Exactly. Ingrates. All we get where I work is a box or rocks, and I don't mean those smoothe river rocks, I'm talking those sharp crushed rocks. And we're not allowed to actually sleep n them, we can only look at them.
You actually get real rocks? Hell, we only get pictures of rocks. And pretty grainy ones at that. And they're in black and white. And sometimes they're so faded, you can't even make out what they're supposed to be...
In the US system you do lose some stability (you can't ever be sure that X will mean you get into Y) but I do think the flexibility is by far worth it.
This single sentence states exactly how the US has traditionally been different from the rest of the world and why it has fared better than the rest of the world.
It is this single thing, that we're happy to do things by the seat of our pants, which is a lot less predictable and a whole lot more flexible, that is the "right thing" in the quote "There's nothing wrong with the US that can't be fixed with what's right with the US". It is the reason why I chose to live in the US (I was not born here). It is the reason why many of us resist the attempt to lock-down the nation into strict documented processes, zero-tolerance and zero-deviation policies and overly-regulated policies.
If you have a high SAT/ACT score and are lazy you'll probably flunk out too.
No, you probably won't Because SAT scores correlate highly with the probability that someone will remain at a college through their degree. That's pretty much the only thing it correlates highly with. It certainly doesn't correlate with any one measurable ability, post-college salaries, or probability of any measurable kind of achievement.
Why do you people imagine do colleges rely on the SAT score? What do you fantasize is the reason? Probably something utterly idiotic like "college admission offices do not understand intellectual ability" or some such other fantasy designed to make you feel superior.
The reality is that college admissions is a business run by people who know and understand that business. And students bring in the most money on the least expenditure if they stay through the whole four years and leave with a degree. Because that makes the college look attractive from the outside while maximizing the tuition collected, the state grants received etc etc. And SAT scores have been shown to correlate with this probability that people stay through their degree.
IQ has not been shown to correlate with this and thus IQ is not used in college admissions. That's all there is to it.
From an investment viewpoint, what better barometer is there than your post-college salary?
Only if you are mentally retarded. If you are a fully functional human, you may want one or two other things out of life than a salary. Like, say, reasonable work-hours. Flexible work hours. Decent vacation time. A functional health plan. The ability to take a couple months off if you have a child. The ability to advance past the straight-out-of-college salary level.
Yes, many 20-year olds make the decision that you do -- go where the money is. And then I can see them all over the web whining about their dead-end jobs, either working themselves to death or being bored out of their skull for crazy hours, no respect, and with no real chances of getting out of there.
And then there are those who go into whatever direction piques their interest. And they end up ten, twenty, thirty years later in positions that pay much better (because they're better qualified, because they're happy to spend extra time on things that they'd be happy to do for free if they didn't get paid, etc). They end up being the people with the happy lives.
Happiness is working hard, for long hours, on something you think is worth doing. If you don't think it is worth doing, it will only make you miserable -- and the extra $10k right out of college won't buy that happiness either.
If you are twenty and your decision tomorrow is going to affect how you spend the entire rest of you life, you might just want to widen your horizon a little wider then just going for immediate dollars.
Virgin Galactic are expecting to be doing regular sub-orbital flights within a year or two, soon after that, they or someone else will start of orbital flights. That could be done in 5-10 years, quite easily.
The only thing you're saying here is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Orbital insertion is orders of magnitude harder than these little toy shots the Burt Rutans of the world have been lobbing up. Which is why no person or private entity on the planet is even talking of putting people into LEO.
Supposedly, the limits on corrective surgery for pilots related to concerns about the structural integrity of the lens during high g maneuvers.
Not just high-g maneuvers, but rapid pressure changes. I scuba-dive and thus my eyes get to see all kinds of outside pressures and the changes in that pressure aren't always as gentle as they ought to be -- and I wouldn't dream of introducing an artificial weakness in the structural integrity of the eyeball. Now I've flown up to 18kft in unpressurized craft (yes, you'll need oxygen; no, you don't need a pressure suit), and here we're talking about an outside underpressure. Can you imagine what'd happen if one of these artificial break-lines ruptured? Not something I'd like to try...
