In 2009, we were responsible for 40% of worldwide arms sales.
In 2012, we spend 18% of our budget on "defense", 7 times more than China.
Now consider that our "defense" department has been repeatedly found by the GAO to be unauditable because their accounting is so incompetent.
Also, I find it laughable that so many republicans are concerned about 'welfare' and 'entitlement' yet happily sign on for farm subsidy bills that cost trillions, to keep the votes from fat-ass, lazy, uneducated, corn-fed, bigoted midwesterners rollin' right in.
Did you read the summary past the first sentence or so?
"In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy."
That said, I've routinely come across articles on Wikipedia that were not tagged NPOV yet were clearly cut+pasted from marketing material or written in that unmistakable tone. It's especially common on articles that aren't very popular.
Can someone please explain why this is attached to a RasPi?
Among other things, the poor architecture and inability to run a standard distribution makes it a remarkably bad choice when you can get low-power x86 boards that will wipe the floor with it.
Why can't we see a copy of any of the actual requests?
It's not much "transparency" if you're not showing us anything except high level statistics. We have no way of telling if these requests were abusive or not.
Obviously there are subpoenas and warrants that are sealed, but it's rare that they're sealed indefinitely.
A Massachusetts court applying laws as written, rather than making up some bogus progressive interpretation to satisfy their liberal bias? That IS news!
Remember the whole gay-marriage thing, and how MA was one of the first? There's a reason. Our own constitution said we had to treat everybody equally. The courts said "yup, since the state holds the keys to marriage, we gotta treat everybody equally." Case closed. Done.
Also: stop abusing the term "liberal" in this context. Liberal, in a constitutional and individual freedom/liberty sense, usually more accurately describes the "conservative" side of the political spectrum. It's "conservatives" who keep trying to strip people of their voting rights, for example. It's "conservatives" who most often try to impose religion on others, violating separation of church and state (indeed, "god" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance by a republican, for example, in the mid-1900's.) It is "conservatives" who keep trying to advocate for an unequal tax base that vastly favors the rich. It's "conservatives" who keep trying to violate women's basic human rights (ie control of their bodies.) It's "conservatives" who keep trying to censor. It's "conservatives" who have presented the notion that some people are not deserving of the right of marriage. It's also usually "conservatives" who do most of the warmongering and have pushed a very aggressive foreign policy, especially around preemption.
All that is, constitutionally, quite "liberal"/radical.
Further, the court specifically said they felt it SHOULD be illegal to take an 'upskirt' photo.
The hooplah over this is patently ridiculous and demonstrates the lack of ethics in modern journalism - or the desperation for pagehits, something we used to only see among bloggers.
My main concern is that in the rush to "fix" this, someone screws up the law and ends up making it unconstitutional or otherwise overly broad.
I said that mentioning a note (or the reason for the suicide) is the worst thing the media could do, not that it is commonly done.
Mentioning the reasons is an invasion of privacy, and validates suicide as a solution to problems others may be having. Very similar to why notes are not mentioned.
WaPo stops short of outright *saying* she committed suicide, but that's certainly the conclusion they're leading their readers to.
There's a reason the press shies away from it. Mental health organizations have guidelines and recommendations on how to report responsibly on suicides.
The absolute worst is reporting on the contents of, or even mentioning, a note, because then people who are on the edge / suicidal think "Ah, I can get my letter published too!"
This sounds absurd, but it's well demonstrated that suicides are "infectious", and reports in the media about a suicide can cause others who are close to do it themselves. It's one of the reasons, after a suicide in a school/workplace/community, you see an immediate effort made to make resources available to everyone else.
to more accurately ensure they spend most of their time accounting for the 2 cents it cost to use the device?
I assure you that there is very, very little scientific equipment which costs "2 cents to use." There's often both a substantial capital and operating expenditure. Depreciation isn't that bad on some stuff (a centrifuge, for example, I believe) but can be absurd on something like a new microscope system, as better optics and digital camera modules come out.
Microscopes are probably the most common equipment with horrible opex, aside from maybe genetics sequencing equipment. They're easily damaged, regularly need cleaning, their light sources are expensive and have limited lifetime, etc. Oh yeah, and MRIs...the LN2 and LHe bills, training, insurance, re-shimming for changes in the building that affect the magnetic field, etc...crazy.
" Swipe card to leave."
To enforce this requires using a locking mechanism works in both directions, like a magnetic plate lock.
In order to maintain security in a power failure, you need battery backup for the plate lock.
In order to maintain fire code, you need to have a tie-in with the building fire system, among other things.
It's really not that simple.
First off, generally the issue isn't tracking usage for the purposes of billing, or actual inventory (ie preventing people from walking off with things.) Most expensive stuff can and is plated and then cabled down to tables. The issue is often more tracking down who screwed up something so they're told not to do it again/given additional instruction, or their lab/PI is billed for the repair.
