The author should have completely blacked out the SSNs rather than blur them. They are still decipherable to those that are inclined to do so. This article explains why blurring is a bad idea.
If they find themselves running out of New York subway cars, maybe they could try using passenger cars. They don't just sink ships or other vehicles without cleaning the contaminants off of them first. It would probably be too cost prohibitive to rip the seats out of cars, drain all the fluids and thoroughly degrease them. Besides, it's profitable to recycle cars so there's really no reason to sink them (whereas it's not always profitable to recycle larger vehicles due to the cost to disassemble, transport and process them).
You're right of course. I'm not sure why the USGS Viewer program looked for roads in the Pennsylvania database. I zoomed in close enough that only areas in North Carolina were visible. Hmmm...
Interesting name, 'Pfafftown'. Seems like a name Daffy Duck would make up.
It looks like Bunting Lane is in both the Pennsylvania road database and the census bureau database (TIGER). You can see this using the tool at http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm -- note, it is rather slow even under normal conditions.
This road (Goldenbrooke Ln) is in the public TIGER 2000 database created by the US Census Bureau (record id {B6B155C4-58F1-4E61-9657-08FE8DC0DDBA} if you want to look it up online). This is a GIS database used by many vendors to make maps and the like meaning that not only does Google believe this to be a public road but many others do as well and probably include it in Pittsburgh city maps.
I checked another road that I know is a private driveway and did not find it in any public GIS database. You can see this road here. I know this road has been there for over 10 years so if they were going to add it they would have by now so I'm presuming they usually, if not always, don't include private roads in their GIS database. Even if private roads are occasionally included I don't expect Google to do a public records lookup every time they decide to drive down a little street that's in the public census database (TIGER). Also, there doesn't seem to be any meta data for Goldenbrooke Ln stating whether it is private or not so I really don't see how Google would have known (assuming the property owner is even correct about the road being private which he quite possibly isn't). If you look a bit east of the road I mentioned with Street Views turned on you'll see that Google only drove down labeled streets (ie, streets that are in the TIGER GIS database). I confirmed that the other long driveways were also not included in the TIGER database or Google maps.
Not very but I've known parents that were utterly clueless about the dangers of letting their kid loose on the internet. The main thing they usually worried about is how much time the kid spent on the computer or if they downloaded any pr0n but didn't really know about sites like facebook and myspace other than that's a place where their kid liked to go to talk to other kids.
I think a course in basic economics would be far more useful to far more people than Internet Safety. True, but that's a tall order considering basic economics is only a stone-throw away from common sense which, I think we can all acknowledge, is not a trivial thing to teach. I'm assuming by 'basic' you mean simple things like making a budget, balancing your checkbook, and understanding the basics about loans and interest payments. While that is easy to teach at an intellectual level, it's difficult to actually change behavior. A kid may know that maxing out a 20% APR credit card is a bad financial move, but simply not care about it. A kid may know how to make a budget and simply chose not to out of laziness. How is any one class going to help with that? I took more advance economics classes in high school (AP macro and micro) but I don't see how that had any effect on me other than I now know how to invest a bit more wisely than I otherwise would.
Even good parents may not be particularly Internet savvy. I think this is a great idea, especially if at least some of the lessons are given by other kids.
I remember once helping out at a teacher conference in summer between 8th and 9th grades to help teach them (the teachers) how to use their new Macs (back around 1992).
She says it's overly complicated, but many of the complications were added over the years to close loop holes that contractors and/or corrupt government employees were exploiting. In a way it's nice to know that federal money is spent with so much review under most circumstances. Unfortunately, there's way around this process at higher levels using no bid contracts and with legislators simply inserting pork barrel spending into laws with almost no oversight on how exactly that money is to be spent.
If it makes you happy the feds are cutting back on contract oversight expenditures. They aren't reducing the workload or simplifying the process so they'll simply fall farther behind in closing out contracts until something really bad happens (not exactly sure what, probably a major contractor running out of funds or something).
The basic problem is there is no built-in procedure for reducing government bureaucratic complexity. Voting for one guy or another won't change this fundamental fact. I'm not sure what will.
