There may be a really obvious reason why the following wouldn't work, and if so I'd like to know it!
As I understand it, the sun is an enormous ball of fire with all kinds of nuclear activity. It's also the biggest thing in our solar system, and the greatest center of gravity.
So wouldn't it be fairly easy, and relatively risk-free, to package up our nuclear waste, put it in crude little rockets without a whole lot of need for navigation systems, and push 'em off in the general direction of the sun, to be dealt with however the sun generally deals with its nuclear waste?
When I was in high school, there was some talk about sending nuclear waste out to space, but that was deemed (a) expensive and (b) polluting. Doesn't this idea address both points, at least to some degree?
Even if it's not possible/practical today, mightn't technological advances make it so in the forseeable future?
I understand this isn't a perfect solution, but on the face of it, it seems like it might be better than some of the alternatives.
If anybody can help fill any of the gaping holes in my scientific knowledge, I'd appreciate it!
If I can broadcast over WiFi from my Mac, how about this?
1. Plug cable box into Mac.
2. Stream from inputs to entire neighborhood.
3. All neighbors can now watch cable with their new WiFi-enabled TVs. For free.
4. ???
5. Hey, it's free cable, OK?
Of course maybe there's some kind of encryption for DTV stuff, but it seems pretty straightforward for the good old fashioned analog kind of TV.
Founder of FreeGeek. This growing organization in Porland Ore. recycles old computer equipment and installs OSS, and puts it in the hands of people who might not have the money for a computer or the motivation or skills to get into Linux or Open Source otherwise. FreeGeek has grown tremendously in the last few years and is getting national and maybe international attention.
It's difficult to see how Google could completely prevent automated use of their storage system. What are they going to do, have you copy a mangled word out of a picture box every time you want to check your mail?
Um no, sorry but you have missed the point. He states quite clearly that the regulations leave the choice up to the operator of the aircraft, which (unless he is lying) gives him the last word on what he does on his own plane.
Furthermore, the point of the article (if you get to the end) is NOT that he's recommending that you connect to his network from a plane (commercial or otherwise) - he's suggesting using PRIVATELY operated planes to create a large (nationwide?) network available to those of us stuck on the ground.
Yeah, I like the cubes. I have to admit, I'm a bit mystified that they didn't sell better, especially after they dropped the price. But hey, that $1600 five years ago went toward a down payment on a house...so, no regrets!
I'm surprised by your (and other) responses. Yes, the SE and Plus and maybe the Commodore had excellent monitors, but not so with more recent computers. I maintain about 60 iMacs in our newsroom. We bought them 3.5 years ago (rev D CRT iMacs.) I'd say about a third of them have significant monitor problems, but are otherwise running fine. These problems are not all extreme, but range from blurriness to flicker to strange horizontal lines.
A similar point would be that a budget computer shopper may want the flexibility of upgrading to a larger monitor in the future. You might be only able to afford the bare minimum right now, but want a larger monitor down the road.
I'm not sure how "typical" a consumer I am, but I'd say with computers these days, the criteria most important to me are price and flexibility. For day-to-day tasks, performance is not really an issue to me - browsing the web and email are more or less the same on most modern computers. But the ability to replace individual parts provides a lot of flexibility. Which is why I will probably drift from Mac to Linux for home use as time goes by.
All-In-One is for SUCKERS!!! Most educated computer users know that a monitor will eventually crap out, and want to be able to get a cheap replacement.
A low-end headless Mac - THAT is how you'll finally get me to upgrade from my G3-enhanced 8600, Apple.
...this article reads like it was written by a PR person for Secunia. It's basically an advertisement for their service, with a bit of sensational news about OS X and Windows as the hook.
Looks to me like a case of a swiftly approaching deadline and a lazy editor at Computer Weekly. They just took a PR puff piece for Secunia, chewed it up, changed around a couple sentences, and spat it back out.
...and now have a terrible boss. So of course I have to take some of the blame, because I (along with most of my department) thought this guy would be pretty good. It's a good lesson in how difficult it can be to gauge somebody in a short period of time. He seemed like a nice guy, and cracked a few jokes...but now we find out he has zero attention span, takes credit for success and passes on blame for failure, fails to follow up on projects, etc.
