The cost of doing the right thing
on
Peter Quinn Resigns
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The government seems really committed to its legacy information systems. Someone in a position of power finally decides to do something and is penalized for it. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the government at all levels.
This could lead to new shimmering car finishes which can change with temperature or humidity, new cosmetics, but more importantly, to new applications in optical data processing
but more importantly, to new shimmering car finishes.
Man, SSH must really fly on that thing. Here's what you do: find a software developer who actually needs a high spec'd machine and trade him straight up for his Dell Attitude 6900. In my day (about a year ago) we called what you're using now a dumb terminal.
Just get a drive that has password protection implemented as a locking mechanism on the drive. Unless you're afraid of an attacked pulling data directly off the chip (is the government after you?), encryption won't really buy you much except to slow everything down.
I'm a huge proponent of open source software and I completely see the benefit here. However, I think it's interesting that no one was really clammering to see the insides of the machines when they were electromechanical (or mechanical for that matter). What's changed? Is it simply that we're empowered now?
It's possible this guy is smarter than me. But you know what? I spent every waking moment at Smartypants U studying (for my masters in EE; did any of us work for our undergrad?) and just barely graduated. Am I smart? Smarter than some. Is that what gets any of us that degree? Nope.
In the past, on commenting upon the lazyiness of the American Worker, I have on many occasions been told that on average Americans spend more time at work than the people of most other nations. I have always thought this to be an misleading statistic. Americans spend a lot of time at work. That has absolutely no correlation to the amount of time they spend actually doing work, or perhaps more importantly, the quality of that work.
This parent is 110% correct and the only useful thing I've read here. A "secret" computer is meaningless and anyone telling you otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. Just put the computer in a SCIF (Secret Compartmented Information Facility) and label it secret. If you're going to connect it to a network, that's a whole other can of worms.
Even if he is referring to MS, it's not as if google can be considered impartial. They must have known they'd be competing with redmond on one level or another. How would it sound if someone said to them, yeah but doesn't your search technology run on Windows? Not horrible but not great either. Especially if the competition becomes even more heated.
Then the players start guessing letters until they have enough letters to complete the sentence. Watching the game is just like watching people play the game hang man, but with bigger prizes. One way to think of the information content of the sentence, is to think of it as the minimum number of letters you need before you can guess the sentence.
I may be missing something but it doesn't seem clear what's considered to be a priori information here. Isn't the structure of the English language part of the a priori information? In the next section he breaks up a telephone number into partial and a priori information but that seems to suffer from similar problems.
No, but you know what really brings your point home? Horrible grammar. Seriously, I don't know why we liberals get so fired up at the "uninformed right". Perhaps because all too often you can't string two sentences together (upp, no...wait, you did that). But, I'm sure this special brand of ignorance applies only to grammar and you're very well informed when it comes to geopolitics.
No, you're right, I'm being short sighted. All that time in grad school wasted studying directional antennas and electromagnetic field theory and all I had to do was ask you. You're the guy who thinks electic cars produce no polution simply because the polution is being generated somewhere else. Engineering 101: you don't get something for nothing. Don't kid yourself cell phones (or any technology for that matter) will ever be unobtrusive. Any given technology is far more likely to be (at least in some way) damaging to humans.
As someone who spends all day working in a bunker for security reasons (read: no windows), I think this would be sweet. Of course, the obvious problem is immediately apparent. If it was possible to include a one-way mirror in the optics, it would make life more enjoyable. Of course, nothing this complicated would ever get past the security folks but I can dream...
yeah, technology probably hurts us, but evolution will sort it all out. Without adversity, there can be no change...granted the ability to reason must be considered as part of the evolutionary system. For example, as intelligent beings we could decide that it'd be in our best interest to give up cell phones. Or, alternatively, our genetic predecessors could decide to fly out of my butt.
Yeah, I actually did read the article but you're missing the point. That doesn't explain *where* the genetic "understanding" (which, of course, is a total misnomer here but I'm going to use it anyway) that hybridisation is bad comes from. You and I know it's bad. The butterflies don't (but of course, on some level they *do*, and that's the point). If you're confused it's probably for the same reasons people thought Darwin was a crackpot for so many years (and still do).
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't the question just now become, "Why don't the butterflies want to breed with butterflies that look slightly different?" In speciation through geographic separation, the answer is clear: they simply can't so there's no choice to be made. In this case the tendency to make that choice must be the result of evolution as well. This may make sense but it certainly isn't as clear cut as geographic separation. The snake seems to be eating its tail here.
You're right. However, saying the only real test is reproducibility in this context sounds a little like what dupont said when it first invented CFCs. Scentists said they were depleting ozone and Dupont said there was no conclusive evidence of that.
