It just so happens, I have a tiny bit of insight on this after sitting through a presentation by one of our Doctors which could have been titled "Why your department sucks because IT costs sunk my grant application".
Back in 1992, a proctologist stared through a scope and any video they did capture was crap by todays standards. Today, they are talking about very high resolution video, and a good sized department does a lot of these. Their data storage requirements just for these are huge (big enough to have sunk this Doctors grant application when the review said that it accounted for almost half of the proposed spending...about 40% if my memory serves)
Not to mention all of the other costs associated with maintaining an ongoing medical operation... training and retraining staff, equipment maintenance, data storage meeting DR and medical privacy requirements.
Outdated data is a problem but, its not really just about doctors pay or the amount of time it takes. Also, while the procedure time is shortened, it often involves heavy sedation, which means patients being given some time in a recovery bed to sleep it off for a little while (not long, but, it still uses up resources).
While I agree perl can be written readable, and I do try to do that whenever I am writting perl... it also has so much syntactic sugar and idiom that writing obfuscated perl is a bit too easy.
I used to give people a perl code test that included the line:
"split//;"
Where else can you operate on one variable, save your result in another, and specify neither? Never mind functions that operate differently depending on whether or not they are called in scalar context.
Why is that? If the crew were under orders to stay on a course, and this test was able to cause the crew to change course while attempting to stay on their intended course, and even to believe they were following that course.... then I would say they were redirected. Consensually redirected but, its clear, they were not in control.
> Anyway, don't judge people by what you can immediately see. You don't know their story.
No shit. We used to get a good laugh back when I worked at the university: We had a "beer" list for the network group and unix admins. On occasional Fridays we would use it to coordinate a lunch down at the bar.
On those afternoons, we used to joke about how a single unsuspecting car plowing into a rag tag band of people in leather jackets, long hair, and scraggly beards could easily take out everyone with any knowledge of root passwords or router configs.
> and it says something about someone who wants to spend that much money on adorning > themselves instead of making a house downpayment, investing, or saving for their kids' college > tuition.
So any "large" amount of money (what is large anyway? The amount it would cost to be covered head to toe in tatoos looks like a lot less compared to my salary now than it did, say, 10 years ago) that isn't spent on making a house downpayment or investing, or saving for their kids' college (assuming they have/want kids) is a waste?
Have you never spent a dime on anything you didn't need? Are your walls all stark white with nothing hung on them?
Pretty much anything someone would like to do, you can put up against something you feel is more important. Why do people go on vacations and travel the world when they could be putting that money towards a house or kids college?
Well, I might argue that point.... some people do indeed seek out content that offends them. In fact, at a previous company the warehouse guy had jack shit to do with the majority of his time, so he spent a lot of time looking at porn online (back before companies had filters and logging).
After a while, he got bored with even that and started looking for more and more weird and offensive stuff.... as he went getting desensitized to the point that it became a game for him to try and even find anything that offended him any more.
Please. Flatworms are great but plants.... plants are the champions here. Cut them off at the base, and they regrow from their roots. Cut off a branch and keep it from drying out, and it will regrow roots. Cut off leaves, it grows more, cut branches, it grows more.
Cut a flatworm up, you get more of the same. Cut a plant, and it will not just regrow....it will actually grow more limbs than you cut off. Wake me up when you cut a lizards tail off and he grows 6 more tails in response.
Yes and I am well aware of why the courts will not rule this way at all. Simple fact is, 250+ years has been more than enough time to find technical trick after technical trick to violate the spirit of the constitution without actually violating it. The entire foundation of this government has been entirely subverted and has long since ceased to sit upon any legitimate foundation, as it has already undermined that foundation.
Ammendment IV of the constitution: "Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions."
Blanket storage of metadata easily falls under this by any honest interpretation of its meaning. Therefore cannot be authorized by anything, not even an act of congress. These people have betrayed us, along with everyone who follows their illegal commands.
I do, but, I never believed in that sort of buck passing. When someone authorizes it, that doesn't make him responsible and the minion carrying it out not responsible, it makes them BOTH responsible.
Not just diffraction but, think of the wifi signal from my router hitting my wall. Sure, the plaster reflects some I am sure, but, most passes right through the thin plaster and horse hair, some of it hits the wooden slats, some moves on into free space, some hits nails that hold the slats on, some hits wires behind the wall, or even metal conduit that carries the wires (though we ripped out most of the old BX)
I would expect to see the antena lit up like a light bulb, and around it, dark impressions of walls, with reflections from some of the building materials/metal fixtures etc, and some slightly darker shadows where there are thick studs which are either blocking signal from other stations or reflections from behind them on this one.
