I wouldn't want to risk an extraction. That's what our Back Country ground units are best at. This would be more for spotting from the air. Here in my county in Arizona, we have 8000 square miles and much of that is undeveloped land, designated wilderness areas, National Forest land, etc. I've thought about getting one of those powered paragliders. Probably much cheaper but not nearly as badass.
Maybe I can get a FEMA grant for one for Search & Rescue. Probably cheaper than a Robinson heli. (Yes, I know you can't pick up search subjects but you can't do that in a two-place Robinson either).
I'll admit that I don't know how it works on the Windows 7 side. XP is still pretty porous. But I'm forced to ask: if Microsoft is so good at it, why are there products like Norton, McAfee, and those annoying ads for DoubleMySpeed.com? "My computer was on it's last legs. Now it's like new again!" *facepalm*
IMHO, Apple is taking the bull by the horns and not only fixing the problem personally but also not charging an annual fee for the privilege of cleaning your system. Well done.
My point is that paper presenters usually gloss over a key element to reproducing their results. Every SIGGraph paper on fluid simulation I've ever listened to had the following phrase: "We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations and then we did thus and such and blah, blah, blah..." Um, yeah, no sh*t. Would you mind showing us some code for that implementation? I haven't seen symbols like that since APL. How do I know you didn't fake it in Photoshop and After Effects?
"If these Vegans are so sophisticated, why the remedial math?" "Yeah, why don't they just speak English?" "Probably because 70% of the world speaks other languages, Senator. Mathematics is the only truly universal language."
Ah, yes, and then generally the more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to invent $20 MBA words to make yourself seem more important. "Webinar" is a pet peeve of mine. Every time I hear someone use that term, it makes me not want to attend. I get the same feeling when people use the term "gooey" to refer to a user-interface. Sorry, but "gooey" is trendy and you've just revealed that you know nothing about user-interfaces.
Here's another way of looking at it: Malware writers don't bother creating Mac viruses because Mac users are smart enough to avoid them so the viruses don't get a chance to spread.
Nevermind comprehension. Being able to speak well and write well along with being able to communicate well is more important. I can't tell you how many paper presentations I've been to and walked out of there understanding the concept less than when I went in. "This is how you implement Euler integration...but nobody uses that so we used an adaptive fourth-order Runge-Kutta solver (which we won't tell you how to implement) and that is the key to everything else."
Actually, when my father was in Columbia (before it descended into ultra-left-wing radical land), he had an interview with the dean of the medical school. The dean told him flat out not to bother taking biology, chemistry, and similar hard sciences but instead to take as many humanities courses as possible. Why? The dean said "We will teach you what you need to know." Now, whether or not this is still true today is debatable.
As for CS, IMHO, it's all about aptitude. My first jobs out of grad school was doing Mac programming. I had barely touched one let alone program for it. But the company thought I had the aptitude to learn it quickly enough to be productive.
IIRC, in the book "The Cuckoo's Egg", small amounts of money were being moved in each transaction yet over a large number of transactions and a long period of time, it adds up while being below most people's radar. It's the same mechanism that makes the iTunes store and the app store work for Apple or text messaging fees work for cellphone companies. Most customers don't really notice 99 cents here and there.
I recall a statement made by James Burke in the last episode of the first Connections series where he talks about science and technology taking away the reassuring crutches of opinion and ideology and leaves only what is demonstrably true about the world. IMHO, a major tenet of the left wing ideology is how something makes them feel as opposed to whether or not something is practical, efficient, or cost effective. To the left, screwing over those "rich" people with higher taxes makes them feel good. The left sees such behavior as a moral imperative that is "fair" and no facts about who really pays what in taxes matters. $250,000 is rich to them and in their mind's eye they picture some heartless CEO or "greedy Wall Street speculator" when in reality that's what a typical Quizno's takes in every year. Given all of this, I have no doubt that the left will excoriate any attempt to use technology to remove personal bias and the nebulous concept of "fairness" (aka whatever is going to get them re-elected) in the tax code.
Weird. I was just thinking about how one could steal a lot of money from Mark Zuckerberg in the vein of the opening scene of "Sneakers". After all, a guy with that big an ego needs to be given a healthy dose of humility. With a system like this, in theory all you'd need to do is hack his bank account and buy a ton of bit-coins and then transfer them around the net to various accounts and such which would subsequently get deleted.