What would contitute reproducibility in this case? If the giant protective shield around the earth vaporized a second time?
Slashdot Mirror
The government seems really committed to its legacy information systems. Someone in a position of power finally decides to do something and is penalized for it. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the government at all levels.
Major benefits to matter in a superfluid state include superconductivity, a state where electrons would flow freely with no resistance
Thus fulfilling my dream of plugging an extension cord into itself.
This could lead to new shimmering car finishes which can change with temperature or humidity, new cosmetics, but more importantly, to new applications in optical data processing
but more importantly, to new shimmering car finishes.
Man, SSH must really fly on that thing. Here's what you do: find a software developer who actually needs a high spec'd machine and trade him straight up for his Dell Attitude 6900. In my day (about a year ago) we called what you're using now a dumb terminal.
Just get a drive that has password protection implemented as a locking mechanism on the drive. Unless you're afraid of an attacked pulling data directly off the chip (is the government after you?), encryption won't really buy you much except to slow everything down.
Well, you're not fully blue screened until you're crest-fully blue screened.
I'm a huge proponent of open source software and I completely see the benefit here. However, I think it's interesting that no one was really clammering to see the insides of the machines when they were electromechanical (or mechanical for that matter). What's changed? Is it simply that we're empowered now?
It's possible this guy is smarter than me. But you know what? I spent every waking moment at Smartypants U studying (for my masters in EE; did any of us work for our undergrad?) and just barely graduated. Am I smart? Smarter than some. Is that what gets any of us that degree? Nope.
In the past, on commenting upon the lazyiness of the American Worker, I have on many occasions been told that on average Americans spend more time at work than the people of most other nations. I have always thought this to be an misleading statistic. Americans spend a lot of time at work. That has absolutely no correlation to the amount of time they spend actually doing work, or perhaps more importantly, the quality of that work.
This parent is 110% correct and the only useful thing I've read here. A "secret" computer is meaningless and anyone telling you otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. Just put the computer in a SCIF (Secret Compartmented Information Facility) and label it secret. If you're going to connect it to a network, that's a whole other can of worms.
Even if he is referring to MS, it's not as if google can be considered impartial. They must have known they'd be competing with redmond on one level or another. How would it sound if someone said to them, yeah but doesn't your search technology run on Windows? Not horrible but not great either. Especially if the competition becomes even more heated.
No, but you know what really brings your point home? Horrible grammar. Seriously, I don't know why we liberals get so fired up at the "uninformed right". Perhaps because all too often you can't string two sentences together (upp, no...wait, you did that). But, I'm sure this special brand of ignorance applies only to grammar and you're very well informed when it comes to geopolitics.
No, you're right, I'm being short sighted. All that time in grad school wasted studying directional antennas and electromagnetic field theory and all I had to do was ask you. You're the guy who thinks electic cars produce no polution simply because the polution is being generated somewhere else. Engineering 101: you don't get something for nothing. Don't kid yourself cell phones (or any technology for that matter) will ever be unobtrusive. Any given technology is far more likely to be (at least in some way) damaging to humans.
As someone who spends all day working in a bunker for security reasons (read: no windows), I think this would be sweet. Of course, the obvious problem is immediately apparent. If it was possible to include a one-way mirror in the optics, it would make life more enjoyable. Of course, nothing this complicated would ever get past the security folks but I can dream...
Like cell phone systems that don't rely on electromagnetic radiation? Hey, if you can do it, I'll buy stock. Don't quit your day job.
yeah, technology probably hurts us, but evolution will sort it all out. Without adversity, there can be no change...granted the ability to reason must be considered as part of the evolutionary system. For example, as intelligent beings we could decide that it'd be in our best interest to give up cell phones. Or, alternatively, our genetic predecessors could decide to fly out of my butt.
Yeah, thanks for evolution 101
Yeah, I actually did read the article but you're missing the point. That doesn't explain *where* the genetic "understanding" (which, of course, is a total misnomer here but I'm going to use it anyway) that hybridisation is bad comes from. You and I know it's bad. The butterflies don't (but of course, on some level they *do*, and that's the point). If you're confused it's probably for the same reasons people thought Darwin was a crackpot for so many years (and still do).
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't the question just now become, "Why don't the butterflies want to breed with butterflies that look slightly different?" In speciation through geographic separation, the answer is clear: they simply can't so there's no choice to be made. In this case the tendency to make that choice must be the result of evolution as well. This may make sense but it certainly isn't as clear cut as geographic separation. The snake seems to be eating its tail here.
You're right. However, saying the only real test is reproducibility in this context sounds a little like what dupont said when it first invented CFCs. Scentists said they were depleting ozone and Dupont said there was no conclusive evidence of that. What would contitute reproducibility in this case? If the giant protective shield around the earth vaporized a second time?