Ah, no. The concept of 1+1=2 is an assumption, and that is Peano's opinion to boot. The underlying logic, that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them together yields two instances of that object, is a fact. 1+1=2 is just the symbolism we use to represent that.
Facts are facts, but as soon as they're written on a media, they become opinions. There are no facts written down. None. Just the opinion of the person writing about said facts.
I don't follow this logic.
Let's take an irrefutable fact, such as 2+2=4. In the abstract, it doesn't matter if I'm talking about the theory of the math behind it, the symbolism of using numbers to represent concepts or actual objects, or the like. 2+2=4, simple as that. If I have two apples, and two more apples, I have 4 apples. So 2+2=4, and that's a fact.
Since I wrote it down, is it now my opinion? That would mean that, somewhere out there, someone has an equally valid but differing opinion on the matter, such as 2+2=potato. I don't buy that at all.
Facts are irrefutable, that is the nature of a fact.
This is a valid point, and not just for the space travel field.
The medical field is always evolving and learning new and improved methods, but is also rife with error. Look at the malpractice numbers for any state for any given year and they number in the thousands or tens of thousands. If even a small percentage of these result in a death, then we are easily 14 many times over. Just because someone dies quietly on an operating table instead of a spectacular fireball, doesn't make their death any less relevant.
I'd say 17 lives lost in 50 years is a stellar accomplishment, considering what we've achieved. Should the Challenger have flown that morning? Of course not. But NASA (hopefully) learned their lesson and an incident like that will never, ever happen again. Americans need to inure themselves to this sort of tragic loss for the sake of science and exploration, or they will be eclipsed by countries such as China, India, and Russia, that are willing to take those risks. The astronauts and explorers who do this sort of thing know what they are getting into. They weigh the possibility of dying on one hand with the possibility of being forever immortalized in the annals of history on the other. People have done that since the beginning of time, or we'd all still be huddling around campfires on a prairie somewhere.
Feeding the trolls here, but really? Affection? Humping a squishy piece of silicon is not affection, it's a release of sexual energy and nothing more. If it brings some people a small measure of, um, satisfaction, then so be it. But I would personally rather be forever lonely than curl up with a pair rubber lips wired to my laptop.
Besides, I didn't say it should be outlawed or anything. I just said I was extremely weirded out by the whole idea. Tell me you don't feel the same when you see that dude making out with a little rubber puppet.
I thought the reliance on causation bit was interesting, considering how many assumptions we make about cause and effect on a day to day basis. Granted, as you said, it does often work and serves us well. So, interesting causation bits aside, there was not much to the rest of the article that was terribly enlightening. But it was a hell of a lot better than the summary, which appears to have been generated by a random summary generator.
1) What is a "stealthy" bomb? How does it differ from a non-stealthy bomb?
2) While we're on that note, what is a non-stealthy bomb?
3) Any aircraft large enough to carry this thing on a bombing run would be flying very, very high - more than high enough to achieve "penetration" speeds by the time of impact. The bomb would be moving at well past the speed of sound.
Am I among some minority that is not just a little, but very thoroughly grossed out by this type of technology? I guess for me it triggers some sort of Uncanny Valley response, where my first instinct is not to empathize with a human-seeming robot, but to run away screaming.
This is wrong. Allowing an officer into your house allows only items in plain sight to be used as evidence. They cannot open drawers, doors, cabinets, or containers without a warrant.
Partly wrong. "Searches incident to a lawful arrest" comes to mind (see Maryland v Buie here). If you let the police in your house and they decide you're doing something illegal and decide to arrest you, by right they are now allowed to search your immediate surroundings for both evidence and threats to their person. Don't believe me there? Look it up. The police get to determine what they think is lawful behavior on the fly, so they really have whatever avenue they wish to pursue, should they decide to be obnoxious about it. Can they search your whole house, rummage through all of your drawers, and go through your files? Probably not. But don't count on it. Most cops are not big on word of law. They do what they think is right at the time, and let the courts sort out the legality of it.
