Sorry for hijacking the first post. However, this story appears to be completely false. There is a report which recommends this as an alternative. However, I can find not reputable news source that is suggesting this will happen. So, either I cannot find the right sources, or we have another example of shoddy Slashdot journalism.
Yup. There are places on the earth that aren't worth developing. And they have an atmosphere. And they are close to resupply points. And definitely much less expensive than even getting to orbit, much less getting to another planet.
Why would I want to develop Mars? Venus? It would be far more expensive to get there and maintain than you wold ever get out of it.
Sure I am for exploration. But this fantasy that somehow we can make a self-supporting base on Mars or another planet is ridiculous. Fantasy. If we thought about some long-term terraforming project, then maybe some places might be habitable. But with today's technology this is laughable.
*sigh* And that is my whole freaking point. Google is not diminishing the availability of the book at all. If you don't like Google indexing the book, then stick with the old method. Inconvenient or darn near impossible in many instances. You still have this old method.... Google's scanning is not destroying the book.
No I haven't missed it. The point is that those rare books are still available. If you want to look at that book, you still have the same availability that you always have. Google making it available electronically in no way diminished the availability that was there before.
I would find this "concern" over Google books more credible if it wasn't being advocated by one of the groups of workers who stand to lose the most from having a vast body of literature made easily available to individuals (or as librarians might call them: customers) without having to go to their local library.
And I would find Global Warming more believable, if it wasn't initiated by climatologists who get more funding when as a scare tactic, this would raise more money in funding for the said group.
You do see that the fallacy of this argument, right?
Don't these hard copy books still exist after Google has "digitized" them? If you re concerned over your privacy, simply go to the physical library as you would have before the digitization.
Perhaps you are right. It is hard to define when it began. From my standpoint, I see it as the period after the major countries began to really recover from World War II. At least from my not-so-educated on the subject perspective, I don't see a whole lot of advancements during the period of time between the two world wars. Granted, certain technology did as it supported the wars. It is also possible I am just ignorant on the subject.
I think that is what has been the definition of the modern society over the past four or five decades. We are no longer in a period where "revolutions" happen every so often, divided by long periods of stability. We are now in a period where the revolution is continual.
From material sciences to the internet revolution, we are seeing things happen on a monthly basis that have huge impacts on us. We are mostly numbed to this because we are used to seeing it. Yet go back three or four generations and look at how life was. Certainly nothing like today.
My mind still boggles at the fact that I can talk with people half way around the world without leaving my house. That I can collaborate with people with more ease than I would have been a decade ago who lived only fifty miles away. This ability to communicate easily, I think, is the foundation for all of the other revolutions we are seeing.
I wonder what this world will be like in fifty years. Will these revolutions help make this a much better place to live? Or will we find a way to fuck it up?
I agree with the premise. However, the reality is Tech & Science is a horrible place to look for science. One is better off to look for the news feeds of Scientific American and similar science journals.
Baseball on TV is unwatchable. In person, it is the best game to go to. When my kids get older, I will go back to watching a lot of our minor league team's games. You can get the whole family in for a few bucks. No waiting in lines. Entertainment is wonderful. You'd have a hard time coming up with a better value than that in any other US sport.
Yeah, this is one of the most befuddling things about the online news organizations. They combine tech & science. Now, these seem to be comparable, similar topics. However, in practice, tech devolves into what commercial entity can push their tech product the most. When I go to Tech & Science, I don't want articles about Twitter and Facebook, but that is inevitably what I get.
I am not sure of the method they used to find this planet. If they are using the transit method, then there isn't a heck of a lot of interpretation to the numbers. You see how often the sun "blinks" because of the planet flashing across it. You get several observations, with a minimum of three (this is a reason why the closer planets get discovered quicker. it takes less time to verify). So, basically I don't think it is presumptuous at all. It is basic physics.
Bullshit. There is absolutely, positively no way that is enforceable. The contract can say whatever the hell it wants. There is no way that is enforceable. If I am wrong, point me to a source.
Yes, it is social. It is about the relationship between the employee and the employer. Once you muddy the water by allowing the employer to "pay" for the laptop, the ownership of work done on it becomes very gray. And your clueless "use TrueCrypt" solution does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
The bottom line is that you don't allow the employer to pay for it, then you have no problems whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
The interviewee must answer: "Yes, but to fully understand it, you must first understand recursion"
Yup. That is the perfect, superficial logic analogy.
Sorry for hijacking the first post. However, this story appears to be completely false. There is a report which recommends this as an alternative. However, I can find not reputable news source that is suggesting this will happen. So, either I cannot find the right sources, or we have another example of shoddy Slashdot journalism.