At this point I would go out on a limb and say it's a bad idea for upper management to do this kind of group interview. Rather, they should talk with the employees directly, maybe one-on-one, to find out what kinds of questions they would want answered, and then pass those questions on in their own way.
by making the effort to learn how to relate to people. Personally, I wasted many years thinking that just by being smart, I would eventually attract other smart people. Unfortunately (?), the reality is that you just have to learn to relate to other people,which might mean starting from scratch. Your intelligence means nothing to the receptionist if you can't find it in yourself to remember that her daughter has the measles, etc. Take a step back, and think about what other people are after. It's worth it.
This is an interesting point, and I'm sure it applies to many people, but I have my doubts whether it applies to the original poster.
Another scenario is this: you have superior analytical ability, and people are generally impressed when you weigh in on a topic you've put some consideration into.
However, as much as people are appreciative of certain specific things you have to say, they are also put off by your social awkwardness, or by their inability to figure out where you're "coming from" or what your motivations are.
In a work environment you pursue problems that interest you, and often come up with very clever solutions, but not on the timetable others would like. You are intrigued by an interesting problem, but you are largely unconcerned with the political or self-interested motives of those around you. So you are seen as somewhat valuable, but unpredictable, and therefore not a good "ally."
So anything that requires you to cooperate closely with others or have their trust and confidence is pretty much a lost cause. You ARE smart, you DO have talent, but much of it is wasted because people you need are wary of you.
I believe that is also a common scenario, and my sense of the poster would put him more in that category.
Oops, I posted too fast. I left out the most important part-
The absence of a vibrant family meant that I was constantly looking for approval from everybody I met. In any situation, I would find myself distracted from the task at hand because I was so concerned about whether the people around me would like me, or think I was cool, or think I was smart, or whatever.
I think that "lack of focus" or "laziness" is generally a symptom of being distracted by something. So keep your eyes open and try to figure out what that thing is that is distracting you, and when you do, give it the attention it deserves. It might be a very liberating experience.
Yes, he's serious. If you are more intelligent than many people around you, and yet can't seem to focus or stay interested in what you're "supposed" to be interested in, you know it. You don't need "proof" or anything to "show" for it unless you're trying to convince somebody to take a chance on you (like a job interview.) In the present context, to take his question at anything but face value is arrogant in itself.
To the original poster, I share many of the traits you describe. There was plenty I did like about school, and I worked pretty hard for a bachelor's at a distinctive liberal arts school. But in a way I could never put my finger on, I always felt it "wasn't for me" and I wasn't driven the way that many of my more intelligent classmates were.
I am now 31, and am working a pretty nice IT job, but feel that I am working well beneath my potential.
The most surprising discovery I've made in my own life is that the core problems I have in my life are not intellectual, and they're not about "laziness" or lack of focus. For most of my life I had a fear that it was something like that.
In the last 3 years I have had some of the most challenging events I've ever faced (traumatic breakup, death of my biological father, friendships pushed past the point of saving.) With the aid of some therapy and some very intelligent and generous friends, I have come to see my lack of a healthy family upbringing as the root of my problems.
Now that I have identified the problem, I have been able to begin to address it. I have been able to strengthen ties with some of my family members, and have also begun to form what I feel some of the strongest friendships I can ever hope to have.
I have no way of knowing whether your situation bears any similarity to mine. But I would offer one small piece of advice, which is this:
You will probably always have some people in your life who accuse you of being lazy, or of not having a work ethic, or of not caring about the "right" things. Though you may at times need to please these people (to get or keep a job, or the like), don't let them get into your head. In all likelihood, they have not made the effort to understand you, and their words are not an accurate reflection of who you are.
And when things get bad, go find yourself a therapist. With a mind like yours, you can probably make a lot of progress even with a mediocre one.
But if you do that (use your primary computer as an access point), you're opening yourself up to lots of potential security holes. I'll be the first to admit I haven't RTFA yet, but it seems to me that the main benefit of using a Linux box for routing is increased security and more flexibility in your routing rules. If you're not going to dedicate a separate computer to the task, it's much more secure to have a separate piece of hardware (available brand new for more like $50, not $90) to handle it for you. Even if the router is not quite as flexible, you can rest assured that the only security holes you could have on your workstation are the ports you keep open.
