Pople who learned to read that way simply do not read for pleasure. They read when they are required to do so, but not otherwise.
If you are a "whole word reader", and you encounter a word you've never seen before, it's off to the dictionary to look up the new ideogram (since that how the words are taught using that method), even if you actually use the word daily when speaking.
I've occasionally wondered if we are going to have to make books available in "text speak", in the same way that we make them available in braille, in order to comply with the Americans With Disabilities act.
I'm pretty sure the Romans thought their empire was going to last forever, and built based on that eventuality.
So what you're arguing is that the Romans would have build just as ephemerally as we do, even though they didn't expect to be ephemeral, had slaves, and didn't have labor unions that needed make-work contracts to keep the workers happy.
By "selection bias", you are referring to the Romans killing engineers and architects who built things that fell down, leaving only non-dead engineers and architects to design and build new things, right?
The flip side of that coin is that if you overbuild the bridges, you may only be able to afford to fix half of them.
The flip side of that is that there are Roman aqueducts still in service, because the Romans overbuilt as well. So you won't *need* to fix the other half of them.
Not really. The better we've become at engineering, the more we cut the bridge designs from "massively overbuilt, in such a way as to endure they never fall apart" to replace them with "barely overbuilt, in such a way as the first storm slightly out of the overage tolerance we've allowed will cause everything to be destroyed".
Seems stupid.
Rather than trying to figure out how to cut our tolerances as close to the bone as possible, we should probably go back to massively overbuilding things -- and then use our knowledge of tolerances to *ensure* they are massively overbuilt.
If we did that, we wouldn't have things like the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse happening. The bridges might sink into the ground under their own weight, but they wouldn't be collapsing.
No longer UC's property, no longer UC's problem. And still available to whoever may wish to view it.
You actually can't do this.
Trying to put something in the public domain to get out from under legal liability is the reason things like the MIT and BSD license exist: in order to attach a hold harmless clause, you have to assert Copyright, such that the only terms on which the content may be legally used is via agreement to the terms of the license.
It's unfortunate that there is not a blanket hold harmless exception for works placed in the public domain, but there's none. It's very difficult to make something actually public domain, these days.
Code schools aren't the place to go if you want to be a "rock star" at Google or Facebook. These are designed to turn out junior developers, or "apprentices" as they're known at Software Guild, which currently has 16 instructors and 148 students split between in-person and online programs. Students learn just enough to be dropped into teams of more experienced coders and continue their education at a company, even as they draw a competitive full-time salary.
So you can drop them onto a team at "Bob's Software Company" to continue their education... and when they get good enough... "Screw Bob! I'm going to Google!".
What's the incentive to Bob to hire these gits who are just using his company as a free method of not paying DeVry Institute or a similar company for their vocational education? Because if I were Bob, I'd be kind of pissed, since my company was created to create software, not provide vocation education.
Why should I pay someone to attend my (now) vocational education company, again? Because students who are rookies should be paid to be students, while at the same time soaking up cycles from my senior developers, so that they can't produce complex code for me, either?
Someone must thing Bob's a fricking moron... "Here's some students to teach at your vocational institute, while not getting a lot of useful effort out of them. And oh, by the way: the tuition is a negative number".
If you want to be an apprentice some place, become an electrician, a plumber, or an HVAC specialist. Software Engineering doesn't *have* apprentices, because they don't have a *union* to prevent people not in the union from getting jobs as software engineers!
1. Take a large rock in space 2. Dilute that rock with space, yielding a large space rock tincture 3. Repeat the process until you have a small space rock tincture 4. Drop the small space rocks on Earth, from the height of the moon (works because the moon is "up" and the Earth is "down") 5. Kaboom! 6. ??? 7. Profit!
My god! What if she thinks to use space dust, instead! The more you dilute a homeopathic tincture like that, the more effective it becomes! We're all doomed!
Remote workers are the people you throw under the stacked ranking bus when it's time to get rid of the people you have no emotional attachment to, so that your friends get to keep their jobs.
