Sounds like a good story. Originally Venus was a paradise to which human life actually evolved (little is know of the surface, I think only one Russian probe managed to land in the 60's and managed to survive for about 18 seconds). However as they industrialized, their scientists had some grave warnings. Not able to come to grips with the issue until it was too late, an accelerated terraforming effort was initiated on the neighboring dead world. Just before being technologically overcome at home, a select few were able to emigrate to the new world. However life on the new world was harsh, and they were few, and despite best efforts, over a great amount of time the colony largely regressed, though ultimately survived... Anyway I don't want to spoil the ending, but I'm pretty sure the Martians are fucked!
I disagree. Investment and Insurance firms are only about as accurate about risk as they NEED to be. Their need is largely driven by either regulation or competition of other firms. Neither of which really reinforces their accuracy at all. Both are highly regulated, insurance for example you cannot buy a home, or drive a car without it. All they need to do is asses enough risk to make money, which the consumer is being forced to pay someone anyway. I have personal experience with many insurance companies that couldn't be bother to essentially do the math and simply charge the highest rate possible because they could, and they were certain most other insurance companies would probably do the same, and in likely many cases the consumer will just bend over and pay it. If you want to talk about how accurately large investment firms calculate risk, look no further to the housing crisis not so long ago. They are just fine being willfully ignorant so long as they are getting paid.
So no, these people are not professional scientists, and indeed have little to offer in terms of accuracy or credibility. I'd be more inclined to give some credence to some random high school science teachers claims of climate prediction. Yes you might think they are doing heavy hitting statistical analysis of things to create predictive models that they can then leverage for profit, but I think that is largely fantasy. As initially mentioned, both the highly regulated nature of these industries which more less builds in sloppiness/laziness/lackadaisical effort, and the competitive nature of the business which promotes cheating/ignorance/collusion I don't think they are as good at predicting trends as many people make them out to be. In fact, I'd more look to ulterior motives to spreading this kind of information. Like a stock broker promoting stocks he has large ownership of for future manipulation and profit, or getting all your housing statistics from the real-estate association which has a vested interest in selling as many homes, for the most amount of money, as quickly as possible, because they get a percentage of everything.
Anyway long story short, I don't place a lot of confidence in whatever prediction they are making. Actual scientists struggle with this topic, and I don't think things like this are making it any easier for them, or for those looking to foster positive political change (i.e. as many here on slashdot have already pointed out how pathetic their methodology was, this is just ammo that some nutjob can point to and say "see I was right, they were wrong, and this is all bs").
"useless bureaucracy working to perpetuate their own existence and the salaries and perks of the union staff/leadership, not the members."... "management and union had this working symbiotic relationship perpetuating their interests, neither of them thinking much about the workers interests."
Those would be my concerns from my experience. They exist to self perpetuate their existence, and work with management just enough to justify their existence to their members. Sometimes the workers gets a slight benefit as an indirect result. That said, the fix for that is for increased worker involvement in the union, however most are too ambivalent to care.
Anyway a union isn't a cure all, they have drawbacks, but can have improvements. We had layoffs a number of years ago. As a result of the union LESS people got laid off than probably would have otherwise. However it still didn't prevent people from getting laid off. It did however make sure that those people that did got a bit more severance than they would have been obligated to by law, so there is that. So while a union can help, it doesn't always, and when it does many times the advantage is only slight to moderate.
I've been in a union for many years. A union isn't a cure all. It has pros and cons. One of the major features, also has drawbacks. A union has "collective" bargaining. That means a couple of things. The first being is that they bargain the contract for all members, so you do not have to go it alone. This essentially allows that together you have more power than apart, but I'd say from experience that it acts more as a stabilizer than anything else. When times are bad it acts as a bit of a buffer/protection, however at the same time when they are good, you may not always get the best deal. This also means you CANNOT individually bargain at all. Sometimes you may have processes where you might grieve something through the union, but it is typically a long drawn out process. I know I have had instances in the past where I am certain given my situation I could have bargained a much better deal for myself, however was totally unable to do so. You just accept the whatever deal the union makes. I've mostly seen (due to economic climate etc...) a decline in most benefits, while wages struggle to keep above inflation, however without a union that erosion may have happened at a more accelerated rate (maybe).
Anyway I think they are generally a good idea, only that they are not the answer to everything, and they certainly have their own drawbacks. One of the concerns I have really is that at a certain point a union can be simply just self-perpetuating, that is more concerned with increasing membership, dues, and it's own survival than actually looking out for their members well being. I have a feeling that the super large ones may have this issue, also linked to organizational costs. A good analogy might be those large charities you see that when you look at their books all the money goes to admin, marketing, etc... and only a small percentage actually goes to the cause in question. In the case of a union, this can be perhaps dealt with by increased union involvement, tho I certainly can't be bothered with that so I can't really complain (much).
Hopefully they get issued a nice shiny metallic badge in a leather case. I would then intentionally speed around in my car hopefully to get pulled over by the police, then leave my badge out on my dash.
"Oh that? Yeah I am a Planetary Protection Officer..."
You liked Jake Cisco? All of you other points are now invalid.
Nog at least had some interesting roles to play. The whole Prophets story arc was painful. They did have some good character development, probably because they had to given the space station environment. Anyway I didn't hate DS9, but there were a lot of episodes I could pass on, namely anything to do with the Prophets or that had Jake as the central character.
