Is this the dentist 10 years from now who'll be poking fun of his "stupid immigrant patients that need to learn to pick up a toothbrush and a book on English" at a supermarket with his buddies?
Gee, and I thought it was a free country. There's a difference between talking about things that are confidential, and spouting opinions about certain ethnic groups. While I don't want to go to a doctor who holds such opinions, I don't think it's the job of the medical review boards to play politics. Doctors should be able to hold, and publically display political and personal feelings about other people. Would you agree that 100 years ago Doctors shouldn't say something controversial like it's OK to be Gay?
It's great to take the high road and be professional about things. That's a decent thing to teach to anyone. But as far as weeding people out who don't conform to whatever value system the school is teaching, that's just wrong. Let people sink or swim on their own merit in a profession. No one wants a Doctor who's a dick, and I think a Doctor who is a dick will soon be looking for another job.
No, it means he has to apologize for publishing libelous comments about a professor, and for violating the student code of conduct.
Please explain to me how making statements about an unamed person is libelous. What kind of crazy student conduct code says you can't complain about unnamed students? Maybe he's a whiner and all, but this is school.. the place where you're supposed to do stupid crap. If he had sued, the judge would have taken one look at the text published, which called the professor a "cockmaster of a professor" and also declared the professor unfit to teach;
I don't think you understand what libel is. Ignoring the fact that he didn't even name this "cockmaster of a professor", simply calling someone a cockmaster of a professor isn't libel. People can have opinions on whether someone is unfit to teach, or a cockmaster just like I can have an opinion on whether the President of the US is unfit to be President. Now if he had said "professor so-and-so sleeps with his students for grade improvements" that could easily be libel, as it's a matter of fact.
And just to be thorough, I found a specific ruling by the Supreme Court in wikipedia. Here's the quote:
In 1974, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (418 U.S. 323), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff could not win a libel suit when the statement(s) in question were of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". For example, contrast "I think Jo is a bad lawyer", which is opinion, with "Jo doesn't know the law", which is defamatory per se.
Just to prove it, I'll call you a fool. If you want to sue me for it, please go right ahead and we'll see who gets laughed at.
You're over simpifying things a bit. Everything you say is true of course, but what you're missing is that cars aren't simple objects, and crashes aren't simple collisions. They crumple differently and can have more forces at one point than another. Also all collsions aren't head-on.
And when the drunk moron is driving an SUV and hits you in the side, you and your family will be dead. Had he not had all the "armor" you and your family might have lived
And you don't have to be an Einstein to know that kinetic energy isn't what kills people, it's the sudden stop that does. If I jump out of an airplane and atain terminal velocity, but deploy a parashoot I'm a lot safer than jumping out of a tree. The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually then you're going to be more likely to survive a crash.
That's not to say that SUVs are safer than normal cars. The rollover risks aren't trivial. Personally I think SUVs should be banned, or at least put into some special category of business only use because of the safety risks they put on other cars. The SUV craze is literally killing more people and making driving for everyone else less safe, and this article proves it.
There never has been and never will be a "religious" war.
Pure nonsense. As you said yourself religion is used as a tool to start and continue wars. I call that a religious war, since one of its major causes is fanaticism, a major component of many religions. Simply claiming that the "true" cause is needs or wants is really an oversimplification. There's plenty of blame to go around in a war, and religion is one of the recipients of that blame.
You are mistaking people who call themselves religious with people who are truly religious. Those of us (and we exist as a minority within all of the religions of the world)
A nice piece of sophistry. So your logic is that anyone not happier through religion isn't doing it right. Religion makes people happier that became happier after trying religion. Umm.. yah. If you claim a equals b, then ignore any counterexamples where a isn't equal to b, then of course a equals b. Of course that's just simple dishonesty and a logical falacy, but most religions are full of those. You don't understand; there is just one religion at the core of all religions, but the devil perverts them only a few generations after the messenger or prophet has died.
Pleease study more than just your own religion before you make ridiculous statements like this (or maybe you need some basic corses in logic, reason, and philosophy). Most non christian religions don't have a concept of the devil. Many religions don't have a prophet. All religions aren't the same. If you strip off enough layers of anything they're the same at whatever "core" you arrive at. I'm the same as the sun because we're both made of matter. Pure nonsense.
It's too bad you've been corrupted by some "prophet" who's taught you to be a fanatic. I suggest looking up the definition of cult and start thinking for yourself instead of believing whatever some religion has taught you.
Well, from what I know the reason that RTG generators are used is because of the extremely low light levels so far from the sun, not cold. The Mars rovers for instance use solar panels with batteries and heaters. I'd bet batteries+solar panel+heaters is a LOT cheaper than an RTG.