Why? All manner of equipment isn't cleaned after use, or toxic stuff is used on equipment that can't be cleaned of it easily, or equipment that is shared with other experiments that would be damaged by certain chemicals or contaminants. Centrifuges have the wrong rotors installed or mis-balanced loads, destroying the bearings or worse. Cryo vacuum traps don't get cleaned and can accumulate liquid gas and explode. Microscope objectives get damaged from impacting the slide or overuse of oil for immersion objectives. Microscope light sources get left on and burn out (some of them have lifetimes measured in hundreds or a few thousand hours.) The list goes on.
You can't always control power, because a number of instruments have long warm-up times before they stabilize, or require a bunch of parameters be entered on power-on.
Access control via keycards works until you discover that someone left the lab, dropped off their ID, security for some reason never cancelled their card, and now it's become a shared resource in the lab. This happens so often it's not funny, except in places that take access control VERY seriously, like hospitals that have research groups. Or people swipe others in.
It often really comes down to solving people problems with people, not technology...and having a culture of following procedures and policies. If someone can't follow procedure, lies, cheats, etc - they're a liability/danger to your lab/center/school reputation because they could be (and probably are) doing the same thing in their research. Why are you still employing/collaborating with them? Kick their ass to the curb.
That said, a lot of equipment manufacturers could recognize this need, and provide lockout contacts that can be interfaced with various access control and logging solutions.
Lastly, a reminder to Slashdotters: please think critically about the solutions you offer. If some random guy can think up a "solution", then chances are it's occurred to, and maybe even been tried by, someone with actual experience. At least recognize that possibility...
If you're impling that shops are taking advantage of people and selling them a new entire wheel, that's way, way down the "low" scale. I don't know a bike shop around that would replace rear wheel instead of replacing the tube and tire, unless the person damaged the rim by riding on it for too long with a flat tire; if you chew up the edge of the rim, it'll slowly destroy the sidewall of the tire.
Another reason rear wheel replacements can become necessary: most inexperienced cyclists brake exclusively with their rear brake, falsely believing that braking with the front brake will result in instant death/them being thrown from the bike. On bicycles with rim brakes, braking wears the edge of the rim, especially in places where it rains or snows (road sand etc.) Eventually the rim wears past the safety limit (on most modern wheels, there is a machined notch half-way on the brake track. If you can't feel it, your rim is too worn.) If you're the second or third owner and a bike is a decade old, having to replace a rim isn't unreasonable, as it's one of the wear components, just like the brake rotors on your car.
If you've got a nice hub and spokes, you can have a shop just replace the rim. Labor can start to become a factor, although a hand-built wheel is usually better built than a lot of machine-built wheels (ie what they'll pull off the rack.)
For example, if I were to destroy the rim on my bike (in a way that wouldn't have damaged the spokes), which has a generator hub to power the lights, and double-butted spokes...I would almost certainly just have the shop buy a new rim and re-lace everything to the new rim.
Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!
It makes a difference when the path to the field, and the field itself, is hostile to non-straight, white, men. Reading through the comments here there's a lot of really angry, hostile, dismissive posts. Which certainly doesn't help counter the argument by TFA.
Hell, the NBA is really lacking of white college educated women....are we freaking out and trying to induce them with $100 to work to get into the NBA (and god help them if the teams discrimate!!).
Aside from the fact that a sports league has nothing to do with IT, when's the last time you watched a WNBA game? Can you name a SINGLE WNBA player playing this season? How about a single hall-of-famer? Can you name your area's WNBA team? When was the last time you even accidentally came up on an WNBA game on TV? (hint: rarely, because they're not televised nearly as often.) Or how about this: why doesn't the NBA sanction both men's and women's leagues, ie, why did the WNBA need to be formed in the first place? Answer: because the NBA refused to allow women's teams.
So, women don't get the same TV coverage, sponsorship, press, etc.
The gender bias in professional sports *is* a huge problem. And it's a problem in scholastic/collegiate areas as well, which is the whole point behind Title 9 - all the money for scholastic and collegiate athletics was going to men's sports.
. The biggest question I have is, will there be a STANDARD connector for quick charging batteries so that after driving 200 miles, can we re-charge the batteries in a few minutes no matter what brand of car we're driving?
Why do people keep harping on this? This was the top rated comment last time a Tesla was mentions as well. Is it really that hard to go to Tesla's website and click on "charging"? The Tesla comes with a couple of standard plugs, including the common SAE plug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The standard plugs it comes with include a 110/120V plug, and a plug or two for 220/240V outlets; they sell about 2-3 dozen other plugs on their website. If you're visiting a friend and they have an electric dryer plug near the garage - that's more than enough juice to top it up while you're all asleep, and since the car tracks how much energy it used charging, it's easy enough to compensate your host in some way. It's about $10, maybe $15 in electricity for a full 80kW charge, by my rough math.
So, probably the best investment a Tesla owner who visits people a lot can make...is in a 220/240V extension cable. Looks like you can get 'em on Amazon for about $2/foot; Home Depot certainly carries them as well.
Welcome to TEN YEARS AGO. Seriously, that was in 2004. Kryptonite recalled them rather quickly, and most of the cycling community is well aware of the problem. Thanks for 'splaining to us something we already know, jackass. Why don't you try finding someone you know who bikes, and asking to see what their u-lock key looks like?
