Sure, why not? I use my tools for my personal business and employer's tools for the job. That's how it works.
When you read science fiction, does the character with the smart phone carry two of them so that she can have access to her secure stuff and her regular stuff?
No, they use their skull-neurojack and wi-fi usb stick. What does this has to do with how present-day officials should conduct their official communication?
So, even if you can easily hire another Python developer with two years of professional experience when Bob leaves, are you really sure those six months Bob previously spent at Acme Software Inc didn't make him your team's expert on the new source control system they've been migrating to for the past couple of months? When Jim arrives to replace Bob, did the people recruiting him understand the important supporting function Bob performed and make sure that Jim will be able to take over that responsibility as well?
No, of course they can't. This is a perfect example of just what I meant: the organization would had been better off if Bob had just done his job and left the system unsupported, thus forcing the managament to formally give the responsibility to someone - which also means it's an officially acknowledged role within the organization.
The simple, brutal fact is that from the organization's point of view, Bob is a liability. He might die, he might leave. The more responsibility he gets, the bigger liability he'll become.
Friend, if you let people get close enough to your hardware to muck with your thunderbolt connector, you didn't have any security anyway.
Pseudonymous stranger, we live in a connected world. A device needs to be able to talk to other devices, and that means connectors need to be secure - which means the operating system of the device must be fully in control of what happens when the device receives data, and no data must be sent without its explicit permission.
Compare: if your web browser wipes your hard disk due to the command codes hidden in this plain english text, is that acceptable because, after all, you foolishly allowed your computer/phone/whatever to connect to the outside world?
No you aren't, you're simply trying to appear tough by spouting sociopathic garbage. Such emotionally motivated behaviour is the very antithesis of "clinical", and not the least bit impressive. Please grow up.
Perhaps we should make sure that people are not punished for speech or thoughts and instead punish actions that harm others?
Speaking is an action, and one with potentially quite severe consequences. Should, for example, Goebbels be held blameless for the results of his speech?
The pen is mightier than the sword; a tyrant would have little to fear from it otherwise.
If you have HR as your front-line recruitment organisation, you are almost doomed to mediocrity.
Which, for the organization, is a good thing. Mediocre people are easily replaceable, and most projects don't really need any real talent.
Chances are you aren't going to be the next Google, so why pay for the skills that can build one? And if it starts looking you'll be the outlier after all, you can always hire experts then.
Repay what? Society doesn't lose anything due to copyright infringement. The corporations who bought Mickey Mouse Protection Act will have the efficiency of their bribes diminished, but that's hardly something they should be paid damages for.
Dude, only westerners, especially Americans, can have the gall to simplemindedly dismiss thousands of years of culture as "inferior" and "oppressive".
Wrong. If there's one thing all cultures can agree on, it's that foreigners are barbarians.
Also, thousands of years of culture tends to result being thousands of years out of date.
Why don't you actually try talking to the people in that culture to find out what they think?
Udwin did, and recorded the response. Apparently it can be summed up as "rape is awesome, and so is censorship". Which is both monstrous and oppressive.
No, it remains the case that causality works forward.
Does it? Given a point in spacetime, it's just as easy or difficult to calculate possible pasts or futures. You might say event A caused event B, but physics only says they're causally linked.
Universe described by General Relativity is best thought not as a stream of events but a jigsaw puzzle. You have a piece (observable variables at some point in spacetime) and laws of physics describe what other pieces can be connected to it, then what other pieces can connect to those pieces, and so forth. You usually have multiple ways you can build a self-consistent picture.
And of course human witnesses are notoriously unreliable precisely because they don't actually remember most of the things they're testifying about, but are procedurally generating stories about their past on the spot based on what little they remember - or what the questioner implies happened. And people make decisions all the time based on similar stories about future. So it doesn't seem that humans really distinguish between past and future either.
