While programming competence often play a role and can sink an interview, social skills tend to play the dominant role in both getting an interview and getting hired. Interviewers will generally find ways to rationalize their choices, either highlighting or downplaying 'signs' they find in the person's work history or test results, but what really ends up mattering is the connection one makes and how good an impression one leaves.
Heh. This summary strikes me as an example of consumers applying their needs to other industries. Here we have a device that is built for a specific but niche use case. Some people are reacting with the idea that as average consumers it does not meet their needs very well therefor it is useless or inferior.
The department’s plan is to take the uranium made at Indian Point, now stored in 403 stainless steel tubes at a plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and bury the containers at a low-level waste dump that consists of trenches that are up to 40 feet deep at the Nevada National Security Site, where nuclear weapons were tested until 1992.
Workers will dig narrow “slit trenches” at the bottom of the standard ones, descending another 8 to 10 feet.
Actually, that has been the classic problem with Thorium reactors. Cooling them has proven to be more difficult then engineers anticipated and each research design has had problems. Hopefully some of the new ones being tried out over the next decade will finally come up with something that works, but the the problems can not simply be dismissed as 'oh, it was a problem with cooling' since that IS one of the problems that need to be sorted out.
From the context, it sounds like he is referring to some officals attempting to dump U233 into a landfill even though it is a bad idea. Looking into the issue it really does sound like they are treating it like a landfill, just dumping containers into dirt trenches and filling them over again.
I think it is less a solution looking for a problem, and more a solution to a dull problem with a sexy one getting more press. The chances of one's gun being used against them in an assault or home invasion is vanishingly low. However the chances of someone's gun getting into the hands of kids who play with it or a family member during a domestic dispute is pretty significant. Unfortunately talking about those issues tends to be marketing and political kryptonite and gets much less attention then the TV-worthy image of attackers and home defense.
The best I can find is stats on gun fatalities in homes not linked to self defense, and they are pretty high (over 10 times), but I do not see any stats out there regarding a gun owner being killed with their own gun while it is in the hands of someone else.
However, looks like there is stuff out there regarding accidents or suicide using someone else's gun, and gun locks have a rather mixed track record. So while it would be less dramatic, a better argument for smart guns might be 'stop your kids from shooting themselves'.
Now, a device that would really save lives would be something that could stop people who are drunk from firing....
Though to be fair, when looking at the actual income of most lawyers, that money gets pretty spread around. Handling such a suit requires a lot more then a few people sitting in an office writing stuff down. Research costs and expert witnesses, not to mention the mountain of data that needs to be looked at by hand, really ads up.
That is not to say lawyers (at least partners) do not make a pretty penny, but it is not nearly as profitable to the individual as people tend to think.
While it is debatable how good a mechanism it is, class action lawsuits are supposed to make it so people who could not afford a lawsuit can band together to take on companies with significant legal resources. Lawsuits are EXPENSIVE, esp when you are going against big companies. Such a fight is out of the range of most average people, the research costs along would bankrupt them.
Which kinda makes sense. If you are getting a theory heavy CS degree, IT work is probably not what the person has in mind. It is not that such curriculum do not include specialized things, but that they specialize in another direction.
Which is one of the reasons people get so worked up about things like missing planes, events like this are simple by comparison, even the most convoluted conspiracy theories require very little background in pretty much anything to grasp and they all have nice easy to blame forces behind them that do not point back to the speaker.
Hunger and poverty on the other hand are highly complex issues with no clear force behind them and contain many elements that loop right back to our own lives and priorities. So simple and comfortable vs complex and uncomfortable, one sells a lot better than the other.
One thing to note, Georesoance did NOT find a plane. Further investigation into the company (though skipped over by the media outlets that got suckered by them) showed them to be just another shell company run by people with a long history of pseudoscience scams. They buy up defunct exploration companies in order to reuse the name, bilk some small investors that are eager to buy into the idea that a small pluky company has magic technology that 'the establishment' does not believe in.. usually ending up much poorer for the experience.
So basicly the media got fooled by some high tech psychics who normally would have been dismissed completely but somehow got just enough attention to be taken seriously.
License fees are part of how they pay for doing research. It will probably get plowed into their investment portfolio and the interest on it will be used for equipment, facilities, staff, and student research.
"tool" is the key word. Within the type of research that uses it, they want a tool for getting their actual goals done. CompSci and such tend to see languages and such as points of focus unto themselves.
That is what tends to bother me about these 'wow, people are not using what we in another field are using!' type questions. FORTRAN does its job well, has libraries relevant to what people are using it for, and experience in it is common within that community. Why shouldn't they use it?
