Slashdot Mirror

https://news.osu.edu/intrinsic...

deuterium is in your tap water, another fun project for the enterprising high schooler

https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811...

Lets compare.

Chicago, 2016, murder rate ~ 16

Dodge City murder rate had a murder rate 10x that.

source 1 (blurb answer when searching chicago murder rate 2016): https://www.google.com/search?...

Source 2: https://cjrc.osu.edu/research/...

Burdick v. US is not the only reference to pardons in American jurisprudence. If you'll read further than the summary, you will find that the first point was a direction on courtroom procedure, and therefore necessarily presupposed the existence of a court. It reaffirms earlier language in United States v. Wilson, and it was specifically addressing whether Burdick could continue to claim Fifth Amendment protections after having been offered the pardon. You're also suggesting that enumerated precepts are non-severable, which is very much not the case. Each is intended to address a separate question of law, and as regards the statement on guilt, that was intended to address issues raised by the ruling of Brown v. Walker, which involved statutory immunity from the consequences of testimony. The court held in Walker that the statutory immunity was as strong as the Fifth Amendment protection, and thus the government could compel testimony. In Burdick, in addition to setting out acceptance as a condition for the validity of a pardon, the court held that pardons carry the imputation of guilt specifically because they are able to be refused. It is the act of accepting the pardon, not the act of introducing it to a court, which connotes guilt.

You're arguing like a programmer, not a lawyer. You would be far better off trying to argue from e.g. Ex parte Garland that acceptance of a pardon does not imply guilt. You might start here or here. However, whether or not the legal concept of guilt could be strictly said to apply after having accepted a pardon, social opprobrium very much applies, and the political effects are unlikely to be very different.

People were less likely to die from gunshot wounds on the western frontier in the 1800s than they are in modern-day Detroit, Chicago, or Washington DC (all cities with idiotic and unconstitutional victim-disarmament statutes).

You're going to have to support this with some references, because I'm finding contradictory information that appears to be more credible than your assertions:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

“Carrying of guns within the city limits of a frontier town was generally prohibited. Laws barring people from carrying weapons were commonplace, from Dodge City to Tombstone,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA’s School of Law and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “When Dodge City residents first formed their municipal government, one of the very first laws enacted was a ban on concealed carry. The ban was soon after expanded to open carry, too.”

The result was that, by contemporary standards, gun homicides were relatively rare. In cattle towns such as Tombstone or Dodge City, the average number of homicides was only 1.5 or 2 a year, according to path-breaking research by Robert R. Dykstra of SUNY-Albany. The murder rate was much higher in mining towns, such as Bodie, Calif. During its boom years, the town had 29 murders a year...

White noted that the violence was restricted to narrow social milieus, such as armed and drunk young men. “The towns such as the cattle towns that disarmed young men lowered the rates of personal violence considerably,” White wrote. “Those towns such as Bodie and Aurora that did not disarm men tended to bury significantly more of them.”

Homicide Rates in the American West

For instance, the adult residents of Dodge City faced a homicide rate of at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year...

This is interesting, because Dodge City, with its very strict gun control according to the previous article, had an incredibly high homicide rate. And yet... the towns without gun control were apparently even more violent, also according to the previous article.

You joke, but if you parse it out mentally and actually play that scenario out - everyone open carrying would dramatically reduce the chance of mass gun violence much in the same way that nuclear weapons have reduced the chance of nuclear war.

Everyone going about armed would reduce violence like the Old West. The homicide rate in Dodge City was at least 165 per 100,000 adults per year in 1880 (source). Today, the US homicide rate is around 5. The dangerous US cities, like Chicago and Washington DC are around 15. Even Detroit is only 45.

There certainly are responsible gun owners. People who would only use them as a last resort, when they could fire on an assailant without endangering any innocent lives. It also turns out that a large portion of the population are irresponsible morons who will hit their pal in the balls with a shovel because it makes a funny video. People who will shake their screaming baby until its quiet. People who will fire on a shoplifter in a crowded parking lot. Why on earth do you want to send those people out in public with guns?

