... and charge them time and materials for increase support overhead
Seriously, there's nothing that torpedos stupid requests faster... or gives you the additional resourcing you need in order to deal with something you think is just pointless time waste. If it's important enough that someone's prepared to pay (a realistic price) for it, then it's important enough that IT _should_ be doing it.
There's very little that's actively impossible in IT, but everything comes with costs - either hardware or increased man hours needed to support. Present those costs to your customer, and they'll probably re-assess what they're actually asking for.