Allowing them to close completely could result in the instantaneous formation of a critical mass and a lethal power excursion. Under Slotin's unapproved protocol, the only thing preventing this was the blade of a standard flathead screwdriver, manipulated by the scientist's other hand.
My jaw is on the floor. If I believed in reincarnation, I would be looking to find his soul having cropped up somewhere in appalchia where he is now chain smoking cigarrets while distilling moonshine and cooking up meth, all in a small room with no ventilation.
10% is still a rather large section of the population. In todays terms, inside the US, you are talking about around 30 million people, which is nothing to sneeze at. In fact, i would happily stand by a statement that anything that even 1 person in 10 does is pretty damned normal.
> And if you actually look at homicides, you get 3.6 versis 0.04 which is more like 90 times. And if > you look at total, you get 10.4 versus 0.25 which is 40x.
Your right about me picking the wrong numbers, that was unintentional (whoops) I still don't find them compelling because this is again, 40x almost nothing.
Actual homicide rate, regardless of guns, is 4.8 in the US, vs 1.4 in the UK, a difference of only ~2.5 times....but with a 1/40th the gun homicide rate? Fuck, I would generally rather be shot than be stabbed up or bludgeoned, or whatnot.
Actually melange was produced by the living sandworms, the water of life was the result of killing them with water, which was given to the reverand mother whose body changed it from a poison to a potent orgy inducing hallucinogen.
Anyway, point taken but, we were specifically talking about the stillsuits and feasibility of them as described.
I love how they even bother to include suicides, anything to pump up the numbers I guess.
Still 3.6 in 100k vs.25 in 100k..... well thats around 14 times higher.... higher than....almost nothing. In 100k, thats not a big difference, almost, not a difference worth talking about. Especially since comparing the US and UK is a total apples vs oranges comparison.
You can't compare some little island nation with national healthcare, working social infrastructure, and no concept of individual liberty (don't even have free speech rights there), with a huge federation of states spanning 3,000 miles of land mass. We have gangs, we have crumbling social infrastructure with a massive poor underclass, and a notiong of individual liberty, including the right to bear arms.
And still.... the most significant cause of death is heart disease.
Porn censor sounds about as useful as telephone sanitizer, which gives me an idea.... we need to buid a few big space ships, but, we will only need fuel for one....
A little background on this issue might be helpful. For a long time, certain politicians and newspapers have been campaigning for default-on filters. They would like to see harmful and offensive - if legal - material blocked by the internet service providers unless customers choose to have the filters switched off.
It would be more correct to say "They would like to see content which they see as harmful and offensive". To say that they just want to "Ban harmful and offensive content" conceedes to them that this content is harmful and offiensive, as if there is some sort of universally agreed upon standard by which this can be measured and determined, when the fact is, its entirely subjective.
Are people trying to get flouride removed from water trying to get something they believe is harmful removed from water? Yes, thats true. However, it is not correct to say they are actually trying to get something harmful removed; that statement would be untrue.
The thing is, its important not to use the characterization of the point of view you are arguing against. Its like, if you are against a bill thats being called "Tax Reform" you can't argue against it and call it "Tax Reform", you are already losing the battle by implicitly ceeding a point that you don't agree with - that it's reform.
I think you vastly underestimate people's capacity for doublethink and other forms of self deception.
A person can break the law every day but, the law he breaks isn't so bad, he never gets caught because its not one of the really important ones. The other people, the ones who get caught? They were usually doing other things too, or being reckless.
Doesn't matter if we are talking about speeding, pot smoking, or turning back the clock a bit and going with Sodomy laws. Have you ever thought about the implications of having found out that double digit percentages of the population engaged secretly in acts that social norms and laws considered perverse and illegal? Because that is exactly what Kinsey's data revealed.
I mean, now we look back and its little surprize so many people engaged in oral sex, or that such a high percentage of men had a homosexual experience at some point in their life.
> No need for a tin-foil hat, though, when you can explain the behavior to a simple and straightforward > "we don't give a fuck about the security of your data" attitude.
You are not wrong, but you are missing the point of the previous comment. The point was that unencrypted wifi passwords on PCs is not the same issue - because google doesn't generally have access to the unencrypted password on your PC. In fact its pretty unavoidable without going to smart cards.
The android phone, on the other hand, is actually sending it to them in plaintext, which means they do, in fact, have it. The problem isn't the local device storage, its the remote storage.
> (b) you can only build up so much heat before convection keeps the temperature stable (not sure if > that's enough to survive though).
Ever seen a dog pant in the heat? They do that because they don't sweat. The bigger the animal, the more of a problem that is (less surface area per unit volume). A small human is about the size of a mid sized dog.
