You may not find the screws again...
on
iPod Mini Autopsy
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Turn the mini over, looking back into the top, you will see two tiny philips head screws on either side of another metal plate. Remove these with the #000 screwdriver carefully and put them in a safe place (don't drop these on the floor, you will never see them again).
there is are range of stuff US companies are dumping here and killing local business.
Also killing people, I heard. Something about Monsanto tricking farmers into buying genetically-altered seed, and then sticking the farmers with bills for millions of dollars? And then the farmers just suicide?
22 million more jobs, but how much will the population increase by then?
The US Census Bureaureported that US population grew by one percent between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, to 290.8 million. Let's make a wild-ass guess at what the population will be in January 2010.
July 2003 to Jan 2004 is about six months, so let's add (1.01)^0.5 to 290.8 million, to make 292.3 million.
Now, from Jan 2004 to Jan 2010 is 6 years, so let's add (1.01)^6 to 292.3 million, to make 310.3 million.
Bottom line: with some simple assumptions, population growth to 2010 will be about 18 million.
So in terms of *real* job growth, the BLS is actually predicting a population-adjusted increase of 3 million jobs, not 22 million.
Or, they could have just assumed a population growth of 22 million and assumed that job growth would also be 22 million. That's the great thing about predictions: you can hide your assumptions and get away with a few sound bites.
Do you think that shareholders stick their money in socks when they get it? I don't. I either invest it again (which creates jobs) or I spend it (ditto).
Actually, as far as you're concerned, I stick it in socks. All of my stock is in an individually-managed retirement plan. There are too many tax benefits to doing it that way, and too many tax penalties if I don't. Also, I can't take that money out before retirement (age 65 to 70 1/2 now, and rising) unless I want to pay really big penalties. And I can't take the money out for another 35 years.
So basically, any gains *I* might make from outsourcing won't be seen until 2040. By which time a lot of the unemployed will be dead.
Unemployment statistics are trash. The assumption is that someone is unemployed only if they are looking for a job. Employment statistics (specifically, non-farm employment) is what you need to be looking at.
So looking at those two, we see that unemployment has dropped... but so has non-farm employment. Which means, of course, that millions of people have given up looking for work.
And if unemployment is so low, why do you see the phrase "largest jobless recovery in history" all over the place?
From the article: She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.
And then there's this article, which points out that because of globalization, technology and stagnant prices, none of the old statistical models of employment work, and apparently no economist has come up with a new model, since their predictions over the past year have been completely wrong.
So I doubt I'd trust what any economist, or group of economists, or the BLS, has to say about future employment numbers.
"Also, it is easy to find Oracle admins for support."
And it isn't easy to find Windoze admins?
I think he was talking about using Oracle versus using MySQL or some other open-source database. Thus, it's easier to find Oracle admins than it is to find MySQL/whateverDB admins.
I know Indians aren't supposed to say they believe in the caste system, but what percentage of Indians treat different castes according to that system? What percentage treat Americans, either bosses, peers, or customers, as casteless according to that system?
assembly is the great monster that requires fresh blood every year, or the great darkness will fall upon the land. i myself have never dabbled in assembly because i don't like living in an hp lovecraft nightmare.
If assembly coding were a true Lovecraftian nightmare, then what would happen is this:
Programmer:
mov ax,[sp-2] mov dx,[sp-4] div dx
Noisome Bubbling Voice: Thou hast not installed a division by zero interrupt handler. Great Cthulhu requires one pint of thy blood, and thou must sacrifice the value in thine cx register.
This fits in nicely with the Soviet pipeline story.
1. Stallman convinces Indian government to use GPL. Specifically, gcc.
2. Stallman smirks as he adds trojan horse to gcc. "Those Indians will never look at the code. Besides, my trojan horse is so obfuscated, they'll never find it!"
3. Indians use gcc to develop code for outsourcing contracts. Software works fine for a while.
4. In six months, software across America goes haywire. "Why oh why did we ever think outsourcing was so great?" sob the executives.
Doesn't anybody see the similarity between what companies are doing now (with outsourcing) and the Soviet Union did 20 years ago?
Other than the words "other country" and "software", I don't really see the connection.
During the Cold War, the Soviets had no software development industry worth the name, and so sought to buy software from Western countries, who, of course, refused. So the Soviets stole the software.
If that were the case today, America would have no (and never would have had any) software development industry worth the name. The Americans would have tried to buy Indian software, but the Indians would have refused. So the Americans would have stolen it.
They create heavy elements, which are so unstable that they decay as quickly as they were created.
So I'm wondering - what's the point ?
Elements 83 (bismuth) and under have one or more stable isotopes, and one or more unstable isotopes. So, for example, hydrogen (element 1) is stable, but deuterium (H-2) and tritium (H-3) are not. Nevertheless, these unstable isotopes are useful. Deuterium is used in nuclear medicine, in heavy water for nuclear reactors, and in fusion reactions. So...