But you're right, on a mission to pluto they'd have to use an RTG for power, so chemical batteries wouldn't be needed. I hadn't thought of the low light levels. But, the original point is that a heat source is important because electronics don't work the same at such extremely low temperatures.
I was referring to the root post as sensational, not the article.
I just re-read the article summary and I still don't see how anyone could think it's sensational. Much colder is a matter of perspective. It's colder than experimental error and what theory (based on reflectivity and light levels) can account for. That's enough to warrant some serious interest. Hell, when they first discovered high-temperature superconductors it was at 77K. It's all a matter of perspective and context. No one but a solid state physicist studying superconductivity would consider 77K to be "high temperature".
Batteries don't tend to work very well at all at 43K. Since batteries are chemical devices the chemical reactions happen MUCH slower (if at all) at such a low temperature.
I don't know the effects of cold on normal solid state electronics, but I wouldn't have a problem believing that some components aren't going to work normally at 43K. It's not as if the parts manufacturer tests them at these extreme temperatures.
I hearby award you the pedantic nerd award of the day. Thanks for clearing up all the confusion that we all had with kelvin vs kelvins.
I think you've missed the point of the article. How it's "sensationalist" I can't understand at all. The point of the article was that astronomers have found something interesting. A planet that cools itself via "perspiration". Pretty neat if you ask me.
I don't understand why it would require so much more insulation. Isn't heat transfer proportional to the difference in temperature of each side? So if you wanted to maintain your equipment at 0c, that's 273K-43K = 230 vs 273K-53K= 220. The heat transfer of the material is a constant, so 230/220 = 1.045, so about 4.5% thicker insulation.
And humans live outside nature? Everything is part of nature. I think this is was the original post was trying to convey. The idea that humans exist outside of nature only leads to poor conclusions.
Happiness and unhappiness are the result of the Law of Karma, which is as much a law as Conservation of Mass or Universal Gravitation
If Karma is as much a law as conservation of mass/energy or gravitation then it's in the range of science. That means it's falsifiable. I suggest karma believers should go about trying to prove or disprove this so called law. Religion is rules of how to deal with other human beings. Its purpose is to promote study, peace and the creation of more and more happy human beings.
You must be new to this religion thing. The empirical evidence would suggest that religion (in general) doesn't make people any happier. One need only look at all the religious wars to realize that.
Just because your relgion is about promoting peace and happiness doesn't mean all religions are. If you really believe that I'd suggest a bit more study of world religions.
As another poster pointed out, fish are boyant in water. They take advantage of this through an organ designed to control positive and negative boyancy (gas bladder). They use it to ascend and descend in depth without swiming. That's quite a major part of how fish move in water that's vastly different from how birds fly.
That's not to say that fish and birds aren't similar in how they move through fluids, but to say they're the same is a vast misunderstanding of fish and birds.
I'm all for personal value, but that's not what's being discussed here. The greatness of a work of art is not greater because of the suffering or backstory of the artist. Kill the artist, the value of art is in itself.
But there's a boatload of psychology that goes along with being "great art"
Don't you mean bullshitting? Many people lead shitty lives, but no one values the crap they produce just because they led a shitty life. If you have to inject a lot of backstory into a work of art to make it great.. well it must not be really that great to begin with.
Sorry, but they're just paintings to the vast majority of us. I don't give a shit who painted it, only the painting matters. Originality is a lie, and the art experts have been proven fools time and time again. Every few months I hear about some genius forger who's fooled all the experts. Face it, the art world is a farse and built upon whatever the "important people" thinks is good.
If you encrypt a database backup and there is an error on the tape, the backup could easily be useless.
Only under certain modes of block cyphers. If you use an electronic code book mode of a block cipher you only lose the block with the error on it. It's not as secure of course, but it's a lot better than nothing.
There's no technical reason why they don't do it. The short answer is that the companies are too cheap and short sighted to do it. Changing their data backup system to have the proper key management to assure both data security, and recoverability would cost money. Big companies like these are often run by bean counters who don't understand the risk. After a few more of these very public losses, maybe they'll start listening to the security guys in the company.
I think your shop is pretty typical. For a software developer there's a lot of reasons why you should give them root access to a non-shared machine they use for development and/or testing. Giving root access to a developer on a shared, production machine, no matter how competent an administrator they are is just bad policy.
Sudo on shared test machines can be a bit more liberal though. Much of the time developers need to start and stop services multiple times a day, if not an hour. It's impractical and extremely inefficient for a developer to have to ask an admin to do this multiple times an hour.
What I'm getting at is sudo should be relegated to high-level tasks like starting a specific service, and not low-level tasks like (gasp) chmod and mv. You can easily do an ENORMOUS amount of damage with the wrong sudo mv command.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the dentist 10 years from now who'll be poking fun of his "stupid immigrant patients that need to learn to pick up a toothbrush and a book on English" at a supermarket with his buddies?
