Because you're not paying attention?

The Argentinians missed what looked like a great goal in the making yesterday except that it curved away from the goal.

Also the 2006 ball had physicists warning that the ball will behave more like a baseball and that it'll make quite nice curves while spinning, and act chaotically when not.

That's not what the players think. Many of them come out and bitch and moan about the changes in soccer ball design because it feels and plays different. Many teams complained that the Germans had an unfair advantage in 2006 because they got to play with the new ball before everyone else and thus had more training using it. Physicists have chimed in on it too saying the 2006 ball is likely to mostly affect keeping as the smoother surface with less seams makes the balls trajectory unstable if spinning in flight.

To me? It's just a round ball, and I'd happily play with anything round that's lighter and softer than a coconut.

This right here is a key point. Many people now don't rely on their PC to actually do any audio, just send the data somewhere else. Many hifi rigs are hooked up into digital inputs, many TVs and computer displays will support HDMI audio and do the conversion in the device. In some cases like mine people even opt for external streaming devices like a Roku to get music though that doesn't work for generic sound.

Not that it in any way makes these laws right and proper, but they are probably concerned about things like this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-isis-fighter-al-britani-threatens-3819631

When one of the militant nutjobs is bragging about holding executions in Trafalgar Square... well, it's probably reason for some level of concern.

I find it incredibly annoying when someone THINKS they have researched some topic and knows what they are doing.

You may be perfectly right and capable and interested only in the detail that you're asking, but unfortunately you'd be in the minority. probing questions will confirm everyone is on the same page and while it may be annoying to you, it will be a godsend for many others.

Engineers in general are terrible at solving generic problems, which is ironic because we're thought of as the great problem solvers. Our issue is that it's in our blood to solve problems and quite often we'll have solved the problem without even understanding what that problem is. It reminds me of the great Dilbert comic where Wally interrupts his boss by saying "We'll build a database" and when it was pointed out that he doesn't know the problem yet he retorts "We always build a database."

No it's a hazard of editors not doing their job. That is their job, to be the buffer between the reader and the source, to edit submissions so they make sense to the readership. If we palm that responsibility of to the submitted then there would be no point in hiring editors.

Come on editors! First a typo in the company name and then rattling off some guys name and saying he's an employee of some misspelt company who's been somehow involved in some games?

I clicked on the article to find out why I should give a damn. Then I was going to write about why is this news. Would it have killed you to use the words "Chief Creative Officer", or "Lead Designer of World Of Warcraft", or pointed out that he was listed in Time's 100 most influential people?

Nope apparently he's just some dude who's been working at some company too long. Much like the editors here, although it seems the word "working" in Slashdot's case would be a heck of a stretch.

Take away the security and you don't even need "smart" or "poised".

No one is saying that there should not be any security.

Keep security static and you don't need smart people - just enough attempts from dullards until they chance upon a workaround, the way penicillin eventually adapts to an antibiotic.

You might want to review that. And the "dullards" still need a basic level of competence. And that basic level of competence is what is extremely rare.

But not non-existent, as history has shown.

And it will never be "non-existent". Ever. As long as airplanes are still used. So putting "non-existent" as a criteria means that you will always fail.

And you will never know if the money being spent is not being wasted because there incidents are so rare already.

So your point about "reducing risk" is meaningless.

Think in terms of Venn diagrams: start with "people who want to blow up an airplane".

I'd change that to "people anywhere in the world who want to blow up a plane in the USofA". Which is a large number of people.

But then:

Now add "operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack but willing to kill themselves in the process".

Another slight change. "Operatives smart and poised enough to carry out the attack in the USofA but willing to ...". This is a very, very, very small number.

You don't need any of the other qualifiers because with just those two criteria you've reduced the number to almost non-existence.

So the problem would be to find someone who fit the "smart and poised" category. Once that person is found, you can teach him/her whatever is needed from a technical standpoint.

It's not insanity - it's all about reducing risk.

I disagree. The risk is already almost non-existent. Causing more difficulties for non-threat people will not reduce the risk any further.

So you're basically saying but someone could change the drone in the summary to something bigger and OMG DANGEROUS! Yeah good argument.
The other half of your argument is self defeating. Fires? Yeah because something that may catch fire is really going to kill you. Let me say that again, LiPo batteries do not spontaneously explode. Go get one and throw it really hard into the ground. Yes it may heat up, yes it may eventually catch fire, but if you get burnt as a result it will be because you got some really recessive genes which Darwin postulates may sort themselves out anyway.

In other news someone in my city stabbed someone else because they wanted a cab ride and they felt the cab stopped for the wrong person. Your little old lady has nothing on that, other than a case of the bat-shit insane. So let me commit the True Irish fallacy and say "No true sane person gives a shit". And that can be found by a quick Google search that shows the FAA hasn't done anything about individuals flying yet, only *attempted* to do something about a few commercial cases. So please, share with me your source on the steady stream of phoned-in tips, and the subpoenas and the cease & desist letters. No, Amazon and the guy who filmed the Tornado don't count.

By the way I like how you just pointed to the danger of drones, did you address the rest of what I was talking about? Think about it. With all those damn terrorists about we should ban fireworks and public gatherings. They are far more dangerous than drones.

I think you've missed the point.

I think I nailed the point. YOU claim that YOU cannot find people to hire for a position that YOU cannot identify or even characterize. Is it programming? Is it networking?

There is no glut of competent workers.

Any yet YOU cannot characterize the position that YOU claim YOU have open except:

I'm not even looking for particular skills or experience. Just people who are genuinely into technology.

So you will train people who are not currently qualified ... but there isn't anyone who is qualified.

Not all businesses allow you to post jobs to Slashdot, although I suppose I could lobby to change that internally.

If you're running the ad on Dice or someplace then post a LINK to that posting.

You are quick to claim that you cannot find qualified people (even though you'd train someone who was not qualified) but rather reticent to post any information about the opening you claim to have.

That's suspicious.

You're statement about narrowing my search is also part of the problem with this industry. A good engineer can work on almost anything.

No. A good automotive engineer CANNOT design a bridge as well as a good civil engineer. And neither of those are electrical engineers.

And someone looking for a programmer would NOT have any problem stating that AND what language(s).

I've been trying to hire developers for multiple high-compensation positions in NYC.

So post it here.

Truly smart/capable/motivated people are not looking for jobs. They are already employed.

Yes. Usually. So you have to offer them something MORE than they have at their current job to make them willing to take a risk on a new job.

I'm not even looking for particular skills or experience. Just people who are genuinely into technology.

Yeah. You might want to re-evaluate your criteria.

At least narrow it down to whether you're looking for a programmer or a CCIE. Is this about writing drivers? Or programming EPROM chips? Or iPhone games? Or encryption? SatNav?

God made humans rational beings.

Telling people who collect stamps they're idiots could be a hobby.