Pointing a camera with a smoking bullet hole in it will accomplish what exactly?
Re:Next can some enterprising physics student do.
on
Build Your Own Cyclotron
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Meloy implants the electrodes from this device into the back of the patient, at the bottom part of the spinal cord. When the electrodes are stimulated with a remote control, the brain interprets the signal as an orgasm, he said. The device is about the size of a pacemaker and can be turned on and off with a handheld remote control.
As if men weren't already at a high enough risk of RSI.
Why is the parent modded insightful? Most municipalities and towns get their revenue from local taxes. You know, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, local sales taxes...the entire category of fines is background noise by comparison.
If you make cars that never break the law, bye bye high-speed/alcohol-induced crashes, bye bye rolling the emergency response for them...hey, wait a minute -- we're spending less to police and clean up bloody messes. Hmmm...
Toys...enforce the notion that there is a difference between "work" and "play".
by encouraging your children to "play", you are psychologically destroying them
Uh, no Mr. Burns. Toys enable children to engage in imaginitive play (some toys better than others). And there most certainly needs to be a difference between work and play here. Like when the ankle biters are all shooting their toy guns at each other.
Toys are an artificial construct popularized by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations in the late 1800's.
But Mr. Burns, toys have been around a lot longer than the industrial tycoons that we so lazily use as scapegoats for society's ills.
I don't doubt you spend 40-60 hours a week on pure crap, but don't blame it on your exposure to toys.
journalists should be out looking for the bright investigators
Journalists are the last people I would trust with this task. The attention-getting power of their reporting trumps scientific significance, or anything else for that matter.
it can take decades for the scientific "consensus" to change
As it should be! If scientific consensus was a weathervane where would be?
When a major new truth -- scientific or otherwise -- begins to occupy the minds of humans, a little revolution takes place. But before that happens the idea is vetted against the price of adopting it, and the appraisers bring all their accumulated scientific prejudices with them to the evaluation. That is simply humanity at work. Get over it.
quashing dissent is bad policy
And welcoming dissent uncritically is good policy? The excessively credulous still order their lives by wishes and magic. Doubt is the only antidote. It is a blunt instrument but the result of not applying it vigorously is never called science.
Science, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he
or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
If an investigator pronounces a scientific conclusion in a vacuum, does it make a sound?
The idea that consensus has no bearing is Platonic claptrap. One investigator does not science make. Science is a way of knowing the world whose significance is dependent on other scientists. If not, then why do it? Why discuss it? Why publish it?
Ways of knowing the world are a product of human culture and have significance only to the extent that they feed back into human culture. We have serveral, and they have served different needs in different times. None of them operate in a social vacuum.
We are constantly learning deeper truths about the natural world. Repeatedly, one bright investigator sees a scientific truth much earlier than the rest. So what? Unfortunate perhaps, but hardly profound. This labelling of the old truth "consensus" and the new truth "verifiable data" is a straw man. Verifiable data becomes consensus in its turn.
But only a consensus takes society in a new direction. It is consensus after all that determines what resources will be applied to many, many important scientific endeavors. If that isn't something that science depends on, I don't know what is!
Re:Here is your test....
on
IT Literacy Test
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Question 1:
File Edit View Favorites Tools Help.
What does this mean?
It's means you're in hell.
Question 2:
What is that little X thingy in the upper right hand panel?
FINALLY! Someone who knows how to use the word "comprise" correctly. Notice the complete absence of the word "of" following it. Usage barbarians take note!
There are other companies which spend a lot of time on the architecture - almost to a fault...
As in FSF Gnu Hurd?
In the limit of taking your sweet time getting the architecture right, you risk something else coming along and getting enough of it right to scratch the feature itch before you do; from that point your market irrelevance is proportional to the difference in delivery dates.
No one is in a hurry to get on the wrong track, but assuming your competitors aren't totally stupid there is an equally unpleasant consequence for being the last one out of the station.
