Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:I sleep less. (Score 1) 710

Unlikely. If my high school and college years are any indicator, the true alpha males (tm) lack the brain power to get jobs that could provide enough money.

You seem to be equating brain power with earning power. This is a common mistake made by folks who believe they likely have more than average brain power (tm) and that scarcity of those with brain power (tm) somehow improves earning power.

Today, earning power is most correlated with the amount of capital that your employment responsibilities have associated with. It may or may not be fair, but it is generally true. Historically, people could count on scarcity, but we're in the cusp of a post-scarcity employment environment (in many fields, there won't be enough work for everyone to be fully employed).

The best hope to earn an above average amount of money in a job is to find a company that has enough excess capital to pour some on their employees (e.g., work for a social media company, a hedge fund company, a natural resource processing company like an oil or rare-earth metals, etc.) or simply just work for yourself (start your own company). Although some positions in those companies might require brain power (tm), competition will be tough for those slots, and it's quite possible that it your "true-alpha-male" leader-type might find an easier way into such an excess capital situation (or say start a construction company and make plenty of money that way)...

Comment Re:Levi stadium situation (Score 1) 404

Despite sounding like a good idea, apparently in real life the margin on parking is so low that you can't really do it on a part time basis and make it worth your while. It's not that they are doing it wrong, their business model is to simply privatize the profit and socializing the liability and risks (e.g. city maintenance and self-insurance costs) not unlike a big-bad-bank...

FWIW, most of the office buildings around the Texas Rangers baseball stadium in Arlington turn their lots into pay parking on game days. (And for games at the Cowboys football stadium too, even though that's a bit of a longer walk from the office buildings).

One complication of the Levi Stadium situation is that the companies do not actually own their office/parking lot, but are merely mostly Class-B commercial office-park tenants which do not have the authority to use the building parking lots that way. The owners of the building are generally large real-estate holding companies and the parking lots aren't normally pay/restricted lots so don't have lot attendants so they would likely have to apply for a Special Event Parking Permit to do this. They would also likely need to re-negotiate lease terms with their tenants to tie up the parking lot in this manner.

If the office buildings you mention have full-time managed parking lots, then they could avoid much of the complication surrounding the Levi Stadium situation since they would-be full-time parking operators already.

Comment Levi stadium situation (Score 2) 404

A counter-example to this would be the parking situation at the newly constructed Levi stadium for the SF 49'ers. They don't have enough game-day parking spaces for the stadium and they were assuming that some of the surrounding office complexes would be willing to become pay-parking lots on Sunday-gamedays... Sadly, only a few of them "bit" on this opportunity. The purported reason for this is the increase in liability insurance and maintenance (e.g., cleanup costs) involved would not make it worth the hassle to operate as public-parking lot for 8 days a year.

Despite sounding like a good idea, apparently in real life the margin on parking is so low that you can't really do it on a part time basis and make it worth your while. It's not that they are doing it wrong, their business model is to simply privatize the profit and socializing the liability and risks (e.g. city maintenance and self-insurance costs) not unlike a big-bad-bank...

Comment Re:Great, so they reinvented (Score 1) 143

Giant market fail, because it was not a great idea after all.

Actually, the transputer had a few good kernels of an idea: sea of loosely interconnected processors each with local memory. However, the actually execution wasn't that good, and the only real market was embedded military signal processing systems. For a while, inmos attempted to chase workstation graphics, but eventually they got killed by the i860 (which is sad as it too wasn't a very good implementation of any idea either, but happened better $/! than the transputer for floating point) which of course eventually died as its limitations caught up with it as well (although many of its ideas lived on in the original Pentium like U/V super-scalar execution pipe, pipelines fp unit)...

One thing both the Transputer and the i860 had in common, is that they were engineering solutions in search of a problem to solve. Perhaps products that embed great engineering ideas often don't translate to good implementations which inevitably fail in the market, but good ideas tend live on and sometimes find their way into the market worthy products...

Comment Re:Not that new (Score 1) 121

No it wouldn't. Your speakers transmit the signal and the microphone on the agents laptop recieves it. Disabling your microphone would not help.

Disabling your microphone on an already air-gapped most certainly makes it much harder to clandestinely *control* your machine. Maybe you could send a signal in through the grounding and pick it up somehow in a harmonic of the voltage regulator (amplifying it with a thermal virus so it is detectible), but that's much harder to do (which means the bandwidth will be much-much lower)...

Of course simply disabling a microphone obviously doesn't do much to eliminate *emanations* from your already compromised machine to an agent's laptop, duh?

Comment Re:Why do scientists falsify? Or how can they? (Score 2) 52

At the risk of trivializing the issue, it's not so dissimilar to why sometimes people throw good money after bad... After you've invested all this time researching something and the results are disappointing, you might be tempted to justify your cheating as preserving your time investment in the research direction...

Perhaps one way to mitigate this is to increase the perceived value of producing negative research results (of course w/o making things too valuable as to encourage folks to research stupid things and publishing the inevitable negative results)...

Comment Re:Not that new (Score 3, Insightful) 121

FWIW, Back in the 90's people were also worried about tempest-like stuff (e.g., EM emissions), but simply disabling the speakers isn't enough to inhibit the sonic transmission path. Electronics can "hum" at ultra-sonic frequencies (and fans can transmit audible frequencies), so by running of a suitable thermal virus actions, it is possible to leak information from a previously compromised machine that was not network connected.

However, disabling the microphone would certain make it harder to control such a compromised, air-gapped machine...

Comment Re:All they got was the money to do the research.. (Score 1) 172

FWIW, they apparently have a paper and a website...