Yeah there is also hydroxyl groups bound to hydrocarbons.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your consideration and pondering, the booze nebula: http://researchnews.osu.edu/ar...

I am not a pilot; I do not know if you are or not, but I suspect the latter.

I flew gliders for a bit. I'm reasonably acquinted with the mindset. The ways you avoid trouble by being prepared, by having thought about it, by talking about it, by learning from your own and other's mistakes, and if you can, your successes. Of course, without a motor every landing is what a motorised pilot would term an emergency landing. No second chances, no do-overs. Then again, I never had to worry about stuff getting stuck in the propeller, because I didn't have one of those.

Err on the side of caution.

There is such a thing as excessive caution. And that excess can cost you bundle.

In the abstract I offer one argument with a large price tag, and in the practical there was this (co)pilot that committed suicide, taking 144 passengers and five colleagues with him. A big enabler for the latter was a cautionary measure against unauthorised entrance to the cockpit, that ended up preventing the captain to put a stop to the malarky.

Would the propeller of the tanker aircraft used in firefighting likely survive chopping up a drone? Yes. Is that 100% certain? No. Is the pilot of said aircraft willing to take the chance? Absolutely not, I'd say.

His training says no. And he's certainly going to be unhappy with drones because they're hard to spot and can pop up out of nowhere. That's really what the ruckus is about: The fear of getting blind-sided.

Plus, of course, the annoyance at being confronted by a small craft remotely piloted --thus no skin in the game-- by a complete amateur without any training whatsoever. That has to stick in his craw because pilots must make many many hours to get their licences and then keep up the hours just to keep them. Add to that all the reams and reams of paperwork that surround aviation... yeah. That's gotta hurt.

I still say that's no reason to go all-out on the rulemaking, creating many many rules just to have a set of rules comparable to a century or so of aviation rulemaking, thereby dumping lots of regulatory overreach on a group of people that contains, as usual, only a small number of bad apples, the aforementioned dumbasses. Rather, it's probably as good a time as any for aviation to learn from their learning and curb the rules a bit, boil them down to what really matters and drop at least some of the rest.

Furthermore, would said pilot be willing to discover through direct experience whether his aircraft would sustain any appreciable damage from any part of it striking a drone in mid-flight? Again, I'd have to imagine the answer would be a resounding absolutely not.

Most pilots wouldn't, no. Some would, and we call them test pilots. And perhaps we should indeed have them figure this out, because the knowledge comes in handy on occasion. The military will go there and figure it out, but then keep it secret and weaponise the knowledge.

Unlike driving a ground vehicle, where if there is some sort of collision that disables it, you just come to a stop,

You'd think so, and in fact some ground vehicle assist systems work under that assumption, but no. Try that "just coming to a stop", especially through some automated system, while speeding on a motorway and you're still up shit creek. Cut the power while going downhill? That's gonna hurt. Or you might end up with a dead vehicle stuck on a railway crossing. Better get out quick, if you can. So, no. That assumption does not generally hold.

remember that if some critical damage occurs to an aircraft, it falls out of the sky,

Depending on the critical damage, maybe. Loss of propulsion means you can glide out of the way (lots of air going up around

they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world

But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?

"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.

The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.

You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.

... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.

That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d

Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."

In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".

Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the

...antarctic sea ice is at or near a record high... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.

Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.

They had computers everywhere too.

http://www.lib.utah.edu/img/ar...
https://design.osu.edu/carlson...

There were enough of them to create things like this

http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blo...

And the military was already using computers by the roomful to control even bigger rooms of CNC machines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How you treat someone in prison says a lot more about you than it does about the person in prison. They likely committed their acts in the heat of the moment, while we sit back and deliberate over how to make them suffer over a period of decades. You're fine with them living in savage conditions where they spend years dealing with constant attempts on their lives, much worse than they go through in our prisons today.