For more than ten years, the standard has been a flat/square key. They're sufficiently strong enough that thieves don't bother with them, mostly because there are still people who use cable locks, which can be cut with a variety of tools.
And yes, the people selling bikes at flea markets and out of the back of vans ARE selling stolen bikes. Legitimate used bike sales are private individuals on various forums including Craigslist (thieves have noticed that people patrol Craigslist looking for their stolen bikes) and via shops which increasingly stock used bikes.
The reason you don't buy bikes from a big-box store: they don't use standardized components, the components they come with don't last long (and then when it's time to replace them, surrrrrpise, your local bike shop can't find something that fits) and there are a lot of basic design flaws with the frames and such. It's not "elitist" to say "that bike you bought from Wallyworld is a waste of money because it's going to fall apart."
I'm not entitled if I want the roads *I PAID FOR JUST LIKE YOU* to be designed to not EXCLUDE me.
Cyclists ARE a persecuted group and I'm not going to debate that with you. Go argue with a black man about whether there's still racism Because Obama, or something.
Bicycles are the most energy-efficient transportation method. Google it.
I'm not going to bother responding to your other ignorant crap. Google it.
1)Buy a U-lock. 2)Change out anything "quick release" (aka quick-steal") to bolts or security skewers. 3)Put the U-lock through the rear wheel, inside the frame's rear triangle. Now neither the wheel nor frame can be stolen. 4)Attach the U-lock to something that is solidly and directly attached to the ground. Signposts that are bolted to something don't count. Porch railings don't count. Etc. 5)Remove lights and such.
Don't subscribe to the "cheap crappy bike nobody would want to steal." Guess what there's a large market for, and guess which bikes are the easiest for criminals to unload? It's hard to sell a $1k bike. Not so hard to sell a $100 beat-up bike.
Don't buy bikes from guys selling them out of the backs of vans, fly-by-night-looking shops, flea markets, etc. THEY ARE PROBABLY STOLEN.
Lastly: REPORT STOLEN BICYCLES. One of the reasons they continue to be stolen is that nobody bothers to report their bike getting stolen.
The problem isn't elegance (by which I assume they mean style. Bicycles have been refined over 150 years, and are VERY elegant when it comes to their mechanical design, provided you're not shopping at Wallyworld or the very bottom of the market. NEVER buy a "big box" store bike, for a ton of reasons.) People ride all sorts of bikes. The problem is safety (the number one concern people have is fear of being hurt by drivers. Nobody answers "why aren't you biking?" with "oh, if only the bikes looked better"), infrastructure (on many levels, ranging from traffic sensors that detect bikes, to intersections and roads designed to accommodate more than just motor vehicles, to secure lockups, to being able to take a bicycle on other transit systems, etc...this is slowly starting to change), and societal attitudes. Namely that bicycles are toys, not serious transportation, and thus should not be accomodated...which is a bit circular...and a lot of attitudes and bias that should seem oddly familiar to anyone who has studied gender and racial bias. There's a great article out there from a psych magazine noting that cyclists are treated like any other minority outgroup. For example, emphasis of negative attributes, assumption of guilt, harassment and violence against them, etc.
Which is why so many cyclists now use helmet cameras to record their travels; it's to document the harassment (because people claim it doesn't happen, when it does), but also to have evidence if you're hit, because the driver is going to claim "I didn't see them" and they were doing nothing wrong, witnesses are going to think you were "flying" even if you were well below the speed limit, etc. There's a famous case of a DC cyclist who was cut off; the driver and two witnesses claimed he ran a red light. Surprise! Traffic camera video shows the light was green, and continued to be green as he lay on the ground unconscious after having slammed into the side of the car that had just cut him off. I generally find that drivers have far less understanding of the basic rules of the road and what cyclists are allowed to do or aren't, which is ironic, given that they're the ones piloting the massive machine that can (and does, to the tune of 40,000 a year in the US alone) kill people.
We live in a country where we had a network of well-maintained roads, which were the result of cycling clubs petitioning the government for roads that were rideable. Bicycling was HUGE in the late 1800's; it even factored into women's rights, believe it or not. Then the motor car came along. And people were horrified at the deaths and injuries; speed limits were imposed. The automobile industry panicked; customers wanted to go fast, unimpeded. So they fought back with a campaign of ridiculing pedestrians and cyclists. As the automobile became a symbol of success and achievement, suddenly if you had a car you were the elite, and if you were on foot or on a bicycle, you were not. You were poor, or stupid, or whathaveyou. And the American Dream became driving a car to your suburban house which was nowhere near the market, post office, bus stop, train station, your office, etc. We've only just started to slowly realize the idiocy of this and do more mixed zoning and transit-oriented development.
Just as it became the fault of the "jaywalker" for daring to step into the street except where specifically allowed to, suddenly it became the fault of cyclists when motorists plowed into them. We expect someone operating a power saw or a gun to be careful around others...but put them in a car, and suddenly we expect everyone else to be careful of them. And to protect themselves against you by dressing in foam hats and clothing that makes them look like traffic cones with all sort of blinking lights. Drivers can spot a 2 foot pothole, but can't spot a 6 foot tall, 3 foot wide object in the road? Riiiiiight....