Myth: Unstable isotopes are useless.
Myth Busted!
Past element 83, there are no stable isotopes. There's a pretty good chart showing the stable and unstable isotopes here. There's also an interactive one, color-coded for lifetimes, here. The half-life of these elements decreases from millenia to microseconds. However...
It's been known for decades that certain numbers of protons are "magic" in that they "pack together" in a very stable manner. Same thing with neutrons. As we approach the next "magic" numbers, the half-lives of the elements should start going back up. And they do.
In this latest experiment, the particular isotope of element 113 *may* have lasted for as long as 1.2 seconds. That's a long time for such a heavy element. Elements under 113 last for much less time, so that shows that we may be reaching the region of stability.
The region of stability is apparently close by, and *stable* superheavy elements will assuredly have useful properties.
And that's why nuclear chemists continue to search for heavier and heavier artificial elements. Because one day one of them will last for more than a few seconds. And then one day, one of them will last forever. Instant revolution in materials science.
Myth: There's no point searching for superheavy elements.
Myth Busted!
You said that you're interested in computers and technology. I think the most relevant intersection between those and medicine would be bioengineering. You don't want to program a computer to massage data. You want to build machines that hook up to people, whether those are prosthetics, monitors, diagnostic aids, and so on.
It used to be, twenty years ago, that there were whole bunches of books that would teach you electronics. I don't think they're there anymore. In any case, once you know basic electronics, you'll want to move into signal processing. Take some courses.
--Rob
For example, Coca Cola takes extreme measures, both within its' organization and without, to prevent anyone from learning the actual formula for Coke, because they've never patented it and if it does get out they would lose their monopoly on the Coke taste
Back when Coke launched New Coke, Pepsico reverse-engineered the Coke formula in, like, a few days. They were ready to release a soft drink that was just like Coke... and then Coke realized what asshats they'd been, withdrew New Coke, and gave us Coke back as "Classic Coke".
So the actual formula for Coke being secret is about as ludicrous as the CSS algorithm being secret.
I smoke and drink alcohol, both of which are heavily taxed so I probably wind up paying about $100 a week on the tax on those
Ummm... stop drinking and smoking?
Here in the U.S. we have "trailer trash" -- people with ultra-cheap housing (basically a small tin box with electricity and plumbing hookups). They complain a lot about how they can't make ends meet even working two jobs.... as they light up yet another cancer stick and down another beer.
Slashdot Mirror
Whirrrrrrrr--clickclickclick*clunk!*--whirrrrrrrrr
--Rob
Did you know that the prohibition against restriction of freedom of speech applies only to the government?
--Rob
Also killing people, I heard. Something about Monsanto tricking farmers into buying genetically-altered seed, and then sticking the farmers with bills for millions of dollars? And then the farmers just suicide?
--Rob
The US Census Bureau reported that US population grew by one percent between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, to 290.8 million. Let's make a wild-ass guess at what the population will be in January 2010.
July 2003 to Jan 2004 is about six months, so let's add (1.01)^0.5 to 290.8 million, to make 292.3 million.
Now, from Jan 2004 to Jan 2010 is 6 years, so let's add (1.01)^6 to 292.3 million, to make 310.3 million.
Bottom line: with some simple assumptions, population growth to 2010 will be about 18 million.
So in terms of *real* job growth, the BLS is actually predicting a population-adjusted increase of 3 million jobs, not 22 million.
Or, they could have just assumed a population growth of 22 million and assumed that job growth would also be 22 million. That's the great thing about predictions: you can hide your assumptions and get away with a few sound bites.
--Rob
Actually, as far as you're concerned, I stick it in socks. All of my stock is in an individually-managed retirement plan. There are too many tax benefits to doing it that way, and too many tax penalties if I don't. Also, I can't take that money out before retirement (age 65 to 70 1/2 now, and rising) unless I want to pay really big penalties. And I can't take the money out for another 35 years.
So basically, any gains *I* might make from outsourcing won't be seen until 2040. By which time a lot of the unemployed will be dead.
--Rob
So looking at those two, we see that unemployment has dropped... but so has non-farm employment. Which means, of course, that millions of people have given up looking for work.
And if unemployment is so low, why do you see the phrase "largest jobless recovery in history" all over the place?
--Rob
From the article: She pointed out that the Bureau of Labour Statistics was predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by '10, against a job loss of 2m due to offshoring.
And then there's this article, which points out that because of globalization, technology and stagnant prices, none of the old statistical models of employment work, and apparently no economist has come up with a new model, since their predictions over the past year have been completely wrong.
So I doubt I'd trust what any economist, or group of economists, or the BLS, has to say about future employment numbers.