Why feed someone for life when you have no intention of ever letting them out? Because you might not intend to let them out, but you better change your mind if that person turns out to be innocent and there's proof to support it. We have one study telling us that the floor value for wrongful executions is 4.1% (source: http://time.com/79572/more-inn...) and another telling us that the US sends 10,000 innocent people to prison each year (source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/ar...). Putting your suggestions into practice would multiply our problems significantly. Sending a few hundred innocent people a year to Absalom island would make society a worse offender than the criminals. After all, how would you go about getting an innocent person off that island when a witness admits they lied in their testimony or the cops get found out *again* planting evidence?

All of your talk about "not caring" sounds a lot more like a psychopath than the actual people in prison - you should get that checked out.

Well, there's this:

http://www.computerhistory.org...

and this

https://design.osu.edu/carlson...

Yes, actually. There's a lovely introduction to acoustic holes, acoustic geometries and acoustic Hawking radiation by Visser (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712010) where he summarises this fairly well:

"In particular, perhaps the most important lesson to be learned is this: Hawking radiation from event horizons is a purely kinematic effect that occurs in any Lorentzian geometry with an event horizon and is independent of any dynamical equations imposed on the Lorentzian geometry. On the other hand, the classical laws of black hole mechanics [40] are intrinsically results of the dynamical equations (Einstein equations) that have no analog in the acoustic model. Thus Hawking radiation persists even in the absence of the laws of black hole mechanics and, in particular, the existence or otherwise of Hawking radiation is now seen to be divorced from the issue of the existence or otherwise of the laws of black hole thermodynamics. Hawking radiation is a purely kinematical effect that will be there regardless of whether or not it makes any sense to assign an entropy to the event horizon — and attempts at deriving black hole entropy from the Hawking radiation phenomenon are thereby seen to require specific dynamical assumptions about the (at least approximate) applicability of the Einstein equations."

(Entertainingly given the story we're commenting on, Visser also comments "it is clear that experimental verification of this acoustic Hawking effect will be rather difficult. (Though, as Unruh has pointed out [1], this is certainly technologically easier than building [general relativistic] micro-black holes in the laboratory.)")

An interesting related problem one can set is to work in Rindler spacetime. This is just normal Minkowski spacetime (ie flat, Euclidean spacetime plus a time coordinate), but observed from observers uniformly accelerated away from a point. Rindler spacetime then slices Euclidean spacetime in four; no Rindler observer can pass from one of the quadrants to another, in a manner that resembles -- not necessarily that closely, but resembles -- Schwarzschild spacetime. (See these diagrams: Rindler spacetime, https://people.math.osu.edu/ge... and Schwarzschild spacetime, http://i.stack.imgur.com/bYrq7... ). Now Rindler spacetime is really just Euclidean spacetime written from the point of view of accelerating observers. Due to the close link in GR between acceleration and gravity -- the weak equivalence principle states that locally one cannot distinguish between the two -- it's probably not a surprise to learn that if one calculates the vacuum in Rindler coordinates, there is Hawking radiation! (This is "Unruh radiation" -- Bill Unruh has done a lot of work in the last few decades on this kind of topic, including some of the earliest papers on acoustic, or dumb, holes.)

... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss? [Jane Q. Public]

Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.

Seriously? You haven't noticed that nearly all the warming "evidence" seems to start around 1979? Have you looked at the actual historical temperature and climate records before then? I have. Be careful when you lecture about "long term trends", lest you end up not looking so smart.

Kinnard et al. 2011 reconstructed Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. Again, the modern decline is quite clear.

Usually it's the cathode that degrades with time. The hardest thing on a lithium ion battery is charging it to 100% and discharging it to 0%. All of the materials are recyclable. See http://www.mecheng.osu.edu/nlb...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/... discusses how they're recycled.

http://design.osu.edu/carlson/...

http://edge.org/conversation/h...