There's a reason Yahoo got rid of remote workers, and why they tend not to last long at companies which do stacked ranking in employee evaluations.
With the greatest possible respect because I'm sure that you are very good at something, have you considered that those items you listed are not of an appropriate size to drive tiny little robot parts and that it would be difficult to control dozens of them at once?
You realize that you can drive pretty much everything with two hydraulic lines (one a return line), some check valves, and a mechanical stepper, right?
Did you never take a "Furby" apart?
I think where you are going wrong is with the idea of "at once".
The truth is that hydraulic controls are entirely capable of performing these functions. That is not at all the limiting factor. It's more about cable management.
Completely agree. And you only have to manage it from the point at which the electronics in a standard robot would start to degrade; standard robot up to that line, hydraulic past that line.
However, this begs the question, do we actually "need something like" "the equivalent of dozens of very tiny stepper motors controlled by hydraulics"? The more I think about this, the more I think that what is wanted is a tentacle, rather than a walking or driving robot.
There's really no reason except good taste not to use a tentacle.
It's Japan... they'd pay 5x-10x premium, if it was a tentacle...;^)
Fiber optics goes black very quickly in high radiation.
Organic plastic, yes; glass light-pipe (old-school, like that used in 1976 Buick Station Wagon instrument lighting): not a problem.
Getting the extremely radioactive and hot fuel onto a train would be rather tricky.
Pneumatic/hydraulic remote manipulators: no electronics to fry, and it's outside, so telescopic cameras would be good enough. Plus if they go into large tanks of water on the train, it's not going to boil off in time for it to matter, and a couple meters of water will stop all the hard radiation.
Burying in cement is not a bad idea, but they probably need to make sure that the radioactivity isn't generating so much heat that it would melt its way out of an enclosure.
They could talk to the Russians; they've dealt with it before, successfully, with a hotter meltdown.
The third most obvious thing to do would be to send in a robot with a tether, and include a fiber optic cable, and have the camera outside with the pneumatic drivers for the pneumatic servos and other equipment actually on the robot, making the robot entirely free of all electronics, other than lights.
The second most obvious thing to do would be to load all the spent fuel that's contributing to the ongoing radiation leakage onto the end of a long train, and distribute them around to all the other nuclear power plants in Japan that still have functioning cooling ponds, and stop the leakage -- 10 days, tops, to solve the leakage problem.
The first most obvious thing to do would be to bury the site in cement and call it a day.
The U.S. Navy has offered to do that for them a half dozen times already, but given that the top two executives at TEPCO at the time now work for a Japanese oil company, there's something of a vested economic interest in keeping it an ongoing danger. "No, no: we don't need your help".
Where's Red Foreman, when you need someone to yell "Dumbasses!"?
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand the scale model thing.
When you go to scale up, you're practically building an entirely new vehicle.
It didn't make sense for the HyperLoop, and it didn't make sense for the DC-X. It's not going to make sense here.
The probably didn't mean this "Bixby"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Good luck with that.
Google doesn't keep that kind of data.
They aren't going to be able to comply with the warrant, no matter how intrusive this particular judge mistakenly believes they are.
They should ask the NSA instead. The NSA *does* keep this kind of data.
I blame "whole word reading".
Pople who learned to read that way simply do not read for pleasure. They read when they are required to do so, but not otherwise.
If you are a "whole word reader", and you encounter a word you've never seen before, it's off to the dictionary to look up the new ideogram (since that how the words are taught using that method), even if you actually use the word daily when speaking.
I've occasionally wondered if we are going to have to make books available in "text speak", in the same way that we make them available in braille, in order to comply with the Americans With Disabilities act.
I'm pretty sure the Romans thought their empire was going to last forever, and built based on that eventuality.
So what you're arguing is that the Romans would have build just as ephemerally as we do, even though they didn't expect to be ephemeral, had slaves, and didn't have labor unions that needed make-work contracts to keep the workers happy.