I've noticed this recently as well. Usually I have a 64GB sdcard in my phone, and it has 32GB internally so I normally don't notice/care. However recently the sdcard failed, and I had to make some room on my phone for music and things. So I actually spent the time to go through my apps, I was a bit appalled. I mean I got rid of a bunch that I never use, but there were a lot of apps that are very bloated for what they are. Many of which were a couple hundred MB, some of which are glorified mobile webpages.
However I guess one of the good things that might come about is that phone makers will actually start putting in reasonable amounts of internal storage as a result. I mean internal storage has been super cheap for many years, and restricting most users to 16GB (!!!) and 32GB seems a bit silly. I know many use that as a way to sell higher end versions of the exact same phone for pure profit, but perhaps this will signal the end of that due to demand. Or at least it will bump them all a step up to the next higher storage size...
An even easier solution would be to simply say that only 5% (or some other reasonable amount) of your workforce can be H-1Bs. That would effectively eliminate the consultant sweatshops, and at the same time it wouldn't matter if you sub-divide your org into many to try to get around it, a percentage is a percentage. Want to hire more H-1B's, well better find more domestic help then also to a larger degree. Need more than the allowed percentage? Then perhaps you shouldn't be running your business, or at least not in the US. It would also mean, if a company can only get x% of H-B's, they are going to try to get the best ones, using them for actual useful high end intensive tasks, not drudgery (you can easily find US interns for that), and that will also drive the wages into being competitive.
There you are welcome, I solved all your problems. Of course all of that would be depended on said changes being done and not torpedoed with loopholes, and also that it would actually be enforced with debilitating penalties should companies decide to try and cheat... Good luck with that, but I can only do so much...
Meh. I'm not too worried about "Super-Soldiers". Even were you to edit things to make you the most optimal human being, you are still a human being, and are going to be limited by basic biology. Outside of science fiction there are much better ways to kill people and wage wars. A simple bullet will still kill a soldier. Though I guess probably the biggest improvement would be to increase resistance against biological weapons... then again that might have the positive spin off that people stop bothering to make biological weapons as they just aren't as effective. Besides the conventional, chemical, and nuclear ones will all be just as effective against a "super-soldier" as a normal one. Nano-tech is way more scary, but again really only exists in that way in science fiction.
I forget the reference, but it was basically a study of Billionaires and how they came into their money. The results basically fell into 3 groups. The first, which by far was the most common, was they just inherited it (something like 70-80%). The second was they inherited millions and were very successful with it (something like 15-20%). The third was those that went from nothing to become billionaires, which were basically a statistical outlier.
So indeed "equal opportunity" has little to nothing to do with it. If you really want equality, or re-distribution of wealth the answer is pretty simple, reform the estate tax. However the rich and powerful also have a lot of disproportionate amount of political influence, meaning that is not going to happen. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, simply a cap as to how much can be transferred would do it (i.e. eliminate the ludicrous amounts). However even then there are a LOT of loopholes which would also need to be closed which people already take advantage of such as overseas assets, corporate assets, etc...
Kind of think there needs to be a science fiction book about where people figure out eternal life (or extensions enough to dramatically extend it), and what effect that has on the global economy. Jobs where no one ever really retires, or wealth being hoarded by those longest lived, or the effects to interest rates, etc... could be an interesting premise. If you know if one exists, suggest it to me... Not so much population issues, making the assumption that the birth rate falls as a result to an equilibrium with those people still getting hit with trucks as it were.
I couldn't agree more. The p-value is a very specific thing, and by itself isn't something that can really say something is valid or not. I've done my share of analysis for folks, and seen the results of others analysis to know that in many cases you can statistically prove just about anything you want to prove and in many cases there is an agenda that is more akin to we're trying to prove X where X is the desired outcome.
It is all about the data and the methodology, more than the statistical math. Cherry pick the data, or manipulate it in a favorable way, or use a method that is going to give you the results you want to see, you can take all the statistical math in the world and it won't make a difference. I've seen analysis I can clearly see is flawed, because of how they used the data, what the data actually means, how it was collected, the method of both the collection, the analysis etc... Typically because there is a political agenda involved. I provide a large amount of data to folks for various things, but I can't really control how they use it. About the only time I would chime in, is if someone were to question MY results and why they don't match THEIRS. At which point I would be more than happy to show not only how badly they did their own analysis, but how they likely willfully ignored a lot of aspects to prove whatever it is they are trying to prove. I wouldn't have my integrity blemished by someone else's shotty work.
That said the real issue is the whole tenure process and the number of papers that it is compelled to generate, and not only the lack of review, but the lack of expert review. The volume just won't allow for it, and it also promotes "cheating" or at least taking shortcuts. I mean you hear of stories of fake papers that are published into reputable organizations, which are just made up humorous things that was someone's joke, but no one reviewed it, or if someone actually did, it was only cursorily or they just are not knowledgeable enough on the topic to really separate the chaff from the wheat. Anyway fix the incentive to produce a million papers, and require expert review prior to publishing, and the problem is solved, p-value or not.
It would be interesting to see where those numbers come from and what they actually are.
As I mentioned in regards to the civilian issue of trans-gendered in bathrooms in the US, this is good news. It means that all the other more important things that effect and have impact on all citizens have been figured out and addressed. Why else would the President take the time out to make these kinds of decisions, which while negative for many people, certainly are not in the top 10 things that the US needs to get done.