From what my friend tells me they would love to make it less complex. However, nobody in the agency has the authority to make sweeping changes and nobody outside of the agency knows how to simply the procedures. Great.
You're absolutely correct. I have a friend that is in charge of overseeing contracts to a major defense contractor for the Feds and it's a mind-boggling complex process. On her end she has had to go to at least a dozen courses to get to where she's at now and I have every reason to believe that it is as complicated on the client-side. The contractor has 6-12 full-time employees to handle contracts on their side while the Federal government has a corresponding group that works full-time with them (for contracts ranging from $50 million to about $250 million, roughly).
The alternative would be to fund the BBC from tax Another alternative would be to fund the BBC with grants by private companies and donations by the public (like PBS in the US). PBS has some of the most balanced coverage of the news anywhere in my opinion, including the BBC (on national PBS news programs, not necessarily shows local to specific viewing areas).
Nope, University of Colorado, Boulder. I take it Georgia Tech is similar?
In CU's defense, we did get to make small satellites that were launched by NASA so there was some fun stuff to do (at least on the space side, not so much on the aircraft side). I've heard they have a much better physics professor now too--the guy I had retired the year after I had him.
It depends on what your interests are. If you like taking humanity classes but want to graduate in 4 years, then yes being an engineering student sucks. Also, you should probably factor in how much you like doing applied math with which specific engineering major you want, in this order (most math to least):
aerospace electrical chemical mechanical/civil computer science (if you count this as engineering)
Several students I knew that were hating aerospace switched to mechanical or electrical and enjoyed those majors much more than aero mainly for this reason (not spending all your time picking up new applied math courses).
As for the humanities, I had an interest in playing in the symponic band at my college but could only fit it into my schedule one semester due to completely incompatible scheduling between the school of music and of the engineering department. I also wanted to take foreign languages every semester but could only fit it in a few times for similar reasons (unless I wanted to permanently take 8am classes).
I think what you said applies to all engineering majors, but you can add a bit to each specific engineering major. For example, in mine (aerospace) we had to do a ton of applied math courses, just 3 credit hours shy of an applied math minor with the standard curriculum. I think the reason we took so much applied math was to prove that yes, we can do a large amount of math that may be involved in the discipline. On the downside, we had far fewer elective credits than other majors (including engineering ones) so many of my classmates had very little exposure to the humanities while in college.
Many of the points in the article ring true for me. We had several awful text books (one was the equivalent of an alpha 1 release of Vista--a book covering differential equations and linear algebra--if you can imagine how horrible that is) and some professors that had no business being teachers. One physics professor insisted on not allowing even 8-function calculators on any tests but would give you more partial credit if you used a log system of math rather than standard arithmetic when solving the problems. He also would spend time in class on such subjects as the history of the unit of horse power.
One funny memory of college is from a 8am recitation I had for the aforementioned physics class. The teacher assistant was an Indian (the Hindu type) with a very thick accent who had a very monotonous tone of voice. One day a student right in front of me that had dozed off suddenly stood up, turned right, and ran right into the wall 10 feet away, crumpling to the floor in a daze. Needless to say that was the end of that recitation that day, but it sure woke the rest of us up. I think he sleep-ran into the wall, since he seemed to be OK afterward and didn't know what had happened.
In the end it all doesn't really matter, just being smart has little to do with being good at something.
While generally true, I'm not sure if that holds for very technical or math-heavy majors like aerospace engineering. My class was filled with students that were by and large very smart. However, there were a few that were not but were still able to graduate. While they were able to graduate, it seemed to take considerably more effort than the 'smarter' ones (by 'smarter', I mean faster) and needed a considerable amount of help from their fellow classmates while others were able to remain loners and still get the work done.
The main thing I noticed is that smarter ones were able to slack more and still be able to pass while ones that were slower needed a hell of a work ethic to make it. Unfortunately, only a few of the smart ones had a similar work ethic. Most of the students that were struggling ended up switching to other engineering majors, like mechanical or EE their sophomore year.
