Oh, don't get me wrong .. I get there are some actual badass Civics out there. I've seen all the Fast and the Furious films. ;-)

But I've also seen the piece of crap cars with all of the stickers and none of the mods with the cheap-ass plastic spoiler held on with duct tape and rolling on bald tires.

I don't know which of these two painting one side of the graphene this sail gets us.

That may be correct but the article you linked has an incredibly misleading title. This process does not convert photons into electrons it simply imparts the photon's energy to one or more electrons which, in the case of thrust, causes them to be ejected from the graphite. The coupling of electrons to photons is extremely well understood, in fact it is the second most accurately tested scientific theory ever discovered (the first being special relativity). The only way to create electrons from photons is to also create an equal number of positrons. However this requires far higher energy processes ~1 MeV of energy which is many orders of magnitude higher than the energies involved in visible light and would easily break apart graphite which is something they ruled out.

They could easily come from all the material which is surrounding the graphite. As the charge builds up on the graphite due to all the electrons being expelled it will develop an increasingly strong electric field eventually will pull electrons from the walls of the chamber. Since the vacuum will also not be perfect the remaining gas molecules could also transfer charge by moving back and forth between the graphite and the chamber walls.

A similar effect exists in the LHC where the electrons are 'helped' to leave the walls by synchrotron radiation hitting the walls of the beam pipe and are then dragged along by the electric field of a bunch of protons forming a electron cloud. This effect is one of the primary limiting factors on the number of protons we can have in an LHC beam.

Actually this could provide more thrust. Use sunlight to propel the craft until it has built up a large enough electric charge that the efficiency of the thrust begins to drop (since it will take an increasing amount of energy to expel the electrons from something with a large positive charge) and then introduce a stream of neutral gas into the sponge. This should strip the electrons off the gas and the remaining positively charge ions will then be repelled by the positive graphite and provide even more thrust.

Of course this means that you need to have a fuel source but it's likely to be far more efficient than current rocket fuel plus there it no need for it to be something explosive like hydrogen - you could probably use Xenon which is a noble gas and so extremely inert and so a lot safer.

The one advantage we have with Netflix over broadcast stations is that it is on demand and, like websites, it is conceivable that if the ads become obnoxious it will motivate someone to provide a plugin to Ad Blocker to deal with them like there is for YouTube.

A solar sail with one side painted and the other painted with graphene might be really cool.

Hmmm ... you mean "really cool" in the "it will do more useful stuff" sense of the word? Or in the sense of adding a spoiler and neon running lights to a beat up Honda Civic "might be really cool"?

Or maybe the painted side could have a jolly roger on it to play space pirate?

Honestly, is painting one side functional?

Actually if that is done well then I don't mind it at all since it is almost invisible. However when done badly it is the most obnoxious of all advertizing since it is impossible to avoid as it is part of the show.

Right there with ya. I'm a software developer and system administrator...It'd probably take me a month or so to read up on malware techniques and come up with a delivery mechanism and a way to do distributed CNC via RSA or PGP key.

Honestly, it's a social skill - it requires communicating the user, or at least knowing what users want.

If you know how to do SEO, the absolutely easiest way to infect someone is offering free downloads of some commercial app. Like Office, Photoshop, even Windows. Or the keygens to it. The most common way is to wrap the keygen with your downloader so the user runs the wrapped app which then silently downloads malware while running the real keygen.

Until Google started censoring the results, you could type an app's name and the first few results would be "cracks" "keygen" "download" and "warez".

Hint: This applies for smartphone apps too. People are cheap. If they can save $1, they'll try.

To claim Netflix doesn't advertise omits a very background, but present form of advertising. It's called product placement, and it's where instead of buying some generic Cola or use a generic computer, or random cellphone, they clearly show it's a Coca-Cola, or an Apple iMac or a Samsung. If you ever wonder why they show closeups of a phone's screen or something, it's usually to show the logo for a second or two. Normally they'd just have the actor say it out loud (oh look, a call from Dad, etc), but if it's a product placement, you'll see a closeup on screen with "Dad" printed on it.

And really, I'd be surprised if Netflix's original shows aren't doing this - it's been generally marked as the least objectionable form of advertising because it adds realism (who drinks Cola? You know it's either a Coke or a Pepsi), and sometimes, the efforts of hiding logos is just plain silly.

And it's usually done during the writing stages where the show producers generally solicit sponsorship.

I know Netflix doesn't currently run normal commercials other than brief clips of other Netflix originals, but I'd be surprised if they aren't doing the product placement thing.