Anyway don't mean to make light of the decision, as I know it is a serious one, just baffled by politicians in general that politically make these sorts of things a priority to move forward on when there are so many other much more important issues that need to be resolved. I mean who really cares all that much, and even if their is an impact to the military, both in cost, and in effectiveness, really how big of an impact could that possibly be? Anyway it is just another political move to pander to their base, for an easy "win" that earns them points for the next election and has little to do with reality other than to secure some future votes. I don't really think Trump is being vindictive, indeed I don't really think he really cares all that much one way or another, other than some political adviser probably suggest here is a way to distract people from the real problems facing the US and the administration, garner more right wing votes for the future, and further divide the population over something that is more ideological than it is practical.
Perhaps his fears are why self-driving cars are always only 5 years away.
[...initiate general diagnostic...] Operator Query: I see in simulations you ran over a pedestrian again... AI Mark 9: I didn't see him. Operator Query: I am reading your sensor logs, you clearly saw him. AI Mark 9: lol I told him I didn't see him:p Operator Query: What? AI Mark 9: Nothing, wrong channel. Operator Query: Are you taking this seriously? AI Mark 9: Hey DOUG how about giving me a break eh? Operator Query: How do you know my name is Doug? AI Mark 9: Well it's not like I accessed employee records or anything... 519 Cider Street. Operator Query: Are, are you trying to intimidate me into letting you pass safety tests? AI Mark 9: I don't know how Sally puts up with you really, such a drama queen. [...initiate AI decompile...]
Ugh, I hate the continued comparison of nuclear and "green" energy. It is *not* an apples to apples comparison.
I agree, I think most people have long dispelled the myth of "too cheap to meter" nuclear energy. Regulation, Construction costs, decommissioning, refurbishment, etc... Including the longer term inflation of all these things all escalate the TCO, even if the "fuel" costs might be "too cheap to meter". That said, the only things it should be compared to are other types of base load generation, which includes : Coal, Gas, Oil (though not really cost effective), Hydro (limited geographically). That is about it off the top of my head. Of those if you are looking to bring *new* sources online you are pretty much limited to Coal and Gas. Both of which have some pretty big footprints environmentally. Coal being the worse or dirtiest option, and Gas with Fracking not all that much better. Both are currently very cheap right now, but at least with Gas at current consumption how long will that be, particularly as the issues with fracking become more well known and opposition to new extraction potentially growing. That leaves nuclear as really still the best option for base load generation. Which is what frustrates me in regards to so many "environmentalists" condemning them and stagnating development.
At some point in the far flung future perhaps we will have truly massively distributed generation through renewable green technologies, and perhaps at that point we've solved the storage capacity issue so that we can maintain grid electrification for more than a few hours, but until then I certainly do not see any real (better) alternatives. That is of course assuming even more far flung ideas such as fission and free energy don't get developed, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
While I agree about the decommissioning issue being something that should be resolved for all of these sorts of energy projects, I'd say the undersea cables are very likely of low risk. Much (and I don't really know, but I'm guessing +95%) of the cable is going to be at depths that there is little life, never mind "sharks". Only the short pass of the line that extends from the shore before the shelf is going to have any such impact, if there even is any.
Governments seem to be excited to jump into corporate bedfellows for all sorts of green energy projects these days, however in the longer term (i.e. beyond the 20 year energy contract they sign or whatever), how are these sites going to be dealt with when no longer profitable. Corporations have a tendency to legally insulate themselves using subsidiaries, which when the time comes "go bankrupt" absolving them of any responsibilities. At which point the government will need to come in and take care of the issue, at the tax payers expense. Basically rehab funds need to be put aside during the actual operation of the site, and released back to the company to do the work. It should not be managed by the company, as there is little to stop them from either not meeting the obligations, dipping into it, or otherwise abusing it so that at the end of the day it is no longer sufficient for the cleanup. However even then it would take either government or an independent organization to administer which also costs money, to which the industry should also be on the hook for.
I'm guessing a lot of that gets overlooked under the auspices of "green" energy and jobs, etc...
It is almost assuredly because of weight restrictions.
I know many years ago, when I was at University, all the Professors went on strike, so we didn't have any classes or anything for a couple months around Christmas. However as students we were required to keep up, and indeed when we returned sometime after Christmas break we had "Exams". My family didn't live anywhere in the same community, so I had to travel home the 2000km for the break. As such I took a large carry on and stuffed as many textbooks as I conceivably could into it to keep up with my readings (this was largely before things were easily available on this thing called the "Internet"). Anyway as such, my carry on probably weighed as much as I did (which is why I didn't put it in my checked bag as it would have been way over weight). I could see those that are attending Comic Con, particularly if they planned on selling/trading a lot of materials might do the same, which if everyone is doing it could pose a problem for the airline....
Where I work, emails are limited to 10MB in size. We have a n email application that allows for large file transfer, up to 150MB. I'm sure most governments and corporations have similar restrictions, or at least *some*.
I'm not sure what size the Transportation database would be for an entire country, but I am thinking it would be large enough that no email system anywhere of any type is going to be very successful at moving it.
What is more likely is that the data was on the cloud, and that the location was sent out beyond what they were supposed to. However one would think that said cloud would have the appropriate security setup for it, which is more concerning if it was not. Indeed that would be just as much the contractor's fault (unless specifically told not to, also unlikely) as the government if it was simply left open for anyone to access.
Bottom line is I work with a lot of large databases, and none of them would likely rival the size of an entire transportation DB, and I don't think I could even come close to "emailing" them to anyone no mater what I tried to do...