Gee, and I thought it was a free country. There's a difference between talking about things that are confidential, and spouting opinions about certain ethnic groups. While I don't want to go to a doctor who holds such opinions, I don't think it's the job of the medical review boards to play politics. Doctors should be able to hold, and publically display political and personal feelings about other people. Would you agree that 100 years ago Doctors shouldn't say something controversial like it's OK to be Gay?
It's great to take the high road and be professional about things. That's a decent thing to teach to anyone. But as far as weeding people out who don't conform to whatever value system the school is teaching, that's just wrong. Let people sink or swim on their own merit in a profession. No one wants a Doctor who's a dick, and I think a Doctor who is a dick will soon be looking for another job.
No, it means he has to apologize for publishing libelous comments about a professor, and for violating the student code of conduct.
Please explain to me how making statements about an unamed person is libelous. What kind of crazy student conduct code says you can't complain about unnamed students? Maybe he's a whiner and all, but this is school.. the place where you're supposed to do stupid crap.
If he had sued, the judge would have taken one look at the text published, which called the professor a "cockmaster of a professor" and also declared the professor unfit to teach;
I don't think you understand what libel is. Ignoring the fact that he didn't even name this "cockmaster of a professor", simply calling someone a cockmaster of a professor isn't libel. People can have opinions on whether someone is unfit to teach, or a cockmaster just like I can have an opinion on whether the President of the US is unfit to be President. Now if he had said "professor so-and-so sleeps with his students for grade improvements" that could easily be libel, as it's a matter of fact.
And just to be thorough, I found a specific ruling by the Supreme Court in wikipedia. Here's the quote:
Just to prove it, I'll call you a fool. If you want to sue me for it, please go right ahead and we'll see who gets laughed at.
Interesting. Yet one more reason to hate the damn things.
You're over simpifying things a bit. Everything you say is true of course, but what you're missing is that cars aren't simple objects, and crashes aren't simple collisions. They crumple differently and can have more forces at one point than another. Also all collsions aren't head-on.
And when the drunk moron is driving an SUV and hits you in the side, you and your family will be dead. Had he not had all the "armor" you and your family might have lived
And you don't have to be an Einstein to know that kinetic energy isn't what kills people, it's the sudden stop that does. If I jump out of an airplane and atain terminal velocity, but deploy a parashoot I'm a lot safer than jumping out of a tree. The point is that if all that extra weight is put into engineering stronger cars that absorb the impact and slow you down more gradually then you're going to be more likely to survive a crash.
That's not to say that SUVs are safer than normal cars. The rollover risks aren't trivial. Personally I think SUVs should be banned, or at least put into some special category of business only use because of the safety risks they put on other cars. The SUV craze is literally killing more people and making driving for everyone else less safe, and this article proves it.
Thanks. It's easy to forget the transfer of temperature via radiation rather than conduction.
There never has been and never will be a "religious" war.
Pure nonsense. As you said yourself religion is used as a tool to start and continue wars. I call that a religious war, since one of its major causes is fanaticism, a major component of many religions. Simply claiming that the "true" cause is needs or wants is really an oversimplification. There's plenty of blame to go around in a war, and religion is one of the recipients of that blame.
You are mistaking people who call themselves religious with people who are truly
religious. Those of us (and we exist as a minority within all of the religions of
the world)
A nice piece of sophistry. So your logic is that anyone not happier through religion isn't doing it right. Religion makes people happier that became happier after trying religion. Umm.. yah. If you claim a equals b, then ignore any counterexamples where a isn't equal to b, then of course a equals b. Of course that's just simple dishonesty and a logical falacy, but most religions are full of those.
You don't understand; there is just one religion at the core of all religions, but the devil perverts them only a few generations after the messenger or prophet has died.
Pleease study more than just your own religion before you make ridiculous statements like this (or maybe you need some basic corses in logic, reason, and philosophy). Most non christian religions don't have a concept of the devil. Many religions don't have a prophet. All religions aren't the same. If you strip off enough layers of anything they're the same at whatever "core" you arrive at. I'm the same as the sun because we're both made of matter. Pure nonsense.
It's too bad you've been corrupted by some "prophet" who's taught you to be a fanatic. I suggest looking up the definition of cult and start thinking for yourself instead of believing whatever some religion has taught you.
Well, from what I know the reason that RTG generators are used is because of the extremely low light levels so far from the sun, not cold. The Mars rovers for instance use solar panels with batteries and heaters. I'd bet batteries+solar panel+heaters is a LOT cheaper than an RTG.
But you're right, on a mission to pluto they'd have to use an RTG for power, so chemical batteries wouldn't be needed. I hadn't thought of the low light levels. But, the original point is that a heat source is important because electronics don't work the same at such extremely low temperatures.