Oh wait. Nobody has ever successfully detonated a dirty bomb,...Why are we wasting money on this crap again? One could have argued before 9/11 that no-one had ever brought down a skyscraper with a terrorist attack before so why increase airline sercurity to prevent hijackings? Unfortunately, we live in which there are depraved people who will kill many random people if given the chance. One of the worst things that can happen is setting off a dirty bomb in a populated area. While it may not kill as many or be as spectacular as bringing down a skyscraper, it can be every bit as expensive to clean up. This is one of those crimes that you really don't want to wait for before you do anything about it.
They're certainly friendly but they sure could use some powerful labor unions. Some professions are utterly ridiculous (like elementary school teachers) and need some help to reduce the number of hours they are required to work. And forcing them to move every couple of years seems unreasonable as well. Unions can only go so far though since this really a symptom of the culture where you want to show you're a good worker by staying late every day--as late as possible. They have a word for dieing from working to death (karaoshi) and report on it from time to time in the local newspapers. And then there's high unemployment for certain demographics, like young men in Tokyo (> 10%). And it's virtually unheard of to start your own business here (if you're Japanese) and is impossible if you're a foreigner.
While there are many things I like about Japan, I sure wouldn't want to live here--at least not as a programmer.
I don't know where you were but from what I've seen adults do not try to stand out. Virtually every man I've seen going on his way to work wears a black suit and tie. And I have yet to see anyone out of the thousands I pass every morning wear a pair of sunglasses and there certainly have been some sunny mornings during the last week.
And the reaction isn't "dear God..." but simply explaining why there isn't as much production around elections here because they don't count nearly as much as they do in the US. Rather than requiring the public to get behind whatever President/project major interests here only need to focus on parliament members which tends to be much more quiet.
Get out of Tokyo and the Salaryman office environment and SEE Japan. Oh believe me, I want to. Can't on this trip though. My friend lived in Takahama by the way but I believe teachers have much the same experience everywhere since they rotate them between schools every couple of years (see me other recent post for more info on his experience with them).
I wouldn't say they have higher standards of living. People in America don't die from exhaustion at work like they do here (they actually have a word for it and keep statistics on it). Recently a 30-yr old guy died working at a Toyota manufacturing company from a heart attack with no family history of heart disease. He was a manager who worked about over 80-100 hours every week which isn't that unusual here. My friend worked with teachers who spent very little time at home; rather most went drinking or to play pachinko after leaving the school at 9 or 10 each night. They have (virtually?) no labor unions and pretty much subject to the whims of their employers.
The people I work with usually stay after 1-2am each night for weeks on end. I know that is somewhat unusual even here, but not as unusual as it is in the US.
They also have much less personal space both at work and at home. Even high-level managers often don't have their own office in Tokyo.
Their food is really good though. I like to tell my friends in America that we're well-fed slaves here.
Citizens in Japan don't have nearly as much political power as they do in America. They can not vote for the prime minister but only lower-level members. They can not vote on whether large projects should occur like they can in America. I remember when a proposal to build a high-speed rail test track was on the ballot in Colorado my Japanese friends were astonished that we could vote on such a thing.
People in Japan are very much self-censored through societal pressure. It's really a totally different working environment from what I've seen and rather freedom-reducing since people are strongly encouraged to not stand out but to fit in with the rest as best as you can. This is true at least in Tokyo, but from what a friend of mine who lived for two years in the countryside tells me it's the same there. Youths can stand out but once you reach adulthood it's a totally different story.
Call me a tin foil hatter, if you'd like, but then find me one thing on television that I can't find on the internet, should I so choose.
If you added 'for free' to that statement then I can suggest a couple: Charlie Rose Show, Bill Maher and The Boondocks (great show BTW). You can pay for episodes of Charlie Rose but can't get them for free. Shows I would recommend that you can get for free on the internet are Meet the Press and Washington Week. From time to time HBO comes up with great documentaries that you can't access on the internet. Just this past weekend I watched a 1-hour documentary of a hospital in Baghdad. Very depressing, but I certainly learned things that I haven't read from the internet and there's a certain drama that's much more effective in driving home a point with video that simply doesn't happen when just reading plain text on the web.
I agree that people generally watch too much stupid television shows. Many of the ones worth watching are available on the internet as well. But still, there's a couple that are still only on TV and it can make it easier to find commentary on subjects you wouldn't have troubled yourself to look for on the internet sometimes. And, of course, if you like any sports then you either have to pay to watch them on the internet or watch them for free on TV.
