Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: "Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up" (Score 1) 221

by roc97007 (#49356083) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

I'd restate as "harder to invade but easier to lock valid personnel out", which seems a classic problem with any secure location. As such, there has to be existing solutions. Having two crew in the cockpit at all times is a good start but not a complete solution. (You could probably think of at least three ways around this.)

Comment: Re:Good news/Bad news (Score 1) 307

by roc97007 (#49349225) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

tomorrow's email from management:

"The good news is removing attractive models from the event is positive progress for our society. The bad new is that we already bought the skimpy outfits for the models, so now you have to wear them."

If there is one truth in the world, it's this: Nobody wants to see me in hot pants.

Comment: Re:Bummer (Score 1) 307

by roc97007 (#49349197) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

> Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.

...and certain women are willing to be objectified (at least a little bit) for money.

> If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?

That appears to be the case, yes. No fun allowed here.

Comment: Re:Bummer (Score 1) 307

by roc97007 (#49349171) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.

You beat me to it. I was going to ask "What part of 'turn on' did you not understand?"

Comment: Re:another kind of selection bias (Score 1) 69

by roc97007 (#49333683) Attached to: Jupiter Destroyed 'Super-Earths' In Our Early Solar System

Earth-size moons of gas giants are definitely a possibility. I think we've already found gas giants in the "goldilocks zone". But I thought I read recently (maybe in Slashdot?) that although rocky planets orbiting close enough to red dwarfs to have liquid water might be fairly common, there was some other reason why life was unlikely in that scenario. I don't remember the details, though. Radiation, perhaps?

Comment: Re:another kind of selection bias (Score 1) 69

by roc97007 (#49333675) Attached to: Jupiter Destroyed 'Super-Earths' In Our Early Solar System

> Imagine being bombarded by quasars and blasted by supernova. Life is very possible in that environment, but it would be equally difficult for any life form to organize into something more complex than bits of matter capable of replication.

I've been thinking of this point in particular, and I suspect that if intelligent life happens at all (other than us) it's probably most likely (or least unlikely) out on the edges of a galaxy, where low density of stars vs empty space reduces the odds of nearby supernovae and other types of stellar catastrophe. I suspect (although I have little to base this on except statistics) that the closer you get to the inner, crowded parts of the galaxy, the less likely you'll find life that's managed to have a stable enough environment for long enough to develop intelligence.

Comment: Re:another kind of selection bias (Score 1) 69

by roc97007 (#49332125) Attached to: Jupiter Destroyed 'Super-Earths' In Our Early Solar System

Agreed, agreed. "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."

The vastness of space actually counts against us in this particular case, I think. The stars, especially out in the backwaters of the galaxy like us, are fairly distant from each other. I agree that as numbers increase, the chances of anything happening, no matter how unlikely, tend to approach certainty. But if as I suspect we're radically off on how likely it is for civilization to happen, the chances become vanishingly small that it will have happened anywhere nearby (as interstellar distances go).

Comment: another kind of selection bias (Score 4, Insightful) 69

by roc97007 (#49331431) Attached to: Jupiter Destroyed 'Super-Earths' In Our Early Solar System

So, we're looking for other civilizations, haven't found any, even though we estimate that life should be common. After all, if it happened here it should be able to happen in a lot more places.

But perhaps the set of circumstances that would create an environment that lasted long enough for life to be created and evolve to this point are wildly, vanishingly improbable. Perhaps the only reason we think it should have happened lots of other places is that we are the ones doing the looking, and we don't realize just how rare we actually are.

But that's a little depressing.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 233

Sounds like a perfect match with employers who post literally impossible qualifications (5 years experience in a 3 year old technology for example) and then when they don't find a local qualified applicant, miraculously find the literally impossible H1-B candidate.

It is, and serves the employers right. The problem is, there are other employees who weren't party to these decisions (or were vocal against them) who have to live with them, after said decision makers have collected their bonuses and embarked on book signing tours.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...