I think in cases like this, it's important to remember that in the long run, your intentions don't count for diddly. Any protection for people's privacy needs to be built into the system, and not just "understood", or else whoever succeeds you in your position, or whoever takes your system and implements it in the next county over, or whatever government agency decides that your system will be useful for something you never intended, will be acting out their *own* intentions, but with the benefit of your technology. If you can't guarantee privacy in those circumstances, then the responsible thing to do is to keep privacy out of your sales pitch.
If you ask me, this story is just a touch ideological. The data gathered in the study is interesting, but could easily be used to support arguments either for or against the RIAA's position. After all, haven't we all been screaming that file sharing INCREASES music consmption? Even if it's only 1 CD per 5000 downloads, any study that says that file sharing DECREASES music sales is hardly supportive of that position.
I'm as offended by the RIAA's motives and tactics as anyone, but using bad logic to counter their views is just not an effective way of fighting them off.
The problem with this system, as I understand it, is that it relies on a large number of email addresses being visible in the To: or CC: fields. All spammers would have to do to get around it is use the BCC field, or use a program that sends out the message individually to different people. Without a large number of email addresses in the header, it seems this system will not apply any rules.
Well I can see nobody cares, but here's the episode description:
Shrink - 11/7/95
When office tension among WNYX staffers hits an all time high, Jimmy brings in therapist Dr. Frank Westford to help revive group morale, but it seems that Dr. Westford and Lisa have shared a past relationship, forcing Dave to feel even more threatened by the doctor's presence. Meanwhile, Matthew alienates his co-workers when he refuses to go home while suffering from a bad cold, and Bill retreats into the new cubicle built around his desk.
Doesn't anybody remember Phil Hartman's house on NewsRadio? He actually had a staircase leading down to a basement smoking lounge...I never could figure out how he did that.
Slashdot Mirror
still.
There may be a really obvious reason why the following wouldn't work, and if so I'd like to know it!
As I understand it, the sun is an enormous ball of fire with all kinds of nuclear activity. It's also the biggest thing in our solar system, and the greatest center of gravity.
So wouldn't it be fairly easy, and relatively risk-free, to package up our nuclear waste, put it in crude little rockets without a whole lot of need for navigation systems, and push 'em off in the general direction of the sun, to be dealt with however the sun generally deals with its nuclear waste?
When I was in high school, there was some talk about sending nuclear waste out to space, but that was deemed (a) expensive and (b) polluting. Doesn't this idea address both points, at least to some degree?
Even if it's not possible/practical today, mightn't technological advances make it so in the forseeable future?
I understand this isn't a perfect solution, but on the face of it, it seems like it might be better than some of the alternatives.
If anybody can help fill any of the gaping holes in my scientific knowledge, I'd appreciate it!
http://www.shockfamily.net/cedric/knoppix/
If I can broadcast over WiFi from my Mac, how about this? 1. Plug cable box into Mac. 2. Stream from inputs to entire neighborhood. 3. All neighbors can now watch cable with their new WiFi-enabled TVs. For free. 4. ??? 5. Hey, it's free cable, OK? Of course maybe there's some kind of encryption for DTV stuff, but it seems pretty straightforward for the good old fashioned analog kind of TV.
Founder of FreeGeek. This growing organization in Porland Ore. recycles old computer equipment and installs OSS, and puts it in the hands of people who might not have the money for a computer or the motivation or skills to get into Linux or Open Source otherwise. FreeGeek has grown tremendously in the last few years and is getting national and maybe international attention.
It's difficult to see how Google could completely prevent automated use of their storage system. What are they going to do, have you copy a mangled word out of a picture box every time you want to check your mail?
So, the challenge is to appeal to users like you, while preventing widespread abuse (like sharing a purchased song with 1000 of your closest friends.
Seems to me that Apple has done pretty well on that front: they DO let you make backups and compilations. Up to 4 computers, and unlimited burning.
So, is your argument really based on your usage habits, or are you sticking up for a principle? If it's a principle, what exactly is it?
Um no, sorry but you have missed the point. He states quite clearly that the regulations leave the choice up to the operator of the aircraft, which (unless he is lying) gives him the last word on what he does on his own plane.