This attitude spread in many places, except for the Netherlands, for example, where the car came relatively late...and Dutch society revolted after the skyrocketing inj
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally.
RTFAS:
"aimed at wearable technologies, such as Google Glass."
Nobody's trying to specifically legislate Google Glass. They're trying to modify existing distracted-driving laws to include wearable devices.
Also, whether a Big Mac is more distracting is irrelevant to whether wearable devices are. If they are, they should not be allowed. That said, many people DO want an overhaul of motor vehicle collision responsibility. "Changing the radio" was a successful defense for a driver who orphaned a 10 year old girl when he slammed into her parents, who were cycling well outside the travel lane...and there are dozens of examples of this kind of crap. He should've been charged with manslaughter at the least.
You do not have a RIGHT to drive; this is very consistently held up in the courts that driving is a privileged form of transportation. You especially do not have a RIGHT to do whatever you want WHILE driving.
It's been repeatedly shown that holding the phone doesn't matter (thus wearable devices are not safer) and speech-to-text isn't better (ditto) though holding a phone does impair your control of the vehicle; the real danger is that secondary tasks that involve a lot of thinking, such as composing a text message or carrying on a conversation, are distracting enough to make you have worse reaction times than someone who is drunk.
Google is just following in line with the cell phone industry in placing profits ahead of people's lives.
It's really simple: when you're in a car, your primary responsibility is to OPERATE THAT VEHICLE. Not to check your fucking email, or reply to text messages, or see what your stock price is, or what the weather is going to be like next week. Drive.
I've had it with small companies. During the '00s I twice started with small companies only to hear "pay will be late" at the end of an early pay period, then "pay is just around the corner" by the end of the next pay period. In one case, the CEO simply never paid; I left before the third no-pay period was over, demanding that I be paid for my hours, to which he basically replied "so sue us!" I didâ"but only managed to recoup some of what I was owed.
This is nothing new, nor is it specific to small companies; I think you meant "startups." Textile companies used to do the same BS, not paying workers, during the industrial revolution. It's why, for example, in MA it is a CRIMINAL matter upon the officers of the company if employees are not paid within a certain amount of time for work done. Furthermore, the law is written such that BOTH the state and you individually can pursue action against them concurrently/independently.
It's also why, if terminated or laid off, you must walk out the door with any and all money owed to you. It's not a defense that the guy who signs the checks is only in on Tuesdays, or they need to figure out how much to take out of your paycheck for purchases from the company canteen, etc. Why? Because they're choosing to end your employment, and they can choose to do so at any time. So they should terminate employment on Tuesday, after they've done the necessary calculations.
If you are reading this, live in MA (and probably a bunch of other states), and have a pay period that is not at least semi-monthly (biweekly if you're paid hourly) unless you're salaried and agreed to be paid monthly...or you have not been paid within one pay period for your work...stop reading, step outside, and call your State AG immediately, or at least read something like http://www.lexology.com/librar...
Funny how you prove his point by all but demanding a story be told by bolting PC narratives on the side and derailing the entire flow by screaming "I CARE MORE ABOUT NONWHITES, WOMEN, AND GAYS THAN YOU!" at each other and their audience.http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
Start reading, asshole. I never did anything you claim I did.
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
"Maintenance only" when talking about military aircraft is huge, especially with planes that are 60 years old. There's a phrase in the general aviation world for planes that don't fly much and require a lot of maintenance - hangar queens. Both sitting around, and their age, causes maintenance headaches.
Plus the cost of "staffing" is enormous. The U2 is enormously difficult to fly; at altitude, the window between stall (plummet to the ground) and Vmax (lose control surface functionality and/or rip pieces of the plane off) is something like 10mph. Training people in the things places the planes and people at risk; keep up the program and eventually you won't have any U2's left to fly. Then there's the problem of an unpressurized cockpit; pilots need to nitrogen-purge for hours before flight and wear what is almost a space suit. Oh, and it cannot evade modern SAM and AA missiles....and has no steal capabilities....yet has a human inside? The US needs another Gary Powers like a hole in the head.
Then there's the fact that the U2 can only launch from a small number of bases (mostly designed to cover Russia), is slower, doesn't offer as nice real-time capabilities, and in the time it takes for a U2 pilot to plan a mission, suit up, prebreathe, etc - the drone is half-way enroute and they're figuring out the rest of the flightplan as they go. Nevermind that with so many commercial satellite imagery companies, chances are someone's already got the imagery you're looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 2009, we were responsible for 40% of worldwide arms sales.
In 2012, we spend 18% of our budget on "defense", 7 times more than China.
Now consider that our "defense" department has been repeatedly found by the GAO to be unauditable because their accounting is so incompetent.
