Generally, for those who don't get it: don't explain.

Is this the same as asking if their genetic makeup influences a person's chances of having kids?

I've thought of myself as a kind of series discrete moments of conciousness. Every instant I'm alive, I'm sitting on the top of a whole history of these long since finished moments. Moreover - this moment now, will be gone in an instant, and they'll be another moment of conciousness which claims it as part of it's history.

Here today, I think I'd consider myself to be still alive at any point in the future where someone exists who claims to be sitting on the top of my entire history of moments of conciousness, and this current moment of conciousness that I'm experiencing.

Are you thinking of RSA SecurID? That is something quite different.

If you want to log in to my SSH server, then in practice you need a private counterpart to a public key which you have added to your authorized_keys file.

The story is real, the Slashdot summary is utterly incorrect. For example, from the article:

"A new law ... would not allow GCHQ to access the content of emails, calls or messages without a warrant"

Also it doesn't say anything about trawling stored data, or proposing a requirement to stored data, rather that with a a warrant, GCHQ must be able to access data in real time.

If you wanted to get an idea about why accupunture is so popular, you'd do well to join in on their conversation. Maybe you'd plant some seeds of the value of evidence based medicine, and you could hope to get an insight into how their minds work.

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003281.html

Pah! Ask around, solicit conversation, stimulate though. Everyone's the richer.

Like the sceptics who 'claim' that they knew subsequent tests will show neutrinos don't travel faster than light!

You use past results and experience to predict the future. That a single study showing positive results for ESP was flawed in some way, is a natural starting position. If this study had backed it up, then I'd still assume both are flawed in some way, just with a little less confidence.

If Alice says "I reused a carburetor from a wrecked car" it means she took a carburetor from a wrecked car and used it, as a carburetor, in another car.

If Bob says "I recycled a carburetor from a wrecked car" it means he took a carburetor from a wrecked car, destroyed it, and used the raw materials to make something new.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reuse+vs+recycle
www.care2.com/greenliving/why-reuse-beats-recycling.html

Yeah I'd agree with this, made it all the more impressive when I saw this web summarising app on the BBC the other day.

iPhone only, so I haven't been able to play with it.

Never. You're supposed to never get pissed off, never get irritated, this is work you're talking about.

If you need a larger team of people to help you do your job, because it's impossible to educate your user base, then you're supposed to make that happen. It's absoloutely your responsibility to make the environment you work in, and the people you work with, one that you are completely happy with.

1. Politely ask the culprit not to
2. Do it again
3. Do it a third time
4. Speak to your line manager / CTO / whatever about instituting a formal door policy.

Steps will be completely different according to your corporate culture. What you want always want to do in this situation though is influence people; Step 0 is always trying to see things from others' point of view and never act like an asshole, step x is pursuasion.

Not good at pursuasion? Falling back to being 'hard' on people? Make improving 'soft skills' like this your primary learning goal for 2012 over any particular piece of hardware.

You put it on *road signs*? UK here; all commerce, retail, and pretty much everything else is done in metric. Roadsigns are done in miles.

All the plus, none of the fuss.

Who would download a tool like nmap from download.com? What sort of person does this? How is this a thing that happens?

It's a direct quote from Ben Goldacre in the article. He's saying that he can't see an argument against publishing these concerns in a journal.