Re: "We don't know if the pilots were looking at our wimmin"
People really think it's a bad joke, I think.
6157 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Oct 2015
This is the time I'm having supper with you guys!
Well, when he's right, he's right. However, I'm having two questions to follow up:
1) Can El Reg please ask HRM (in her capacity as another religious leader) to give us her take on this?
2) Has anyone checked Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks on possible sketches of cellphones yet?
Me defending architects is a rare event, but in all fairness doors openig to the outside has usually to do with building codes and safety regulations. If its a public building or a large-ish office block or hospital or whatever it's usually a (primary) evacuation route. Trust me, when the building is on fire you don't want to be in front of a 'pull' door with dozends of people behind you trying to get out.
"Rather depends if you want an engineer who can provide broad solutions or one who can pay attention to detail."
A competent engineer should be able to do both. And be able to see when to use what.
Disclaimer: no, they won't teach you that at uni. That's experience, both in your field and life in general (people!). You pick it up over time. That time is shorter when you can profit from someone else's experience, i.e. learn from someone who's been around the block already.
You'd think in a megadeal like this they'd look into implications re taxes at a very early stage.
Only vaguely related - however it being friday and beer o'clock and whatever...
Clever use of IT for shirking: Reddid skin that looks like outlook
THE SPACE PEOPLE: Space People read our mail. The Space People think that TV news programs are comedies, and that soap operas are news. The Space People will contact us when they can make money by doing so. The Space People think factories are musical instruments. They sing along with them. Each song lasts from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. No music on weekends.
(Talking Heads' "Stop Making Sense" liner notes)
Too much clubbing, perhaps?
My guess is the explosives. There can't be a lot of data on the longtime effects/processes in explosives in spaaace. Ten years might be even longer than the typical shelf life of the type of explosives used.
"As with all highly energetic substances, explosives are not perfectly stable - their safety and functional features change during ageing. The extent of chemical instability strongly depends on the chemical structure of the explosive - aromatic and aliphatic nitro compounds, secondary nitramines, and organic azides are relatively stable, whereas aliphatic nitrate esters suffer from much lower stability. The rate of ageing of an explosive can be strongly accelerated by incompatibility reactions between the explosive and contact materials." from "Chemical Stability, Compatibility and Shelf Life of Explosives" by Beat Vogelsanger http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233695161_Chemical_Stability_Compatibility_and_Shelf_Life_of_Explosives
"TalkTalks shareholders need to get a firm grip on this ineffective leadership team at the AGM"
Yes, they should. But no, they won't. Because they don't care. Because they didn't buy shares in order to take any responsibilities. They bought shares to make money (not earn - make). They are not investors as such, they are speculators.
The article mentions that its role would be to 'look' for diesel-electric subs. What about those that run on fuel cells (and of course nucs)? AFAIK the USN doesn't operate any diesel-electric subs anymore, so any diesel-electric sub spotted is 'nor one of ours'. So far, so good - but some potential 'not-friendlies' have nucs. And a lot of those nations operating diesel-electric subs are at least considering phasing out their diesel-electric subs for fuel cell powered ones.
British Rail holds a patent on a flying saucer, powered by nuclear fusion and driven by lasers! Now that's a delivery system!
I think the chart was included to show that JPMC stock prices didn't suffer, hence also the reference to the Harvard Business Review's claim that data breaches "don't hurt stock prices" due to shareholders lacking "good metrics, tools, and approaches to measure the impact of cyber attacks on businesses and translate that into a dollar value."
Which rings true to me - I have the impression that 1) a lot of stock holders don't even know which industry the companies they invest in belongs to 2) for quite a while now stock prices are only vaguely related to the real world.
Which is a pity, as the threat of losing money is a strong incentive to invest in IT security and would give at least some leverage to the IT departments.
Otherwise, yes, the article is a bit uneven, without having read something about the case before it would have left me a bit puzzled, I guess.