Also, I find it laughable that so many republicans are concerned about 'welfare' and 'entitlement' yet happily sign on for farm subsidy bills that cost trillions, to keep the votes from fat-ass, lazy, uneducated, corn-fed, bigoted midwesterners rollin' right in.
Did you read the summary past the first sentence or so?
"In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy."
That said, I've routinely come across articles on Wikipedia that were not tagged NPOV yet were clearly cut+pasted from marketing material or written in that unmistakable tone. It's especially common on articles that aren't very popular.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...
Can someone please explain why this is attached to a RasPi?
Among other things, the poor architecture and inability to run a standard distribution makes it a remarkably bad choice when you can get low-power x86 boards that will wipe the floor with it.
Why can't we see a copy of any of the actual requests?
It's not much "transparency" if you're not showing us anything except high level statistics. We have no way of telling if these requests were abusive or not.
Obviously there are subpoenas and warrants that are sealed, but it's rare that they're sealed indefinitely.
We all know the truth.
A Massachusetts court applying laws as written, rather than making up some bogus progressive interpretation to satisfy their liberal bias? That IS news!
Examples of this?
We don't "make up bogus progressive interpretations." We take great pride in the commonwealth's constitution, which aside from being the first in the nation, predating the federal constitution, and in fact serving at its model, is also one of the most protective of individual rights.
Remember the whole gay-marriage thing, and how MA was one of the first? There's a reason. Our own constitution said we had to treat everybody equally. The courts said "yup, since the state holds the keys to marriage, we gotta treat everybody equally." Case closed. Done.
Also: stop abusing the term "liberal" in this context. Liberal, in a constitutional and individual freedom/liberty sense, usually more accurately describes the "conservative" side of the political spectrum. It's "conservatives" who keep trying to strip people of their voting rights, for example. It's "conservatives" who most often try to impose religion on others, violating separation of church and state (indeed, "god" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance by a republican, for example, in the mid-1900's.) It is "conservatives" who keep trying to advocate for an unequal tax base that vastly favors the rich. It's "conservatives" who keep trying to violate women's basic human rights (ie control of their bodies.) It's "conservatives" who keep trying to censor. It's "conservatives" who have presented the notion that some people are not deserving of the right of marriage. It's also usually "conservatives" who do most of the warmongering and have pushed a very aggressive foreign policy, especially around preemption.
All that is, constitutionally, quite "liberal"/radical.
Further, the court specifically said they felt it SHOULD be illegal to take an 'upskirt' photo.
The hooplah over this is patently ridiculous and demonstrates the lack of ethics in modern journalism - or the desperation for pagehits, something we used to only see among bloggers.
My main concern is that in the rush to "fix" this, someone screws up the law and ends up making it unconstitutional or otherwise overly broad.
I said that mentioning a note (or the reason for the suicide) is the worst thing the media could do, not that it is commonly done.
Mentioning the reasons is an invasion of privacy, and validates suicide as a solution to problems others may be having. Very similar to why notes are not mentioned.
WaPo stops short of outright *saying* she committed suicide, but that's certainly the conclusion they're leading their readers to.
There's a reason the press shies away from it. Mental health organizations have guidelines and recommendations on how to report responsibly on suicides.
The absolute worst is reporting on the contents of, or even mentioning, a note, because then people who are on the edge / suicidal think "Ah, I can get my letter published too!"
This sounds absurd, but it's well demonstrated that suicides are "infectious", and reports in the media about a suicide can cause others who are close to do it themselves. It's one of the reasons, after a suicide in a school/workplace/community, you see an immediate effort made to make resources available to everyone else.
to more accurately ensure they spend most of their time accounting for the 2 cents it cost to use the device?
I assure you that there is very, very little scientific equipment which costs "2 cents to use." There's often both a substantial capital and operating expenditure. Depreciation isn't that bad on some stuff (a centrifuge, for example, I believe) but can be absurd on something like a new microscope system, as better optics and digital camera modules come out.
Microscopes are probably the most common equipment with horrible opex, aside from maybe genetics sequencing equipment. They're easily damaged, regularly need cleaning, their light sources are expensive and have limited lifetime, etc. Oh yeah, and MRIs...the LN2 and LHe bills, training, insurance, re-shimming for changes in the building that affect the magnetic field, etc...crazy.
" Swipe card to leave." To enforce this requires using a locking mechanism works in both directions, like a magnetic plate lock. In order to maintain security in a power failure, you need battery backup for the plate lock. In order to maintain fire code, you need to have a tie-in with the building fire system, among other things. It's really not that simple.
To people who haven't worked in labs:
First off, generally the issue isn't tracking usage for the purposes of billing, or actual inventory (ie preventing people from walking off with things.) Most expensive stuff can and is plated and then cabled down to tables. The issue is often more tracking down who screwed up something so they're told not to do it again/given additional instruction, or their lab/PI is billed for the repair.
Why? All manner of equipment isn't cleaned after use, or toxic stuff is used on equipment that can't be cleaned of it easily, or equipment that is shared with other experiments that would be damaged by certain chemicals or contaminants. Centrifuges have the wrong rotors installed or mis-balanced loads, destroying the bearings or worse. Cryo vacuum traps don't get cleaned and can accumulate liquid gas and explode. Microscope objectives get damaged from impacting the slide or overuse of oil for immersion objectives. Microscope light sources get left on and burn out (some of them have lifetimes measured in hundreds or a few thousand hours.) The list goes on.
