« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 16, 2006
My life at work
pretty much accurate, except more caffeine is involved.
Posted by bucjos at 03:21 PM | Comments (0)
June 14, 2006
Russia rolls the dice on hydro-chernobyl
Yeah for sensationalist headlines :)
BBC has an article about Russia's plan to build floating nuclear power stations. In the article they qoute a guy as saying this will not be another chernobyl. Here's the thing buddy, you already dropped the ball once and you were working from a pretty well established script. Now you're going to take all that tech and slap it on a floating platform?
I can't give a lot of technical reasons why I don't like this, I think the mere premise of floating nuclear power plants is a little iffy and then put the Russians in charge of it. Just seems like a less than stellar idea.
Posted by bucjos at 04:35 PM | Comments (4)
June 13, 2006
Lost in Taradise meets string theory?
So, on first glance it appeared to me that Stephen Hawking had picked up Tara Reid as his nurse. I'm wrong but that was a really funny 2 seconds. Just wanted to share.
Posted by bucjos at 01:56 PM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2006
yeah veterans, boo greedy people
So, there's been news on the news sites(which makes sense, seeing as how they're called 'news sites' but I digress) about how some personal information for veterans and currently serving military personal were stolen. That's a bummer but not the first time stuff like a persons SSN has been yanked and not the last time.
My issue is that this BBC article mentions that a
"A coalition of veterans groups launched a lawsuit against the federal government on Tuesday, saying their privacy had been violated, reports say.
They are seeking $1,000 (£540) in damages for each affected veteran."
I think this might be a case of someone trying to exploit a bad situation. Yes, their privacy has been violated but look at this in the context of a larger trend of a number-crunching monkey's laptop getting stolen that has X million customers records on it. It's been happing on a larger scale(much larger chunks of customers) for a few years now and the stock reply is "whoops, here's a year of free credit monitoring".
And some of those cases appear to be people going after that data specifically, which is a lot more scary in my mind as the personal data was the actual target, where as in this case the thief likely did not even realize that the computer they swiped held potentially lucrative content.
So, my question is, given the same offense, loss of personal data, and a relatively lower chance that said data will be used for nefarious means, should a person be compensated drastically differently if they carry a gun and the offending party is the .gov, versus say a bank?
My answer is no.
Thoughts?
Sidenote: I'm a big fan of those serving in the military. I greatly appreciate all that you do for us and I try to support them when I can (buying a poppy on memorial day and what not) so this isn't any kind of anti-military thing, I just think a few people in a few organizations associated with the military are trying to carpe diem some cash and some street cred for themselves in an unwarranted manner.
UPDATE: I misspelled veterans a lot, jeremy caught it. I should really use spellcheck more often.
Posted by bucjos at 05:35 PM | Comments (1)
June 02, 2006
From the keepers of social security comes...
Ars has an article about how the 2007 limit for H-1b visas is already exceded despite the fact that Q1 '07 doesn't start for a few months. I wonder at what point, historically, people will realize that if you run out of some resource and start dipping into the cookie jar that was set aside for next week/year/generation too soon, and keep doing that, you're never going to catch up, much less break even.
( a little blurb on H1-b visas)
The H1-b visa is designed to allow a worker of sufficient technical merit ( typically of the technology variety ) or possesing a unique skill ( think like knowledge of something the US wants like knowledge of current Iranian nuclear capabilites) can gain temporary entry to the US. Oh, and they also give these out to models ( the skinny ones with makeup, not the ones used by Peter Jackson to make golemn ) which is a very odd dicotemy in my mind.
( end little blurb )
So, according to the article it seems that some people ( like M$ and crew ) a crying for more of these visas( like double the current limit more ) where as the IEEE's US wing is saying there should be less and that the majority of jobs taken by H-1b visa holders could be filled by competent US workers and that companies like M$ are using the visa program to basically force indentured servitude at a artificially low wage.