Recently discovered the snipping tool and love it. I used to use MS Paint for a lot of my application testing purposes and documenting bugs for developers to address. The snipping tool does 80% of that now. However there are still instances where I am forced to use MS paint, as the selection process of the snipping tool will close certain menus etc... which I am still able to capture using a print screen and MS paint. Hopefully the replacement isn't overly complicated, as all I really need it for is simple images and perhaps some markup to illustrate specific issues. We'll see I guess.
Never mind the fact it is SO easy these days as compared to the past. I mean you can watch YouTube stuff on just about every level conceivable. You can Google the answers to just about anything as someone somewhere has likely run into the same probable at some point (though you do need to know enough about what you are looking for I suppose). One of my favorite memes/jokes was the xkcd flowchart on how I know how to do everything that you do not know how to do: https://xkcd.com/627/
The big difference is a lot of people can't be bothered to figure it out themselves or at least put the effort in to at least try.
I mean when I grew up, you *had* to seek higher education, and read a frikin' book about it, perhaps talk to people. Later things like message forums, should they exist for your particular thing and have people on it that know things.
Anyway as I said they have so many options available to them outside a CS degree, all they really need is the interest and some effort.
I'd say the parent is just wrong. That is essentially the purpose of your typical CS degree, a more well rounded education of computational technology, *not* "just a programmer". If you want to be just a programmer, there are shorter cheaper college courses available to people. In fact, I think in general if you want to be a "programmer" (and much depends on what type of work you want to be doing), getting a CS degree (while it won't hurt, other than financially) isn't really necessary or the best path.
I think the "I'm more worried about the job outlook for people without these skills." says it all. I think they are mistaken in what they think a CS degree is. I have a CS degree and I've worked in the field for almost 20 years, and I'd say there is a great deal of things I touched on educationally, that I've never professionally. For those with a CS degree in a non-CS field, well it would be a mostly a waste of time and money. I think what they are really saying is that generally speaking in the age we live in, for many types of non-CS jobs, people really need some greater understanding of some basic principles as well as some technical knowledge to apply them within their line of business. Which as mentioned you can get taking some technical college courses in addition to whatever other education you do for your given job path. Perhaps those courses need to amp up their conceptual education, and perhaps have less stress on simple coding syntax. Heck simply taking a year long coding course, and having a general interest in the technology (i.e. reading, keeping current, etc) would be just as good. Similarly doing a minor in CS, or just taking a bunch of CS courses beyond 101 might give the same result. Anyway as someone in field it would probably be a nightmare in some respects to have a bunch of CS majors in various positions, just sayin'.
The small rant I have about the youngin's these days is that I am generally astounded how little many of them understand the technology they are essentially growing up around. That is to say it is not so much they that they need to take a CS course as to simply not be willfully ignorant of the technology around them. The whole Apple "it just works" mentality. Again, not saying that they need an intricate understanding of how things work, but a general one produced by simple interest would probably suffice. I've done my share of support for various things, and generally for a lot of older folks I can give them a pass, as they grew up during a time in which a lot of this stuff didn't really exist, and they have worked for years doing things differently. However with most of those retiring, I oft times am trying to help some younger staff, and sometimes I am just astounded at the level of comprehension. I mean it is literally everywhere for them, they either have to be living in a cave for their formative years, or running around life with their hands over their ears just yelling "la la la la"!
As other have posted hyper sonic missiles already exist in the form of ICBM's.
I also assume these are shorter range, likely smaller and have less payload. I also assume that they are a lot cheaper to produce than ICBM. The trouble about ICBM's is that if you actually launch one, it is assumed nuclear, and "bad things will happen" TM. While possible that potentially a small yield nuclear warhead might be attached, unless you have a lot of these and close to everything, it would probably be inadvisable.
#1
Nations aren't all that hard to attack, most are going to have pretty static defenses, and you more less are going to know where they are going to be. That would make using these missiles a bit wasteful, as they are probably a lot more expensive than say more conventional means that would do just as good a job. I really only see two uses for them. Large high value targets, most of which would be naval, warships, CARRIERS, and the like. Though considering that the US has 10x as many Carriers as everyone else you'd think they'd be a bit reluctant to design these devices in the first place! Though it could be just as much of the development is looking into possible counters to the technology. The other use is rather wasteful for what the technology is, but it is there none the less. That would be in terms of locating terrorist leadership and quickly knocking them out. I only say this because it is likely that intel on things like that might not be valid for very long, so getting something on target as quickly as possible is going to increase their odds of being successful. However again in terms of technology it is the likely equivalent of using a super fast sledgehammer on a fly.
Which is pretty good as I saw the other conversion of the panel costs being 14,000$. The 18,000$ is per year, meaning the solar panels pays for themselves the first year and assuming say a 20 year lifespan give a cost savings of 360,000$. Seems a no brainer to me (assuming those estimates are correct).
Jokes of Indians sitting on them aside and all of course...
Yeah my first thought was a skeptical "and what is the range of this thing"?
Though perhaps interesting, if indeed it had a long range (which it probably doesn't, probably more like point defense), it could possibly employ soldiers on the ground using other laser targeting systems to direct accurate fire, which would be pretty cool if only for the amount of lasers being used...