--Rob
I think he was talking about using Oracle versus using MySQL or some other open-source database. Thus, it's easier to find Oracle admins than it is to find MySQL/whateverDB admins.
--Rob
--Rob
ObTimeBandits:
That's what I like -- drunken young men, hitting each other!
--Rob
If assembly coding were a true Lovecraftian nightmare, then what would happen is this:
Programmer:
Noisome Bubbling Voice: Thou hast not installed a division by zero interrupt handler. Great Cthulhu requires one pint of thy blood, and thou must sacrifice the value in thine cx register.
--Rob
Depends on the corporate environment.
Boss: We made a fractal Google logo. Link it to some pages showing Julia fractals or something.
$4.50/hr Code Monkey: (typing) ...Julia...fractals...search...return array[0]... done!
--Rob
"HOW much?" Bill Gates guffawed, as he ogled the cash balance reported in Microsoft's latest 10-Q filing.
--Rob
1. Stallman convinces Indian government to use GPL. Specifically, gcc.
2. Stallman smirks as he adds trojan horse to gcc. "Those Indians will never look at the code. Besides, my trojan horse is so obfuscated, they'll never find it!"
3. Indians use gcc to develop code for outsourcing contracts. Software works fine for a while.
4. In six months, software across America goes haywire. "Why oh why did we ever think outsourcing was so great?" sob the executives.
--Rob
It is reported that as Stallman passed the Microsoft representatives as he was leaving, he smirked in their direction.
--Rob
50% of articles in print news (and probably web news) from major media is known to originate from advertisement. It's not really "news".
Paid for by the Slashdotters who Hate Big Media
--Rob
Other than the words "other country" and "software", I don't really see the connection.
During the Cold War, the Soviets had no software development industry worth the name, and so sought to buy software from Western countries, who, of course, refused. So the Soviets stole the software.
If that were the case today, America would have no (and never would have had any) software development industry worth the name. The Americans would have tried to buy Indian software, but the Indians would have refused. So the Americans would have stolen it.
That's not at all what's going on today...is it?
--Rob
My turn...
Did you even RTFA? The Soviets stole Canadian software to control the operations of the pipeline. The Americans added a trojan horse to the software.
So I'm wondering - what's the point ?
Elements 83 (bismuth) and under have one or more stable isotopes, and one or more unstable isotopes. So, for example, hydrogen (element 1) is stable, but deuterium (H-2) and tritium (H-3) are not. Nevertheless, these unstable isotopes are useful. Deuterium is used in nuclear medicine, in heavy water for nuclear reactors, and in fusion reactions. So...
Myth: Unstable isotopes are useless.
Myth Busted!
Past element 83, there are no stable isotopes. There's a pretty good chart showing the stable and unstable isotopes here. There's also an interactive one, color-coded for lifetimes, here. The half-life of these elements decreases from millenia to microseconds. However...
It's been known for decades that certain numbers of protons are "magic" in that they "pack together" in a very stable manner. Same thing with neutrons. As we approach the next "magic" numbers, the half-lives of the elements should start going back up. And they do.
In this latest experiment, the particular isotope of element 113 *may* have lasted for as long as 1.2 seconds. That's a long time for such a heavy element. Elements under 113 last for much less time, so that shows that we may be reaching the region of stability.
The region of stability is apparently close by, and *stable* superheavy elements will assuredly have useful properties.
And that's why nuclear chemists continue to search for heavier and heavier artificial elements. Because one day one of them will last for more than a few seconds. And then one day, one of them will last forever. Instant revolution in materials science.
Myth: There's no point searching for superheavy elements.
Myth Busted!
--Rob
You said that you're interested in computers and technology. I think the most relevant intersection between those and medicine would be bioengineering. You don't want to program a computer to massage data. You want to build machines that hook up to people, whether those are prosthetics, monitors, diagnostic aids, and so on. It used to be, twenty years ago, that there were whole bunches of books that would teach you electronics. I don't think they're there anymore. In any case, once you know basic electronics, you'll want to move into signal processing. Take some courses. --Rob
If that's his math skill, no wonder he kept failing...
--Rob
--Rob
Back when Coke launched New Coke, Pepsico reverse-engineered the Coke formula in, like, a few days. They were ready to release a soft drink that was just like Coke... and then Coke realized what asshats they'd been, withdrew New Coke, and gave us Coke back as "Classic Coke".
So the actual formula for Coke being secret is about as ludicrous as the CSS algorithm being secret.
--Rob
Ummm... stop drinking and smoking?
Here in the U.S. we have "trailer trash" -- people with ultra-cheap housing (basically a small tin box with electricity and plumbing hookups). They complain a lot about how they can't make ends meet even working two jobs.... as they light up yet another cancer stick and down another beer.
--Rob
'Cuz I know that if I did that stuff at my company, I'd be told not to let the door hit me on the way out...
--Rob