Why is it that "heretics" need to indulge in easily debunked ad hominem attacks like this:

It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Here are some people wearing winter clothes and measuring what is really happening outside. Perhaps Professor Dyson should get out of his "air-conditioned" Princeton office and do some climatology field work.

Well, it is easy enough: http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fac... Once the area has been over-grazed and compacted by the animal, the topsoils erodes into the river, leaving only infertile soil where barely anything can grow...

It should of course be mentioned that nearly all of these can be had for free from Project Gutenberg, and probably Goodreads and Google Books as well. There is no excuse any more to have not read them.

That's a good point. Actually, some of the more recent books went back into copyright under the Micky Mouse copyright extension act. James Joyce only went into public domain in 2012. http://joycefoundation.osu.edu/joyce-copyright/fair-use-and-permissions/about-law/public-domain http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/01/james-joyce-public-domain.html

But the idea of having the entire Great Books on a Kindle that weighs less than a Modern Library Giant Edition is awesome.

More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.

Just sayin' .

As long as your meaning is, "They were persecuted for believing in Judaism or Christianity," or for owning a Torah or Bible, very possibly.

Beginnings of Christian Martyrdom

In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES

A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

League of Militant Atheists
North Korea Ranked No. 1 for Christian Persecution
Persecuted and forgotten: Egypt's Christians
A Global Slaughter of Christians, but America’s Churches Stay Silent
Christian Persecution in China Despite Supposed Religious 'Freedom'
The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity

UNDERSTANDING ANTI-SEMITISM AND ITS HISTORY

The list is obviously much longer.

Since someone is practically certain to object along two lines, lets dispose of them now.

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was terrible, it was also limited in scope.
The Crusades were a long delayed response to Muslim invasion of the Holy Land.

I posted a bit of a flamebait there.. downmodding is appropiate.
just, you should really do some research about what highly refined foods do to a living organism. Just for yourself please let's not get into an ego battle here.

I cherry picked this article: http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/PATIENTCARE/healthcare_services/prostate_health/prostate_cancer/risk_factors_prostate_cancer/Pages/index.aspx

I'm sure you can find a lot more argumenting for both sides. I'm not some vegan saint sipping veggie juice all day but since I've informed myself a lot about food
I really notice that my body really reacts to what I put into it.

Cheers!

As per research studies there is no such thing as intrinsic motivation. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

It's not our wildest dreams of fusion power realized, but the National Ignition Facility's break-even achievement lays the groundwork for future careers in fusion-related science -- research jobs created in the grand old USA (these fusion-related jobs are more and more being created across the pond, in Europe). As a physics graduate student studying intense laser-plasma interactions, I am keenly aware of the science funding situation. Truly, this is wonderful news!

See here for a parallel way to deal with your random number generation problem:

  http://www.stat.osu.edu/~herbei/GPU/RNG.pdf

Thanks; read the paper; it presents three methods, 2 of which are unsuitable for parallel decomposition to an arbitrary number of CPUs (the Mersenne Twistor is not suitable to thread level decomp.), and one of which where you have to really carefully define you m(i). Changing algorithms isn't really an option, unless you are willing to rerun all of your historical computations, since unles you use the same PRNG, there is no guarantee of precise reproducibility, which is one of the issues here.

I think it'd be easier, with today's storage capabilities, to just pre-generate them, but that doesn't get around the dependent matrix operations problems which make it a linear computation after that.

We're building a Calculus Two course, and a complex analysis course.

"An organized scientific approach to evaluating course materials is sorely lacking."

I agree.

Most people don't care about mathematics directly, they care about how mathematics can help them do something they want to do. But apparently the Calculus book is written by math enthusiasts. Here is an example from page 9, the 2nd page of text:

"Warning A function is a relation (such that for each input, there is exactly one output) between sets and should not be confused with either its formula or its plot."