It's basically a micro-sandwich â" a high-efficiency filter and heat-exchange system. The skin-contact layer's porous. Perspiration passes through it, having cooled the body... near-normal evaporation process. The next two layers . . . include heat exchange filaments and salt precipitators. Salt's reclaimed. Motions of the body, especially breathing and some osmotic action provide the pumping force. Reclaimed water circulates to catchpockets from which you draw it through this tube in the clip at your neck... Urine and feces are processed in the thigh pads
so at least it mentions heat exchangers and other sources of water loss. I still smell BS on the idea that this can all be accomplished with pumps that actuate from walking, but more so that "near normal evaporation" and "heat exchangers" can work this way, unless the entire outer layer is a huge metalic heat sink...with fins? Maybe some sort of nano-material with a huge surface area? Seems like a major problem.
Ok 2, I wasn't too far off, now that I have skimmed the article, 2 thoughts:
1. This doesn't get us any closet to stillsuits. Therefore, since they got my hopes up, and I am now dissapointed, I am firmly against this sillieness. Don't they realize what harm they are causing by getting people's hopes up?
2. I couldn't help but think that the picture of the sweaty girl in a tank top didn't actually add anything to the story except a little eye candy. I mean, maybe the author/editor/layout person is a friend of the photographer is and this was a lame way to get some royalties? I mean maybe if she was one of the designers or involved with the project, or doing something related to it, it would make some sense, but, it is credited as a stock photo? Maybe I am expecting too much from a site that has "Art" and "Fashion" as top of the page topic headings?
3. Since this doesn't get us any closer to stillsuits, and isn't revolutionary technology, lets harp on the stock photo some more. Is it just me, or does the girl in the stock photo not look terribly genuine in her expression? I get more "I am bored posing in front of a camera" than "I am sweaty from that run, let me wipe my brow off", or even "Its getting hot in here, I wanna wipe this sweat off". Not blaming her, photographers take lots of pictures, especially with digital cameras, so why such a bland one? Just having an attractive subject doesn't make a good photo; could they really find nothing better? Not even within that same shoot? I mean, maybe if this were an article about deoderant?
4. Wait, why does this device need a fire extinguisher strapped to the side? Surely that is overkill, the entire thing is stainless steel, and likely any structure it gets operated in has adequet fire protection, if is even made of flamable materials.
Slashdot Mirror
(Dusts off Healthcare industry sysadmin cap)
It just so happens, I have a tiny bit of insight on this after sitting through a presentation by one of our Doctors which could have been titled "Why your department sucks because IT costs sunk my grant application".
Back in 1992, a proctologist stared through a scope and any video they did capture was crap by todays standards. Today, they are talking about very high resolution video, and a good sized department does a lot of these. Their data storage requirements just for these are huge (big enough to have sunk this Doctors grant application when the review said that it accounted for almost half of the proposed spending...about 40% if my memory serves)
Not to mention all of the other costs associated with maintaining an ongoing medical operation... training and retraining staff, equipment maintenance, data storage meeting DR and medical privacy requirements.
Outdated data is a problem but, its not really just about doctors pay or the amount of time it takes. Also, while the procedure time is shortened, it often involves heavy sedation, which means patients being given some time in a recovery bed to sleep it off for a little while (not long, but, it still uses up resources).
While I agree perl can be written readable, and I do try to do that whenever I am writting perl... it also has so much syntactic sugar and idiom that writing obfuscated perl is a bit too easy.
I used to give people a perl code test that included the line:
"split //;"
Where else can you operate on one variable, save your result in another, and specify neither? Never mind functions that operate differently depending on whether or not they are called in scalar context.
Why is that? If the crew were under orders to stay on a course, and this test was able to cause the crew to change course while attempting to stay on their intended course, and even to believe they were following that course.... then I would say they were redirected. Consensually redirected but, its clear, they were not in control.
> Anyway, don't judge people by what you can immediately see. You don't know their story.
No shit. We used to get a good laugh back when I worked at the university: We had a "beer" list for the network group and unix admins. On occasional Fridays we would use it to coordinate a lunch down at the bar.
On those afternoons, we used to joke about how a single unsuspecting car plowing into a rag tag band of people in leather jackets, long hair, and scraggly beards could easily take out everyone with any knowledge of root passwords or router configs.
> and it says something about someone who wants to spend that much money on adorning
> themselves instead of making a house downpayment, investing, or saving for their kids' college
> tuition.
So any "large" amount of money (what is large anyway? The amount it would cost to be covered head to toe in tatoos looks like a lot less compared to my salary now than it did, say, 10 years ago) that isn't spent on making a house downpayment or investing, or saving for their kids' college (assuming they have/want kids) is a waste?