You can't always control power, because a number of instruments have long warm-up times before they stabilize, or require a bunch of parameters be entered on power-on.
Access control via keycards works until you discover that someone left the lab, dropped off their ID, security for some reason never cancelled their card, and now it's become a shared resource in the lab. This happens so often it's not funny, except in places that take access control VERY seriously, like hospitals that have research groups. Or people swipe others in.
It often really comes down to solving people problems with people, not technology...and having a culture of following procedures and policies. If someone can't follow procedure, lies, cheats, etc - they're a liability/danger to your lab/center/school reputation because they could be (and probably are) doing the same thing in their research. Why are you still employing/collaborating with them? Kick their ass to the curb.
That said, a lot of equipment manufacturers could recognize this need, and provide lockout contacts that can be interfaced with various access control and logging solutions.
Lastly, a reminder to Slashdotters: please think critically about the solutions you offer. If some random guy can think up a "solution", then chances are it's occurred to, and maybe even been tried by, someone with actual experience. At least recognize that possibility...
Tire-drive systems are useless in the wet.
If you're impling that shops are taking advantage of people and selling them a new entire wheel, that's way, way down the "low" scale. I don't know a bike shop around that would replace rear wheel instead of replacing the tube and tire, unless the person damaged the rim by riding on it for too long with a flat tire; if you chew up the edge of the rim, it'll slowly destroy the sidewall of the tire.
Another reason rear wheel replacements can become necessary: most inexperienced cyclists brake exclusively with their rear brake, falsely believing that braking with the front brake will result in instant death/them being thrown from the bike. On bicycles with rim brakes, braking wears the edge of the rim, especially in places where it rains or snows (road sand etc.) Eventually the rim wears past the safety limit (on most modern wheels, there is a machined notch half-way on the brake track. If you can't feel it, your rim is too worn.) If you're the second or third owner and a bike is a decade old, having to replace a rim isn't unreasonable, as it's one of the wear components, just like the brake rotors on your car.
If you've got a nice hub and spokes, you can have a shop just replace the rim. Labor can start to become a factor, although a hand-built wheel is usually better built than a lot of machine-built wheels (ie what they'll pull off the rack.)
For example, if I were to destroy the rim on my bike (in a way that wouldn't have damaged the spokes), which has a generator hub to power the lights, and double-butted spokes...I would almost certainly just have the shop buy a new rim and re-lace everything to the new rim.
No, their software kept getting confused from Batman.
(I promise, SFW, not a rickroll, etc. Just a guy with a Batman costume blowing some minds on CR.)
Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!
It makes a difference when the path to the field, and the field itself, is hostile to non-straight, white, men. Reading through the comments here there's a lot of really angry, hostile, dismissive posts. Which certainly doesn't help counter the argument by TFA.
Hell, the NBA is really lacking of white college educated women....are we freaking out and trying to induce them with $100 to work to get into the NBA (and god help them if the teams discrimate!!).
Aside from the fact that a sports league has nothing to do with IT, when's the last time you watched a WNBA game? Can you name a SINGLE WNBA player playing this season? How about a single hall-of-famer? Can you name your area's WNBA team? When was the last time you even accidentally came up on an WNBA game on TV? (hint: rarely, because they're not televised nearly as often.) Or how about this: why doesn't the NBA sanction both men's and women's leagues, ie, why did the WNBA need to be formed in the first place? Answer: because the NBA refused to allow women's teams.
So, women don't get the same TV coverage, sponsorship, press, etc.
The gender bias in professional sports *is* a huge problem. And it's a problem in scholastic/collegiate areas as well, which is the whole point behind Title 9 - all the money for scholastic and collegiate athletics was going to men's sports.
. The biggest question I have is, will there be a STANDARD connector for quick charging batteries so that after driving 200 miles, can we re-charge the batteries in a few minutes no matter what brand of car we're driving?
Why do people keep harping on this? This was the top rated comment last time a Tesla was mentions as well. Is it really that hard to go to Tesla's website and click on "charging"? The Tesla comes with a couple of standard plugs, including the common SAE plug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The standard plugs it comes with include a 110/120V plug, and a plug or two for 220/240V outlets; they sell about 2-3 dozen other plugs on their website. If you're visiting a friend and they have an electric dryer plug near the garage - that's more than enough juice to top it up while you're all asleep, and since the car tracks how much energy it used charging, it's easy enough to compensate your host in some way. It's about $10, maybe $15 in electricity for a full 80kW charge, by my rough math.
So, probably the best investment a Tesla owner who visits people a lot can make...is in a 220/240V extension cable. Looks like you can get 'em on Amazon for about $2/foot; Home Depot certainly carries them as well.