So a chemical reaction can spread fear over your *entire* body in a split second? But if there was quantum communication going on, it more readily explains how the entire body can go from normal to fight or flight in a split second.
So does ordinary chemical reaction, especially in conductors specifically designed for fast propagation, such as nerves. In fact, even the exotic phenomenom called "sound" moves at 340+ meters per second, and will thus take all of 1/150 of a second to cross your body.
Personally, I find it interesting that ancient healing techniques focused on some type of unknown energy healing that was laughed at by modern science. And before it is all said and done, I think it is going to turn out not so crazy after all.
Ancient healing techniques, for the most part, don't work. It doesn't really matter what they're focusing on, since they fail to actually heal the patient, and in many cases actually cause harm. So, crazy or sensible, they're simply wrong.
Modern science, on the other hand, eradicated smallpox and has polio on the ropes. Even AIDS and cancer are on the retreat. The only things it seems unable to cure in foreseeable future are human evil and stupidity.
Hey India: "Sticking your head in the sand ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away!"
India doesn't want the issue to go away, because that would mean changing, and no one wants to. India wants people to go back to pretending everything's okay. That's why "shocking" documentaries are dangeours, and get banned.
It's why freedom of speech is so important: rising issues to public consciousness is the only way to resolve them peacefully. The only alternative is letting them shimmer until they reach the point of explosion and tear the country apart as they do. Time will tell whether the rising countries like India and China will learn that in time. Russia doesn't seem to have, from two collapses, and is consequently heading for third and possibly final.
When they start comparing reality to sci-fi apocalypse movies then there is a problem.
And yet the ability to tell stories - to take a premise and run a mental simulation to see the consequences - is what allows you to plan your actions. Even your ability to walk depends on it. There's no difference in principle between "if I cross the street without looking both ways, I might get run over by a car" and "if I build autonomous weapons, they might turn on me". Heck, the case could be made that all the fictitious stories about a nuclear apocalypse is what kept it from happening, since they made sure no one was the least bit uncertain about the results.
Right, and when it comes to power generation deaths are the only metric that matters.
Well, don't keep us in suspense: what are these important metrics we should sacrifice human lives to improve?
Well, what metrics do you think make driving worth while at the expense of human lives? If deaths were the only metric cars would be banned.
...You know, it's okay to admit you didn't think your post through. You don't have to fight every debate to the bitter end if you don't have anything sensible to say. And when the subject actually has effects on the real world, perverting logic to "win" is immoral or even outright evil.
The engineers should have put the brakes to any construction efforts taking place in those locations, based on that fact alone.
They can't. The spirit of the organization employing them does not let them. Their role is to implement the decisions of the leadership and rationalize them. Conforming to their role earns them social capital, and going against costs it. And they can't possibly earn that capital fast enough to pay for keeping a plant blocked for long.
CCS - Carbon Capture and Sequestration? I wonder if you could drive the price down by keeping the carbon dioxide gaseous and feeding it to nearby greenhouses - possibly through a simple pipe. Heck, if you used the greenhouse products as biofuel in the plant you could create a completely closed loop:).
Ones that will keep my computer running even if it happens to be cloudy and calm and my neighbour decides to use a vacuum cleaner.
Wind, solar PV,
Bit players unless there's a near-miraculous breakthrough in battery technology. At which point solar will require lots of land area and wind will likely have unintended side effects - it's removing energy from the weather system, after all - which means endless rounds of complaints.
solar thermal,
Workable, but requires massive plants. Those are not going to happen - someone will always complain.
wave, tidal,
Lots of promises, few deliveries. And again, these will have massive ecological implications even when working properly.
geothermal,
Unworkable at current drilling technology.
biofuel?
Basically solar power with lots of added inefficiencies. Bonus points for having potential to cause famines if it comes down to feeding the poor or feeding your car.
I think the premise is still quite doable, especially if there were some condition on Earth which prevented agricultural production from reaching its current capacity.