By "selection bias", you are referring to the Romans killing engineers and architects who built things that fell down, leaving only non-dead engineers and architects to design and build new things, right?
The flip side of that coin is that if you overbuild the bridges, you may only be able to afford to fix half of them.
The flip side of that is that there are Roman aqueducts still in service, because the Romans overbuilt as well. So you won't *need* to fix the other half of them.
"Build better bridges".
Not really. The better we've become at engineering, the more we cut the bridge designs from "massively overbuilt, in such a way as to endure they never fall apart" to replace them with "barely overbuilt, in such a way as the first storm slightly out of the overage tolerance we've allowed will cause everything to be destroyed".
Seems stupid.
Rather than trying to figure out how to cut our tolerances as close to the bone as possible, we should probably go back to massively overbuilding things -- and then use our knowledge of tolerances to *ensure* they are massively overbuilt.
If we did that, we wouldn't have things like the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse happening. The bridges might sink into the ground under their own weight, but they wouldn't be collapsing.
There's several options.
(1) Don't use a lot of password protected services; that way: less to remember.
(2) Live with being occasionally hacked.
(3) The Bratva solution: someone hacks you, send someone to shoot them in the head.
I don't know about you, but I'm kind of partial to #1, with #3 being a close second. I don't particularly like #2.
No longer UC's property, no longer UC's problem. And still available to whoever may wish to view it.
You actually can't do this.
Trying to put something in the public domain to get out from under legal liability is the reason things like the MIT and BSD license exist: in order to attach a hold harmless clause, you have to assert Copyright, such that the only terms on which the content may be legally used is via agreement to the terms of the license.
It's unfortunate that there is not a blanket hold harmless exception for works placed in the public domain, but there's none. It's very difficult to make something actually public domain, these days.
Common misconception. Disney was not cryopreserved. Or if he was, it was not by some big company, it was done by some Mickey Mouse operation...
Bummer, Bob.
Yeah, sorry; we were unable to get you out of the red light ticket. So one of your kidneys? Yeah, it's going to the organ bank.
And in case that wasn't clear:
I don't want you turning my software company into a fucking vocational education "feeder school" for Google. Thanks!
Code schools aren't the place to go if you want to be a "rock star" at Google or Facebook. These are designed to turn out junior developers, or "apprentices" as they're known at Software Guild, which currently has 16 instructors and 148 students split between in-person and online programs. Students learn just enough to be dropped into teams of more experienced coders and continue their education at a company, even as they draw a competitive full-time salary.
So you can drop them onto a team at "Bob's Software Company" to continue their education... and when they get good enough... "Screw Bob! I'm going to Google!".
What's the incentive to Bob to hire these gits who are just using his company as a free method of not paying DeVry Institute or a similar company for their vocational education? Because if I were Bob, I'd be kind of pissed, since my company was created to create software, not provide vocation education.
Why should I pay someone to attend my (now) vocational education company, again? Because students who are rookies should be paid to be students, while at the same time soaking up cycles from my senior developers, so that they can't produce complex code for me, either?
Someone must thing Bob's a fricking moron... "Here's some students to teach at your vocational institute, while not getting a lot of useful effort out of them. And oh, by the way: the tuition is a negative number".
If you want to be an apprentice some place, become an electrician, a plumber, or an HVAC specialist. Software Engineering doesn't *have* apprentices, because they don't have a *union* to prevent people not in the union from getting jobs as software engineers!
Please retitle this article.
The correct title should be:
Someone who 'graduated' from a 'coding academy' butt-hurt about not being able to land a job at Google; and something something: Diversity.
How does a programming interview discriminate against "people of color"?
You obviously do not know your algorithms.
Have you never heard of a red/black tree?
Homeopathic WMDs! OMG!
So, let me see if I have the summary right:
1. Take a large rock in space
2. Dilute that rock with space, yielding a large space rock tincture
3. Repeat the process until you have a small space rock tincture
4. Drop the small space rocks on Earth, from the height of the moon (works because the moon is "up" and the Earth is "down")
5. Kaboom!
6. ???