First, why not use the obvious countermeasure here. When you create an encrypted volume, you should enter 2 keys, not just one. One will unlock your drive, another will appear to unlock your drive, but in fact deletes the contents of the disk entirely. Essentially it replaces the on-disk encryption keys (which is what your password in reality unlocks) with keys that are only useful for the second partition. The second partition is then enlarged to extend over the original copy. Several programs provide this ability (granted they're for-pay and not cheap, but nevertheless, your privacy is worth something to you isn't it ?). This trick is known to have worked in China (that must have taken some serious amount of balls).
Actually, TrueCrypt offers just this sort of encrypted, hidden volume for free. You create two volumes with two keys, one nested inside the other. One key decrypts only the outer volume and it appears innocuous. There is, in theory, no way to tell there is even a hidden inner volume. The second key decrypts and mounts only the inner volume. Again, in theory, there's no way to even know of the existence of the hidden volume. Whether or not it would hold up to rigorous cryptanalysis remains to be seen, but TrueCrypt seems to be pretty respected in the encryption community and I use it quite a bit.
I still don't understand what you mean.
Vastly more water will be produced when burning gasoline than the carbon monoxide and nitreous compunds that you mention.
The main constituents of exhaust gases are carbon dioxide and water.
Compression ratio will not change that.
What about a lack of understanding of physics and chemistry? Will that change anything?:)
Even using the system clock with millisecond-level accuracy, you can still get accuracy down to within.343 meters, which is 1.13 feet. Assuming the speed of sound in dry air at 20C and 1 atmosphere pressure (thanks Wolfram!) is ~343.2 m/s, that's not bad at all.
I was curious about your reference to a Count Dooku fighting Yoda, so I watched all three Star Wars movies and never once did Yoda even pick up a weapon. So, sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Yeah, my current employer "bought" me from a call center, over eleven years ago, for $36k. Now, I'm making nearly 3x that salary. I come and go when I please, essentially work on what I feel like working on, and I get to be an asshole and a curmudgeon, and noone can call me on it. There are benefits other than salary.
They enticed you away with a raise, and you stayed because you kept getting fair market value for your service. That was kinda my whole point.
What he ought to do is decide whether working for the new company benefits him more than working for the old company. Whether it's worth giving up the friendships, relationships, intangible benefits, and other goodies he's built up in exchange for the larger salary and the possibility of new intangible benefits down the road. Early this year, I took a new job with a giant financial firm, and while the pay was indeed nice, the working environment was NOT what it was cracked up to be. It was a nightmare, and so I returned here about about 10 weeks. Not everyone would have this opportunity, but in my case, I'm sure glad I did.
So, let me get this straight. Talking with your boss about another opportunity could be considered disloyal, but you actually left your current job for a better offer and then came back and you're advising others on what you consider to be company loyalty?
This is not just my advice, this is the generally accepted wisdom:
I would hardly consider these 4 links "accepted wisdom". The first link (Forbes) talks about some guy whose counteroffer was to be the CEO of a major multinational retailer. So what if he only had the job for 3 years? When your salary is $1m per year and you have a golden parachute bailout, 3 years as CEO is plenty of time to rack up some serious cash. It even mentioned that he took an early retirement. Oh, the horror. That sounds like just about the best possible outcome. CEO anecdotes are not really applicable for people working at the "peon" level.
Second link (frugaldad) is written by Jason (Frugal Dad) on his blog. His anecdote is that he was ready to receive a counteroffer, but he got laid off instead. He then goes on to contradict the belief that counteroffers are indicators of disloyalty in his second paragraph.
Third link (businessweek) is behind a paywall, or broken.
Fourth article (it.toolbox) was written by a recruiter who is obviously irritated by people who run through the whole recruitment process (thus wasting his time) and then stay with their current company due to a counter-offer. He ends the article with this:
"I hope that some of this dialoge hits home because these are some of the most frustrating issues to handle as a recruiter. I think they are all avoidable and can positively impact your career when handled in the right manner. These are principles to live by, like being honest and sticking to your word, and knowing thy self!"
And I think that speaks volumes. It's not accepted wisdom, it's one recruiter guy giving his opinion.
