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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 174

by circletimessquare (#49800817) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

you've just condemned the society the person is in, not the person's intelligence or character. indeed, there are people of great intelligence stuck in shitty jobs the world over. only because their society is so shit there is no path for them to improve themselves, through no fault of their own. people of truly exceptional social intelligence then probably quit anyway and start a revolution

Comment: Re:Will This Fight Ever End? (Score 1) 533

AC is great for long distance and certain applications. DC is great locally. The bridge rectifier should be between the grid & the home battery, not between the home battery and the devices it is recharging and/or powering.

The exception to this are high power home applications: Stove, Oven, Microwave, Toaster, Fridge, Dryer, Washing Machine, Dishwasher. The battery charger can be on the same circuit set.

Note that TV is NOT on this list. All video screens can be low power these days. All lighting can be low power. There is no reason why this can't be a simple 5V, 4A circuit with USB compatible plugs, several to a room.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 174

by circletimessquare (#49799657) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

where a leader takes society has no meaning

whether or not a leader obtains and retains leadership does

you are talking about subject matter that has nothing to do with the topic of being a good leader or not

what is the value of a guy with good ideas for society who has no power?

get the power. then we can talk. if you can't do that, you are not a good leader nor a bad leader. you're simply not a leader. you simply don't matter on the topic

stop injecting an unrelated judgment on an unrelated parameter into the subject at hand


User Journal

Journal: Urban Camouflage

Journal by fustakrakich

If you want to avoid getting shot by the cops, wear one of those bright orange safety vests. And make sure it has a place to hang your ID where it is clearly visible at all times, so you don't have to risk reaching for it. It would be cool to see this catch on as the latest fashion...

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 174

by circletimessquare (#49799325) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

There's plenty of socially intelligent people with shitty jobs. There's plenty of people with crap social skills who are very successful at their jobs.

if you're socially intelligent, you know you don't need to stay in a shitty job. therefore, your example is incoherent

likewise, show me someone who is not socially intelligent and successful, and i'll show you someone operating in the same domain who is socially intelligent and yet even more successful, due to being more socially intelligent

for example, programming is in demand so programmers can be very successful, even the ones with shitty social skills. but within that domain, those programmers who are also socially intelligent are yet even more successful

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 174

by circletimessquare (#49799189) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

Of course bad decisions that degrade the performance of the group are failures of the leader.

absolutely wrong. failure of leadership is failing to achieve or failing to hold on to the position of leadership

if the entire society goes to shit, but you retain leadership, you're a successful leader

Just like a chemist who accomplishes nothing but retaining his job is not a successful chemist.

no. a chemist who makes a discovery is a successful chemist. whether or not his lab is clean has no bearing on his status as such. to say he has dirty beakers does not mean he has failed at chemistry. just like you saying a leader failed to do {X} or {Y}, which has no bearing on him actually obtaining or retaining leadership, somehow magically has any meaning. it doesn't. you're just projecting your agenda onto an outside domain, and expecting that to matter for some reason, when your agenda really has no meaning as to whether or not a leader succeeds or fails

again, you are applying judgments on parameters that have nothing to do with the actual success or failure of the job

Comment: Re:Just wondering (Score 1) 214

by Sloppy (#49799153) Attached to: Why Detecting Drones Is a Tough Gig

I'm suggesting we JAM 2.4Ghz around the Whitehouse lawn.

We need to do that everywhere. It's not as if presidents are the only people who ever get attacked.

Then I'm suggesting we track WiFi signals in an effort to catch the pilot, not the aircraft.

Another reason we have to do it everywhere (and over a broader range of frequencies). If the defender has lots of resources (might be capable of tracking and/or retaliating), then the attacker will use at least one relay node. As attacker, I'd be a mile away transmitting 433 MHz or 915 MHz (*) to the node near the whitehouse lawn, and then that thing retransmits the command at 2.4 GHz (**) to the vehicle.

(*) We're going to try to stay within legal frequencies here, because in the course of the assassination, it's important that we don't break the law.

(**) Per the agreement that the vehicle must receive commands on 2.4 GHz, in order to make the contest fair (***). You have to give the defender a fighting chance. (Your honor is at stake!)

(***) But if the government takes the common-sense precaution of jamming most frequencies and over the entire country of their jurisdiction (to protect all citizens, not just presidents) then one might argue that fairness suggests the attacker should be freed of the 2.4 GHz requirement. I think balancing the rules will be a subtle and important part of formulating the contest rules. It's not as easy as it sounds.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 2) 174

by circletimessquare (#49799009) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

yes, while the guy who does good on his SAT is usually also socially intelligent as well, as you say, my point is that the guy who does poorly on his SAT but is socially intelligent, will be more successful in life, and is more intelligent according to the most important measure, than the guy who has stellar SAT scores but can't persuade or impress for shit

there are people who think, for example, an amazing ability to manipulate complex topological shapes in your head means you're somehow a more intelligent person or will be a more successful person than a guy who can't do much math at all, but is charismatic

that's my point here

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 0) 174

by circletimessquare (#49798743) Attached to: Chinese Nationals Accused of Taking SATs For Others

having social intelligence is not a magic cloak of perfection, it is merely the most important kind of intelligence in terms of all the types of intelligence in regards to your success or not

and then you go off on a tangent about leadership. off topic, but i'll follow regardless:

you've given me examples of leaders making stupid decisions according to your judgment outside of the domain of leadership. so what. they're still the leader. that's the point. the skill of obtaining and retaining leadership has nothing to do with listening to engineers or academics. it's about being the person making the decision

The more successful leader types know their own limitations and use expert advisors - and listens to them.

nope. you're imposing an outside judgment of quality that has no meaning to the domain of what leadership is and how it works

whatever decision they make on other aspects of society because they have power: correct, mediocre, or absolutely destructive, doesn't even matter. if they can sway enough idiots with enough passion to retain power, that's all that matters. mao's great leap forward was beyond stupid, it was a tragedy of the death of millions. so what? he was still the dude in charge. making a decision that would cost him his leadership would be the real failure of leadership

that's the definition of success according to the parameters of being a leader: obtaining it, retaining it. that's it. that's the only yardstick to measure quality

actually advancing society, humanity, technology, science: who fucking cares? you are imposing an outside judgment of success that actually has no value in terms of success in that actual domain

whatever the academics in the ivory tower see or think or perceive, their opinion: who gives a fuck. does it mean i get more power? no? whatever

if you're a chemist, and you discover an amazing new catalyst, you're successful according to that domain: chemistry. but according to the guy who cleans your equipment, you're a dismal failure because you keep a messy lab. is his judgment of your success or lack thereof somehow magically more important than what you've achieved in the domain of chemistry?

likewise your judgment of what success is in leadership: an outside measure according to parameters that have no impact on obtaining and retaining leadership, is without merit

address the fundamentals of the domain to make a judgment call on success or failure in that domain

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!