I am also confused as to how this is news . It can be a cool project, but as you point out, it is something that people have been doing for quite some time. It is a nice little tutorial, but bringing making a story out of it feels a bit like someone jumping onto slashdot and going 'hey! Did you people know there is porn on the internet! I found an article about it!'
In industrialized nations at least, our food supply is so wasteful that we are a long, long way from having to worry about 'a lot less food'. At worst what we will see is a decrease in luxury items like cheap beef which, while culturally important, can easily be scaled back in order to allow for more human consumable food.
Unlikely. While it makes for good science fiction, all we will likely see is a gradual increase in cost resulting in decrease of luxury, and as that happens other materials will become more economically viable. All that will really change is which industries the money flows into, the actual impact on the average person will be imperceptible.
Well, one rather typical example would be handling emails dealing with other people's private information. If Alice and Bob are married and Carol has something private she wants to talk to Alice about, Bob should not get automatic access to Carol's private issues.
It is about as ignorant as saying 'well, if I had a broken leg I would just keep walking!' It is easy to picture just walking away from an abusive relationship when one has never actually been in one.
While it is getting less attention, there is another element involved that your point touches on. Reusable rockets that return to the pad rather then fall over the ocean have been tried, the pattern NASA followed for the shuttle did not come out of thin air. Granted congressional corruption played a role, but the task of getting something to return like that is tricky and has its own problems. In the past it was either risky (one advantage of dropping things in the ocean, there are no houses there) or expensive (rockets are something like 98% fuel, any additional equipment reduces the payload and any fuel required for guidance becomes dead weight) and, well, 'risky' again (the stresses on rocket components are pretty significant, which means failures are going to be common, so quite a few returns are going to be hard landings).
So.. the single existing example of this being successfully implemented on a large scale and the lessons they learned from it are somehow worthless?
The shuttle was not the only attempt at reusable rocket stages, it is simply the only one that was implemented with even a little success on a production scale. Other attempts went much worse or were impractical to the point they were abandoned even harder.
Slashdot Mirror
While programming competence often play a role and can sink an interview, social skills tend to play the dominant role in both getting an interview and getting hired. Interviewers will generally find ways to rationalize their choices, either highlighting or downplaying 'signs' they find in the person's work history or test results, but what really ends up mattering is the connection one makes and how good an impression one leaves.
Heh. This summary strikes me as an example of consumers applying their needs to other industries. Here we have a device that is built for a specific but niche use case. Some people are reacting with the idea that as average consumers it does not meet their needs very well therefor it is useless or inferior.
The department’s plan is to take the uranium made at Indian Point, now stored in 403 stainless steel tubes at a plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., and bury the containers at a low-level waste dump that consists of trenches that are up to 40 feet deep at the Nevada National Security Site, where nuclear weapons were tested until 1992. Workers will dig narrow “slit trenches” at the bottom of the standard ones, descending another 8 to 10 feet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09... So yeah, looks like they actually are trying to do this again.
What we need is stronger booze. One shot and you are not walking for the evening.
Molten salt reactors also have had problems with corrosion and otherwise eating through their own coolant system, much quicker then 50 years.
Actually, that has been the classic problem with Thorium reactors. Cooling them has proven to be more difficult then engineers anticipated and each research design has had problems. Hopefully some of the new ones being tried out over the next decade will finally come up with something that works, but the the problems can not simply be dismissed as 'oh, it was a problem with cooling' since that IS one of the problems that need to be sorted out.
From the context, it sounds like he is referring to some officals attempting to dump U233 into a landfill even though it is a bad idea. Looking into the issue it really does sound like they are treating it like a landfill, just dumping containers into dirt trenches and filling them over again.
I think it is less a solution looking for a problem, and more a solution to a dull problem with a sexy one getting more press. The chances of one's gun being used against them in an assault or home invasion is vanishingly low. However the chances of someone's gun getting into the hands of kids who play with it or a family member during a domestic dispute is pretty significant. Unfortunately talking about those issues tends to be marketing and political kryptonite and gets much less attention then the TV-worthy image of attackers and home defense.
The best I can find is stats on gun fatalities in homes not linked to self defense, and they are pretty high (over 10 times), but I do not see any stats out there regarding a gun owner being killed with their own gun while it is in the hands of someone else.
However, looks like there is stuff out there regarding accidents or suicide using someone else's gun, and gun locks have a rather mixed track record. So while it would be less dramatic, a better argument for smart guns might be 'stop your kids from shooting themselves'.