Whatever though. Of course, there are intangibles like the people you work with, that atmosphere, perks, and your gene
Seriously? Is anyone at your current company under the illusion that you would not leave for a high enough offer? People can pretend all they want, but the reality is that your current employer bought you from your previous employer. Every new person they hire, they are hiring away from another company, likely at a higher rate. What's the big surprise here? Of course your skills are for sale - that's why you're working. If they are not willing to pay market value for your skills then move on.
I suppose I'm rather baffled by the whole logic here; what, then, should he do? Refuse the current job offer and stay where he's at, but keep it a secret? How does that prove loyalty at all? Nobody knows about it. Or he could refuse the current job offer and then tell his current employer he was offered a job somewhere else but refused. That just sounds needy and pathetic - does that prove loyalty? Or does that prove you're too chickenshit to stand up and ask for a reasonable raise? Or he could man up and explain the situation to his boss. If his boss has a clue and his workplace isn't a hellhole, they might offer him a small raise. If they are hostile to the whole idea, then he's better off quitting and moving on anyway. I've never had a problem discussing stuff like this with my boss, she is intelligent and reasonable and understands that I have bills to pay and a family to feed. I don't work for the love of working, I work because I need a paycheck. If I can get a bigger paycheck by negotiating a little bit, what's the harm in that? If you work at a company that considers something like this untrustworthy, then maybe you should reevaluate the situation.
Bottom line is anyone can be bought, period. The only question is the price.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a complete douche bag.
modded +2 informative. Welcome to slashdot. :)
Ah, no. The concept of 1+1=2 is an assumption, and that is Peano's opinion to boot. The underlying logic, that taking one instance of an object and another instance of an object and combining them together yields two instances of that object, is a fact. 1+1=2 is just the symbolism we use to represent that.
Facts are facts, but as soon as they're written on a media, they become opinions. There are no facts written down. None. Just the opinion of the person writing about said facts.
I don't follow this logic.
Let's take an irrefutable fact, such as 2+2=4. In the abstract, it doesn't matter if I'm talking about the theory of the math behind it, the symbolism of using numbers to represent concepts or actual objects, or the like. 2+2=4, simple as that. If I have two apples, and two more apples, I have 4 apples. So 2+2=4, and that's a fact.
Since I wrote it down, is it now my opinion? That would mean that, somewhere out there, someone has an equally valid but differing opinion on the matter, such as 2+2=potato. I don't buy that at all.
Facts are irrefutable, that is the nature of a fact.
This is a valid point, and not just for the space travel field.
The medical field is always evolving and learning new and improved methods, but is also rife with error. Look at the malpractice numbers for any state for any given year and they number in the thousands or tens of thousands. If even a small percentage of these result in a death, then we are easily 14 many times over. Just because someone dies quietly on an operating table instead of a spectacular fireball, doesn't make their death any less relevant.
I'd say 17 lives lost in 50 years is a stellar accomplishment, considering what we've achieved. Should the Challenger have flown that morning? Of course not. But NASA (hopefully) learned their lesson and an incident like that will never, ever happen again. Americans need to inure themselves to this sort of tragic loss for the sake of science and exploration, or they will be eclipsed by countries such as China, India, and Russia, that are willing to take those risks. The astronauts and explorers who do this sort of thing know what they are getting into. They weigh the possibility of dying on one hand with the possibility of being forever immortalized in the annals of history on the other. People have done that since the beginning of time, or we'd all still be huddling around campfires on a prairie somewhere.
Not to mention market saturation. In all seriousness, how many linux distributions is "too many"?
Feeding the trolls here, but really? Affection? Humping a squishy piece of silicon is not affection, it's a release of sexual energy and nothing more. If it brings some people a small measure of, um, satisfaction, then so be it. But I would personally rather be forever lonely than curl up with a pair rubber lips wired to my laptop.
Besides, I didn't say it should be outlawed or anything. I just said I was extremely weirded out by the whole idea. Tell me you don't feel the same when you see that dude making out with a little rubber puppet.
I thought the reliance on causation bit was interesting, considering how many assumptions we make about cause and effect on a day to day basis. Granted, as you said, it does often work and serves us well. So, interesting causation bits aside, there was not much to the rest of the article that was terribly enlightening. But it was a hell of a lot better than the summary, which appears to have been generated by a random summary generator.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
A couple of things:
1) What is a "stealthy" bomb? How does it differ from a non-stealthy bomb?