Some people aren't interested in accomplishing anything, they just like speaking in a manner that is foreign to most people. For example, there are people who like ancient Greek and speak it to other people who like ancient Greek. They like doing something other people can't do. They see it as putting them in a class by themselves, which they think is superior. But speaking ancient Greek is a mostly useless hobby for them; it's not really helpful in a general way. If you go to such a person and ask what they have learned because of knowing ancient Greek, they often have nothing useful to say. Why? Because they aren't interested in doing anything useful, they are interested in pretending to be superior, or in living in a world by themselves.

Where does this come from and why can't it ever be debunked once and for all?

I would call it a Meta Rule. A rule that is not what copyright says; but was proposed once as a guideline, and took on a life of its own through the power of word of mouth -- with various institutions codifying it. With various degrees of strictness --- if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and use 31 seconds of a media recording; I suppose you might get expelled from some school, because you're over the limit.

Examples:

Halldavidson: This copyright chart form was designed to inform teachers what tehy may do under the law

Music: Up to 10% of a copyrighted musical composition may be reproduced, performed and displayed as part of a multimedia program produced by an educator or student for educational purposes. ---- Authorities site a maximum length of 30 seconds. See notes by congressman below.

Temple University: College of Liberal Arts: Fair Use Policy:
Educators May use their projects for teaching, for a period of up to two years after the first instructional use with a class. ....
Music, Lyrics, and Music Video Up to 10% but no more than 30 seconds from any single musical work Any alterations shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work. .... Motion Media Up to 10% or 3 minutes, whichever is less

WILEY: Permission requirements .... . A single quotation or several shorter quotes from a full-length book, more than 300 words in toto. ..... A single quotation of more than 50 words from a newspaper, magazine, or journal. .... Material which includes all or part of a poem or song lyric (even as little as one line), or the title of a song. ...

The Law of Fair use and the Illusion of Fair use Guidelines

Pikes Peak Community College: Copyright Portion Limits; Rules of the road: Music, lyrics, music video - Up to 10%, but no more than 30 seconds Arlington Independent School District: Copyright: Portion Limitations
CCSJ: Copyright Fair Use: 'Allowable portion for fair use'
Public Schools of North Carolina: Copyright in an Electronic environment:

Up to 10% of a body of sound recording, but no more than 30 seconds

St. Olaf College: Copyright guidelines

Music, lyrics, music video: up to 10% but in no event more than 30 seconds of an individual work

MolStead Library; North Idaho College The amount of work to be copied is based on the “portion limit” set for that “medium.” [....] In general, you should never use more than 30 seconds or 10 percent of a piece of recorded music. Ball State University, guidelines for educational media:

4.2.3: Music, Lyrics and Music Video : Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual work. No alteration(s) of the music and/or lyrics are allowed.

Most state colleges offer tuition fees at a lower cost to residents then non residents. Ohio State's costs differences are huge too. Out of state students pay almost 150% more then Ohio residents pay.

http://undergrad.osu.edu/money-matters/tuition-and-fees.html

I suggest moving early and taking advantage of the differences too.

I'm not sure if you realize how much costs have gone up. But as an example, in 2002, tuition at Ohio State was $4,788 for an Ohio state resident and $13,554 for an out of state student (in state and out of state is where you lived before going to schools, move early and save a bundle). In 2013, the tuition costs are $10,010 for an Ohio state resident and $25,726 for out of state residents.

Those numbers do not count room and board or fees associated with the years. I think Ohio State requires you to live on campus the freshman year unless you go to one of the satellite schools but you are free to live elsewhere after that. Not all of the satellite campuses have all the programs you might need to get a specific degree though. Room and board is listed at costing about $11k depending on where you look and what options you select.

I got my numbers from these sites so they might not be completely accurate.

http://undergrad.osu.edu/money-matters/tuition-and-fees.html

http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/ohio/ohio-state-university-main-campus/#.Ug8hsIFAzcs

Now, I am not trying to diminish what you did. It is well worth acknowledging that it is more then some people could accomplish even back then. But for now, if someone wanted to do the same, they would need a job making close to 25k a year right out of high school to go full time and that doesn't seem realistic. Less would be required if they went part time and added a few more years to the mix, but I think you are the exception to the norm rather then the norm.