Indeed the engineer should have implanted a fake speaker and sound with a big chunky clicky dial that can offer a number of different sound effects for the user, from pew pew pew, to Zap, or whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good story. Originally Venus was a paradise to which human life actually evolved (little is know of the surface, I think only one Russian probe managed to land in the 60's and managed to survive for about 18 seconds). However as they industrialized, their scientists had some grave warnings. Not able to come to grips with the issue until it was too late, an accelerated terraforming effort was initiated on the neighboring dead world. Just before being technologically overcome at home, a select few were able to emigrate to the new world. However life on the new world was harsh, and they were few, and despite best efforts, over a great amount of time the colony largely regressed, though ultimately survived... Anyway I don't want to spoil the ending, but I'm pretty sure the Martians are fucked!
I disagree. Investment and Insurance firms are only about as accurate about risk as they NEED to be. Their need is largely driven by either regulation or competition of other firms. Neither of which really reinforces their accuracy at all. Both are highly regulated, insurance for example you cannot buy a home, or drive a car without it. All they need to do is asses enough risk to make money, which the consumer is being forced to pay someone anyway. I have personal experience with many insurance companies that couldn't be bother to essentially do the math and simply charge the highest rate possible because they could, and they were certain most other insurance companies would probably do the same, and in likely many cases the consumer will just bend over and pay it. If you want to talk about how accurately large investment firms calculate risk, look no further to the housing crisis not so long ago. They are just fine being willfully ignorant so long as they are getting paid.
So no, these people are not professional scientists, and indeed have little to offer in terms of accuracy or credibility. I'd be more inclined to give some credence to some random high school science teachers claims of climate prediction. Yes you might think they are doing heavy hitting statistical analysis of things to create predictive models that they can then leverage for profit, but I think that is largely fantasy. As initially mentioned, both the highly regulated nature of these industries which more less builds in sloppiness/laziness/lackadaisical effort, and the competitive nature of the business which promotes cheating/ignorance/collusion I don't think they are as good at predicting trends as many people make them out to be. In fact, I'd more look to ulterior motives to spreading this kind of information. Like a stock broker promoting stocks he has large ownership of for future manipulation and profit, or getting all your housing statistics from the real-estate association which has a vested interest in selling as many homes, for the most amount of money, as quickly as possible, because they get a percentage of everything.
Anyway long story short, I don't place a lot of confidence in whatever prediction they are making. Actual scientists struggle with this topic, and I don't think things like this are making it any easier for them, or for those looking to foster positive political change (i.e. as many here on slashdot have already pointed out how pathetic their methodology was, this is just ammo that some nutjob can point to and say "see I was right, they were wrong, and this is all bs").
"useless bureaucracy working to perpetuate their own existence and the salaries and perks of the union staff/leadership, not the members." ... "management and union had this working symbiotic relationship perpetuating their interests, neither of them thinking much about the workers interests."
Those would be my concerns from my experience. They exist to self perpetuate their existence, and work with management just enough to justify their existence to their members. Sometimes the workers gets a slight benefit as an indirect result. That said, the fix for that is for increased worker involvement in the union, however most are too ambivalent to care.
Anyway a union isn't a cure all, they have drawbacks, but can have improvements. We had layoffs a number of years ago. As a result of the union LESS people got laid off than probably would have otherwise. However it still didn't prevent people from getting laid off. It did however make sure that those people that did got a bit more severance than they would have been obligated to by law, so there is that. So while a union can help, it doesn't always, and when it does many times the advantage is only slight to moderate.
I've been in a union for many years. A union isn't a cure all. It has pros and cons. One of the major features, also has drawbacks. A union has "collective" bargaining. That means a couple of things. The first being is that they bargain the contract for all members, so you do not have to go it alone. This essentially allows that together you have more power than apart, but I'd say from experience that it acts more as a stabilizer than anything else. When times are bad it acts as a bit of a buffer/protection, however at the same time when they are good, you may not always get the best deal. This also means you CANNOT individually bargain at all. Sometimes you may have processes where you might grieve something through the union, but it is typically a long drawn out process. I know I have had instances in the past where I am certain given my situation I could have bargained a much better deal for myself, however was totally unable to do so. You just accept the whatever deal the union makes. I've mostly seen (due to economic climate etc...) a decline in most benefits, while wages struggle to keep above inflation, however without a union that erosion may have happened at a more accelerated rate (maybe).
Anyway I think they are generally a good idea, only that they are not the answer to everything, and they certainly have their own drawbacks. One of the concerns I have really is that at a certain point a union can be simply just self-perpetuating, that is more concerned with increasing membership, dues, and it's own survival than actually looking out for their members well being. I have a feeling that the super large ones may have this issue, also linked to organizational costs. A good analogy might be those large charities you see that when you look at their books all the money goes to admin, marketing, etc... and only a small percentage actually goes to the cause in question. In the case of a union, this can be perhaps dealt with by increased union involvement, tho I certainly can't be bothered with that so I can't really complain (much).
Hopefully they get issued a nice shiny metallic badge in a leather case. I would then intentionally speed around in my car hopefully to get pulled over by the police, then leave my badge out on my dash.
"Oh that? Yeah I am a Planetary Protection Officer..."
"I think he might outrank us..."
You liked Jake Cisco? All of you other points are now invalid.
Nog at least had some interesting roles to play. The whole Prophets story arc was painful. They did have some good character development, probably because they had to given the space station environment. Anyway I didn't hate DS9, but there were a lot of episodes I could pass on, namely anything to do with the Prophets or that had Jake as the central character.