2) While we're on that note, what is a non-stealthy bomb?
3) Any aircraft large enough to carry this thing on a bombing run would be flying very, very high - more than high enough to achieve "penetration" speeds by the time of impact. The bomb would be moving at well past the speed of sound.
Yes, it would be trivial to solder on normally.
Production had the pin order flipped, so the chip had to be soldered upside down.
Oh yeah? Reminds me of when I used to solder QF44 PICs upside down, uphill, in the snow, both ways. :)
Seriously, some people are just hard to impress and feel the need to one-up no matter what.
But the summary is rubbish. Ignore the summary and just read the article.
Am I among some minority that is not just a little, but very thoroughly grossed out by this type of technology? I guess for me it triggers some sort of Uncanny Valley response, where my first instinct is not to empathize with a human-seeming robot, but to run away screaming.
I accidentally the seven proxies. Is this bad?
Riding around in a dismembered Transformer's head, specifically Bumblebee.
I didn't want one until you mentioned that. Now it looks all sorts of awesome.
Cyclist are hated with a passion here in Texas.
I suppose there's some sort of karmic balance there, since Texans are hated with a passion here in the rest of the world.
This is wrong. Allowing an officer into your house allows only items in plain sight to be used as evidence. They cannot open drawers, doors, cabinets, or containers without a warrant.
Partly wrong. "Searches incident to a lawful arrest" comes to mind (see Maryland v Buie here). If you let the police in your house and they decide you're doing something illegal and decide to arrest you, by right they are now allowed to search your immediate surroundings for both evidence and threats to their person. Don't believe me there? Look it up. The police get to determine what they think is lawful behavior on the fly, so they really have whatever avenue they wish to pursue, should they decide to be obnoxious about it. Can they search your whole house, rummage through all of your drawers, and go through your files? Probably not. But don't count on it. Most cops are not big on word of law. They do what they think is right at the time, and let the courts sort out the legality of it.
First, why not use the obvious countermeasure here. When you create an encrypted volume, you should enter 2 keys, not just one. One will unlock your drive, another will appear to unlock your drive, but in fact deletes the contents of the disk entirely. Essentially it replaces the on-disk encryption keys (which is what your password in reality unlocks) with keys that are only useful for the second partition. The second partition is then enlarged to extend over the original copy. Several programs provide this ability (granted they're for-pay and not cheap, but nevertheless, your privacy is worth something to you isn't it ?). This trick is known to have worked in China (that must have taken some serious amount of balls).
Actually, TrueCrypt offers just this sort of encrypted, hidden volume for free. You create two volumes with two keys, one nested inside the other. One key decrypts only the outer volume and it appears innocuous. There is, in theory, no way to tell there is even a hidden inner volume. The second key decrypts and mounts only the inner volume. Again, in theory, there's no way to even know of the existence of the hidden volume. Whether or not it would hold up to rigorous cryptanalysis remains to be seen, but TrueCrypt seems to be pretty respected in the encryption community and I use it quite a bit.
I still don't understand what you mean. Vastly more water will be produced when burning gasoline than the carbon monoxide and nitreous compunds that you mention. The main constituents of exhaust gases are carbon dioxide and water. Compression ratio will not change that.
What about a lack of understanding of physics and chemistry? Will that change anything? :)
My brother named his "Pretty Fly For A WiFi" which I thought was pretty clever.
Even using the system clock with millisecond-level accuracy, you can still get accuracy down to within .343 meters, which is 1.13 feet. Assuming the speed of sound in dry air at 20C and 1 atmosphere pressure (thanks Wolfram!) is ~343.2 m/s, that's not bad at all.
Another very good reason to punch a dolphin in the mouth.
I was curious about your reference to a Count Dooku fighting Yoda, so I watched all three Star Wars movies and never once did Yoda even pick up a weapon. So, sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Ah, ignorance is bliss. :-)
count - Duku: 1, Centrifuges: 0.