Hmm.

(Reposting link just for ease of reading) (At OSU, we developped theadvisor ( http://theadvisor.osu.edu/ [osu.edu] )

I went there and the Topic Search doesn't work for me. For example I typed in Psychology and got no papers back for the "use the following papers" step. Drop me a note at music65536@yahoo.com so we can bug-shoot a little.

Thanks.

Try search term genetic just to get a feel of it.

If you have problem finding papers, I recommend you try academic search engines. At OSU, we developped theadvisor ( http://theadvisor.osu.edu/ [osu.edu] ). It is a webservice that allows you to search paper that are similar to what you already know. You basically upload a set of papers you know are relevant and the system find what is around.

Google Scholar does something similar to this: based on your published papers (including conference papers), it monitors the "journalosphere" and alerts me whenever there are new published papers related to my research. And it's scarily accurate. Scarily, because it reminds me every time how many people are working on topics similar to mine, and that I have competition!

Hmm.

(Reposting link just for ease of reading)
(At OSU, we developped theadvisor ( http://theadvisor.osu.edu/ [osu.edu] )

I went there and the Topic Search doesn't work for me. For example I typed in Psychology and got no papers back for the "use the following papers" step. Drop me a note at music65536@yahoo.com so we can bug-shoot a little.

Thanks.

If you have problem finding papers, I recommend you try academic search engines. At OSU, we developped theadvisor ( http://theadvisor.osu.edu/ ). It is a webservice that allows you to search paper that are similar to what you already know. You basically upload a set of papers you know are relevant and the system find what is around.

We are still working on improving the quality of the database, but I strongly believe that these approaches are the way to go.

Sociology study after study shows that there is significant racial bias in the police force against blacks. Minorities are more likely to get charged with crimes, arrested, and pulled over for committing the same traffic infraction as compared to whites.[1] This bias exists and is real. This is a significant portion of the story.

The other significant portion of the story is that blacks are far more impoverished than whites, on average. " In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians." [2] Poverty has a strong correlation to violent crime and drug use. "Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates in the United States, up from less than 10 percent in 1980. " [3] This figure does not include crimes which are committed to support a drug addiction.

Interestingly, violent crime rates are similar in impoverished black and white neighborhoods. "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities." [4] This means that despite the proven police bias, for violent crimes, only 2 per 1000 more blacks are convicted of violent crimes as compared to whites in impoverished neighborhoods.

In summary... 50 years after Martin Luther King, Jr., we still have significant racial bias in American Culture. However, we have come a long way as compared to even 25 years ago. As we continue to improve as a nation, and treat others not based on their racial makeup, I believe the poverty inequality will begin to equalize in this nation. We still have a big problem with racism in the US. The racism issue is slowly improving, but there are practical and non-racist reasons why the incarceration rates differ so dramatically between whites and blacks. You don't enslave a population of people for hundreds of years and then turn around, snap your fingers, and suddenly have racial, economic, financial, and social equality. Repairing the damage that was done takes time. Now if our prison system could be more interested in healing instead of retribution...



Interesting Note: There is growing evidence that Lead is the cause of the majority of the violent crime. [5] If this is true, this may explain why the violent crime rates are similar--impoverished people are more likely to be exposed to lead, but impoverished blacks are just as likely to be exposed as whites.

[1] http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/09/blacks-hispanics-still-more-likely-to-get-traffic-tickets-in-illinois/ [2] http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269208/prison-math-and-war-drugs-veronique-de-rugy
[4] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm
[5] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

Yeah, the writer, Pam Frost Gorder, is no dummy, but she knows who she is writing for.
 

