But don't dogs have a keen sense of smell? Presumably they could smell the difference between a person and a robot - and act accordingly. So there were two variables that should have been tested, not just what the robot looked like.
the complete separation of all atoms within a molecule
And then what? You have <however> many moles of highly reactive ions in a location. What are they going to do? React again. So all you've done is apply energy to a mass, liberated a bunch of ions that will then recombine as soon as the input power goes away (or they dissipate from out of its field) and then release the energy of ionisation that they had absorbed.
Result: Boom! All that 3GJ comes back at you as a chemical explosion.
The person who reports the finding gets the blame.
Also known as "shoot the messenger". It's a common problem throughout the world, that the person who reports a problem (security issue, software bug, licence lapse, theft) gets tarred with it. A lot of management actually promote this way of dealing with issues as it keeps the number of fault reports down - which they get measured against and rewarded for doing.
The only way this can ever, in my experience, get resolved is by having QA as an entirely different management structure: outside of software development, hardware, design, testing, production, <whatever> So a problem does NOT go through an individual's standard reporting structure but through an expedited route, up to vice-president / director level.
Managers hate it, as it removes from them control over their own staff. But it can work by anonymising reports and disassociating individuals from issues. But it needs a strong QA team to resist the pressure for witch hunts and from sales, who see it as a road-block to getting stuff to market quickly
So a guy found something that he didn't understand. He took it to the authorities who examined it and told him (and the world) that it was nothing to worry about. Due to ignorance and fear however, many conspiracy theories abound and are stoked by this sort of story and the "official" explanation.
If these "cheerleaders" are so bad at their pitch, content, leadership and ideas why are the venture capitalists so eager to throw money at them? I realise it's a numbers game: that 999 will fail, 1 will succeed and 1 in 1000 of those successes will be the next Facebook. However all that the money people would need to do is get anyone with 6+ months of IT to review these startups' technical plans and they could probably cut their own failure rate to a quarter.
Measuring consumer interest before you blow the money in the first place. That's why crowd funding is taking off.
But that process is equally flawed as it doesn't address the basic failing in the industry. Almost every film starts with what someone thinks is a good idea (and ideas, even good ones are ten-a-penny). The difference between a flop and a success isn't the idea, it's how well that idea is converted into a film. You only get an inkling of that when the film has been made and the edits done.
It makes no difference whether the film (idea) was backed by studio money or crowd-funded money. The possibility of turning a workable idea into a total failure is just as great.
But by the time these factors are measured, the film has already been made and most of the money spent on it. There's no point predicting THEN whether it will succeed or fail.
And at the same time, user surveys and in-game data revealed that we had a large userbase of people with lots of mid-level characters
Well, that's good. It sounds like you were giving the fans what they want. I.E. the mainstream, majority fans.
So following on from knowing that there is lots of in-game data collection and profiling the question becomes even more relvant: why bother hanging our on forums with a bunch of disaffected attention seekers, when you are getting reliable information about game play and users from more your own, objective, sources? It sounds like making a rod for your own back. <confused>
To stop programmers getting harrased, why not keep the names and emails of the programmers under wraps? If the programmers insist on hanging around in user forums then that's their business - they should know what to expect by now. If they want to be "rock stars" then get ready for some rocks.
Alternatively, the most straightforward way to stop criticism from disaffected "fans" would be to give them what they want, rather than assuming that some designer somewhere knows better.
Or you could use the time constructively. Maybe consider some of your higher goals, what you *really* want to do, take the time to observe the world around you, maybe even dream a little. It's not necessary to fill every waking moment with entertainment.
The BBC already has a commercial outfit that allows other countries to buy BBC content. In that respect the rest of the world is helping finance the UK viewers and getting some decent programmes into the bargain.
Because so many of them are completely lacking in any usable documentation. Mostly it's easier to rewrite a piece of code from scratch than it is to try and work out what existing stuff does, which version any documentation belongs to and whether the (few) comments in the code reflect its current status. And then you've got to try and work out how the hell the guy managed to build the shambolic mess and just how they got the Makefile to do the things they claimed.
What could possibly be valuable enough (in the long term) to send people from the Earth to the Moon's orbit to dig out?
Sure, when someone gets self-sustaining colonies, they will have a need for raw materials but that seems to be decades or hundreds of years away. By then the technology to move people and thngs around in space will have developed further (evidenced by the self-sustaining colonies they will have enabled), so using our tech, today, to do this is both inefficient and far too early.
No, it is just THAT in a nutshell. Any contact with government has the potential to really screw you - badly. There are so many rules, regulations and laws that it's impossible to know how many you break on any given day. It's impossible to know what seemingly innocuous actions, words or contacts you have will lead to being punished and it's generally impossible for the average citizen to defend themselves against the sort of absolute power that governments wield with impunity.
Doing business in good faith makes it plausible to have specialization and all of the associated benefits
Absolutely right. And if everyone who offered these services was honest, capable and fair then there would be no problem. However what *always* starts out as a small, local initiative to "help" starts to attract the hucksters, criminal element and incompetents just out for a buck.