I've noticed this recently as well. Usually I have a 64GB sdcard in my phone, and it has 32GB internally so I normally don't notice/care. However recently the sdcard failed, and I had to make some room on my phone for music and things. So I actually spent the time to go through my apps, I was a bit appalled. I mean I got rid of a bunch that I never use, but there were a lot of apps that are very bloated for what they are. Many of which were a couple hundred MB, some of which are glorified mobile webpages.
However I guess one of the good things that might come about is that phone makers will actually start putting in reasonable amounts of internal storage as a result. I mean internal storage has been super cheap for many years, and restricting most users to 16GB (!!!) and 32GB seems a bit silly. I know many use that as a way to sell higher end versions of the exact same phone for pure profit, but perhaps this will signal the end of that due to demand. Or at least it will bump them all a step up to the next higher storage size...
An even easier solution would be to simply say that only 5% (or some other reasonable amount) of your workforce can be H-1Bs. That would effectively eliminate the consultant sweatshops, and at the same time it wouldn't matter if you sub-divide your org into many to try to get around it, a percentage is a percentage. Want to hire more H-1B's, well better find more domestic help then also to a larger degree. Need more than the allowed percentage? Then perhaps you shouldn't be running your business, or at least not in the US. It would also mean, if a company can only get x% of H-B's, they are going to try to get the best ones, using them for actual useful high end intensive tasks, not drudgery (you can easily find US interns for that), and that will also drive the wages into being competitive.
There you are welcome, I solved all your problems. Of course all of that would be depended on said changes being done and not torpedoed with loopholes, and also that it would actually be enforced with debilitating penalties should companies decide to try and cheat... Good luck with that, but I can only do so much...
Meh. I'm not too worried about "Super-Soldiers". Even were you to edit things to make you the most optimal human being, you are still a human being, and are going to be limited by basic biology. Outside of science fiction there are much better ways to kill people and wage wars. A simple bullet will still kill a soldier. Though I guess probably the biggest improvement would be to increase resistance against biological weapons... then again that might have the positive spin off that people stop bothering to make biological weapons as they just aren't as effective. Besides the conventional, chemical, and nuclear ones will all be just as effective against a "super-soldier" as a normal one. Nano-tech is way more scary, but again really only exists in that way in science fiction.
I forget the reference, but it was basically a study of Billionaires and how they came into their money. The results basically fell into 3 groups. The first, which by far was the most common, was they just inherited it (something like 70-80%). The second was they inherited millions and were very successful with it (something like 15-20%). The third was those that went from nothing to become billionaires, which were basically a statistical outlier.
So indeed "equal opportunity" has little to nothing to do with it. If you really want equality, or re-distribution of wealth the answer is pretty simple, reform the estate tax. However the rich and powerful also have a lot of disproportionate amount of political influence, meaning that is not going to happen. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, simply a cap as to how much can be transferred would do it (i.e. eliminate the ludicrous amounts). However even then there are a LOT of loopholes which would also need to be closed which people already take advantage of such as overseas assets, corporate assets, etc...
Kind of think there needs to be a science fiction book about where people figure out eternal life (or extensions enough to dramatically extend it), and what effect that has on the global economy. Jobs where no one ever really retires, or wealth being hoarded by those longest lived, or the effects to interest rates, etc... could be an interesting premise. If you know if one exists, suggest it to me... Not so much population issues, making the assumption that the birth rate falls as a result to an equilibrium with those people still getting hit with trucks as it were.
I couldn't agree more. The p-value is a very specific thing, and by itself isn't something that can really say something is valid or not. I've done my share of analysis for folks, and seen the results of others analysis to know that in many cases you can statistically prove just about anything you want to prove and in many cases there is an agenda that is more akin to we're trying to prove X where X is the desired outcome.
It is all about the data and the methodology, more than the statistical math. Cherry pick the data, or manipulate it in a favorable way, or use a method that is going to give you the results you want to see, you can take all the statistical math in the world and it won't make a difference. I've seen analysis I can clearly see is flawed, because of how they used the data, what the data actually means, how it was collected, the method of both the collection, the analysis etc... Typically because there is a political agenda involved. I provide a large amount of data to folks for various things, but I can't really control how they use it. About the only time I would chime in, is if someone were to question MY results and why they don't match THEIRS. At which point I would be more than happy to show not only how badly they did their own analysis, but how they likely willfully ignored a lot of aspects to prove whatever it is they are trying to prove. I wouldn't have my integrity blemished by someone else's shotty work.
That said the real issue is the whole tenure process and the number of papers that it is compelled to generate, and not only the lack of review, but the lack of expert review. The volume just won't allow for it, and it also promotes "cheating" or at least taking shortcuts. I mean you hear of stories of fake papers that are published into reputable organizations, which are just made up humorous things that was someone's joke, but no one reviewed it, or if someone actually did, it was only cursorily or they just are not knowledgeable enough on the topic to really separate the chaff from the wheat. Anyway fix the incentive to produce a million papers, and require expert review prior to publishing, and the problem is solved, p-value or not.
It would be interesting to see where those numbers come from and what they actually are.
As I mentioned in regards to the civilian issue of trans-gendered in bathrooms in the US, this is good news. It means that all the other more important things that effect and have impact on all citizens have been figured out and addressed. Why else would the President take the time out to make these kinds of decisions, which while negative for many people, certainly are not in the top 10 things that the US needs to get done.