[..]
Some good advice I've heard for prospective astronauts is to go work for Burt Rutan or Richard Branson, and give NASA a pass.
And what exactly is making this "good advice"? NASA has actually sent people into low earth orbit. Something like 400 of them, at my last count. Neither Rutan nor Branson have ever done this, have ever even tried or have any kind of realistic plans in place of ever trying. Ever.
And no, "I have a lot of money thus I'll just go and do it" does not count as some kind of "plan".
Oh, and NASA has actually sent people beyond low earth orbit. And has realistic plans of doing it again. Which nobody else on the planet has done, and no private entity on the planet is even talking about ever trying even under the best possible future circumstances.
[...] It _is_ possible to isolate something to the point where it can't do any harm at all, and can't touch anything except itself.
According to the church, touching yourself is already "doing harm".
Kudos to Sun for trying that, but it's a workaround essentially. It shouldn't have been the JVM which does that, it should have been the OS and browser.
At the time, at least, the idea was that the OS was going to BE Java. Solaris 10 anybody?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".
Yes, this is article 19. It is here pitted against article 12 which states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.".
In case this wasn't entirely clear: AMD is entirely within their rights to simply close their R&D labs in order to secure this privacy. If and when they invite folks in anyways, then it is most certainly within their rights to ask that their trade secrets not be blabbed.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
If any company has to go through lengths like this is bad. Usually a sign they don't want anyone to know they are gonna tank.
So you imagine that a reporter who gets a rare sneak-peek into an Intel R&D lab can write whatever e wants without signing an NDA? I think you're ignorant of both, high-tech AND journalism.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Who gives a shit.
The journalist did and frankly, so do I. Sure, AMD can refuse to show the journalist anything at all but that is still better than reading an article from a seemingly independent journalist who was effectively made a puppet of AMD through an overreaching NDA. An NDA can be okay but this one is excessive since it compromises the journalist's independence.
What? What on earth keeps that "journalist" from starting the article with the words "I signed an NDA, so take what I write with a grain of salt" or whatever?
And NDAs simply say that you can't reveal company secrets. Heck, I had to sign NDAs for job interviews, because I had to know deep IP to even evaluate whether I wanted to work somewhere. Methinks this is an extremely green boy directly out of journalism school who's simply never been inside a tech company. You think Intel (or Maxim or Samsung or whatever chipmaker) will just let you publish stories with details of their secret processes?
If I was AMD, I'd say "sure, you journalists can have a look around, but I'd like to see what you print beforehand simply to make sure you don't inadvertently publish something that is actually not supposed to be public knowledge". That clueless "Thai journalist" wouldn't know tech processes, so he wouldn't know what part of what he's seeing is common knowledge and what part is the secret economic engine behind AMDs success.
So where's the "scandal" here? What part of "large company doesn't want its trade secrets publicly revealed" is somehow immoral or illegal or unethical or whatever? The alternative is for AMD to close its doors entirely, and then folks would be howling about "evil secrecy".
The main problem though is closed source. If source is closed, then there is no easy way to find malicious code before it is deployed on your system. Ok, I'm speaking as a programmer, so that would be useful for me, not a non coder. Still, the point remains, binary distribution only means trouble, be it storm, a sony rootkit, or just 'phone home' code in a program.
Not really. In a binary I can at least in principle parse rudimentarily for things like "does this ever call the TCP/IP stack" and raise a flag ("why should tetris initiate outbound connections?"). In source, it is pretty darn easy to obfuscate intent ("// open port for game engine here" or such). I doubt that either is really more secure. Nice that I can get the source for OOo, but am I going to actually read the whole thing and then compile it myself (after compiling my own compiler, of course)? Or am I going to download the binary?