7. Profit!
My god! What if she thinks to use space dust, instead! The more you dilute a homeopathic tincture like that, the more effective it becomes! We're all doomed!
18 USC 1503 : Federal Obstruction of Justice.
10 years in a Federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
Your new cellmate is named "Bubba".
At Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.? NO.
Remote workers are the people you throw under the stacked ranking bus when it's time to get rid of the people you have no emotional attachment to, so that your friends get to keep their jobs.
There's a reason Yahoo got rid of remote workers, and why they tend not to last long at companies which do stacked ranking in employee evaluations.
Because it's California. What happens when you put water into an earthquake fault?
Let's try it, and find out!
Science, baby!
With the greatest possible respect because I'm sure that you are very good at something, have you considered that those items you listed are not of an appropriate size to drive tiny little robot parts and that it would be difficult to control dozens of them at once?
You realize that you can drive pretty much everything with two hydraulic lines (one a return line), some check valves, and a mechanical stepper, right?
Did you never take a "Furby" apart?
I think where you are going wrong is with the idea of "at once".
I have an idea!
Why don't we put all the water back into the aquifers we've been taking it out of, instead of letting it out, and down to the pacific?
What a lamentable situation! If only someone could invent something to do that!
Oh. Wait. They did. In 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1992, though, was 25 years ago.
What a lamentable situation! If only a millennial could reinvent old technology in ignorance, thinking it was new, to do that!
That water starved desert grows much of the nations food.
And by "the nation", you mean "China", which won't eat it's own rice, due to the pollution, right?
Here are some possibly related valves produced by Bosch; I looked at one of the datasheets and it has a 15ms time to move the shuttle from full on to full off, or vice versa.
Exactly.
The truth is that hydraulic controls are entirely capable of performing these functions. That is not at all the limiting factor. It's more about cable management.
Completely agree. And you only have to manage it from the point at which the electronics in a standard robot would start to degrade; standard robot up to that line, hydraulic past that line.
However, this begs the question, do we actually "need something like" "the equivalent of dozens of very tiny stepper motors controlled by hydraulics"? The more I think about this, the more I think that what is wanted is a tentacle, rather than a walking or driving robot.
There's really no reason except good taste not to use a tentacle.
It's Japan... they'd pay 5x-10x premium, if it was a tentacle... ;^)
Fiber optics goes black very quickly in high radiation.
Organic plastic, yes; glass light-pipe (old-school, like that used in 1976 Buick Station Wagon instrument lighting): not a problem.
Getting the extremely radioactive and hot fuel onto a train would be rather tricky.
Pneumatic/hydraulic remote manipulators: no electronics to fry, and it's outside, so telescopic cameras would be good enough. Plus if they go into large tanks of water on the train, it's not going to boil off in time for it to matter, and a couple meters of water will stop all the hard radiation.
Burying in cement is not a bad idea, but they probably need to make sure that the radioactivity isn't generating so much heat that it would melt its way out of an enclosure.
They could talk to the Russians; they've dealt with it before, successfully, with a hotter meltdown.
That's pretty stupid.
The third most obvious thing to do would be to send in a robot with a tether, and include a fiber optic cable, and have the camera outside with the pneumatic drivers for the pneumatic servos and other equipment actually on the robot, making the robot entirely free of all electronics, other than lights.
The second most obvious thing to do would be to load all the spent fuel that's contributing to the ongoing radiation leakage onto the end of a long train, and distribute them around to all the other nuclear power plants in Japan that still have functioning cooling ponds, and stop the leakage -- 10 days, tops, to solve the leakage problem.
The first most obvious thing to do would be to bury the site in cement and call it a day.
The U.S. Navy has offered to do that for them a half dozen times already, but given that the top two executives at TEPCO at the time now work for a Japanese oil company, there's something of a vested economic interest in keeping it an ongoing danger. "No, no: we don't need your help".
Where's Red Foreman, when you need someone to yell "Dumbasses!"?