So the guy who offers a Lyft - or some other local version for unofficial rides or car-shares... when the operation is new he/she will probably be motivated as much by community spirit (and putting professional, licensed taxis out of business by undercutting them) as by any money that comes in. However that transforms into people who need the money and are less likely to have well maintained vehicles, possibly have a string of driving convictions and maybe a gun under the seat. How could you, as a customer, tell the good from the potentially bad? And would you let your teenage daughter take or give lifts with complete strangers?
Same with the strangers offering catering services. Will they be restaurant trained, or will they use the same cutting board for raw meat as for finger-snacks? If you ask for kosher, can you be *sure* that's what you'll get? Is that fish fresh, or have they been trying to offload it onto a customer for the last week?
In short, while trust is a good attribute, it's also invisible. You can't tell whether the trust you place in someone you don't know is being returned in care, safety and getting what you've asked for. Sadly when trust fails, regulation is the only alternative.
Maybe it'll encourage governments to develop saner tax rules
The tax rules are quite sane: you get income, you pay tax. Also most countries have rules & regs about letting out property that are designed to protect the renter. Such as requiring basic safety checks on appliances, making sure there are adequate escape routes in case of fire.
And with all these people offering professional services, how many have qualifications or insurance? Say you use someone who offers lifts (to the airport, as an example). What happens if they have a collision - their insurance won't cover them for commercial use (terms and conditions may be different in your country, where ever that is). What happens if the person who's committed to cooking for your guests gives them all food poisoning?
Trust is nice, and touchy-feely and new-world 'n' all. Though indemnity is better - but it costs.
All this talk implies that the sensors were installed in a vehicle with a pointy end pointing upwards. Isn't it entirely possible that the sensors were installed at some point well before the vehicle was commissioned and there was no "up" or "down" (only left or right) on the parts that the sensors get attached to. Maybe the sensors _were_ installed correctly, but the whole subassembly was the wrong way round?
Even the simplest of mechanical interlocks (such as a notch at one end that must be matched with a corresponding projection)
This only moves the problem, it doesn't fix it. There is now the possibility for the sensors to be installed correctly into mechanical interlocks that were themselves installed upside down
First: get rid of 90% of the stuff. If you truly have that many accounts, how many have you used in the past year? Just close all the rest. For all the other stuff, just keep your DoB, driving licence, passport, social security, address (in case you forget - but then you wouldn't know where your safe was located), bank accounts numbers and maybe a few utility accounts.
After you've done that the problem will have resolved itself to the point where most people just have a folder of "stuff".
If you still feel the urge to put printed copies in a fire-safe, take into account the type of ink you print your stuff with (you wouldn't want to come back in 5 years to discover all you have was faded sheets with no printing on them) and also just how long your safe remains fireproof for. It may not be as good as you'd hoped.
Slashdot Mirror
The robot purposely did not look human,
But don't dogs have a keen sense of smell? Presumably they could smell the difference between a person and a robot - and act accordingly. So there were two variables that should have been tested, not just what the robot looked like.
the complete separation of all atoms within a molecule
And then what? You have <however> many moles of highly reactive ions in a location. What are they going to do? React again. So all you've done is apply energy to a mass, liberated a bunch of ions that will then recombine as soon as the input power goes away (or they dissipate from out of its field) and then release the energy of ionisation that they had absorbed. Result: Boom! All that 3GJ comes back at you as a chemical explosion.
The person who reports the finding gets the blame.
Also known as "shoot the messenger". It's a common problem throughout the world, that the person who reports a problem (security issue, software bug, licence lapse, theft) gets tarred with it. A lot of management actually promote this way of dealing with issues as it keeps the number of fault reports down - which they get measured against and rewarded for doing.
The only way this can ever, in my experience, get resolved is by having QA as an entirely different management structure: outside of software development, hardware, design, testing, production, <whatever> So a problem does NOT go through an individual's standard reporting structure but through an expedited route, up to vice-president / director level.
Managers hate it, as it removes from them control over their own staff. But it can work by anonymising reports and disassociating individuals from issues. But it needs a strong QA team to resist the pressure for witch hunts and from sales, who see it as a road-block to getting stuff to market quickly
I have to give them my name, home address ...
And since they have to ask for all that data, that tells you they know nothing about you and your online presence.
You're correct. Chickens live in coups, pigeons live in lofts
Roswell, anyone?
If these "cheerleaders" are so bad at their pitch, content, leadership and ideas why are the venture capitalists so eager to throw money at them? I realise it's a numbers game: that 999 will fail, 1 will succeed and 1 in 1000 of those successes will be the next Facebook. However all that the money people would need to do is get anyone with 6+ months of IT to review these startups' technical plans and they could probably cut their own failure rate to a quarter.
why we keep spending money interfering with civil wars 1/2 way around the world??
See, if you'd changed the question to "spending money with DEFENCE CONTRACTORS .... " the answer would have been right there in front of you.
Measuring consumer interest before you blow the money in the first place. That's why crowd funding is taking off.
But that process is equally flawed as it doesn't address the basic failing in the industry. Almost every film starts with what someone thinks is a good idea (and ideas, even good ones are ten-a-penny). The difference between a flop and a success isn't the idea, it's how well that idea is converted into a film. You only get an inkling of that when the film has been made and the edits done.
