If a kid came and read that would they be wowed into mathematics or would they turn tail and run at the sight of all the "truth"?
Hmm. Maybe I'm not representative, but I think I'd be wowed.
If it's all the set theory that you have a problem with, I personally think kids would get more out of math if they were introduced to sets (and even number theory) at the same time they're learning arithmetic. I'm pretty sure I would have.
Elementary math pedagogy is just behind the times, imho.
The statement "NORAD data is public" is misleading. All data is not "public", it's just that satellites are plain to see.
The data on the site that you linked to uses the "civilian" database of two-line GP elements, which is actually maintained by NASA but commonly referred to as the "NORAD two-line elements". This database does not contain anywhere near all of the elements tracked by various agencies and collected by the military.
The military satellites, those that can read your licence plates, are so big and in low orbit that many people and organizations around the world keep track of them.
According to this wikipedia article, SAC catalogues data from a lot of different sources (and sends it up to NORAD?), including ground based radar and telescopes. Maybe one of these sources contacted FAA.
I'm not an expert, but there are other organizations tracking orbiting debris, like ESA. I think "where did the FAA get their information yesterday?" is an excellent question.
I'm totally sure there is someone reading this thread that works in right building to answer your second and third questions.
I'm a little hesitant to speculate about what happened in the past couple of days. However, I will know if I was right or wrong in the coming week, thanks to thousands of amateur astronomers that watch birds that don't exist.
The FAA issued a Notice To Airmen yesterday predicting debris and asking pilots to report.
I think there may be some conflict between the FAA's safety concerns and NORAD's secrecy. NORAD will weigh in eventually (when they're sure what they can and can't say), but there no reason to throw away the FAA's opinion, even though they are not the "go to" agency.
First, you may want to ask yourself how they know what traffic is your starcraft session.
Second, and this may only interest you if you write software or work on the web, you should ask yourself what applications and protocols would be on the whitelist.
Third, you seem to be under the impression that what the ISPs and big content have in mind is "tiered-access" for customers, something that net neutrality advocates generally have no problems with. Indeed, this is already done... If you want the mother of all internet connections and have an infinite supply of dollars, you can get it.
It's much worse than what the sibling posts on this thread have been saying, so far. It's about total control. ISPs will be allowed to control what applications you use, what protocols you use to connect with others, what content you are allowed to see. All the freedom you take for granted now will be gone.
Googling rick wagoner cadillac escalade 25% shows I wasn't the only one dumbfounded by their numbers (or the very idea of a hybrid douchebag-mobile). They revised their estimates after going through fed testing, apparently. You're right that they stopped saying that when they started the newest campaign.
As for the posting page thing, User 1372069, that's what that link is there for - to look at your past comments. Among other things, it's useful for finding out if the user hurling abuse at you is somebody's sockpuppet.
Nearly every gripe with Javascript stems from the first and last items on your list. 99% of the javascript I come across is written as if it is C, which causes all sorts of confusion with scope and efficiency.
Second and third, true enough, but Javascript is not alone.
Other languages with tons of theoretical cred share the newline/semicolon problems (Haskell, for example).
If more programmers understood functional idioms, Javascript wouldn't have such a bad reputation.
By popular media, I meant non-web sources like cable news and radio.
These faux nerds would not even be able to understand the distinction you just made; i.e., they used the term "open source" inappropriately when talking about other issues, of which they were also ignorant.
It's not just Jobs' Reality Distortion Field, not by a long shot. The seemingly-purposeful ignorance of analysts makes me suspicious, too, but Jobs wasn't the first name to come to mind. Apple has only the most recent of the walled gardens among many.
And if you think what's going on in the wireless world with Apple is scary, check out the astroturf from the telco and ISP associations on slashdot. They'd like to tell you what applications (read whole stack) you can use, as well. The assault on the web we know and love is coming from many vectors.
So yeah, I'll take a rain-check on the Jobs-hating party. I do agree that the App Store model is horrible, though.
I think you're on to something putting "analyst" instead of "expert" in quotes. I couldn't remember exactly what they were called in the biz.
They are wrong because there isn't any law that states that. Shareholders can sue, but only for a pretty limited set of reasons, all of which fall under really serious malfeasance or gross incompetence by officers. You can't sue (and win against) Jerry Yang and the board for not selling to Microsoft, for example.
I'm guessing you really want to know where the meme came from, and I couldn't say for sure (besides the CNBC stuff).
I can tell you that securities litigation was a very large industry in the 1990s. It was an extortion racket, and most successful player was Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman. The financial rag columnists (sycophants all) toned down their rhetoric after the four partners pled guilty to federal charges, but there was a decade where no one told the truth about the issue. Even non-financial news sources spread the gospel, as they were informed by the same columnists (so-called experts).
I think that the belief also fits in a common world-view the sees dollars as magic, and it sometimes provides cover for bad behavior.