Anything that would leave spaceflight-capable civilization standing would also leave Earth better suited for food production than the Moon. It's an absurd premise, and any attempt to justify it with actual logistics will simply draw attention to it. Just imply the situation is due to "corruption" and leave the details to the imagination of the audience.
Power. Family relations already have a high chance of turning into a living hell due to the combination of huge power differences and mandatory participation; supercharging everything with sexuality is a bad idea.
All too often we assume that dealing with trolls is like pissing in the wind but a few crushing responses now and then (being made "famous" and getting fired) is a start.
Yes, exactly: you feel better for a while but risk getting made an example of for some minor (to you) crime someone happens to be crusading against.
It's not that dealing with trolls is futile, it's just that the unintended side effects of any effective response tend to be far too negative.
Actions have consequences. [...] He's not responsible for what people do with the information. [...] If you can't handle the consequences or potential consequences of your actions, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO THEM.
So which one is it? Are people responsible for the (predictable) consequences of their actions, or are they not?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, why not? I use my tools for my personal business and employer's tools for the job. That's how it works.
No, they use their skull-neurojack and wi-fi usb stick. What does this has to do with how present-day officials should conduct their official communication?
No, of course they can't. This is a perfect example of just what I meant: the organization would had been better off if Bob had just done his job and left the system unsupported, thus forcing the managament to formally give the responsibility to someone - which also means it's an officially acknowledged role within the organization.
The simple, brutal fact is that from the organization's point of view, Bob is a liability. He might die, he might leave. The more responsibility he gets, the bigger liability he'll become.
Pseudonymous stranger, we live in a connected world. A device needs to be able to talk to other devices, and that means connectors need to be secure - which means the operating system of the device must be fully in control of what happens when the device receives data, and no data must be sent without its explicit permission.
Compare: if your web browser wipes your hard disk due to the command codes hidden in this plain english text, is that acceptable because, after all, you foolishly allowed your computer/phone/whatever to connect to the outside world?
No you aren't, you're simply trying to appear tough by spouting sociopathic garbage. Such emotionally motivated behaviour is the very antithesis of "clinical", and not the least bit impressive. Please grow up.
Speaking is an action, and one with potentially quite severe consequences. Should, for example, Goebbels be held blameless for the results of his speech?
The pen is mightier than the sword; a tyrant would have little to fear from it otherwise.
Which, for the organization, is a good thing. Mediocre people are easily replaceable, and most projects don't really need any real talent.
Chances are you aren't going to be the next Google, so why pay for the skills that can build one? And if it starts looking you'll be the outlier after all, you can always hire experts then.
Repay what? Society doesn't lose anything due to copyright infringement. The corporations who bought Mickey Mouse Protection Act will have the efficiency of their bribes diminished, but that's hardly something they should be paid damages for.
...And you see this primarily as an image problem?
Wrong. If there's one thing all cultures can agree on, it's that foreigners are barbarians.
Also, thousands of years of culture tends to result being thousands of years out of date.
Udwin did, and recorded the response. Apparently it can be summed up as "rape is awesome, and so is censorship". Which is both monstrous and oppressive.
Does it? Given a point in spacetime, it's just as easy or difficult to calculate possible pasts or futures. You might say event A caused event B, but physics only says they're causally linked.
Universe described by General Relativity is best thought not as a stream of events but a jigsaw puzzle. You have a piece (observable variables at some point in spacetime) and laws of physics describe what other pieces can be connected to it, then what other pieces can connect to those pieces, and so forth. You usually have multiple ways you can build a self-consistent picture.
And of course human witnesses are notoriously unreliable precisely because they don't actually remember most of the things they're testifying about, but are procedurally generating stories about their past on the spot based on what little they remember - or what the questioner implies happened. And people make decisions all the time based on similar stories about future. So it doesn't seem that humans really distinguish between past and future either.
Do you have any examples of silica-based lifeforms to back that assertion?
Iron is more efficient in environments humans live in.