The BBC isn't immune to trivial BS either. Just the other night they spent at least 10 minutes on this nutjob that is still claiming a massive conspiracy in Princess Diana's death (claiming it was an assasination) with absolutely no proof to back himself up. I'd rather see a story about a cat saving a squirrel than more tripe like that.
I agree with you. Of course, PBS doesn't have shareholders but is a non-profit thank goodness. I also enjoy watching the Charlie Rose Show, Washington Week, The McLaughlin Group (believe it or not), and Nova.
One other show that has outlasted all others is Meet the Press. That's definitely still a show worth watching.
I only wish there was some way I could abstain from CNN more than I already do. I never watch them or visit their website so there's not much I can do other than laugh at them when watching The Daily Show.
"I want someone from a class rung above me who is in perfect shape to go on long walks on the beach with me." Bleaaah. How. Fucking. Boring.
Depends on who you're with. If the person you're with is worth talking to then a long walk on the beach can be pretty fun, especially if the person is willing to stop navel-gazing and talking about the latest pop stuff they saw on TV.
Honestly, the perfect match for me would be some girl that I could have fun doing nothing but going on a walk with. If you can do that, you should be able to have a nice, healthy, long relationship.
There's a great example of a couple who on paper are completely incompatible but, yet are married. They often show up on Meet the Press. The guy is a top Democrat operative who strongly supports the Clintons while his wife is a top conservative Republican operative. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
The author should have completely blacked out the SSNs rather than blur them. They are still decipherable to those that are inclined to do so. This article explains why blurring is a bad idea.
You're right of course. I'm not sure why the USGS Viewer program looked for roads in the Pennsylvania database. I zoomed in close enough that only areas in North Carolina were visible. Hmmm...
Interesting name, 'Pfafftown'. Seems like a name Daffy Duck would make up.
It looks like Bunting Lane is in both the Pennsylvania road database and the census bureau database (TIGER). You can see this using the tool at http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm -- note, it is rather slow even under normal conditions.
This road (Goldenbrooke Ln) is in the public TIGER 2000 database created by the US Census Bureau (record id {B6B155C4-58F1-4E61-9657-08FE8DC0DDBA} if you want to look it up online). This is a GIS database used by many vendors to make maps and the like meaning that not only does Google believe this to be a public road but many others do as well and probably include it in Pittsburgh city maps.
I checked another road that I know is a private driveway and did not find it in any public GIS database. You can see this road here. I know this road has been there for over 10 years so if they were going to add it they would have by now so I'm presuming they usually, if not always, don't include private roads in their GIS database. Even if private roads are occasionally included I don't expect Google to do a public records lookup every time they decide to drive down a little street that's in the public census database (TIGER). Also, there doesn't seem to be any meta data for Goldenbrooke Ln stating whether it is private or not so I really don't see how Google would have known (assuming the property owner is even correct about the road being private which he quite possibly isn't). If you look a bit east of the road I mentioned with Street Views turned on you'll see that Google only drove down labeled streets (ie, streets that are in the TIGER GIS database). I confirmed that the other long driveways were also not included in the TIGER database or Google maps.
Not very but I've known parents that were utterly clueless about the dangers of letting their kid loose on the internet. The main thing they usually worried about is how much time the kid spent on the computer or if they downloaded any pr0n but didn't really know about sites like facebook and myspace other than that's a place where their kid liked to go to talk to other kids.
Even good parents may not be particularly Internet savvy. I think this is a great idea, especially if at least some of the lessons are given by other kids.
I remember once helping out at a teacher conference in summer between 8th and 9th grades to help teach them (the teachers) how to use their new Macs (back around 1992).
She says it's overly complicated, but many of the complications were added over the years to close loop holes that contractors and/or corrupt government employees were exploiting. In a way it's nice to know that federal money is spent with so much review under most circumstances. Unfortunately, there's way around this process at higher levels using no bid contracts and with legislators simply inserting pork barrel spending into laws with almost no oversight on how exactly that money is to be spent.