"The discussions that assume that language determines thought carry on only by a collective suspension of disbelief.
... A graduate student once argued with me using the following deliciously backwards logic: language must affect thought, because if it didn't, we would have no reason to fight sexist language (apparently, the fact that it is offensive is not reason enough)."
-- Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct, chapter 3, Mentalese, p. 46. Pages 46-57 are his repudiation of the "evidence" of this idea. Very compelling reading.
The way I read IBM's latest move, it's going like this:
SCO: "Judge, our distribution of GPL'd code is not illegal because the GPL itself is illegal and unconsitutional."
IBM: "Judge, SCO distributed our code without any license. We only allowed distribution our code under the GPL. Since SCO repudiated and violated the GPL, please rule in our favor.
You are confusing provocative driving behavior in particular with consious decisions about driving in general.
Guess what, when you push the accelerator, you're making a decision about how hard to push it. Maybe the posted speed is a factor in your decision. As is your urgency in arriving at your intended destination, your assumed "habitual" speed for this stretch of road, your chosen preference to flow with the traffic, your chosen reaction to the tailgaiter behind you flashing his lights, your estimate of the frequency of patrol cars on the current strech of road at the moment, how much you're looking forward to the adrenaline rush, etc. etc.
Every driver is responsible for their driving. How attentive a driver chooses to be about what may (literally) impact their driving is a decision that is consciously made. Anyone who is licensed has been informed about risky driving behaviors and their consequences. How you use your brain to apply this information is a decision you make. One can choose to drive with disregard for this information, but one won't escape the consequences for long.
Statistically, insurance consquences will also be a factor in your decision...sooner or later. For those whose brain device doesn't make that happen, there is now an alternative device available. I won't judge people by what device they use. I'll just be grateful they are using something.
I have a truly wonderful device which I've used for years to avoid getting speeding tickets or getting into an accident. As a result I enjoy a whopping safe driver discount. The device constrains me to practice safe driving habits. The device is called my brain.
Oh the horror, that other drivers suffer the profound injustice of a surcharge for not using such a device!
One must consider the level of responsibility and the reasonable expectation of the consequences of irresponsible actions. Here the accused allegedly installed the movie player in a way expressly to enable the driver to view the movie while the car was moving. From the article:
Installed as recommended, DVD players and TV screens are either visible only from the back seats or will not work unless the vehicle is in park. But owners can defeat the safety measures by installing the devices themselves, as Petterson did, according to prosecutors.
"This takes forethought, this takes methodical steps," David Weiser [victims' son] said. "You have to go to the store, plop over money, install it, and install it so it can be used without a brake employed. "I view it as no different than walking into a bar, having five beers within an hour and getting behind the wheel"...
This will hinge on whether or not there is reasonable doubt the driver was indeed watching the movie. As installed, the player isn't evidence in favor of the driver.
What is this, a troll? We had this crap all through the 90s boom.
The Next Big Thing *is*
$MANAGEMENT_FAD and all the goodies that come with that, like $SOFTWARE_BUZZWORDS.
"Process excellence" in software is usually the wishful thinking of a management that believes dehumanized industrial optimization techniques apply to a creative craft practice. The "process" typically accelerates the exodus of the most knowledgeable and productive employees to less mind-numbing work environments. Show me one good process that produces excellent software despite being run by idiots. Focusing on process is what companies do when they've become so clueless they can't find their *ss with both hands. Of course, most companies enter such a phase in their evolution, perhaps it is Microsoft's turn.
"Just enough" process is the right amount. Just enough to keep release cycles sane. Just enough to keep the product evolution from becoming too unstable. But not enough to distract people from focusing on their real work, doubt their better judgement, or prevent their creative juices from flowing. Any more than that and the perpetrators should be smacked repeatedly on the head with a rolled-up gantt chart.
And yet all I ever hear is the only secure network is the one that has nothing attached to it.