What we need is something sort of like gentoo, where all programs are compiled locally, and the code can be inspected for malicious intent. Alas such technology, while it does exist, does not exist in a form that could be disseminated and used by people with no technological background
Sure it does: It's called "just-in-time" compilation. Usually used by languages like TCL or Java that compile to bytecode which is then run on a VM. In principle that allows you to inspect code (unless that code is now jar'ed up or such). And unless we are curious how something was programmed, you and I both will just run it without ever looking at the code....
In short in this case, we cannot know whether the photon *really* took both paths and later collapsed that into a choice, or chose one in when it reached the crystal
Yes, we can know that. You can read about it in the frickin popsci literature. google "double-slit experiment".
You are orders of magnitude too ignorant to grasp the trivial basics of the most simple underlying principles of QM but you presume to lecture others on what they can or cannot know. And in the process you find it acceptable to insult everybody who's taken the time to actually study the field such as to gain a measure of insight into what is or isn't knowable.
If NASA believes that these sorts of background checks really work, they've been breathing too much vacuum.
If you believe that this is about NASA or a NASA policy, you might want to consider RTFA. This is about Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 involving everybody who works at any federal facility. NASA has no authorship in this, no control over it, no initiative in it.
Mike Griffin is just a spineless pig when he publicly defends the whole nonsense. He's trying to look as if he's somehow supporting hspd12 because if he seemed to oppose it, it would show how powerless he really is. When the president says to all arms of the executive branch "jump" then they all jump or they get replaced with someone else. There's no authority anywhere in NASA to oppose this. Griffin COULD just say "sorry, that's what the president wants and I can't do much about that" but that would be honest. Which is not what you expect from a political appointee (you didn't imagine that the NASA administrator post was somehow open based on merit, did you?).
This is a new blanket policy on ALL NASA employees.
JPL employees are not NASA employees. They are employees of Caltech. Their contract says Caltech. Their paycheck says Caltech. Their 401k is TIAA-CREF, not some nice fat federal pension plan. If they invent something, Caltech has the right to the patent. They have none of the nice benefits of federal employment.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a lie.
You, "ConceptJunkie", are a liar.
Exactly. Ingrates. All we get where I work is a box or rocks, and I don't mean those smoothe river rocks, I'm talking those sharp crushed rocks. And we're not allowed to actually sleep n them, we can only look at them.
You actually get real rocks? Hell, we only get pictures of rocks. And pretty grainy ones at that. And they're in black and white. And sometimes they're so faded, you can't even make out what they're supposed to be...
...not to mention that it is false. The GRE can still get you into Mensa, the SAT hasn't been able to do that in something like 15 years...
This single sentence states exactly how the US has traditionally been different from the rest of the world and why it has fared better than the rest of the world.
It is this single thing, that we're happy to do things by the seat of our pants, which is a lot less predictable and a whole lot more flexible, that is the "right thing" in the quote "There's nothing wrong with the US that can't be fixed with what's right with the US". It is the reason why I chose to live in the US (I was not born here). It is the reason why many of us resist the attempt to lock-down the nation into strict documented processes, zero-tolerance and zero-deviation policies and overly-regulated policies.
No, you probably won't Because SAT scores correlate highly with the probability that someone will remain at a college through their degree. That's pretty much the only thing it correlates highly with. It certainly doesn't correlate with any one measurable ability, post-college salaries, or probability of any measurable kind of achievement.
Why do you people imagine do colleges rely on the SAT score? What do you fantasize is the reason? Probably something utterly idiotic like "college admission offices do not understand intellectual ability" or some such other fantasy designed to make you feel superior.
The reality is that college admissions is a business run by people who know and understand that business. And students bring in the most money on the least expenditure if they stay through the whole four years and leave with a degree. Because that makes the college look attractive from the outside while maximizing the tuition collected, the state grants received etc etc. And SAT scores have been shown to correlate with this probability that people stay through their degree.
IQ has not been shown to correlate with this and thus IQ is not used in college admissions. That's all there is to it.
But the point is, to any reasonable, thinking person with two neurons to rub together, what she had could not be "taken for a bomb".
And since when is security personnel recruited from the pool of "reasonable, thinking persons with two neurons to rub together"?