Yup. There are places on the earth that aren't worth developing. And they have an atmosphere. And they are close to resupply points. And definitely much less expensive than even getting to orbit, much less getting to another planet.
Why would I want to develop Mars? Venus? It would be far more expensive to get there and maintain than you wold ever get out of it.
Sure I am for exploration. But this fantasy that somehow we can make a self-supporting base on Mars or another planet is ridiculous. Fantasy. If we thought about some long-term terraforming project, then maybe some places might be habitable. But with today's technology this is laughable.
Some day we might do it, but not in this century.
Did you read the summary?
Now when I go to a friend's Twitter, I can know when his toilet has finished filling up after a flush.
I LOVE THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY!!!!!!111!!!!
No, moron, you are the selfish fuck. Kill yourself? Fine. Don't leave a mess for someone else to clean up.
*sigh* And that is my whole freaking point. Google is not diminishing the availability of the book at all. If you don't like Google indexing the book, then stick with the old method. Inconvenient or darn near impossible in many instances. You still have this old method.... Google's scanning is not destroying the book.
Tasha: "But at the rate you do it, that could take HOURS".
No I haven't missed it. The point is that those rare books are still available. If you want to look at that book, you still have the same availability that you always have. Google making it available electronically in no way diminished the availability that was there before.
I would find this "concern" over Google books more credible if it wasn't being advocated by one of the groups of workers who stand to lose the most from having a vast body of literature made easily available to individuals (or as librarians might call them: customers) without having to go to their local library.
And I would find Global Warming more believable, if it wasn't initiated by climatologists who get more funding when as a scare tactic, this would raise more money in funding for the said group.
You do see that the fallacy of this argument, right?
Don't these hard copy books still exist after Google has "digitized" them? If you re concerned over your privacy, simply go to the physical library as you would have before the digitization.
Yes. However, we are talking about the existence of an actual phenomenon. TS is most likely a fantasy.
Perhaps you are right. It is hard to define when it began. From my standpoint, I see it as the period after the major countries began to really recover from World War II. At least from my not-so-educated on the subject perspective, I don't see a whole lot of advancements during the period of time between the two world wars. Granted, certain technology did as it supported the wars. It is also possible I am just ignorant on the subject.
I think that is what has been the definition of the modern society over the past four or five decades. We are no longer in a period where "revolutions" happen every so often, divided by long periods of stability. We are now in a period where the revolution is continual.
From material sciences to the internet revolution, we are seeing things happen on a monthly basis that have huge impacts on us. We are mostly numbed to this because we are used to seeing it. Yet go back three or four generations and look at how life was. Certainly nothing like today.
My mind still boggles at the fact that I can talk with people half way around the world without leaving my house. That I can collaborate with people with more ease than I would have been a decade ago who lived only fifty miles away. This ability to communicate easily, I think, is the foundation for all of the other revolutions we are seeing.
I wonder what this world will be like in fifty years. Will these revolutions help make this a much better place to live? Or will we find a way to fuck it up?
And less space than a Nomad.
I agree with the premise. However, the reality is Tech & Science is a horrible place to look for science. One is better off to look for the news feeds of Scientific American and similar science journals.
Baseball on TV is unwatchable. In person, it is the best game to go to. When my kids get older, I will go back to watching a lot of our minor league team's games. You can get the whole family in for a few bucks. No waiting in lines. Entertainment is wonderful. You'd have a hard time coming up with a better value than that in any other US sport.
Yeah, this is one of the most befuddling things about the online news organizations. They combine tech & science. Now, these seem to be comparable, similar topics. However, in practice, tech devolves into what commercial entity can push their tech product the most. When I go to Tech & Science, I don't want articles about Twitter and Facebook, but that is inevitably what I get.
I am not sure of the method they used to find this planet. If they are using the transit method, then there isn't a heck of a lot of interpretation to the numbers. You see how often the sun "blinks" because of the planet flashing across it. You get several observations, with a minimum of three (this is a reason why the closer planets get discovered quicker. it takes less time to verify). So, basically I don't think it is presumptuous at all. It is basic physics.
Bullshit. There is absolutely, positively no way that is enforceable. The contract can say whatever the hell it wants. There is no way that is enforceable. If I am wrong, point me to a source.
Yes, it is social. It is about the relationship between the employee and the employer. Once you muddy the water by allowing the employer to "pay" for the laptop, the ownership of work done on it becomes very gray. And your clueless "use TrueCrypt" solution does absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
The bottom line is that you don't allow the employer to pay for it, then you have no problems whatsoever.
Ah yes, implementing a technical solution to a social problem. That's always a winner.
Aren't they cute when they are young and so naïve?
Don't do it.