Have you never spent a dime on anything you didn't need? Are your walls all stark white with nothing hung on them?
Pretty much anything someone would like to do, you can put up against something you feel is more important. Why do people go on vacations and travel the world when they could be putting that money towards a house or kids college?
Well, I might argue that point.... some people do indeed seek out content that offends them. In fact, at a previous company the warehouse guy had jack shit to do with the majority of his time, so he spent a lot of time looking at porn online (back before companies had filters and logging).
After a while, he got bored with even that and started looking for more and more weird and offensive stuff.... as he went getting desensitized to the point that it became a game for him to try and even find anything that offended him any more.
Please. Flatworms are great but plants.... plants are the champions here. Cut them off at the base, and they regrow from their roots. Cut off a branch and keep it from drying out, and it will regrow roots. Cut off leaves, it grows more, cut branches, it grows more.
Cut a flatworm up, you get more of the same. Cut a plant, and it will not just regrow....it will actually grow more limbs than you cut off. Wake me up when you cut a lizards tail off and he grows 6 more tails in response.
Yes and I am well aware of why the courts will not rule this way at all. Simple fact is, 250+ years has been more than enough time to find technical trick after technical trick to violate the spirit of the constitution without actually violating it. The entire foundation of this government has been entirely subverted and has long since ceased to sit upon any legitimate foundation, as it has already undermined that foundation.
Ammendment IV of the constitution:
"Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions."
Blanket storage of metadata easily falls under this by any honest interpretation of its meaning. Therefore cannot be authorized by anything, not even an act of congress. These people have betrayed us, along with everyone who follows their illegal commands.
I do, but, I never believed in that sort of buck passing. When someone authorizes it, that doesn't make him responsible and the minion carrying it out not responsible, it makes them BOTH responsible.
> Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.
No, in school we used to have lessons that covered this, it wasn't called hypertext, it was called "Reading Comprehension".
Clearly on the Internet Reading Comprehension scale her level is at "My Homepage is Yahoo".
A traitor to whom? The only people he betrayed are the ones who betrayed the people by spying on them. He did nothing but expose traitors.
Not just diffraction but, think of the wifi signal from my router hitting my wall. Sure, the plaster reflects some I am sure, but, most passes right through the thin plaster and horse hair, some of it hits the wooden slats, some moves on into free space, some hits nails that hold the slats on, some hits wires behind the wall, or even metal conduit that carries the wires (though we ripped out most of the old BX)
I would expect to see the antena lit up like a light bulb, and around it, dark impressions of walls, with reflections from some of the building materials/metal fixtures etc, and some slightly darker shadows where there are thick studs which are either blocking signal from other stations or reflections from behind them on this one.
Holy shit. Talk about "When men were men"
My jaw is on the floor. If I believed in reincarnation, I would be looking to find his soul having cropped up somewhere in appalchia where he is now chain smoking cigarrets while distilling moonshine and cooking up meth, all in a small room with no ventilation.
Degeneracy? Whatever you wanna call it I guess.
10% is still a rather large section of the population. In todays terms, inside the US, you are talking about around 30 million people, which is nothing to sneeze at. In fact, i would happily stand by a statement that anything that even 1 person in 10 does is pretty damned normal.
> And if you actually look at homicides, you get 3.6 versis 0.04 which is more like 90 times. And if
> you look at total, you get 10.4 versus 0.25 which is 40x.
Your right about me picking the wrong numbers, that was unintentional (whoops) I still don't find them compelling because this is again, 40x almost nothing.
However....homicide rate.... good thing to look at, you didn't, that is the gun related one...I find this more frightening and makes me glad to be here in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Actual homicide rate, regardless of guns, is 4.8 in the US, vs 1.4 in the UK, a difference of only ~2.5 times....but with a 1/40th the gun homicide rate? Fuck, I would generally rather be shot than be stabbed up or bludgeoned, or whatnot.
Actually melange was produced by the living sandworms, the water of life was the result of killing them with water, which was given to the reverand mother whose body changed it from a poison to a potent orgy inducing hallucinogen.
Anyway, point taken but, we were specifically talking about the stillsuits and feasibility of them as described.
I love how they even bother to include suicides, anything to pump up the numbers I guess.
Still 3.6 in 100k vs .25 in 100k..... well thats around 14 times higher.... higher than....almost nothing. In 100k, thats not a big difference, almost, not a difference worth talking about. Especially since comparing the US and UK is a total apples vs oranges comparison.