Only if you are mentally retarded. If you are a fully functional human, you may want one or two other things out of life than a salary. Like, say, reasonable work-hours. Flexible work hours. Decent vacation time. A functional health plan. The ability to take a couple months off if you have a child. The ability to advance past the straight-out-of-college salary level.
Yes, many 20-year olds make the decision that you do -- go where the money is. And then I can see them all over the web whining about their dead-end jobs, either working themselves to death or being bored out of their skull for crazy hours, no respect, and with no real chances of getting out of there.
And then there are those who go into whatever direction piques their interest. And they end up ten, twenty, thirty years later in positions that pay much better (because they're better qualified, because they're happy to spend extra time on things that they'd be happy to do for free if they didn't get paid, etc). They end up being the people with the happy lives.
Happiness is working hard, for long hours, on something you think is worth doing. If you don't think it is worth doing, it will only make you miserable -- and the extra $10k right out of college won't buy that happiness either.
If you are twenty and your decision tomorrow is going to affect how you spend the entire rest of you life, you might just want to widen your horizon a little wider then just going for immediate dollars.
First we let the Chinese go there. They'll be bringing a lot of paint and they'll be painting the whole thing red.
When they're finished, we'll land some guys with a couple buckets of white paint. They'll write on the red moon "Coca Cola".
The budget request for FY 2008 (which starts in two weeks) was for a little over $M703 - about 23.5 times the Google prize.
The only thing you're saying here is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Orbital insertion is orders of magnitude harder than these little toy shots the Burt Rutans of the world have been lobbing up. Which is why no person or private entity on the planet is even talking of putting people into LEO.
Not just high-g maneuvers, but rapid pressure changes. I scuba-dive and thus my eyes get to see all kinds of outside pressures and the changes in that pressure aren't always as gentle as they ought to be -- and I wouldn't dream of introducing an artificial weakness in the structural integrity of the eyeball. Now I've flown up to 18kft in unpressurized craft (yes, you'll need oxygen; no, you don't need a pressure suit), and here we're talking about an outside underpressure. Can you imagine what'd happen if one of these artificial break-lines ruptured? Not something I'd like to try...
And what exactly is making this "good advice"? NASA has actually sent people into low earth orbit. Something like 400 of them, at my last count. Neither Rutan nor Branson have ever done this, have ever even tried or have any kind of realistic plans in place of ever trying. Ever.
And no, "I have a lot of money thus I'll just go and do it" does not count as some kind of "plan".
Oh, and NASA has actually sent people beyond low earth orbit. And has realistic plans of doing it again. Which nobody else on the planet has done, and no private entity on the planet is even talking about ever trying even under the best possible future circumstances.
According to the church, touching yourself is already "doing harm".
Kudos to Sun for trying that, but it's a workaround essentially. It shouldn't have been the JVM which does that, it should have been the OS and browser.At the time, at least, the idea was that the OS was going to BE Java. Solaris 10 anybody?
SWF file B is a popup bomb. Not whitelisted.
... and then there is SWF the internet personals ad ...
it's a chip. likely a single transistor
Help me out here - what part of "differential amplifier" in the summary is ambiguous?
Not to be confused with the Union for Islamic Jihad. Or the Islamic Union for Jihad.
Completely different organizations.
Yes, this is article 19. It is here pitted against article 12 which states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.".
In case this wasn't entirely clear: AMD is entirely within their rights to simply close their R&D labs in order to secure this privacy. If and when they invite folks in anyways, then it is most certainly within their rights to ask that their trade secrets not be blabbed.
So you imagine that a reporter who gets a rare sneak-peek into an Intel R&D lab can write whatever e wants without signing an NDA? I think you're ignorant of both, high-tech AND journalism.
The journalist did and frankly, so do I. Sure, AMD can refuse to show the journalist anything at all but that is still better than reading an article from a seemingly independent journalist who was effectively made a puppet of AMD through an overreaching NDA. An NDA can be okay but this one is excessive since it compromises the journalist's independence.