Furthermore, the point of the article (if you get to the end) is NOT that he's recommending that you connect to his network from a plane (commercial or otherwise) - he's suggesting using PRIVATELY operated planes to create a large (nationwide?) network available to those of us stuck on the ground.
Yeah, I like the cubes. I have to admit, I'm a bit mystified that they didn't sell better, especially after they dropped the price. But hey, that $1600 five years ago went toward a down payment on a house...so, no regrets!
I'm surprised by your (and other) responses. Yes, the SE and Plus and maybe the Commodore had excellent monitors, but not so with more recent computers. I maintain about 60 iMacs in our newsroom. We bought them 3.5 years ago (rev D CRT iMacs.) I'd say about a third of them have significant monitor problems, but are otherwise running fine. These problems are not all extreme, but range from blurriness to flicker to strange horizontal lines. A similar point would be that a budget computer shopper may want the flexibility of upgrading to a larger monitor in the future. You might be only able to afford the bare minimum right now, but want a larger monitor down the road. I'm not sure how "typical" a consumer I am, but I'd say with computers these days, the criteria most important to me are price and flexibility. For day-to-day tasks, performance is not really an issue to me - browsing the web and email are more or less the same on most modern computers. But the ability to replace individual parts provides a lot of flexibility. Which is why I will probably drift from Mac to Linux for home use as time goes by.
All-In-One is for SUCKERS!!! Most educated computer users know that a monitor will eventually crap out, and want to be able to get a cheap replacement.
A low-end headless Mac - THAT is how you'll finally get me to upgrade from my G3-enhanced 8600, Apple.
...this article reads like it was written by a PR person for Secunia. It's basically an advertisement for their service, with a bit of sensational news about OS X and Windows as the hook.
Looks to me like a case of a swiftly approaching deadline and a lazy editor at Computer Weekly. They just took a PR puff piece for Secunia, chewed it up, changed around a couple sentences, and spat it back out.
...and now have a terrible boss. So of course I have to take some of the blame, because I (along with most of my department) thought this guy would be pretty good. It's a good lesson in how difficult it can be to gauge somebody in a short period of time. He seemed like a nice guy, and cracked a few jokes...but now we find out he has zero attention span, takes credit for success and passes on blame for failure, fails to follow up on projects, etc.
At this point I would go out on a limb and say it's a bad idea for upper management to do this kind of group interview. Rather, they should talk with the employees directly, maybe one-on-one, to find out what kinds of questions they would want answered, and then pass those questions on in their own way.
by making the effort to learn how to relate to people. Personally, I wasted many years thinking that just by being smart, I would eventually attract other smart people. Unfortunately (?), the reality is that you just have to learn to relate to other people,which might mean starting from scratch. Your intelligence means nothing to the receptionist if you can't find it in yourself to remember that her daughter has the measles, etc. Take a step back, and think about what other people are after. It's worth it.
This is an interesting point, and I'm sure it applies to many people, but I have my doubts whether it applies to the original poster.
Another scenario is this: you have superior analytical ability, and people are generally impressed when you weigh in on a topic you've put some consideration into.
However, as much as people are appreciative of certain specific things you have to say, they are also put off by your social awkwardness, or by their inability to figure out where you're "coming from" or what your motivations are.
In a work environment you pursue problems that interest you, and often come up with very clever solutions, but not on the timetable others would like. You are intrigued by an interesting problem, but you are largely unconcerned with the political or self-interested motives of those around you. So you are seen as somewhat valuable, but unpredictable, and therefore not a good "ally."
So anything that requires you to cooperate closely with others or have their trust and confidence is pretty much a lost cause. You ARE smart, you DO have talent, but much of it is wasted because people you need are wary of you.
I believe that is also a common scenario, and my sense of the poster would put him more in that category.
Oops, I posted too fast. I left out the most important part-
The absence of a vibrant family meant that I was constantly looking for approval from everybody I met. In any situation, I would find myself distracted from the task at hand because I was so concerned about whether the people around me would like me, or think I was cool, or think I was smart, or whatever.