Sorry to break this to you but the majority of Amish farmers use hybrid seeds for at least some of their crops,

http://accad.osu.edu/~midori/Game/intro_farm.html

In fact one of the earliest hybrid seed companies (Yoders) was Amish.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

Fuck you. That "paywall" helps to pay for research

Actually it does not.

When the paywall comes from a private publisher, none of the cost you pay actually fund research. Researchers in the loop of publishing (authors, reviewers, editors) receive no money from the publisher. The publishers pays some money to keep the journals running such as the printing/hosting cost, the copy editors, and some layout folks. But it mainly pays the publisher itself.

Printing/hosting cost is quite low nowadays and it could very easily be absorbed within the universities and libraries budget. Copy editing is only midly useful, but that could be taken care of at the university level as well. Layout folks in editors are actually making a terrible job, I need to point out layout mistake often while the layout was correct in the version I had sent them.

What else are the publishers doing? They have some quite bad recommendation service nobody use (we actually wrote our own at http://theadvisor.osu.edu/ ). Seriously, what else are they doing?

When the publisher is a scientific entity such as IEEE and ACM, the money does not really fund research as well. They have some travel awards for student sometimes, but that pretty much it. The money is also used to bootstrap some conferences, which is useful, but overall it could be covered in other ways.

Seriously, they are sucking funds out of research, we would be better without them.

PS: most of my publications are available on arxiv or on my website.

I think we have good enough records to say unequivocally this is the lowest sea ice in several hundred years. Proxies from boreholes drilled in the Arctic Ocean indicate it's the lowest for several thousand years. Here's a paper I referenced in a reply above about Arctic sea ice for the past 47 Ma.

Here's a paper about Arctic sea ice for the past 47 million years: "History of sea ice in the Arctic" (Polyak, et. al. 2010). It may have some of the information you seek. Here's the abstract:

Arctic sea-ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice-free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea-ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47 Ma, following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last 13–14 million years. Ice was apparently most wide-spread during the last 2–3 million years, in accordance with Earth’s overall cooler climate. Nevertheless, episodes of considerably reduced sea ice or even seasonally ice-free conditions occurred during warmer periods linked to orbital variations. The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Not germane.

In those days, where originally there may have been exactly one copy of a text, the act of copying was critical to its preservation, not to mention dissemination. One copy does no one any good.

One copy today is just as useless. The fact that copying is easier makes it even more valuable.

The Chinese copied texts no more frequently, and no more widely than any other civilization. Its just that more of them survived.

That texts have survived in China longer is due to a lack of nut-job dictators and religious zealots seeking out and destroying every copy they can find, and even burning entire libraries to do so.

The Incas? The Ancient Celts? Yes; at the end they had access to writing and even used it in last desperate attempts to preserve their culture. I'm almost certain that Roman Catholic monastries copied much more than the Chinese, but they were nowhere near the back of the pack. Furthermore, they had plenty of destruction; read up about the Warring States period or the Mongol invasions.

However; this is largely irrelevant; my point was that copying is a valued thing in Chinese culture. Not an original thing. I suspect they copied copying from whoever they copied writing from which is probably lost in the dawn of history. Educated; cultured Chinese people care about copying. As should everyone. Todays religious fanatics are the supporters of DRM who will try to put every copy onto fragile media and make it impossible to make further copies. Learning how to copy things is just as important now as it was then.

No; The Chinese care very much. China began writing long after the Mesopotanians, however, because ancient Chinese texts were carefully and repeatedly copied, they have survived much longer than texts almost anywhere else in the world.

Not germane.

In those days, where originally there may have been exactly one copy of a text, the act of copying was critical to its preservation, not to mention dissemination. One copy does no one any good. The Chinese copied texts no more frequently, and no more widely than any other civilization. Its just that more of them survived.

That texts have survived in China longer is due to a lack of nut-job dictators and religious zealots seeking out and destroying every copy they can find, and even burning entire libraries to do so.

Hi since it sounds like you are actually familiar.