So does ordinary chemical reaction, especially in conductors specifically designed for fast propagation, such as nerves. In fact, even the exotic phenomenom called "sound" moves at 340+ meters per second, and will thus take all of 1/150 of a second to cross your body.
Ancient healing techniques, for the most part, don't work. It doesn't really matter what they're focusing on, since they fail to actually heal the patient, and in many cases actually cause harm. So, crazy or sensible, they're simply wrong.
Modern science, on the other hand, eradicated smallpox and has polio on the ropes. Even AIDS and cancer are on the retreat. The only things it seems unable to cure in foreseeable future are human evil and stupidity.
India doesn't want the issue to go away, because that would mean changing, and no one wants to. India wants people to go back to pretending everything's okay. That's why "shocking" documentaries are dangeours, and get banned.
It's why freedom of speech is so important: rising issues to public consciousness is the only way to resolve them peacefully. The only alternative is letting them shimmer until they reach the point of explosion and tear the country apart as they do. Time will tell whether the rising countries like India and China will learn that in time. Russia doesn't seem to have, from two collapses, and is consequently heading for third and possibly final.
And yet the ability to tell stories - to take a premise and run a mental simulation to see the consequences - is what allows you to plan your actions. Even your ability to walk depends on it. There's no difference in principle between "if I cross the street without looking both ways, I might get run over by a car" and "if I build autonomous weapons, they might turn on me". Heck, the case could be made that all the fictitious stories about a nuclear apocalypse is what kept it from happening, since they made sure no one was the least bit uncertain about the results.
...You know, it's okay to admit you didn't think your post through. You don't have to fight every debate to the bitter end if you don't have anything sensible to say. And when the subject actually has effects on the real world, perverting logic to "win" is immoral or even outright evil.
Well, don't keep us in suspense: what are these important metrics we should sacrifice human lives to improve?
In 250 years, possibly more. After which you get to wait for the ground to return to normal again.
They can't. The spirit of the organization employing them does not let them. Their role is to implement the decisions of the leadership and rationalize them. Conforming to their role earns them social capital, and going against costs it. And they can't possibly earn that capital fast enough to pay for keeping a plant blocked for long.
CCS - Carbon Capture and Sequestration? I wonder if you could drive the price down by keeping the carbon dioxide gaseous and feeding it to nearby greenhouses - possibly through a simple pipe. Heck, if you used the greenhouse products as biofuel in the plant you could create a completely closed loop :).
Ones that will keep my computer running even if it happens to be cloudy and calm and my neighbour decides to use a vacuum cleaner.
Bit players unless there's a near-miraculous breakthrough in battery technology. At which point solar will require lots of land area and wind will likely have unintended side effects - it's removing energy from the weather system, after all - which means endless rounds of complaints.
Workable, but requires massive plants. Those are not going to happen - someone will always complain.
Lots of promises, few deliveries. And again, these will have massive ecological implications even when working properly.
Unworkable at current drilling technology.
Basically solar power with lots of added inefficiencies. Bonus points for having potential to cause famines if it comes down to feeding the poor or feeding your car.
Anything that would leave spaceflight-capable civilization standing would also leave Earth better suited for food production than the Moon. It's an absurd premise, and any attempt to justify it with actual logistics will simply draw attention to it. Just imply the situation is due to "corruption" and leave the details to the imagination of the audience.
Power. Family relations already have a high chance of turning into a living hell due to the combination of huge power differences and mandatory participation; supercharging everything with sexuality is a bad idea.
Yes, exactly: you feel better for a while but risk getting made an example of for some minor (to you) crime someone happens to be crusading against.
It's not that dealing with trolls is futile, it's just that the unintended side effects of any effective response tend to be far too negative.
So which one is it? Are people responsible for the (predictable) consequences of their actions, or are they not?
If it was your daughter being trash-talked to online, or your if it was your daughter doing the Online Tough Guy act?