As for this sort of thing being illegal, that only pertains if the whole thing is running in the U.S. All you need is a private island. IIRC, Neal Stephenson touched on these subjects in Cryptonomicon.
Make no mistake, boys and girls, this will be used as a way to impose a carbon tax on you, the individual, never mind attempting to carbon tax businesses.
Instead of condemning fracking as a public health risk due to methane release in the ground water, why don't we come up with a simple separator that could be connected to people's wells that would siphon off the methane and either store it or use it to heat the home or generate electricity?
This is nothing new, folks. Back in the early 90s I worked for a Fortune 500 company in one of its design departments. The artists kept begging year after year for training. Of course they didn't exactly specify that they wanted Photoshop and Illustrator training. What did they get? Bullshit "team" training and bullshit "communication" training among other bullshit fluff, none of which was a marketable skill. After all, why should a company pay to train someone so they are able to get a better job somewhere else? The other side of this type of coin are places like Pixar that let you take all kinds of useful classes and people really want to work there.
So the real business question is: how much useful training do you offer your employees? If you treat them like slaves, they won't want to hang around but then again will they have the ability to leave? On the other hand, if you spend a ton of money on training, are you going to see the return on the investment or are you going to go broke in the process?
My first job out of grad school was doing Mac programming. Never really used at Mac let alone code for it. But they said "No problem, we'll teach you what you need to know." Now granted this job was in BFE Florida and they probably couldn't find anyone desperate enough to move there.
That being said, I have seen people hired as graphic designers in a department where everyone did their work on a computer who had no clue how to drive Photoshop or Illustrator.
Ah...okay then how about something that converts brainwaves into phone-charging energy so when people are talking on the phone constantly while they're driving it's being charged. Oh, wait, that would assume that they have brainwaves. My bad.
Why do we need ever more powerful phones? I don't think people are going to want to run CFDs, protein-folding, or SETI-at-home on their phone. On the other hand, if the phone consumes 11 times less power, you could go a few months without charging it which would be good.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't want to risk an extraction. That's what our Back Country ground units are best at. This would be more for spotting from the air. Here in my county in Arizona, we have 8000 square miles and much of that is undeveloped land, designated wilderness areas, National Forest land, etc. I've thought about getting one of those powered paragliders. Probably much cheaper but not nearly as badass.
Maybe I can get a FEMA grant for one for Search & Rescue. Probably cheaper than a Robinson heli. (Yes, I know you can't pick up search subjects but you can't do that in a two-place Robinson either).
I'll admit that I don't know how it works on the Windows 7 side. XP is still pretty porous. But I'm forced to ask: if Microsoft is so good at it, why are there products like Norton, McAfee, and those annoying ads for DoubleMySpeed.com? "My computer was on it's last legs. Now it's like new again!" *facepalm*
IMHO, Apple is taking the bull by the horns and not only fixing the problem personally but also not charging an annual fee for the privilege of cleaning your system. Well done.
My point is that paper presenters usually gloss over a key element to reproducing their results. Every SIGGraph paper on fluid simulation I've ever listened to had the following phrase: "We implemented the Navier-Stokes equations and then we did thus and such and blah, blah, blah..." Um, yeah, no sh*t. Would you mind showing us some code for that implementation? I haven't seen symbols like that since APL. How do I know you didn't fake it in Photoshop and After Effects?
"If these Vegans are so sophisticated, why the remedial math?"
"Yeah, why don't they just speak English?"
"Probably because 70% of the world speaks other languages, Senator. Mathematics is the only truly universal language."
Ah, yes, and then generally the more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to invent $20 MBA words to make yourself seem more important. "Webinar" is a pet peeve of mine. Every time I hear someone use that term, it makes me not want to attend. I get the same feeling when people use the term "gooey" to refer to a user-interface. Sorry, but "gooey" is trendy and you've just revealed that you know nothing about user-interfaces.
Here's another way of looking at it: Malware writers don't bother creating Mac viruses because Mac users are smart enough to avoid them so the viruses don't get a chance to spread.
Nevermind comprehension. Being able to speak well and write well along with being able to communicate well is more important. I can't tell you how many paper presentations I've been to and walked out of there understanding the concept less than when I went in. "This is how you implement Euler integration...but nobody uses that so we used an adaptive fourth-order Runge-Kutta solver (which we won't tell you how to implement) and that is the key to everything else."
Actually, when my father was in Columbia (before it descended into ultra-left-wing radical land), he had an interview with the dean of the medical school. The dean told him flat out not to bother taking biology, chemistry, and similar hard sciences but instead to take as many humanities courses as possible. Why? The dean said "We will teach you what you need to know." Now, whether or not this is still true today is debatable.