As I understand it, although many previous hemoglobin substitutes have been tried and tested, the hemoglobin tends to eventually becomes toxic. Their new approach is to re-engineer the hemoglobin molecule to attach tyrosine which apparently has the effect of allowing some natural cleaning processes in the blood to reduce toxic build up before it gets to bad (in theory)...

Of course they'll have to test it eventually. Hopefully it won't be a *opt-out* processes the way they attempted to test Polyheme (an earlier effort by Northfield labs). To opt-out, of the Polyheme trial, you had to pre-order a bracelet and *wear-it-all-the-time* to prevent being randomly given Polyheme instead of blood as part of your emergency treatment by a hospital participating in that trial.

Comment Re:Next up: We need a centrifuge in orbit! (Score 2) 76

Perhaps if we can dump the Ruskies...

Actually, when it comes to the ISS, the "ruskies" might decide to dump the US first (at least the Russians claim that, "The Russian segment can exist independently from the American one. The U.S. one cannot."). Apparently Russia has already "banned" the US from using their RD-180 engines which power the Atlas V rockets used to launch our military satellites as a consequence of this Ukraine tiff...

Perhaps you are unaware of how much regression has occurred the US space program. You talk about the science of space travel from a knowledge point of view, but that is currently a moot problem from the US point of view, we don't have launchers at the moment. If you are in a hurry, you might have better luck if you direct your scientific requests to Roscosmos... Maybe the "ruskies" can dump the US from the ISS and build the centrifuge you seek...

While you're at it, you can probably look into this study of circadian rhythms on MIR cosmonauts

Comment Re:Fun thoughts (Score 1) 158

Get your own city-wide WIFI system installed and running with decent coverage.

Some people travel from city-to-city and don't like to carry 2 phones (or rent phones for a different network when they get there)...

FWIW, that was part of the dream that was WiMax and VoLTE... Maybe we'll get there with VoLTE eventually, but WiMax part of the dream is certainly dead...

Comment Re:Mmhmm (Score 1) 382

Two things...

With many companies, the lifetime of the equities are shorter than an investor's lifetime (e.g., nearly all US-based airlines, GM, Chrysler, automobile companies, banks, energy trading companies like Enron, Calpine, PG&E, WorldCom). With some internet companies, significantly shorter...

Stock ownership with its historical PE levels, is often less about ownership of the company, than a bet on the future performance of the company.

The stock market is really about providing a safe place to gamble. Think of it like gambling in Vegas vs gambling in a smoke filled room in the basement of a restaurant wondering if you win the pot, if you are going to get out the room alive. Stocks are merely the chips in this game. They have some intrinsic value which follows the fortune of the company they are attached to, but there is an artificial shortage of chips and people that want to play the game are bidding up the value of those chips...

Why not make more chips? The internet bubble showed what happens when you create more chips (e.g, companies that issue stock) simply to fill that demand...

Contrary to popular belief, you can sell ownership securities in a company and *not* register them, or even list them in a regulated stock exchange (e.g., if the number of owners is small enough). The only purported rationale to do so is so that if securities are sold to the public at large, the public can have a fair chance to see what they are probably worth so that small-fry can play the game. High-frequency trading pretty much obliterates this idea, so you might begin to wonder what the rationale is for a regulated stock exchange to service a secondary securities market (other than a false sense of security).

If a company wanted to, it could sell partial ownership securities directly to a investment partnership and ordinary joes could invest in that partnership (if they trusted that partnership), but then the investment wouldn't be as liquid. Asset liquidity is really the only reason the stock markets continue to exist, not ownership...

Comment Re:Why should we care? (Score 1) 206

FWIW, Ecology isn't just "fuzzy" animals and although space is not likely to be completely sterile (e.g., space faring bacteria diaspora?), you can still have ecological impact w/o native organizing. However, it could affect *our* future

Say capturing an asteroid and mining it isn't going to kill and fuzzy animals, but there is likely going to be unexpected collateral pollution issues (e.g, space debris in orbit of the moon, etc). Nascent industrial operations often ignore any such collateral pollution issue (it's usually expensive to bootstrap operations, and since initial operations are small, people don't care as much and corners are cut).

Once industrial operations gain inertia, they tend to resist reform measures until forced to by political pressure. Examples of this kind of crap are near my own backyard. During early silicon valley years, industrial solvents like TCE spilled into the soil by AMD and TRW resulted in a sub-surface toxic contaminated plume which became superfund site near a neighborhood elementary school (San Miguel).

Okay, humans aren't likely to be living near asteroids captured for mining near the moon, but given that we've had direct experience with orbital pollution before (e.g., Project West Ford), we should at least think about pausing before releasing unrestrained industrial forces in an area...

Comment Re:Why should we care? (Score 1, Interesting) 206

Why is sending humans to Mars supposed to be such a great thing? It's incredibly expensive, incredibly dangerous, and doesn't accomplish much of anything useful. Once you've sent them, the next trip will be almost as expensive as the first one.

Well, since you asked...

"Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Of course if the challenge of sending humans to Mars is something we are unwilling to accept, or willing to postpone, or intend to lose...

Industrializing space may sound like a meaningful thing, but industrializing areas of our own earth hasn't been the most ecological of pursuits. Nothing like the chants of "drill-baby-drill" being replaced by "launch-and-mine-baby-launch-and-mine"... It seems like it was also meaningful thing Yellowstone was the first national park, although I'm sure there's someone out that could make an argument that exploiting sustainable geo-thermal energy in old-faithful will help build up our oil independence...

Slashdot Top Deals

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Working...