Exactly. When you ask the 20 somethings if it was appropriate, they would probably say 'sure'. Ask the exec and he'll probably say, 'no, unless there are special circumstances... like mine'.

I found the opposite to be true. The older demographic (who tended to be higher up) were the ones who took more frivolous calls during meetings. The 20 somethings usually left their phones at their desk. I suppose the younger people questioned might say they think that it is OK for the older folks to do that while if you ask the older folks they would agree that it isn't appropriate but they do it anyways.

I think that can be all well and good for a 'study' except for the last flip comment at the end: "And if you’re an older worker annoyed at what you believe to be rude behavior, just remember, it’s not you – it’s them!" The researchers clearly don't know how to interpret their own data objectively. The study was asking what people thought would be appropriate, not what they actually do!

Can we finally get a Mod total score above 5 yet on /.? This one would go to 11!

They have. We're still waiting for the classical computers to finish to compare answers. Should just take a few eons. Then we'll know it works.

You can do what Alain Aspect did which was to show that statistically a system can show the repeatable statistical measurements (using Bell's Theorem) that indicate that entanglement is happening. Then let the system/computer do it's thing with some confidence that entanglement is in play.

How is this different than a software vulnerability and security through obscurity, etc.?

I think to begin with, most software vulnerabilities aren't exploited to cause immediate death of (most likely) innocents. There's also no 'fix' for this (e.g. no software update to everybody's genome, but maybe a vaccine can be developed).

Similar to some other horrible chem/bio/nuke weapon formulas, yes, it should be properly redacted.

I think you can also document in a way that is also up to date. For example, do you document the who/what/when/why for version commits? Sure. Do you put in-line comments in the code, e.g. "We need to revise the code below at some point to account for ABC"? I hope so. Do you have a stash of reference scripts/how-tos so you don't have to reinvent how to do semi-routine complex actions, like deployment? What about an active system to keep track of to-dos, priorities and who they are assigned to, what happened, how they were accomplished? Even email history can be effective documentation.

Otherwise, I would agree that documentation in the form of a bulk document which is probably already flawed at 1.0 and easily outdated is mostly a waste of time. (Past the mental exercise of the person writing it, perhaps.)

as crazy does.

Isn't this just a declaration of barter? Like trading chickens for other goods/services?

I could imagine the ambient light sensor and a flickering backlight being used to send messages in a similar (and perhaps less annoying way) too.

Thanks for the info. It's not a 100% vacuum, but it's pretty darn close at 100 Pascals (vs 100,000+ at sea level).

The one thing that bothers me is how cheap he estimates it to be. Just 6-7 billion which is about 10 percent of the cost of the competing design. Just the steel for the tube (and being thick enough to not crush under atmospheric pressure) has got to be crazy expensive. He estimates 4 or 5 billion (depending on diameter size), but that seems low? Anybody know the cost of steel on projects of this magnitude?

Three things:

The press release says that the government said existing laws don't take into account allowing an exchange to trade a virtual currency (yet).

The article sensationalizes this by saying "banned", implying that it was legal before.

Lastly, the author of the article seems to think without an exchange, Bitcoin can't be traded, which of course is false. So, by "banning" the existence of a commercial exchange, the author concludes that Bitcoin entirely has been banned in the country.

I could be missing something, but I don't think Bitcoin has been banned in Thailand as barter.

Exactly. This is more about the content and how to cheaply produce and distribute it securely than something for next gen computers. This will be more for broadcasters, movie theaters, and perhaps game/media consoles. It wouldn't surprise me if the big leap in the technology is being able to press each disc with it's own unique encryption key that has to be 'activated' over the Internet before it can be decrypted and played.

Why is CHiPS(*) actually posing with the sign like it is theirs? That just seems like an odd thing to do.

* Cue exploding cars in the background