I think that "lack of focus" or "laziness" is generally a symptom of being distracted by something. So keep your eyes open and try to figure out what that thing is that is distracting you, and when you do, give it the attention it deserves. It might be a very liberating experience.
Yes, he's serious. If you are more intelligent than many people around you, and yet can't seem to focus or stay interested in what you're "supposed" to be interested in, you know it. You don't need "proof" or anything to "show" for it unless you're trying to convince somebody to take a chance on you (like a job interview.) In the present context, to take his question at anything but face value is arrogant in itself. To the original poster, I share many of the traits you describe. There was plenty I did like about school, and I worked pretty hard for a bachelor's at a distinctive liberal arts school. But in a way I could never put my finger on, I always felt it "wasn't for me" and I wasn't driven the way that many of my more intelligent classmates were. I am now 31, and am working a pretty nice IT job, but feel that I am working well beneath my potential. The most surprising discovery I've made in my own life is that the core problems I have in my life are not intellectual, and they're not about "laziness" or lack of focus. For most of my life I had a fear that it was something like that. In the last 3 years I have had some of the most challenging events I've ever faced (traumatic breakup, death of my biological father, friendships pushed past the point of saving.) With the aid of some therapy and some very intelligent and generous friends, I have come to see my lack of a healthy family upbringing as the root of my problems. Now that I have identified the problem, I have been able to begin to address it. I have been able to strengthen ties with some of my family members, and have also begun to form what I feel some of the strongest friendships I can ever hope to have. I have no way of knowing whether your situation bears any similarity to mine. But I would offer one small piece of advice, which is this: You will probably always have some people in your life who accuse you of being lazy, or of not having a work ethic, or of not caring about the "right" things. Though you may at times need to please these people (to get or keep a job, or the like), don't let them get into your head. In all likelihood, they have not made the effort to understand you, and their words are not an accurate reflection of who you are. And when things get bad, go find yourself a therapist. With a mind like yours, you can probably make a lot of progress even with a mediocre one.
But if you do that (use your primary computer as an access point), you're opening yourself up to lots of potential security holes. I'll be the first to admit I haven't RTFA yet, but it seems to me that the main benefit of using a Linux box for routing is increased security and more flexibility in your routing rules. If you're not going to dedicate a separate computer to the task, it's much more secure to have a separate piece of hardware (available brand new for more like $50, not $90) to handle it for you. Even if the router is not quite as flexible, you can rest assured that the only security holes you could have on your workstation are the ports you keep open.
I think in cases like this, it's important to remember that in the long run, your intentions don't count for diddly. Any protection for people's privacy needs to be built into the system, and not just "understood", or else whoever succeeds you in your position, or whoever takes your system and implements it in the next county over, or whatever government agency decides that your system will be useful for something you never intended, will be acting out their *own* intentions, but with the benefit of your technology. If you can't guarantee privacy in those circumstances, then the responsible thing to do is to keep privacy out of your sales pitch.
If you ask me, this story is just a touch ideological. The data gathered in the study is interesting, but could easily be used to support arguments either for or against the RIAA's position. After all, haven't we all been screaming that file sharing INCREASES music consmption? Even if it's only 1 CD per 5000 downloads, any study that says that file sharing DECREASES music sales is hardly supportive of that position. I'm as offended by the RIAA's motives and tactics as anyone, but using bad logic to counter their views is just not an effective way of fighting them off.
The problem with this system, as I understand it, is that it relies on a large number of email addresses being visible in the To: or CC: fields. All spammers would have to do to get around it is use the BCC field, or use a program that sends out the message individually to different people. Without a large number of email addresses in the header, it seems this system will not apply any rules.
Shrink - 11/7/95
When office tension among WNYX staffers hits an all time high, Jimmy brings in therapist Dr. Frank Westford to help revive group morale, but it seems that Dr. Westford and Lisa have shared a past relationship, forcing Dave to feel even more threatened by the doctor's presence. Meanwhile, Matthew alienates his co-workers when he refuses to go home while suffering from a bad cold, and Bill retreats into the new cubicle built around his desk.
John Ritter as Dr. Frank Westford.
from news radio web site
Doesn't anybody remember Phil Hartman's house on NewsRadio? He actually had a staircase leading down to a basement smoking lounge...I never could figure out how he did that.