"Here is you precious uLock Security"
Welcome to TEN YEARS AGO. Seriously, that was in 2004. Kryptonite recalled them rather quickly, and most of the cycling community is well aware of the problem. Thanks for 'splaining to us something we already know, jackass. Why don't you try finding someone you know who bikes, and asking to see what their u-lock key looks like?
For more than ten years, the standard has been a flat/square key. They're sufficiently strong enough that thieves don't bother with them, mostly because there are still people who use cable locks, which can be cut with a variety of tools.
And yes, the people selling bikes at flea markets and out of the back of vans ARE selling stolen bikes. Legitimate used bike sales are private individuals on various forums including Craigslist (thieves have noticed that people patrol Craigslist looking for their stolen bikes) and via shops which increasingly stock used bikes.
Your entire comment is answerable with one wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The reason you don't buy bikes from a big-box store: they don't use standardized components, the components they come with don't last long (and then when it's time to replace them, surrrrrpise, your local bike shop can't find something that fits) and there are a lot of basic design flaws with the frames and such. It's not "elitist" to say "that bike you bought from Wallyworld is a waste of money because it's going to fall apart."
I'm not entitled if I want the roads *I PAID FOR JUST LIKE YOU* to be designed to not EXCLUDE me.
Cyclists ARE a persecuted group and I'm not going to debate that with you. Go argue with a black man about whether there's still racism Because Obama, or something.
Bicycles are the most energy-efficient transportation method. Google it.
I'm not going to bother responding to your other ignorant crap. Google it.
1)Buy a U-lock.
2)Change out anything "quick release" (aka quick-steal") to bolts or security skewers.
3)Put the U-lock through the rear wheel, inside the frame's rear triangle. Now neither the wheel nor frame can be stolen.
4)Attach the U-lock to something that is solidly and directly attached to the ground. Signposts that are bolted to something don't count. Porch railings don't count. Etc.
5)Remove lights and such.
Don't subscribe to the "cheap crappy bike nobody would want to steal." Guess what there's a large market for, and guess which bikes are the easiest for criminals to unload? It's hard to sell a $1k bike. Not so hard to sell a $100 beat-up bike.
Don't buy bikes from guys selling them out of the backs of vans, fly-by-night-looking shops, flea markets, etc. THEY ARE PROBABLY STOLEN.
Lastly: REPORT STOLEN BICYCLES. One of the reasons they continue to be stolen is that nobody bothers to report their bike getting stolen.
The problem isn't elegance (by which I assume they mean style. Bicycles have been refined over 150 years, and are VERY elegant when it comes to their mechanical design, provided you're not shopping at Wallyworld or the very bottom of the market. NEVER buy a "big box" store bike, for a ton of reasons.) People ride all sorts of bikes. The problem is safety (the number one concern people have is fear of being hurt by drivers. Nobody answers "why aren't you biking?" with "oh, if only the bikes looked better"), infrastructure (on many levels, ranging from traffic sensors that detect bikes, to intersections and roads designed to accommodate more than just motor vehicles, to secure lockups, to being able to take a bicycle on other transit systems, etc...this is slowly starting to change), and societal attitudes. Namely that bicycles are toys, not serious transportation, and thus should not be accomodated...which is a bit circular...and a lot of attitudes and bias that should seem oddly familiar to anyone who has studied gender and racial bias. There's a great article out there from a psych magazine noting that cyclists are treated like any other minority outgroup. For example, emphasis of negative attributes, assumption of guilt, harassment and violence against them, etc.
Which is why so many cyclists now use helmet cameras to record their travels; it's to document the harassment (because people claim it doesn't happen, when it does), but also to have evidence if you're hit, because the driver is going to claim "I didn't see them" and they were doing nothing wrong, witnesses are going to think you were "flying" even if you were well below the speed limit, etc. There's a famous case of a DC cyclist who was cut off; the driver and two witnesses claimed he ran a red light. Surprise! Traffic camera video shows the light was green, and continued to be green as he lay on the ground unconscious after having slammed into the side of the car that had just cut him off. I generally find that drivers have far less understanding of the basic rules of the road and what cyclists are allowed to do or aren't, which is ironic, given that they're the ones piloting the massive machine that can (and does, to the tune of 40,000 a year in the US alone) kill people.
We live in a country where we had a network of well-maintained roads, which were the result of cycling clubs petitioning the government for roads that were rideable. Bicycling was HUGE in the late 1800's; it even factored into women's rights, believe it or not. Then the motor car came along. And people were horrified at the deaths and injuries; speed limits were imposed. The automobile industry panicked; customers wanted to go fast, unimpeded. So they fought back with a campaign of ridiculing pedestrians and cyclists. As the automobile became a symbol of success and achievement, suddenly if you had a car you were the elite, and if you were on foot or on a bicycle, you were not. You were poor, or stupid, or whathaveyou. And the American Dream became driving a car to your suburban house which was nowhere near the market, post office, bus stop, train station, your office, etc. We've only just started to slowly realize the idiocy of this and do more mixed zoning and transit-oriented development.