As for CS, IMHO, it's all about aptitude. My first jobs out of grad school was doing Mac programming. I had barely touched one let alone program for it. But the company thought I had the aptitude to learn it quickly enough to be productive.
IIRC, in the book "The Cuckoo's Egg", small amounts of money were being moved in each transaction yet over a large number of transactions and a long period of time, it adds up while being below most people's radar. It's the same mechanism that makes the iTunes store and the app store work for Apple or text messaging fees work for cellphone companies. Most customers don't really notice 99 cents here and there.
Who said anything about large-scale? Set it up so that it does thousands of small transfers.
I recall a statement made by James Burke in the last episode of the first Connections series where he talks about science and technology taking away the reassuring crutches of opinion and ideology and leaves only what is demonstrably true about the world. IMHO, a major tenet of the left wing ideology is how something makes them feel as opposed to whether or not something is practical, efficient, or cost effective. To the left, screwing over those "rich" people with higher taxes makes them feel good. The left sees such behavior as a moral imperative that is "fair" and no facts about who really pays what in taxes matters. $250,000 is rich to them and in their mind's eye they picture some heartless CEO or "greedy Wall Street speculator" when in reality that's what a typical Quizno's takes in every year. Given all of this, I have no doubt that the left will excoriate any attempt to use technology to remove personal bias and the nebulous concept of "fairness" (aka whatever is going to get them re-elected) in the tax code.
Weird. I was just thinking about how one could steal a lot of money from Mark Zuckerberg in the vein of the opening scene of "Sneakers". After all, a guy with that big an ego needs to be given a healthy dose of humility. With a system like this, in theory all you'd need to do is hack his bank account and buy a ton of bit-coins and then transfer them around the net to various accounts and such which would subsequently get deleted.
As for this sort of thing being illegal, that only pertains if the whole thing is running in the U.S. All you need is a private island. IIRC, Neal Stephenson touched on these subjects in Cryptonomicon.
How about a Dynatyper? http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/accession/X914.88
Or a Stringy Floppy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exatron_Stringy_Floppy
Make no mistake, boys and girls, this will be used as a way to impose a carbon tax on you, the individual, never mind attempting to carbon tax businesses.
I wonder if this is going to factor into the case of North Face versus South Butt. All the South Butt guy would have to do is form a PAC.
Well, Dean Kamen seems to have a device that could do the trick.
Instead of condemning fracking as a public health risk due to methane release in the ground water, why don't we come up with a simple separator that could be connected to people's wells that would siphon off the methane and either store it or use it to heat the home or generate electricity?
This is nothing new, folks. Back in the early 90s I worked for a Fortune 500 company in one of its design departments. The artists kept begging year after year for training. Of course they didn't exactly specify that they wanted Photoshop and Illustrator training. What did they get? Bullshit "team" training and bullshit "communication" training among other bullshit fluff, none of which was a marketable skill. After all, why should a company pay to train someone so they are able to get a better job somewhere else? The other side of this type of coin are places like Pixar that let you take all kinds of useful classes and people really want to work there.
So the real business question is: how much useful training do you offer your employees? If you treat them like slaves, they won't want to hang around but then again will they have the ability to leave? On the other hand, if you spend a ton of money on training, are you going to see the return on the investment or are you going to go broke in the process?
My first job out of grad school was doing Mac programming. Never really used at Mac let alone code for it. But they said "No problem, we'll teach you what you need to know." Now granted this job was in BFE Florida and they probably couldn't find anyone desperate enough to move there.
That being said, I have seen people hired as graphic designers in a department where everyone did their work on a computer who had no clue how to drive Photoshop or Illustrator.
WHY WHY WHY can't you stop regulating things to death???? I know this is a backdoor method to cut the legs out from under an industry just being born.
On a related note, I just found out that it would cost me $90,000 to get a helicopter rating. That makes me sad.
That's always a good conversation starter.
Ah...okay then how about something that converts brainwaves into phone-charging energy so when people are talking on the phone constantly while they're driving it's being charged. Oh, wait, that would assume that they have brainwaves. My bad.
Why do we need ever more powerful phones? I don't think people are going to want to run CFDs, protein-folding, or SETI-at-home on their phone.
On the other hand, if the phone consumes 11 times less power, you could go a few months without charging it which would be good.