If it makes you happy the feds are cutting back on contract oversight expenditures. They aren't reducing the workload or simplifying the process so they'll simply fall farther behind in closing out contracts until something really bad happens (not exactly sure what, probably a major contractor running out of funds or something).
The basic problem is there is no built-in procedure for reducing government bureaucratic complexity. Voting for one guy or another won't change this fundamental fact. I'm not sure what will.
From what my friend tells me they would love to make it less complex. However, nobody in the agency has the authority to make sweeping changes and nobody outside of the agency knows how to simply the procedures. Great.
You're absolutely correct. I have a friend that is in charge of overseeing contracts to a major defense contractor for the Feds and it's a mind-boggling complex process. On her end she has had to go to at least a dozen courses to get to where she's at now and I have every reason to believe that it is as complicated on the client-side. The contractor has 6-12 full-time employees to handle contracts on their side while the Federal government has a corresponding group that works full-time with them (for contracts ranging from $50 million to about $250 million, roughly).
Nope, University of Colorado, Boulder. I take it Georgia Tech is similar?
In CU's defense, we did get to make small satellites that were launched by NASA so there was some fun stuff to do (at least on the space side, not so much on the aircraft side). I've heard they have a much better physics professor now too--the guy I had retired the year after I had him.
It depends on what your interests are. If you like taking humanity classes but want to graduate in 4 years, then yes being an engineering student sucks. Also, you should probably factor in how much you like doing applied math with which specific engineering major you want, in this order (most math to least):
aerospace
electrical
chemical
mechanical/civil
computer science (if you count this as engineering)
Several students I knew that were hating aerospace switched to mechanical or electrical and enjoyed those majors much more than aero mainly for this reason (not spending all your time picking up new applied math courses).
As for the humanities, I had an interest in playing in the symponic band at my college but could only fit it into my schedule one semester due to completely incompatible scheduling between the school of music and of the engineering department. I also wanted to take foreign languages every semester but could only fit it in a few times for similar reasons (unless I wanted to permanently take 8am classes).
I think what you said applies to all engineering majors, but you can add a bit to each specific engineering major. For example, in mine (aerospace) we had to do a ton of applied math courses, just 3 credit hours shy of an applied math minor with the standard curriculum. I think the reason we took so much applied math was to prove that yes, we can do a large amount of math that may be involved in the discipline. On the downside, we had far fewer elective credits than other majors (including engineering ones) so many of my classmates had very little exposure to the humanities while in college.
Many of the points in the article ring true for me. We had several awful text books (one was the equivalent of an alpha 1 release of Vista--a book covering differential equations and linear algebra--if you can imagine how horrible that is) and some professors that had no business being teachers. One physics professor insisted on not allowing even 8-function calculators on any tests but would give you more partial credit if you used a log system of math rather than standard arithmetic when solving the problems. He also would spend time in class on such subjects as the history of the unit of horse power.
One funny memory of college is from a 8am recitation I had for the aforementioned physics class. The teacher assistant was an Indian (the Hindu type) with a very thick accent who had a very monotonous tone of voice. One day a student right in front of me that had dozed off suddenly stood up, turned right, and ran right into the wall 10 feet away, crumpling to the floor in a daze. Needless to say that was the end of that recitation that day, but it sure woke the rest of us up. I think he sleep-ran into the wall, since he seemed to be OK afterward and didn't know what had happened.
While generally true, I'm not sure if that holds for very technical or math-heavy majors like aerospace engineering. My class was filled with students that were by and large very smart. However, there were a few that were not but were still able to graduate. While they were able to graduate, it seemed to take considerably more effort than the 'smarter' ones (by 'smarter', I mean faster) and needed a considerable amount of help from their fellow classmates while others were able to remain loners and still get the work done.
The main thing I noticed is that smarter ones were able to slack more and still be able to pass while ones that were slower needed a hell of a work ethic to make it. Unfortunately, only a few of the smart ones had a similar work ethic. Most of the students that were struggling ended up switching to other engineering majors, like mechanical or EE their sophomore year.