Yeah, my current employer "bought" me from a call center, over eleven years ago, for $36k. Now, I'm making nearly 3x that salary. I come and go when I please, essentially work on what I feel like working on, and I get to be an asshole and a curmudgeon, and noone can call me on it. There are benefits other than salary.
They enticed you away with a raise, and you stayed because you kept getting fair market value for your service. That was kinda my whole point.
What he ought to do is decide whether working for the new company benefits him more than working for the old company. Whether it's worth giving up the friendships, relationships, intangible benefits, and other goodies he's built up in exchange for the larger salary and the possibility of new intangible benefits down the road. Early this year, I took a new job with a giant financial firm, and while the pay was indeed nice, the working environment was NOT what it was cracked up to be. It was a nightmare, and so I returned here about about 10 weeks. Not everyone would have this opportunity, but in my case, I'm sure glad I did.
So, let me get this straight. Talking with your boss about another opportunity could be considered disloyal, but you actually left your current job for a better offer and then came back and you're advising others on what you consider to be company loyalty?
This is not just my advice, this is the generally accepted wisdom:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/28/counter-offer-employer-lead-careers-cx_hr_0630counteroffer.html
http://frugaldad.com/2008/02/05/accepting-company-counter-offer-can-be-risky-move/
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/nov2004/ca2004114_2710_ca009.htm
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/it-recruiter/why-you-should-not-accept-a-counter-offer-2359
I would hardly consider these 4 links "accepted wisdom". The first link (Forbes) talks about some guy whose counteroffer was to be the CEO of a major multinational retailer. So what if he only had the job for 3 years? When your salary is $1m per year and you have a golden parachute bailout, 3 years as CEO is plenty of time to rack up some serious cash. It even mentioned that he took an early retirement. Oh, the horror. That sounds like just about the best possible outcome. CEO anecdotes are not really applicable for people working at the "peon" level.
Second link (frugaldad) is written by Jason (Frugal Dad) on his blog. His anecdote is that he was ready to receive a counteroffer, but he got laid off instead. He then goes on to contradict the belief that counteroffers are indicators of disloyalty in his second paragraph.
Third link (businessweek) is behind a paywall, or broken.
Fourth article (it.toolbox) was written by a recruiter who is obviously irritated by people who run through the whole recruitment process (thus wasting his time) and then stay with their current company due to a counter-offer. He ends the article with this:
"I hope that some of this dialoge hits home because these are some of the most frustrating issues to handle as a recruiter. I think they are all avoidable and can positively impact your career when handled in the right manner. These are principles to live by, like being honest and sticking to your word, and knowing thy self!"
And I think that speaks volumes. It's not accepted wisdom, it's one recruiter guy giving his opinion.
Whatever though. Of course, there are intangibles like the people you work with, that atmosphere, perks, and your gene
Seriously? Is anyone at your current company under the illusion that you would not leave for a high enough offer? People can pretend all they want, but the reality is that your current employer bought you from your previous employer. Every new person they hire, they are hiring away from another company, likely at a higher rate. What's the big surprise here? Of course your skills are for sale - that's why you're working. If they are not willing to pay market value for your skills then move on.
I suppose I'm rather baffled by the whole logic here; what, then, should he do? Refuse the current job offer and stay where he's at, but keep it a secret? How does that prove loyalty at all? Nobody knows about it. Or he could refuse the current job offer and then tell his current employer he was offered a job somewhere else but refused. That just sounds needy and pathetic - does that prove loyalty? Or does that prove you're too chickenshit to stand up and ask for a reasonable raise? Or he could man up and explain the situation to his boss. If his boss has a clue and his workplace isn't a hellhole, they might offer him a small raise. If they are hostile to the whole idea, then he's better off quitting and moving on anyway. I've never had a problem discussing stuff like this with my boss, she is intelligent and reasonable and understands that I have bills to pay and a family to feed. I don't work for the love of working, I work because I need a paycheck. If I can get a bigger paycheck by negotiating a little bit, what's the harm in that? If you work at a company that considers something like this untrustworthy, then maybe you should reevaluate the situation.
Bottom line is anyone can be bought, period. The only question is the price.