Comment Re:i hereby nominate (Score 1) 203
Granted 6 is a small sample, but 1 out of 6 is 16.67%, within the range you quoted for the other models.
Granted 6 is a small sample, but 1 out of 6 is 16.67%, within the range you quoted for the other models.
What you say is true if you continue on to a master's degree. If, like many people, you plan to join the workforce after undergrad, the school you attended matters a lot. Undergrads joining the workforce generally haven't done independent research or published, so employers can look at GPA, school/degree reputation, extracurriculars, and maybe senior projects at best. The hiring managers I've talked to rate undergrad engineering school reputation equivalent to almost half a GPA point. That is, a 3.0 at *big name school* is equivalent to a 3.5 at *I think I heard of that school once*.
When they do the regressions, it turns out the schools you got turned down from were the biggest factor on career success, far more than where you actually attend.
All the studies I've seen have been that students accepted to "more prestigious" schools that matriculated elsewhere did as well in life as those who enrolled at the top-tier schools. I have a hard time believing that someone denied by Harvard among others and only accepted by no-name-state-college does as well in life as someone who was accepted at, say, an Ivy, much less as well as someone who attended such a school.
As far as I know, Slashdot does a short port scan on your IPv4 address when you preview or post a comment in order to make sure that your machine isn't an open proxy that might be abused for vandalism. That's why your first preview of the day from a given machine is so slow: it has to wait for the connections to time out.
Slow previews explained. You, sir, are truly a king amongst men.
The "sexual history" questions will unfortunately remain relevant in background checks for highly important/secret positions so long as sexual history related topics remain highly taboo in society. The (intended) purpose of these questions is to determine if the applicant has anything in their past that would make particularly them subjective to blackmail.
Which is just fine for a *security clearance* background check. These researchers work on unclassified projects, which is why they're objecting to the background checks.
The fact that it triggers on as little as 1/3 of the legal limit is also troubling. Maybe they should trigger at slightly below the legal limit, but 1/3? They couldn't get convicted of a DWI at that number, and yet you're going to shut off their car?
Generally those convicted of / pled nolo contendre to DWI, especially misdemeanor first offense, are put on unsupervised court probation, of which one condition is that driving with any detectable blood alcohol is a violation of the probation. So, yes, it triggers significantly below the general legal limit, because that is one of the terms of their sentence. The breathalyzer is another.
Whether this is appropriate or just is another issue entirely.
Ride on the sidewalk, motherfuckers. No cop will ticket you because they'll be thankful you're staying off the damn street.
Actually, cops LOVE ticketing bicyclists on sidewalks. Around my area, they add "reckless endangerment" to the charges if there are any pedestrians on the sidewalk. Legally, cyclists are vehicles and entitled to a full lane unless a separate bike path is provided.
Thank you Slashdot.
Sincerely,
All your readers outside of polar areas that won't be able to see anything anyway.
It's been a long time since
[...] regarding how to respond to improperly handled classified forms. Step 1 is "delete/destroy any copies within reach", and Step 2 is "call the security folks".
Close, but not quite. Step 1 is secure the information from further unauthorized access, but do not destroy if it can be safely secured in another manner. (i.e. all copies remain in the possession of a cleared person with need to know, in a locked and opaque case.) Step 2 is call the security folks, so that they can determine the ramifications of the exposure of the information. Step 3, I will admit, is generally destroy the information.
Funny enough, if you only look at total particulates and not their composition, rural Ohio is dirtier than downtown Beijing. (Or so says my cleanroom certification engineer.)
I'd bet that they never patented it, but instead kept it as a trade secret. While the composition would probably be easy to determine, reverse-engineering the process to make it is likely nearly as difficult as inventing it in the first place.
When we lose Hubble we lose some unique capability. Even successor telescopes that don't work in optical light will not fill that void. Adaptive optics will only be useful in some circumstances whereas Hubble would have been useful in the general case. Oversimplifications like this story don't belong on a techy site like slashdot.
What I don't understand is why we don't have a direct successor to Hubble. James Webb will be an infrared satellite, not visible light, so I don't see how it's a direct successor (IANAA I Am Not An Astrophysicist). I know of no other satellites that overlap but improve Hubble's coverage. Yes, I understand that today, adaptive optics beat Hubble, but Hubble was launched in 1990. Twenty years later the ground-based coverage bested space-based, but what could we conceivably learn from a visible-wavelength orbital observatory in the next 20 years before the ground-based ones catch up?
Beyond that, visible-light satellites have the capacity to excite the public like no others. Humans see the visible spectrum directly, and are just more impressed by visual wavelength images than false-color imagines of, say, X-rays. Non-visible wavelengths may be more scientifically important that visible ones, but the visible wavelengths are the ones that the public will pay for.
There are two major problems with classified information, one real and one practical:
Realistically, unclassified information can be combined to deduce classified information. For example, let's suppose that the F-22 combat radius was classified. If its max fuel load, cruising speed, and fuel consumption at cruise were unclassified, the classified information could easily be determined from unclassified information. Toward this end, many things end up classified higher than their individual information may warrant.
Practically, separating classified and unclassified information is difficult and costly. Say there is a program with only a small amount of classified information. Yes, it is costly to set up the classified network and facilities to process only that, and leave the rest open. But say the program is mostly classified. In that case, it's more expensive and difficult to access the unclassified information than the classified info (due to having separate networks, facilities, etc, for the unclassified info. Remember, anything electronic that accesses classified info is considered to be classified at that level. So if your computer accesses Secret information, anything that ever gets onto that computer is presumed Secret.) So in practice, everything used on that network ends up classified, for ease of use and lower cost.
Between these two reasons, yes, many things are classified that should not be. No, generally it is not a malicious coverup.
Disclaimer: this applies very much at defense contractors for the systems they design, especially for build processes, designs, capabilities, etc. Needs and reasons for operational classification may be different.
If this is the case, why would they want a third trial? Seems it would only serve to further reduce the judgement, if anything, and certainly incur more costs.
HOLY MACRO!