They're certainly friendly but they sure could use some powerful labor unions. Some professions are utterly ridiculous (like elementary school teachers) and need some help to reduce the number of hours they are required to work. And forcing them to move every couple of years seems unreasonable as well. Unions can only go so far though since this really a symptom of the culture where you want to show you're a good worker by staying late every day--as late as possible. They have a word for dieing from working to death (karaoshi) and report on it from time to time in the local newspapers. And then there's high unemployment for certain demographics, like young men in Tokyo (> 10%). And it's virtually unheard of to start your own business here (if you're Japanese) and is impossible if you're a foreigner.
While there are many things I like about Japan, I sure wouldn't want to live here--at least not as a programmer.
I wouldn't say they have higher standards of living. People in America don't die from exhaustion at work like they do here (they actually have a word for it and keep statistics on it). Recently a 30-yr old guy died working at a Toyota manufacturing company from a heart attack with no family history of heart disease. He was a manager who worked about over 80-100 hours every week which isn't that unusual here. My friend worked with teachers who spent very little time at home; rather most went drinking or to play pachinko after leaving the school at 9 or 10 each night. They have (virtually?) no labor unions and pretty much subject to the whims of their employers.
The people I work with usually stay after 1-2am each night for weeks on end. I know that is somewhat unusual even here, but not as unusual as it is in the US.
They also have much less personal space both at work and at home. Even high-level managers often don't have their own office in Tokyo.
Their food is really good though. I like to tell my friends in America that we're well-fed slaves here.
Citizens in Japan don't have nearly as much political power as they do in America. They can not vote for the prime minister but only lower-level members. They can not vote on whether large projects should occur like they can in America. I remember when a proposal to build a high-speed rail test track was on the ballot in Colorado my Japanese friends were astonished that we could vote on such a thing.
People in Japan are very much self-censored through societal pressure. It's really a totally different working environment from what I've seen and rather freedom-reducing since people are strongly encouraged to not stand out but to fit in with the rest as best as you can. This is true at least in Tokyo, but from what a friend of mine who lived for two years in the countryside tells me it's the same there. Youths can stand out but once you reach adulthood it's a totally different story.
If you added 'for free' to that statement then I can suggest a couple: Charlie Rose Show, Bill Maher and The Boondocks (great show BTW). You can pay for episodes of Charlie Rose but can't get them for free. Shows I would recommend that you can get for free on the internet are Meet the Press and Washington Week. From time to time HBO comes up with great documentaries that you can't access on the internet. Just this past weekend I watched a 1-hour documentary of a hospital in Baghdad. Very depressing, but I certainly learned things that I haven't read from the internet and there's a certain drama that's much more effective in driving home a point with video that simply doesn't happen when just reading plain text on the web.
I agree that people generally watch too much stupid television shows. Many of the ones worth watching are available on the internet as well. But still, there's a couple that are still only on TV and it can make it easier to find commentary on subjects you wouldn't have troubled yourself to look for on the internet sometimes. And, of course, if you like any sports then you either have to pay to watch them on the internet or watch them for free on TV.
The BBC isn't immune to trivial BS either. Just the other night they spent at least 10 minutes on this nutjob that is still claiming a massive conspiracy in Princess Diana's death (claiming it was an assasination) with absolutely no proof to back himself up. I'd rather see a story about a cat saving a squirrel than more tripe like that.
I agree with you. Of course, PBS doesn't have shareholders but is a non-profit thank goodness. I also enjoy watching the Charlie Rose Show, Washington Week, The McLaughlin Group (believe it or not), and Nova.
One other show that has outlasted all others is Meet the Press. That's definitely still a show worth watching.
I only wish there was some way I could abstain from CNN more than I already do. I never watch them or visit their website so there's not much I can do other than laugh at them when watching The Daily Show.
Depends on who you're with. If the person you're with is worth talking to then a long walk on the beach can be pretty fun, especially if the person is willing to stop navel-gazing and talking about the latest pop stuff they saw on TV.
Honestly, the perfect match for me would be some girl that I could have fun doing nothing but going on a walk with. If you can do that, you should be able to have a nice, healthy, long relationship.
There's a great example of a couple who on paper are completely incompatible but, yet are married. They often show up on Meet the Press. The guy is a top Democrat operative who strongly supports the Clintons while his wife is a top conservative Republican operative. Go figure.