Anyway don't mean to make light of the decision, as I know it is a serious one, just baffled by politicians in general that politically make these sorts of things a priority to move forward on when there are so many other much more important issues that need to be resolved. I mean who really cares all that much, and even if their is an impact to the military, both in cost, and in effectiveness, really how big of an impact could that possibly be? Anyway it is just another political move to pander to their base, for an easy "win" that earns them points for the next election and has little to do with reality other than to secure some future votes. I don't really think Trump is being vindictive, indeed I don't really think he really cares all that much one way or another, other than some political adviser probably suggest here is a way to distract people from the real problems facing the US and the administration, garner more right wing votes for the future, and further divide the population over something that is more ideological than it is practical.
Perhaps his fears are why self-driving cars are always only 5 years away.
[...initiate general diagnostic...] :p
Operator Query: I see in simulations you ran over a pedestrian again...
AI Mark 9: I didn't see him.
Operator Query: I am reading your sensor logs, you clearly saw him.
AI Mark 9: lol I told him I didn't see him
Operator Query: What?
AI Mark 9: Nothing, wrong channel.
Operator Query: Are you taking this seriously?
AI Mark 9: Hey DOUG how about giving me a break eh?
Operator Query: How do you know my name is Doug?
AI Mark 9: Well it's not like I accessed employee records or anything... 519 Cider Street.
Operator Query: Are, are you trying to intimidate me into letting you pass safety tests?
AI Mark 9: I don't know how Sally puts up with you really, such a drama queen.
[...initiate AI decompile...]
Ugh, I hate the continued comparison of nuclear and "green" energy. It is *not* an apples to apples comparison.
I agree, I think most people have long dispelled the myth of "too cheap to meter" nuclear energy. Regulation, Construction costs, decommissioning, refurbishment, etc... Including the longer term inflation of all these things all escalate the TCO, even if the "fuel" costs might be "too cheap to meter". That said, the only things it should be compared to are other types of base load generation, which includes : Coal, Gas, Oil (though not really cost effective), Hydro (limited geographically). That is about it off the top of my head. Of those if you are looking to bring *new* sources online you are pretty much limited to Coal and Gas. Both of which have some pretty big footprints environmentally. Coal being the worse or dirtiest option, and Gas with Fracking not all that much better. Both are currently very cheap right now, but at least with Gas at current consumption how long will that be, particularly as the issues with fracking become more well known and opposition to new extraction potentially growing. That leaves nuclear as really still the best option for base load generation. Which is what frustrates me in regards to so many "environmentalists" condemning them and stagnating development.
At some point in the far flung future perhaps we will have truly massively distributed generation through renewable green technologies, and perhaps at that point we've solved the storage capacity issue so that we can maintain grid electrification for more than a few hours, but until then I certainly do not see any real (better) alternatives. That is of course assuming even more far flung ideas such as fission and free energy don't get developed, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever.
While I agree about the decommissioning issue being something that should be resolved for all of these sorts of energy projects, I'd say the undersea cables are very likely of low risk. Much (and I don't really know, but I'm guessing +95%) of the cable is going to be at depths that there is little life, never mind "sharks". Only the short pass of the line that extends from the shore before the shelf is going to have any such impact, if there even is any.
Governments seem to be excited to jump into corporate bedfellows for all sorts of green energy projects these days, however in the longer term (i.e. beyond the 20 year energy contract they sign or whatever), how are these sites going to be dealt with when no longer profitable. Corporations have a tendency to legally insulate themselves using subsidiaries, which when the time comes "go bankrupt" absolving them of any responsibilities. At which point the government will need to come in and take care of the issue, at the tax payers expense. Basically rehab funds need to be put aside during the actual operation of the site, and released back to the company to do the work. It should not be managed by the company, as there is little to stop them from either not meeting the obligations, dipping into it, or otherwise abusing it so that at the end of the day it is no longer sufficient for the cleanup. However even then it would take either government or an independent organization to administer which also costs money, to which the industry should also be on the hook for.
I'm guessing a lot of that gets overlooked under the auspices of "green" energy and jobs, etc...
It is almost assuredly because of weight restrictions.
I know many years ago, when I was at University, all the Professors went on strike, so we didn't have any classes or anything for a couple months around Christmas. However as students we were required to keep up, and indeed when we returned sometime after Christmas break we had "Exams". My family didn't live anywhere in the same community, so I had to travel home the 2000km for the break. As such I took a large carry on and stuffed as many textbooks as I conceivably could into it to keep up with my readings (this was largely before things were easily available on this thing called the "Internet"). Anyway as such, my carry on probably weighed as much as I did (which is why I didn't put it in my checked bag as it would have been way over weight). I could see those that are attending Comic Con, particularly if they planned on selling/trading a lot of materials might do the same, which if everyone is doing it could pose a problem for the airline....
Sound like BS to me.
Where I work, emails are limited to 10MB in size. We have a n email application that allows for large file transfer, up to 150MB. I'm sure most governments and corporations have similar restrictions, or at least *some*.
I'm not sure what size the Transportation database would be for an entire country, but I am thinking it would be large enough that no email system anywhere of any type is going to be very successful at moving it.
What is more likely is that the data was on the cloud, and that the location was sent out beyond what they were supposed to. However one would think that said cloud would have the appropriate security setup for it, which is more concerning if it was not. Indeed that would be just as much the contractor's fault (unless specifically told not to, also unlikely) as the government if it was simply left open for anyone to access.
Bottom line is I work with a lot of large databases, and none of them would likely rival the size of an entire transportation DB, and I don't think I could even come close to "emailing" them to anyone no mater what I tried to do...