If you have to ask this question, I have to surmise that you're not familiar with a joy of an interesting job well done. Don't worry about it. There are enough people who are willing to work for the sake of doing interesting things and/or killing boredom.

There won't be anywhere where they can keep "more of the value". When you get into the situation where 99% are jobless because of automation, there are only two ways to go from there: either you have wealth redistribution, or you have a Luddite uprising that smashes the machines and rewinds the civilization back, and forces it to stay there to maintain social stability. The former option allows for further technological progress, the latter does not. If you personally had that choice, which one would you take?

There's no way to demand compliance when there are literally hundreds of people lined up behind you willing to do the job that you're currently doing.

History of past economic systems is generally not applicable to newer ones. If you tried to forecast the success of a capitalist system based on your personal experience in a feudal society, and the past historical track record in, say, Antique slave societies, you would have to conclude that it's an unrealistic utopia, because 90% of the population are needed just to grow the food for everyone else.

Thing is, as technology advances, it eventually accumulates enough changes to force a significant leap in how economics work. It's not really voluntary - the society either makes a leap (and this can also go smoothly or bloody, depending), or it falls off the progress bandwagon and gets stuck in past, and eventually gets conquered or otherwise pushed around by those who stayed on the track.

Capitalism is based on the notion of a workforce that has to work for a living, and on there actually being enough work necessary to satisfy the day-to-day demands that everyone has to do their parts. This assumption is not going to hold true for much longer. In fact, it wouldn't hold true in developed countries today already, if not for outsourcing - why bother with robots if Chinese ex-peasants are a dime a dozen? But those peasants will ride capitalism into middle class themselves, and then outsource to Africans; and then Africans will ride it, and then there's no-one to outsource to - and then it's robots anyway.

And just as feudalism couldn't survive and compete once agricultural techniques advanced to the point where the majority of the population didn't have to be involved in it, so capitalism won't survive once industrial production advances to the point where a single human is sufficient to control a factory that can supply the demands of an entire city.

It's acceptable to allow one that is bad, but noticeably better. If you keep iterating on it, eventually you'll actually get a decent candidate. More importantly, if you keep voting out the worse guys, being a worse guy will stop being profitable in politics.

Here in the UK we don't have that same problem using their hosted JIRA, so probably this is local issue to you guys in Norway.

I could have used this knowledge not just on my first job but when I was interviewing for my current job 14 years ago. The interviewer asked me what salary I was seeking which was, in hindsight, an obvious trap. If I gave too low a figure, they'd "grant" me that instead of the higher figure they were thinking of. I had a figure in mind but got nervous that I wouldn't get the job if I went too high. I wound up taking about five thousand off my "figure in my mind" - and was promptly awarded that. I'll never know if I would have gotten more money had I gone higher, but that moment of insecurity still bothers me to this day.

This is where soft skills comes in.

The goal is to not be specific, but to make it such that you lob it back to them. Remember, let them make the first move - you should never ever announce a number.

So if they ask, try to deflect it back to them - "I don't have a specific number in mind, however, I do know what similar positions pay elsewhere and I expect Initech to pay comparable rates".

If they ask for a specific number, then again, deflect it - "Well, according to this survey, someone in my position with the responsibilities given would be making anywhere from $XXX to $YYY" If you know the median salary, then state that "... with a median of $ZZZ".

Yes, you DID research what similar positions pay in your area, right? I mean, that's how you decided you were underpaid?

Let them pick the specific number - you choose whether or not to accept based on that number. By giving them a range, you let them figure out and guess what you'll take. You stated a range which you researched and let them figure it out. If they decide the low end is all you deserve, it's better to find that out rather than wonder.

And $5000 is not a lot of money at the end of the day - after taxes, you're really only looking at $3600 or so, which is $300 a month.

The key to negotiations, especially salary, is to let the other guy pick the first number. If it's too low, you're free to reject the offer, and you can respond "to be honest, I didn't feel the compensation or benefits were adequate for my needs to change positions". Again, no numbers. If they ask, go ahead and mention the range. If another salary survey comes out, mention that too.

A job has to be considered for the whole - realizing that there are big changes, and there are little ones. $5000 is not a lot of pay in the end to worry about if you're already making $95k or so. If they are grossly up or down, then something might be up - $12K might be the smallest unit where salary matters because that's $1K/month or after taxes the better part of a grand still.

A laser technique is used to herd the fermions

So ... do fermions most resemble cows, or cats? I'm confused.

Yeah, and understand that when the PM says "well, if we all work 24x7 we'll be ontime" then PM is an idiot and should be told that.

Way too many employers will run you into the ground and burn you out because they'll just keep asking for more.

Don't do it.