Now, a device that would really save lives would be something that could stop people who are drunk from firing....
Though to be fair, when looking at the actual income of most lawyers, that money gets pretty spread around. Handling such a suit requires a lot more then a few people sitting in an office writing stuff down. Research costs and expert witnesses, not to mention the mountain of data that needs to be looked at by hand, really ads up.
That is not to say lawyers (at least partners) do not make a pretty penny, but it is not nearly as profitable to the individual as people tend to think.
While it is debatable how good a mechanism it is, class action lawsuits are supposed to make it so people who could not afford a lawsuit can band together to take on companies with significant legal resources. Lawsuits are EXPENSIVE, esp when you are going against big companies. Such a fight is out of the range of most average people, the research costs along would bankrupt them.
Which kinda makes sense. If you are getting a theory heavy CS degree, IT work is probably not what the person has in mind. It is not that such curriculum do not include specialized things, but that they specialize in another direction.
Which is one of the reasons people get so worked up about things like missing planes, events like this are simple by comparison, even the most convoluted conspiracy theories require very little background in pretty much anything to grasp and they all have nice easy to blame forces behind them that do not point back to the speaker.
Hunger and poverty on the other hand are highly complex issues with no clear force behind them and contain many elements that loop right back to our own lives and priorities. So simple and comfortable vs complex and uncomfortable, one sells a lot better than the other.
One thing to note, Georesoance did NOT find a plane. Further investigation into the company (though skipped over by the media outlets that got suckered by them) showed them to be just another shell company run by people with a long history of pseudoscience scams. They buy up defunct exploration companies in order to reuse the name, bilk some small investors that are eager to buy into the idea that a small pluky company has magic technology that 'the establishment' does not believe in.. usually ending up much poorer for the experience.
So basicly the media got fooled by some high tech psychics who normally would have been dismissed completely but somehow got just enough attention to be taken seriously.
License fees are part of how they pay for doing research. It will probably get plowed into their investment portfolio and the interest on it will be used for equipment, facilities, staff, and student research.
"tool" is the key word. Within the type of research that uses it, they want a tool for getting their actual goals done. CompSci and such tend to see languages and such as points of focus unto themselves.
That is what tends to bother me about these 'wow, people are not using what we in another field are using!' type questions. FORTRAN does its job well, has libraries relevant to what people are using it for, and experience in it is common within that community. Why shouldn't they use it?
I am also confused as to how this is news . It can be a cool project, but as you point out, it is something that people have been doing for quite some time. It is a nice little tutorial, but bringing making a story out of it feels a bit like someone jumping onto slashdot and going 'hey! Did you people know there is porn on the internet! I found an article about it!'
In industrialized nations at least, our food supply is so wasteful that we are a long, long way from having to worry about 'a lot less food'. At worst what we will see is a decrease in luxury items like cheap beef which, while culturally important, can easily be scaled back in order to allow for more human consumable food.
Unlikely. While it makes for good science fiction, all we will likely see is a gradual increase in cost resulting in decrease of luxury, and as that happens other materials will become more economically viable. All that will really change is which industries the money flows into, the actual impact on the average person will be imperceptible.
Well, one rather typical example would be handling emails dealing with other people's private information. If Alice and Bob are married and Carol has something private she wants to talk to Alice about, Bob should not get automatic access to Carol's private issues.
If I had mod points....
It is about as ignorant as saying 'well, if I had a broken leg I would just keep walking!' It is easy to picture just walking away from an abusive relationship when one has never actually been in one.
Something does not have to be as bad as the worst cases in order to still be bad, and psychological abuse can still be pretty bad.
While it is getting less attention, there is another element involved that your point touches on. Reusable rockets that return to the pad rather then fall over the ocean have been tried, the pattern NASA followed for the shuttle did not come out of thin air. Granted congressional corruption played a role, but the task of getting something to return like that is tricky and has its own problems. In the past it was either risky (one advantage of dropping things in the ocean, there are no houses there) or expensive (rockets are something like 98% fuel, any additional equipment reduces the payload and any fuel required for guidance becomes dead weight) and, well, 'risky' again (the stresses on rocket components are pretty significant, which means failures are going to be common, so quite a few returns are going to be hard landings).
So.. the single existing example of this being successfully implemented on a large scale and the lessons they learned from it are somehow worthless?
The shuttle was not the only attempt at reusable rocket stages, it is simply the only one that was implemented with even a little success on a production scale. Other attempts went much worse or were impractical to the point they were abandoned even harder.