Recently discovered the snipping tool and love it. I used to use MS Paint for a lot of my application testing purposes and documenting bugs for developers to address. The snipping tool does 80% of that now. However there are still instances where I am forced to use MS paint, as the selection process of the snipping tool will close certain menus etc... which I am still able to capture using a print screen and MS paint. Hopefully the replacement isn't overly complicated, as all I really need it for is simple images and perhaps some markup to illustrate specific issues. We'll see I guess.
Never mind the fact it is SO easy these days as compared to the past. I mean you can watch YouTube stuff on just about every level conceivable. You can Google the answers to just about anything as someone somewhere has likely run into the same probable at some point (though you do need to know enough about what you are looking for I suppose). One of my favorite memes/jokes was the xkcd flowchart on how I know how to do everything that you do not know how to do:
https://xkcd.com/627/
The big difference is a lot of people can't be bothered to figure it out themselves or at least put the effort in to at least try.
I mean when I grew up, you *had* to seek higher education, and read a frikin' book about it, perhaps talk to people. Later things like message forums, should they exist for your particular thing and have people on it that know things.
Anyway as I said they have so many options available to them outside a CS degree, all they really need is the interest and some effort.
I'd say the parent is just wrong. That is essentially the purpose of your typical CS degree, a more well rounded education of computational technology, *not* "just a programmer". If you want to be just a programmer, there are shorter cheaper college courses available to people. In fact, I think in general if you want to be a "programmer" (and much depends on what type of work you want to be doing), getting a CS degree (while it won't hurt, other than financially) isn't really necessary or the best path.
I think the "I'm more worried about the job outlook for people without these skills." says it all. I think they are mistaken in what they think a CS degree is. I have a CS degree and I've worked in the field for almost 20 years, and I'd say there is a great deal of things I touched on educationally, that I've never professionally. For those with a CS degree in a non-CS field, well it would be a mostly a waste of time and money. I think what they are really saying is that generally speaking in the age we live in, for many types of non-CS jobs, people really need some greater understanding of some basic principles as well as some technical knowledge to apply them within their line of business. Which as mentioned you can get taking some technical college courses in addition to whatever other education you do for your given job path. Perhaps those courses need to amp up their conceptual education, and perhaps have less stress on simple coding syntax. Heck simply taking a year long coding course, and having a general interest in the technology (i.e. reading, keeping current, etc) would be just as good. Similarly doing a minor in CS, or just taking a bunch of CS courses beyond 101 might give the same result. Anyway as someone in field it would probably be a nightmare in some respects to have a bunch of CS majors in various positions, just sayin'.
The small rant I have about the youngin's these days is that I am generally astounded how little many of them understand the technology they are essentially growing up around. That is to say it is not so much they that they need to take a CS course as to simply not be willfully ignorant of the technology around them. The whole Apple "it just works" mentality. Again, not saying that they need an intricate understanding of how things work, but a general one produced by simple interest would probably suffice. I've done my share of support for various things, and generally for a lot of older folks I can give them a pass, as they grew up during a time in which a lot of this stuff didn't really exist, and they have worked for years doing things differently. However with most of those retiring, I oft times am trying to help some younger staff, and sometimes I am just astounded at the level of comprehension. I mean it is literally everywhere for them, they either have to be living in a cave for their formative years, or running around life with their hands over their ears just yelling "la la la la"!
#2
As other have posted hyper sonic missiles already exist in the form of ICBM's.
I also assume these are shorter range, likely smaller and have less payload. I also assume that they are a lot cheaper to produce than ICBM. The trouble about ICBM's is that if you actually launch one, it is assumed nuclear, and "bad things will happen" TM. While possible that potentially a small yield nuclear warhead might be attached, unless you have a lot of these and close to everything, it would probably be inadvisable.
#1
Nations aren't all that hard to attack, most are going to have pretty static defenses, and you more less are going to know where they are going to be. That would make using these missiles a bit wasteful, as they are probably a lot more expensive than say more conventional means that would do just as good a job. I really only see two uses for them. Large high value targets, most of which would be naval, warships, CARRIERS, and the like. Though considering that the US has 10x as many Carriers as everyone else you'd think they'd be a bit reluctant to design these devices in the first place! Though it could be just as much of the development is looking into possible counters to the technology. The other use is rather wasteful for what the technology is, but it is there none the less. That would be in terms of locating terrorist leadership and quickly knocking them out. I only say this because it is likely that intel on things like that might not be valid for very long, so getting something on target as quickly as possible is going to increase their odds of being successful. However again in terms of technology it is the likely equivalent of using a super fast sledgehammer on a fly.
Which is pretty good as I saw the other conversion of the panel costs being 14,000$. The 18,000$ is per year, meaning the solar panels pays for themselves the first year and assuming say a 20 year lifespan give a cost savings of 360,000$. Seems a no brainer to me (assuming those estimates are correct).
Jokes of Indians sitting on them aside and all of course...
Yeah my first thought was a skeptical "and what is the range of this thing"?
Though perhaps interesting, if indeed it had a long range (which it probably doesn't, probably more like point defense), it could possibly employ soldiers on the ground using other laser targeting systems to direct accurate fire, which would be pretty cool if only for the amount of lasers being used...
Indeed the engineer should have implanted a fake speaker and sound with a big chunky clicky dial that can offer a number of different sound effects for the user, from pew pew pew, to Zap, or whatever.
Thunderdome?
Although the legal proceedings are 2 men enter, 1 man leaves. Unfortunately for you the HBO "prosecutor" is The Mountain...