One would think that the upheavals of the extinction event would have created some mass graveyards that could be found at the layer itself. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, the one wiped out generation is a statistical blip relative to the millions of generations that came and went through the normal lives and deaths, but given the scale of the disruption to normal ecology, it would be nice to find boneyards right on the KT boundary event itself.
There seems to be an intense eagerness on slashdot to predict RIM's demise. It smells like deliberate FUD, whether from a competitor or just self-flagellating Canadian doomsayers who no longer get their regular fix from staring into the abyss of Nortel.
I declined share options and stock purchases and asked that if they were going to give me a bonus, that it be in cash even if it was only a fraction of the paper value. I thought through all the risks and decided that investing in what was already my sole source of income didn't make sense at any price.
You're assuming I wasn't a cleaner. Everyone used to envy the guy with the tennis ball on a stick who spent his days cleaning scuffmarks off the polished main hall. His life looked so simple, so fulfilling. He knew his job, he did his job, he went home and slept well.
I'm not the cardboard box yet, but if I can't pull it together and stop having panic attacks every time I see a cubical, a suit or a shell prompt, that's where I'm headed.
The sad part is that this line argument actually went through my head as I was writing and I even stopped and wondered whether I should find an alternative wording instead of glibly expanding the definition of "finite". "Less than M" was the only thing to came to mind from an old linear methods text I encountered in my youth but that seemed too obscure. I'm open to suggestions as to a better word/phrase to use.
You are assuming that there are a finite number of exploitable ways of attacking the company. Otherwise, all you have done is provide proof that you are open to blackmail and it's only a matter of time before you are blackmailed again. Presumably the CIO is hoping to have slipped away to another company by then.
Facebook is following the same trajectory of all social networking sites from the dawn of the Internet... people pile in, then eventually take a harder look at the product they are becoming and start to pull away, starting a long bleeding decline. What's astonishing is that once again, a company appeared which honestly seemed to think they were different, that they weren't subject to the same pattern of free-growth and decay-on-monitization.
The problem is that it's not really the drunks you want to get (despite the fact that they did a lot of the damage), it's the instigators in bandanas who started trouble then melted away into the crowd once they had set things in motion. I'm not saying the stupid people shouldn't be dragged out and shamed, but don't pat yourself on the back if you're catching only the "useful idiots"
What's the business model being proposed? I imagine such a filtered view of the Internet creates only liability when it fails, not any increase of profit when it succeeds.
At our current rate of population growth, I calculate that in 5425 years, humanity will be a solid ball of flesh expanding at the speed of light in all directions. I'm drawing the line on exponential growth there.
Every year I was an undergrad, my score in the Putnum math competition dropped (in my first year I got the highest score in my school, second year I tied for highest, third year I was middle of the pack and fourth year I was so stressed about other work that I overslept on the day and missed it entirely).
That's the only emperical evidence I have, but it suggests that higher education was worse than useless for me:)
But (unless I missed a memo) we actually don't know what conditions the first life formed in. Although we tend to focus on the ocean environment, it's entirely possible that the first cells formed in some more exotic deep crevise and only later migrated to the surface. In many ways, walking around in the open air makes *us* one of the most exotic extremophiles of the world.
If the Internet is going to be a theater of future conflicts, then isn't it sensible for *all* countries to have some aptitude in the area? Has the US sworn off having any "cyberwarriors" of its own? Or is there really going to be one set of rules for the US and another set of rules for the rest of the world?
The Daleks are England's Godzilla - their take on the echo of the trauma of WW2: a mechanized tank with unrepentant genocidal goals. When they were on screen I could see they touched some lingering discomfort in my parents' generation - even though I didn't entirely know why. They way they were reintroduced in the revival, there was a touch of the that same legacy fear in the way they had the Doctor recoil from them - that background trauma was internalized into the canon of the show.
Now that the show has moved past the Time War survivor guilt issues, the Daleks do need to go away for a while until a suitable story can be found that needs them.
Think of the current state of Doctor Who as a multi-year episode of Blink - there is a huge sprawling plotline going on, but it's not going to all make sense until the end.
Slashdot Mirror
One would think that the upheavals of the extinction event would have created some mass graveyards that could be found at the layer itself. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, the one wiped out generation is a statistical blip relative to the millions of generations that came and went through the normal lives and deaths, but given the scale of the disruption to normal ecology, it would be nice to find boneyards right on the KT boundary event itself.