Regardless, corporate policy is there to protect the corporation from accusations of mismanagement and resulting lawsuits. Of course it can be violated or even flouted, that's not the point.
Say there are two companies where someone walks out of the building with confidential data on their MP3 player. Company A had a policy banning MP3 players and routinely enforced it within their power to do so (but of coure they can't frisk everyone!) Company B did not. Say it results in identity theft. The affected customers of both companies sue. Which company has a better defense? Which one is at higher risk of a damage payout? That's what this is all about folks.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hurting" above is incorrect. To agree with "impact" it should be "hurt":
But since this forum doesn't support editing, we'll forgive you.
The Grammar Nazis
Pointing a camera with a smoking bullet hole in it will accomplish what exactly?
As if men weren't already at a high enough risk of RSI.
Why is the parent modded insightful? Most municipalities and towns get their revenue from local taxes. You know, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, local sales taxes...the entire category of fines is background noise by comparison.
If you make cars that never break the law, bye bye high-speed/alcohol-induced crashes, bye bye rolling the emergency response for them...hey, wait a minute -- we're spending less to police and clean up bloody messes. Hmmm...
Uh, no Mr. Burns. Toys enable children to engage in imaginitive play (some toys better than others). And there most certainly needs to be a difference between work and play here. Like when the ankle biters are all shooting their toy guns at each other.
But Mr. Burns, toys have been around a lot longer than the industrial tycoons that we so lazily use as scapegoats for society's ills.
I don't doubt you spend 40-60 hours a week on pure crap, but don't blame it on your exposure to toys.
As it should be! If scientific consensus was a weathervane where would be?
When a major new truth -- scientific or otherwise -- begins to occupy the minds of humans, a little revolution takes place. But before that happens the idea is vetted against the price of adopting it, and the appraisers bring all their accumulated scientific prejudices with them to the evaluation. That is simply humanity at work. Get over it.
And welcoming dissent uncritically is good policy? The excessively credulous still order their lives by wishes and magic. Doubt is the only antidote. It is a blunt instrument but the result of not applying it vigorously is never called science.
If an investigator pronounces a scientific conclusion in a vacuum, does it make a sound?
The idea that consensus has no bearing is Platonic claptrap. One investigator does not science make. Science is a way of knowing the world whose significance is dependent on other scientists. If not, then why do it? Why discuss it? Why publish it?
Ways of knowing the world are a product of human culture and have significance only to the extent that they feed back into human culture. We have serveral, and they have served different needs in different times. None of them operate in a social vacuum.
We are constantly learning deeper truths about the natural world. Repeatedly, one bright investigator sees a scientific truth much earlier than the rest. So what? Unfortunate perhaps, but hardly profound. This labelling of the old truth "consensus" and the new truth "verifiable data" is a straw man. Verifiable data becomes consensus in its turn.
But only a consensus takes society in a new direction. It is consensus after all that determines what resources will be applied to many, many important scientific endeavors. If that isn't something that science depends on, I don't know what is!
Question 1:
File Edit View Favorites Tools Help.
What does this mean?
It's means you're in hell.
Question 2:
What is that little X thingy in the upper right hand panel?
For getting rid of Clippy.
Uh...no. Everyone knows that after Mt. Doom erupted hobbits continued to exist for many generations.
FINALLY! Someone who knows how to use the word "comprise" correctly. Notice the complete absence of the word "of" following it. Usage barbarians take note!
At first I read it as "SCO Prominent On 2005 Budgets".
Well, it's almost Halloween.
I predict that when you measure that fish it will be 8" long and 2" thick.
I estimate that the popluation of fish in the pond in 5 years will be 0.
Hmmm...
As in FSF Gnu Hurd?
In the limit of taking your sweet time getting the architecture right, you risk something else coming along and getting enough of it right to scratch the feature itch before you do; from that point your market irrelevance is proportional to the difference in delivery dates.
No one is in a hurry to get on the wrong track, but assuming your competitors aren't totally stupid there is an equally unpleasant consequence for being the last one out of the station.