Just as it became the fault of the "jaywalker" for daring to step into the street except where specifically allowed to, suddenly it became the fault of cyclists when motorists plowed into them. We expect someone operating a power saw or a gun to be careful around others...but put them in a car, and suddenly we expect everyone else to be careful of them. And to protect themselves against you by dressing in foam hats and clothing that makes them look like traffic cones with all sort of blinking lights. Drivers can spot a 2 foot pothole, but can't spot a 6 foot tall, 3 foot wide object in the road? Riiiiiight....
This attitude spread in many places, except for the Netherlands, for example, where the car came relatively late...and Dutch society revolted after the skyrocketing inj
There are plenty of questions about privacy and security raised by Google Glass but I think all products should be treated equally.
RTFAS:
"aimed at wearable technologies, such as Google Glass."
Nobody's trying to specifically legislate Google Glass. They're trying to modify existing distracted-driving laws to include wearable devices.
Also, whether a Big Mac is more distracting is irrelevant to whether wearable devices are. If they are, they should not be allowed. That said, many people DO want an overhaul of motor vehicle collision responsibility. "Changing the radio" was a successful defense for a driver who orphaned a 10 year old girl when he slammed into her parents, who were cycling well outside the travel lane...and there are dozens of examples of this kind of crap. He should've been charged with manslaughter at the least.
You do not have a RIGHT to drive; this is very consistently held up in the courts that driving is a privileged form of transportation. You especially do not have a RIGHT to do whatever you want WHILE driving.
It's been repeatedly shown that holding the phone doesn't matter (thus wearable devices are not safer) and speech-to-text isn't better (ditto) though holding a phone does impair your control of the vehicle; the real danger is that secondary tasks that involve a lot of thinking, such as composing a text message or carrying on a conversation, are distracting enough to make you have worse reaction times than someone who is drunk.
Google is just following in line with the cell phone industry in placing profits ahead of people's lives.
It's really simple: when you're in a car, your primary responsibility is to OPERATE THAT VEHICLE. Not to check your fucking email, or reply to text messages, or see what your stock price is, or what the weather is going to be like next week. Drive.
I've had it with small companies. During the '00s I twice started with small companies only to hear "pay will be late" at the end of an early pay period, then "pay is just around the corner" by the end of the next pay period. In one case, the CEO simply never paid; I left before the third no-pay period was over, demanding that I be paid for my hours, to which he basically replied "so sue us!" I didâ"but only managed to recoup some of what I was owed.
This is nothing new, nor is it specific to small companies; I think you meant "startups." Textile companies used to do the same BS, not paying workers, during the industrial revolution. It's why, for example, in MA it is a CRIMINAL matter upon the officers of the company if employees are not paid within a certain amount of time for work done. Furthermore, the law is written such that BOTH the state and you individually can pursue action against them concurrently/independently.
It's also why, if terminated or laid off, you must walk out the door with any and all money owed to you. It's not a defense that the guy who signs the checks is only in on Tuesdays, or they need to figure out how much to take out of your paycheck for purchases from the company canteen, etc. Why? Because they're choosing to end your employment, and they can choose to do so at any time. So they should terminate employment on Tuesday, after they've done the necessary calculations.
If you are reading this, live in MA (and probably a bunch of other states), and have a pay period that is not at least semi-monthly (biweekly if you're paid hourly) unless you're salaried and agreed to be paid monthly...or you have not been paid within one pay period for your work...stop reading, step outside, and call your State AG immediately, or at least read something like http://www.lexology.com/librar...
Funny how you prove his point by all but demanding a story be told by bolting PC narratives on the side and derailing the entire flow by screaming "I CARE MORE ABOUT NONWHITES, WOMEN, AND GAYS THAN YOU!" at each other and their audience. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/... Start reading, asshole. I never did anything you claim I did.
Both programs are effective in the kind of engagements that we've found ourselves in during the last couple of decades and both are paid for. It's maintenance only, as opposed to development.
"Maintenance only" when talking about military aircraft is huge, especially with planes that are 60 years old. There's a phrase in the general aviation world for planes that don't fly much and require a lot of maintenance - hangar queens. Both sitting around, and their age, causes maintenance headaches.
Plus the cost of "staffing" is enormous. The U2 is enormously difficult to fly; at altitude, the window between stall (plummet to the ground) and Vmax (lose control surface functionality and/or rip pieces of the plane off) is something like 10mph. Training people in the things places the planes and people at risk; keep up the program and eventually you won't have any U2's left to fly. Then there's the problem of an unpressurized cockpit; pilots need to nitrogen-purge for hours before flight and wear what is almost a space suit. Oh, and it cannot evade modern SAM and AA missiles....and has no steal capabilities....yet has a human inside? The US needs another Gary Powers like a hole in the head.
Then there's the fact that the U2 can only launch from a small number of bases (mostly designed to cover Russia), is slower, doesn't offer as nice real-time capabilities, and in the time it takes for a U2 pilot to plan a mission, suit up, prebreathe, etc - the drone is half-way enroute and they're figuring out the rest of the flightplan as they go. Nevermind that with so many commercial satellite imagery companies, chances are someone's already got the imagery you're looking for.