There seems to be an intense eagerness on slashdot to predict RIM's demise. It smells like deliberate FUD, whether from a competitor or just self-flagellating Canadian doomsayers who no longer get their regular fix from staring into the abyss of Nortel.
What are the legal implications of Watson lying? of providing false or misleading information?
I declined share options and stock purchases and asked that if they were going to give me a bonus, that it be in cash even if it was only a fraction of the paper value. I thought through all the risks and decided that investing in what was already my sole source of income didn't make sense at any price.
You're assuming I wasn't a cleaner. Everyone used to envy the guy with the tennis ball on a stick who spent his days cleaning scuffmarks off the polished main hall. His life looked so simple, so fulfilling. He knew his job, he did his job, he went home and slept well.
I'm not the cardboard box yet, but if I can't pull it together and stop having panic attacks every time I see a cubical, a suit or a shell prompt, that's where I'm headed.
Wait ... that's quite a bit ... does that mean I might be getting some severence pay after all?
http://xkcd.com/538/
Isn't command and control the antithesis of indestructability? Any software that can be patched can be destroyed.
They're missing a number. Proof is left as an exercise for the visitor.
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
The sad part is that this line argument actually went through my head as I was writing and I even stopped and wondered whether I should find an alternative wording instead of glibly expanding the definition of "finite". "Less than M" was the only thing to came to mind from an old linear methods text I encountered in my youth but that seemed too obscure. I'm open to suggestions as to a better word/phrase to use.
I can't be both?
You are assuming that there are a finite number of exploitable ways of attacking the company. Otherwise, all you have done is provide proof that you are open to blackmail and it's only a matter of time before you are blackmailed again. Presumably the CIO is hoping to have slipped away to another company by then.
Facebook is following the same trajectory of all social networking sites from the dawn of the Internet ... people pile in, then eventually take a harder look at the product they are becoming and start to pull away, starting a long bleeding decline. What's astonishing is that once again, a company appeared which honestly seemed to think they were different, that they weren't subject to the same pattern of free-growth and decay-on-monitization.
The problem is that it's not really the drunks you want to get (despite the fact that they did a lot of the damage), it's the instigators in bandanas who started trouble then melted away into the crowd once they had set things in motion. I'm not saying the stupid people shouldn't be dragged out and shamed, but don't pat yourself on the back if you're catching only the "useful idiots"
What if parents didn't try to raise their kids to live in a fantasy world where anything they don't want to talk about simply doesn't exist?
What's the business model being proposed? I imagine such a filtered view of the Internet creates only liability when it fails, not any increase of profit when it succeeds.
At our current rate of population growth, I calculate that in 5425 years, humanity will be a solid ball of flesh expanding at the speed of light in all directions. I'm drawing the line on exponential growth there.
I'm sorry Mr. Smith, but it appears you have an acute case of Toronto.
Every year I was an undergrad, my score in the Putnum math competition dropped (in my first year I got the highest score in my school, second year I tied for highest, third year I was middle of the pack and fourth year I was so stressed about other work that I overslept on the day and missed it entirely).
That's the only emperical evidence I have, but it suggests that higher education was worse than useless for me :)
But (unless I missed a memo) we actually don't know what conditions the first life formed in. Although we tend to focus on the ocean environment, it's entirely possible that the first cells formed in some more exotic deep crevise and only later migrated to the surface. In many ways, walking around in the open air makes *us* one of the most exotic extremophiles of the world.
If the Internet is going to be a theater of future conflicts, then isn't it sensible for *all* countries to have some aptitude in the area? Has the US sworn off having any "cyberwarriors" of its own? Or is there really going to be one set of rules for the US and another set of rules for the rest of the world?
The Daleks are England's Godzilla - their take on the echo of the trauma of WW2: a mechanized tank with unrepentant genocidal goals. When they were on screen I could see they touched some lingering discomfort in my parents' generation - even though I didn't entirely know why. They way they were reintroduced in the revival, there was a touch of the that same legacy fear in the way they had the Doctor recoil from them - that background trauma was internalized into the canon of the show.
Now that the show has moved past the Time War survivor guilt issues, the Daleks do need to go away for a while until a suitable story can be found that needs them.
Think of the current state of Doctor Who as a multi-year episode of Blink - there is a huge sprawling plotline going on, but it's not going to all make sense until the end.
I need to set up a whole lot of billing booths at random places along streets that read "walk past me to make a $1 donation to my personal wellbeing!"