I was referring to the root post as sensational, not the article.
I just re-read the article summary and I still don't see how anyone could think it's sensational. Much colder is a matter of perspective. It's colder than experimental error and what theory (based on reflectivity and light levels) can account for. That's enough to warrant some serious interest. Hell, when they first discovered high-temperature superconductors it was at 77K. It's all a matter of perspective and context. No one but a solid state physicist studying superconductivity would consider 77K to be "high temperature".
Batteries don't tend to work very well at all at 43K. Since batteries are chemical devices the chemical reactions happen MUCH slower (if at all) at such a low temperature.
I don't know the effects of cold on normal solid state electronics, but I wouldn't have a problem believing that some components aren't going to work normally at 43K. It's not as if the parts manufacturer tests them at these extreme temperatures.
I hearby award you the pedantic nerd award of the day. Thanks for clearing up all the confusion that we all had with kelvin vs kelvins.
I think you've missed the point of the article. How it's "sensationalist" I can't understand at all. The point of the article was that astronomers have found something interesting. A planet that cools itself via "perspiration". Pretty neat if you ask me.
I don't understand why it would require so much more insulation. Isn't heat transfer proportional to the difference in temperature of each side? So if you wanted to maintain your equipment at 0c, that's 273K-43K = 230 vs 273K-53K= 220. The heat transfer of the material is a constant, so 230/220 = 1.045, so about 4.5% thicker insulation.
Things that don't exist aren't natural. Humans thinking up things that don't exist is.
And humans live outside nature? Everything is part of nature. I think this is was the original post was trying to convey. The idea that humans exist outside of nature only leads to poor conclusions.
Happiness and unhappiness are the result of the
Law of Karma, which is as much a law as Conservation of Mass or
Universal Gravitation
If Karma is as much a law as conservation of mass/energy or gravitation then it's in the range of science. That means it's falsifiable. I suggest karma believers should go about trying to prove or disprove this so called law.
Religion is rules of how to deal with other human beings. Its
purpose is to promote study, peace and the creation of more and more
happy human beings.
You must be new to this religion thing. The empirical evidence would suggest that religion (in general) doesn't make people any happier. One need only look at all the religious wars to realize that.
Just because your relgion is about promoting peace and happiness doesn't mean all religions are. If you really believe that I'd suggest a bit more study of world religions.
As another poster pointed out, fish are boyant in water. They take advantage of this through an organ designed to control positive and negative boyancy (gas bladder). They use it to ascend and descend in depth without swiming. That's quite a major part of how fish move in water that's vastly different from how birds fly.
That's not to say that fish and birds aren't similar in how they move through fluids, but to say they're the same is a vast misunderstanding of fish and birds.
Perhaps among art snobs, but most people only care about the art itself. Art snobs aren't exactly "the real world" now are they?
I'm all for personal value, but that's not what's being discussed here. The greatness of a work of art is not greater because of the suffering or backstory of the artist. Kill the artist, the value of art is in itself.
But there's a boatload of psychology that goes along with being "great art"
Don't you mean bullshitting? Many people lead shitty lives, but no one values the crap they produce just because they led a shitty life. If you have to inject a lot of backstory into a work of art to make it great.. well it must not be really that great to begin with.
Sorry, but they're just paintings to the vast majority of us. I don't give a shit who painted it, only the painting matters. Originality is a lie, and the art experts have been proven fools time and time again. Every few months I hear about some genius forger who's fooled all the experts. Face it, the art world is a farse and built upon whatever the "important people" thinks is good.
If you encrypt a database backup and there is an error on the tape, the backup could easily be useless.
Only under certain modes of block cyphers. If you use an electronic code book mode of a block cipher you only lose the block with the error on it. It's not as secure of course, but it's a lot better than nothing.
There's no technical reason why they don't do it. The short answer is that the companies are too cheap and short sighted to do it. Changing their data backup system to have the proper key management to assure both data security, and recoverability would cost money. Big companies like these are often run by bean counters who don't understand the risk. After a few more of these very public losses, maybe they'll start listening to the security guys in the company.
I think your shop is pretty typical. For a software developer there's a lot of reasons why you should give them root access to a non-shared machine they use for development and/or testing. Giving root access to a developer on a shared, production machine, no matter how competent an administrator they are is just bad policy.
Sudo on shared test machines can be a bit more liberal though. Much of the time developers need to start and stop services multiple times a day, if not an hour. It's impractical and extremely inefficient for a developer to have to ask an admin to do this multiple times an hour.
What I'm getting at is sudo should be relegated to high-level tasks like starting a specific service, and not low-level tasks like (gasp) chmod and mv. You can easily do an ENORMOUS amount of damage with the wrong sudo mv command.