It makes no difference whether the film (idea) was backed by studio money or crowd-funded money. The possibility of turning a workable idea into a total failure is just as great.
But by the time these factors are measured, the film has already been made and most of the money spent on it. There's no point predicting THEN whether it will succeed or fail.
drive more safely in order to keep your insurance rates semi-reasonable
Interesting idea. Sky high insurance costs could be the biggest safety "feature" in new cars. Possibily a close second would be $100 / gallon petrol
Does this mean that the drivers will feel safer in them and therefore drive less carefully as a result?
The cars might be safer, but I bet it still hurts if one hits you
And at the same time, user surveys and in-game data revealed that we had a large userbase of people with lots of mid-level characters
Well, that's good. It sounds like you were giving the fans what they want. I.E. the mainstream, majority fans.
So following on from knowing that there is lots of in-game data collection and profiling the question becomes even more relvant: why bother hanging our on forums with a bunch of disaffected attention seekers, when you are getting reliable information about game play and users from more your own, objective, sources? It sounds like making a rod for your own back. <confused>
Alternatively, the most straightforward way to stop criticism from disaffected "fans" would be to give them what they want, rather than assuming that some designer somewhere knows better.
is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch
Or you could use the time constructively. Maybe consider some of your higher goals, what you *really* want to do, take the time to observe the world around you, maybe even dream a little. It's not necessary to fill every waking moment with entertainment.
Or you could even read a book
The BBC already has a commercial outfit that allows other countries to buy BBC content. In that respect the rest of the world is helping finance the UK viewers and getting some decent programmes into the bargain.
Because so many of them are completely lacking in any usable documentation. Mostly it's easier to rewrite a piece of code from scratch than it is to try and work out what existing stuff does, which version any documentation belongs to and whether the (few) comments in the code reflect its current status. And then you've got to try and work out how the hell the guy managed to build the shambolic mess and just how they got the Makefile to do the things they claimed.
Sure, when someone gets self-sustaining colonies, they will have a need for raw materials but that seems to be decades or hundreds of years away. By then the technology to move people and thngs around in space will have developed further (evidenced by the self-sustaining colonies they will have enabled), so using our tech, today, to do this is both inefficient and far too early.
I do not think that it is just that
No, it is just THAT in a nutshell. Any contact with government has the potential to really screw you - badly. There are so many rules, regulations and laws that it's impossible to know how many you break on any given day. It's impossible to know what seemingly innocuous actions, words or contacts you have will lead to being punished and it's generally impossible for the average citizen to defend themselves against the sort of absolute power that governments wield with impunity.
Doing business in good faith makes it plausible to have specialization and all of the associated benefits
Absolutely right. And if everyone who offered these services was honest, capable and fair then there would be no problem. However what *always* starts out as a small, local initiative to "help" starts to attract the hucksters, criminal element and incompetents just out for a buck.
So the guy who offers a Lyft - or some other local version for unofficial rides or car-shares ... when the operation is new he/she will probably be motivated as much by community spirit (and putting professional, licensed taxis out of business by undercutting them) as by any money that comes in. However that transforms into people who need the money and are less likely to have well maintained vehicles, possibly have a string of driving convictions and maybe a gun under the seat. How could you, as a customer, tell the good from the potentially bad? And would you let your teenage daughter take or give lifts with complete strangers?
Same with the strangers offering catering services. Will they be restaurant trained, or will they use the same cutting board for raw meat as for finger-snacks? If you ask for kosher, can you be *sure* that's what you'll get? Is that fish fresh, or have they been trying to offload it onto a customer for the last week?
In short, while trust is a good attribute, it's also invisible. You can't tell whether the trust you place in someone you don't know is being returned in care, safety and getting what you've asked for. Sadly when trust fails, regulation is the only alternative.
Maybe it'll encourage governments to develop saner tax rules
The tax rules are quite sane: you get income, you pay tax. Also most countries have rules & regs about letting out property that are designed to protect the renter. Such as requiring basic safety checks on appliances, making sure there are adequate escape routes in case of fire.
Trust is nice, and touchy-feely and new-world 'n' all. Though indemnity is better - but it costs.
All this talk implies that the sensors were installed in a vehicle with a pointy end pointing upwards. Isn't it entirely possible that the sensors were installed at some point well before the vehicle was commissioned and there was no "up" or "down" (only left or right) on the parts that the sensors get attached to. Maybe the sensors _were_ installed correctly, but the whole subassembly was the wrong way round?
Even the simplest of mechanical interlocks (such as a notch at one end that must be matched with a corresponding projection)
This only moves the problem, it doesn't fix it. There is now the possibility for the sensors to be installed correctly into mechanical interlocks that were themselves installed upside down
After you've done that the problem will have resolved itself to the point where most people just have a folder of "stuff".
If you still feel the urge to put printed copies in a fire-safe, take into account the type of ink you print your stuff with (you wouldn't want to come back in 5 years to discover all you have was faded sheets with no printing on them) and also just how long your safe remains fireproof for. It may not be as good as you'd hoped.