You can't compare some little island nation with national healthcare, working social infrastructure, and no concept of individual liberty (don't even have free speech rights there), with a huge federation of states spanning 3,000 miles of land mass. We have gangs, we have crumbling social infrastructure with a massive poor underclass, and a notiong of individual liberty, including the right to bear arms.
And still.... the most significant cause of death is heart disease.
Porn censor sounds about as useful as telephone sanitizer, which gives me an idea.... we need to buid a few big space ships, but, we will only need fuel for one....
If you were french then it would be truely fowl.
It would be more correct to say "They would like to see content which they see as harmful and offensive". To say that they just want to "Ban harmful and offensive content" conceedes to them that this content is harmful and offiensive, as if there is some sort of universally agreed upon standard by which this can be measured and determined, when the fact is, its entirely subjective.
Are people trying to get flouride removed from water trying to get something they believe is harmful removed from water? Yes, thats true. However, it is not correct to say they are actually trying to get something harmful removed; that statement would be untrue.
The thing is, its important not to use the characterization of the point of view you are arguing against. Its like, if you are against a bill thats being called "Tax Reform" you can't argue against it and call it "Tax Reform", you are already losing the battle by implicitly ceeding a point that you don't agree with - that it's reform.
I think you vastly underestimate people's capacity for doublethink and other forms of self deception.
A person can break the law every day but, the law he breaks isn't so bad, he never gets caught because its not one of the really important ones. The other people, the ones who get caught? They were usually doing other things too, or being reckless.
Doesn't matter if we are talking about speeding, pot smoking, or turning back the clock a bit and going with Sodomy laws. Have you ever thought about the implications of having found out that double digit percentages of the population engaged secretly in acts that social norms and laws considered perverse and illegal? Because that is exactly what Kinsey's data revealed.
I mean, now we look back and its little surprize so many people engaged in oral sex, or that such a high percentage of men had a homosexual experience at some point in their life.
> No need for a tin-foil hat, though, when you can explain the behavior to a simple and straightforward
> "we don't give a fuck about the security of your data" attitude.
You are not wrong, but you are missing the point of the previous comment. The point was that unencrypted wifi passwords on PCs is not the same issue - because google doesn't generally have access to the unencrypted password on your PC. In fact its pretty unavoidable without going to smart cards.
The android phone, on the other hand, is actually sending it to them in plaintext, which means they do, in fact, have it. The problem isn't the local device storage, its the remote storage.
> (b) you can only build up so much heat before convection keeps the temperature stable (not sure if
> that's enough to survive though).
Ever seen a dog pant in the heat? They do that because they don't sweat. The bigger the animal, the more of a problem that is (less surface area per unit volume). A small human is about the size of a mid sized dog.
Wearing a suit like this, you effectively wont have sweat glands either....except.... Dune claims it still works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_of_the_Dune_universe claims Leto the first had this to say:
so at least it mentions heat exchangers and other sources of water loss. I still smell BS on the idea that this can all be accomplished with pumps that actuate from walking, but more so that "near normal evaporation" and "heat exchangers" can work this way, unless the entire outer layer is a huge metalic heat sink...with fins? Maybe some sort of nano-material with a huge surface area? Seems like a major problem.
Ok 2, I wasn't too far off, now that I have skimmed the article, 2 thoughts:
1. This doesn't get us any closet to stillsuits. Therefore, since they got my hopes up, and I am now dissapointed, I am firmly against this sillieness. Don't they realize what harm they are causing by getting people's hopes up?
2. I couldn't help but think that the picture of the sweaty girl in a tank top didn't actually add anything to the story except a little eye candy. I mean, maybe the author/editor/layout person is a friend of the photographer is and this was a lame way to get some royalties? I mean maybe if she was one of the designers or involved with the project, or doing something related to it, it would make some sense, but, it is credited as a stock photo? Maybe I am expecting too much from a site that has "Art" and "Fashion" as top of the page topic headings?
3. Since this doesn't get us any closer to stillsuits, and isn't revolutionary technology, lets harp on the stock photo some more. Is it just me, or does the girl in the stock photo not look terribly genuine in her expression? I get more "I am bored posing in front of a camera" than "I am sweaty from that run, let me wipe my brow off", or even "Its getting hot in here, I wanna wipe this sweat off". Not blaming her, photographers take lots of pictures, especially with digital cameras, so why such a bland one? Just having an attractive subject doesn't make a good photo; could they really find nothing better? Not even within that same shoot? I mean, maybe if this were an article about deoderant?
4. Wait, why does this device need a fire extinguisher strapped to the side? Surely that is overkill, the entire thing is stainless steel, and likely any structure it gets operated in has adequet fire protection, if is even made of flamable materials.