See, the "catch" with an H-1b visa ( models aside ) is that it's pretty much tied to your job. You get a 3 year visa off the bat ( you have to have a company sponser you ) then there is an optinonal 3 year extension ( again needing company backing ) and you can at any point apply for a green card ( again needing company backing ). So, basically the company you sign up with can hold the threat of firing you and effectively deporting you over your head when you politely point out that 80 hours a week is a little more than you'd hoped to work over Christmas.
As the Wikipedia definition of the H1-b visa states, this is a pretty controverisal program. In the midst of off-shoring, near-shoring and the declining number of tech jobs along side the general perception that the US is the kid that plays dirty on the playground of international politics, it'll be interesting to see if anything is done on this or where it ends up.
Posted by bucjos at 04:04 PM | Comments (3)
(insert term of rage/contempt/disappointment here)
So, I'm ready the tri-weekly post at PA(potential swears, be warned)and I see a reference to good old MN. But, it's not something to be proud of. Turns out one of the hometown news teams did a scare piece on the PSP.
Phrases like "access porn out of thin air" and "Its even been nicknamed the play station "pornable"" make me feel many emotions, all of them negative.
They play the parents up as the victim, " What mom thought was just a game is actually a very sophisticated piece of electronics that a clever kid can use to capture pornographic images out of thin air.". Huh, wow, a $250 piece of electronics can do more than play pacman, go figure? A freaking $50 cellphone can go on the internet, why wouldn't a $250 multi-media machine do that also?
This whole "pulling from thin air" thing, I thought society had, as a whole, discounted alchemy after that whole "turning lead into gold" think didn't pan out as well as they'd hoped. I have to wonder if these same people assume the voices on their cellphones are spirits from beyond. Those pictures that Timmy was looking at, they came from this thing called "the internet" and it's been available in wireless form for a while now. It's part of this larger movement we call technology...oh sorry, I'm going to fast for the Fox 9 viewers and the ink is smearing all over their papyrus sheets.
Here's the thing about the internet, it doesn't just show up uninvited, like some techno-jehovah witness, someone put it there, on purpose. Turns out that person, the school in this case, doesn't know how to operate what they're putting out there ( the internet ) or else they would've made it so little Timmy, or whatever his name is, could not have gotten on the internet in the first place.
Here comes my analogy, because that's what I do. In laymans terms, the school basically setup a giant TV with all the channels ( dirty ones included ) and left the remote out. A teenager picked it up and, gasp, looked an naughty things. That's pretty much what happened.
Anytime something bad happens we need to blame so that we can avoid taking responsibility. But in the case of my analogy who do we want to blame? the tv company, the remote company? Surely not the people that made the content available ( the school ) or the person that bought their kid a sophisticated electronic device without knowing what it was or what it could do( the parent ). Nope, blame the video game industry, they’re an easy, faceless target.
Another point that I feel is worth mentioning is that it's not like this kid went all McGvyer meets Mr. Wizard. I've never used one but I'm guessing the PSP has a button that pretty much says "go to the internet". He probably hit that button, the PSP saw the wireless network that the school did not secure and then he had a web browser. At that point I'm guessing he fiendishly went to google and typed in "naked women" or something and the pictures showed up.
I feel like the logical response to this is the kid get's punished for looking at naughty bits at school, the parents should get a lecture for being irresponsible ( if you're going to plead ignorant deal with the consequences ) and the PTA should get the school's IT department up against the wall and toss eggs and dodgeballs at them and that should be the end of this.
(tangent)
I'm also a little sick of people going after the video game industry because it's the easiest target. How many kids do this exact same thing (look at inappropriate content) on their cellphones? Let's see you go after nokia just once and suggest parents don't give kids cellphones, see how many people are sympathetic when you suggest taking away their precious pink razor.
(end tangent)
UPDATE: The guys at Penny Arcade have a pod cast about this that is rather funny. There are several swears so I'd keep junior out of the room ( or SBC because I hear that they're pretty impresionable even from within the womb ) when/if you listen to it. They reached a lot of the same conclusions that every sentient being with an ethernet cord has, which is this story is absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by bucjos at 12:10 PM | Comments (9)