"The discussions that assume that language determines thought carry on only by a collective suspension of disbelief.
... A graduate student once argued with me using the following deliciously backwards logic: language must affect thought, because if it didn't, we would have no reason to fight sexist language (apparently, the fact that it is offensive is not reason enough)."
-- Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct, chapter 3, Mentalese, p. 46. Pages 46-57 are his repudiation of the "evidence" of this idea. Very compelling reading.
That was an excellent reply. I get it now. Thanks!
The way I read IBM's latest move, it's going like this:
If that isn't a test of the GPL, what is?
You are confusing provocative driving behavior in particular with consious decisions about driving in general.
Guess what, when you push the accelerator, you're making a decision about how hard to push it. Maybe the posted speed is a factor in your decision. As is your urgency in arriving at your intended destination, your assumed "habitual" speed for this stretch of road, your chosen preference to flow with the traffic, your chosen reaction to the tailgaiter behind you flashing his lights, your estimate of the frequency of patrol cars on the current strech of road at the moment, how much you're looking forward to the adrenaline rush, etc. etc.
Every driver is responsible for their driving. How attentive a driver chooses to be about what may (literally) impact their driving is a decision that is consciously made. Anyone who is licensed has been informed about risky driving behaviors and their consequences. How you use your brain to apply this information is a decision you make. One can choose to drive with disregard for this information, but one won't escape the consequences for long.
Statistically, insurance consquences will also be a factor in your decision...sooner or later. For those whose brain device doesn't make that happen, there is now an alternative device available. I won't judge people by what device they use. I'll just be grateful they are using something.
I have a truly wonderful device which I've used for years to avoid getting speeding tickets or getting into an accident. As a result I enjoy a whopping safe driver discount. The device constrains me to practice safe driving habits. The device is called my brain.
Oh the horror, that other drivers suffer the profound injustice of a surcharge for not using such a device!
One must consider the level of responsibility and the reasonable expectation of the consequences of irresponsible actions. Here the accused allegedly installed the movie player in a way expressly to enable the driver to view the movie while the car was moving. From the article:
This will hinge on whether or not there is reasonable doubt the driver was indeed watching the movie. As installed, the player isn't evidence in favor of the driver.
Would have helped New Hampsire save face.
What is this, a troll? We had this crap all through the 90s boom.
"Process excellence" in software is usually the wishful thinking of a management that believes dehumanized industrial optimization techniques apply to a creative craft practice. The "process" typically accelerates the exodus of the most knowledgeable and productive employees to less mind-numbing work environments. Show me one good process that produces excellent software despite being run by idiots. Focusing on process is what companies do when they've become so clueless they can't find their *ss with both hands. Of course, most companies enter such a phase in their evolution, perhaps it is Microsoft's turn.
"Just enough" process is the right amount. Just enough to keep release cycles sane. Just enough to keep the product evolution from becoming too unstable. But not enough to distract people from focusing on their real work, doubt their better judgement, or prevent their creative juices from flowing. Any more than that and the perpetrators should be smacked repeatedly on the head with a rolled-up gantt chart.
It means you're reading a slashdot article. Geek authors are fond of literally being metaphorically expressive.
And yet all I ever hear is the only secure network is the one that has nothing attached to it.
Regardless, corporate policy is there to protect the corporation from accusations of mismanagement and resulting lawsuits. Of course it can be violated or even flouted, that's not the point.
Say there are two companies where someone walks out of the building with confidential data on their MP3 player. Company A had a policy banning MP3 players and routinely enforced it within their power to do so (but of coure they can't frisk everyone!) Company B did not. Say it results in identity theft. The affected customers of both companies sue. Which company has a better defense? Which one is at higher risk of a damage payout? That's what this is all about folks.
Do you know if it *really* requires Windows in the media host or if Linux with Samba exports would do?
And what about...
I'm not making this up, you know.