Yes, I'm the lead(/only) dev. I've had at least one person note distaste at the fact I failed to specify this in the summary - I apologize for not making it clear.

How is Bedrock going to do this?

I know it is against slashtdot tradition, but if you RTFA you'll have what I hope is a sufficient answer. Irrelevant, I'll take a crack at answering your questions directly:

By manipulating the filesystem (through chroots and bind mounts) as well as PATH manipulation, Bedrock will make arbitrary commands from other Linux distributions which are on disk available in a fairly transparent fashion.

For example to get cutting edge features to work you often need to put in destabilizing patches to the kernel or use newer more buggy versions of core libraries and utilities. This is why installing some little thing from Debian unstable on a Debian stable box can trigger 100 package upgrades as chains of dependencies get worked through.

This is very true. What I'm doing is grouping executable with the rest of their distro. Each program gets the dependencies it needs from the same repository it came from. There are downsides to this, such as a substantial amount of duplication, but it results in a nice clean way to ensure everything has what it needs to run. The magic comes in the way I use special stuff in the PATH and bind mounting to ensure that most things in one distro can run in others.

Essentially it means creating an entirely new level or complex special instructions on a per package basis which make automatic dependency resolution not work as well.

Since the entire client distro is available on disk, I just let it figure out dependencies as it normally would, making this largely a non-issue.

If I've failed to explain it, and the linked explanation does not suffice, feel free to ask me again, with an emphasis on pointing out how my explanation failed.

Other satellites noticed Greenland's extensive surface melt because melting snow lowers the ice sheet's albedo. However, water has the same mass as a liquid or solid, so GRACE can't tell the difference between ice and meltwater. GRACE can measure how much meltwater flows into the ocean, because in that case there would be less mass on Greenland.

Also, Ambitwistor referred to the popular monthly GRACE fields, which are available as spherical harmonics and gridded fields. In addition, CNES produces 10 day solutions, and Bonn even produces (constrained) daily solutions. But the monthly fields are by far the most widely used, because the ground track coverage is more complete during a month, and the extra data increases their signal to noise ratios.

The other thing to consider is the many potential points of failure when a distro relies on other distros with dissimilar distribution methods, library tools, packaging tools, expected directory structure, etc. Just one little change can cause a huge ripple effect. Arch, last month changed directory structures followed by changing /lib to /usr/lib. It bricked a lot of machines requiring much manual messing around to get things back on track.

I'm doing my best to cover these issues as they arise. Before the /usr move, I was reasonably confident I had most of the major ones squashed, but the /usr move has caused some issues.

However, I actually consider this a relative strength of Bedrock. I am putting a high priority on ensuring that if a client is unexpected broken, the system continues to function. In some respects this makes Arch-on-Bedrock more reliable than straight Arch, although with the alpha-state Bedrock is in at the moment I can't drop the qualifier "in some respects".

The other thing to consider is the many potential points of failure when a distro relies on other distros with dissimilar distribution methods, library tools, packaging tools, expected directory structure, etc. Just one little change can cause a huge ripple effect. Arch, last month changed directory structures followed by changing /lib to /usr/lib. It bricked a lot of machines requiring much manual messing around to get things back on track.

I'm doing my best to cover these issues as they arise. Before the /usr move, I was reasonably confident I had most of the major ones squashed, but the /usr move has caused some issues.

However, I actually consider this a relative strength of Bedrock. I am putting a high priority on ensuring that if a client is unexpected broken, the system continues to function. In some respects this makes Arch-on-Bedrock more reliable than straight Arch, although with the alpha-state Bedrock is in at the moment I can't drop the qualifier "in some respects".

(1) A mix of dissatisfaction with the status quo and determination. Be careful when mixing such powerful agents.

(2) Mostly by messing with filesystem calls via chroots and bindmounts. I make the whole system feel cohesive with specially crafted PATHs and some scripts. Hopefully the description here satisfies your curiousity.