What? What on earth keeps that "journalist" from starting the article with the words "I signed an NDA, so take what I write with a grain of salt" or whatever?
And NDAs simply say that you can't reveal company secrets. Heck, I had to sign NDAs for job interviews, because I had to know deep IP to even evaluate whether I wanted to work somewhere. Methinks this is an extremely green boy directly out of journalism school who's simply never been inside a tech company. You think Intel (or Maxim or Samsung or whatever chipmaker) will just let you publish stories with details of their secret processes?
If I was AMD, I'd say "sure, you journalists can have a look around, but I'd like to see what you print beforehand simply to make sure you don't inadvertently publish something that is actually not supposed to be public knowledge". That clueless "Thai journalist" wouldn't know tech processes, so he wouldn't know what part of what he's seeing is common knowledge and what part is the secret economic engine behind AMDs success.
So where's the "scandal" here? What part of "large company doesn't want its trade secrets publicly revealed" is somehow immoral or illegal or unethical or whatever? The alternative is for AMD to close its doors entirely, and then folks would be howling about "evil secrecy".
The main problem though is closed source. If source is closed, then there is no easy way to find malicious code before it is deployed on your system. Ok, I'm speaking as a programmer, so that would be useful for me, not a non coder. Still, the point remains, binary distribution only means trouble, be it storm, a sony rootkit, or just 'phone home' code in a program.
Not really. In a binary I can at least in principle parse rudimentarily for things like "does this ever call the TCP/IP stack" and raise a flag ("why should tetris initiate outbound connections?"). In source, it is pretty darn easy to obfuscate intent ("// open port for game engine here" or such). I doubt that either is really more secure. Nice that I can get the source for OOo, but am I going to actually read the whole thing and then compile it myself (after compiling my own compiler, of course)? Or am I going to download the binary?
What we need is something sort of like gentoo, where all programs are compiled locally, and the code can be inspected for malicious intent. Alas such technology, while it does exist, does not exist in a form that could be disseminated and used by people with no technological background
Sure it does: It's called "just-in-time" compilation. Usually used by languages like TCL or Java that compile to bytecode which is then run on a VM. In principle that allows you to inspect code (unless that code is now jar'ed up or such). And unless we are curious how something was programmed, you and I both will just run it without ever looking at the code....
In short in this case, we cannot know whether the photon *really* took both paths and later collapsed that into a choice, or chose one in when it reached the crystal
Yes, we can know that. You can read about it in the frickin popsci literature. google "double-slit experiment".
You are orders of magnitude too ignorant to grasp the trivial basics of the most simple underlying principles of QM but you presume to lecture others on what they can or cannot know. And in the process you find it acceptable to insult everybody who's taken the time to actually study the field such as to gain a measure of insight into what is or isn't knowable.
I wonder whether there's be any kind of publicity if the group was called "fuck communism"...
According to this list you need a Rmax of a little over 4000Gflop to make it into the top 500 supercomputers these days...
If you believe that this is about NASA or a NASA policy, you might want to consider RTFA. This is about Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 involving everybody who works at any federal facility. NASA has no authorship in this, no control over it, no initiative in it.
Mike Griffin is just a spineless pig when he publicly defends the whole nonsense. He's trying to look as if he's somehow supporting hspd12 because if he seemed to oppose it, it would show how powerless he really is. When the president says to all arms of the executive branch "jump" then they all jump or they get replaced with someone else. There's no authority anywhere in NASA to oppose this. Griffin COULD just say "sorry, that's what the president wants and I can't do much about that" but that would be honest. Which is not what you expect from a political appointee (you didn't imagine that the NASA administrator post was somehow open based on merit, did you?).
JPL employees are not NASA employees. They are employees of Caltech. Their contract says Caltech. Their paycheck says Caltech. Their 401k is TIAA-CREF, not some nice fat federal pension plan. If they invent something, Caltech has the right to the patent. They have none of the nice benefits of federal employment.
Why should they submit to the scrutiny of HSPD12?