In short, I think it had inflated exposure when billions were being made in a racket, it's used as an excuse by companies that behave badly, and it allows day-traders to act righteously indignant.
Are you saying this for the specific case of Google, or are you saying this because you think that public companies can only act in the interest of profit?
If it is the latter, are you saying that all companies only act in the interest of growth by nature of being a company, or are you saying that Google is compelled to act in the interest of growth (i.e., Google is compelled to perform an action that is good for growth and socially harmful, if that action is technically legal)?
If you are saying that Google is compelled by securities law to act badly, you're wrong, despite what the people with rolled-up sleeves say on CNBC.
I thought that this submission was a little strange coming from them, as their recent submissions on the subject have been decidedly anti-NN astroturf pieces. Maybe they were expecting us to get mad about the patent thing?
I've been annoyed before with their inanity, but I thought they were just gold-standard-libertarian-fundamentalists. I had no idea that they're actually stoking-hatred-of-immigrants-traditionalist-nazis.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, let's look at boolean logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic [wikipedia.org]
If a kid came and read that would they be wowed into mathematics or would they turn tail and run at the sight of all the "truth"?
Hmm. Maybe I'm not representative, but I think I'd be wowed.
If it's all the set theory that you have a problem with, I personally think kids would get more out of math if they were introduced to sets (and even number theory) at the same time they're learning arithmetic. I'm pretty sure I would have.
Elementary math pedagogy is just behind the times, imho.
Another lame second post, sorry again.
The statement "NORAD data is public" is misleading. All data is not "public", it's just that satellites are plain to see.
The data on the site that you linked to uses the "civilian" database of two-line GP elements, which is actually maintained by NASA but commonly referred to as the "NORAD two-line elements". This database does not contain anywhere near all of the elements tracked by various agencies and collected by the military.
More info.
The military satellites, those that can read your licence plates, are so big and in low orbit that many people and organizations around the world keep track of them.
I am aware of that. See this.
There's no sense in trying to keep secret data that anyone with binoculars can track.
I agree. That doesn't stop them, though.
The NORAD tracking data on both active satellites and debris is listed here [celestrak.com].
Some data is listed there. Unless I'm just not seeing it, the debris that we are concerned with here is not listed (yet?).
Lame second post, sorry...
According to this wikipedia article, SAC catalogues data from a lot of different sources (and sends it up to NORAD?), including ground based radar and telescopes. Maybe one of these sources contacted FAA.
I'm not an expert, but there are other organizations tracking orbiting debris, like ESA. I think "where did the FAA get their information yesterday?" is an excellent question.
I'm totally sure there is someone reading this thread that works in right building to answer your second and third questions.
I'm a little hesitant to speculate about what happened in the past couple of days. However, I will know if I was right or wrong in the coming week, thanks to thousands of amateur astronomers that watch birds that don't exist.
The FAA issued a Notice To Airmen yesterday predicting debris and asking pilots to report.
I think there may be some conflict between the FAA's safety concerns and NORAD's secrecy. NORAD will weigh in eventually (when they're sure what they can and can't say), but there no reason to throw away the FAA's opinion, even though they are not the "go to" agency.
Most recent entry
By "TFA" I mean this: http://www.post-issue.org/user-interface-with-multiple-workspaces-for-sharing-display-system-objects-3
Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but I believe y'all should be going to TFA and posting your comments there.
Echoing earlier posts, I used an Amiga, DESQview, GEM, MUC-DOS, etc. in the 80's.
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA09-020A.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorun#The_AutoRun_disable_bug
You're absolutely wrong. Why do you people keep trusting Microsoft?
Sorry, but this one is definitely your operating system's fault.
You do know that turning off autorun does not turn off autorun, right?
"Reasonable Network Management" is now a famous euphemism in this context.
First, you may want to ask yourself how they know what traffic is your starcraft session.
Second, and this may only interest you if you write software or work on the web, you should ask yourself what applications and protocols would be on the whitelist.
Third, you seem to be under the impression that what the ISPs and big content have in mind is "tiered-access" for customers, something that net neutrality advocates generally have no problems with. Indeed, this is already done... If you want the mother of all internet connections and have an infinite supply of dollars, you can get it.
It's much worse than what the sibling posts on this thread have been saying, so far. It's about total control. ISPs will be allowed to control what applications you use, what protocols you use to connect with others, what content you are allowed to see. All the freedom you take for granted now will be gone.
I love you, too.
You're sort of right about their marketing campaign... http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=109149.
Googling rick wagoner cadillac escalade 25% shows I wasn't the only one dumbfounded by their numbers (or the very idea of a hybrid douchebag-mobile). They revised their estimates after going through fed testing, apparently. You're right that they stopped saying that when they started the newest campaign.
As for the posting page thing, User 1372069, that's what that link is there for - to look at your past comments. Among other things, it's useful for finding out if the user hurling abuse at you is somebody's sockpuppet.
Nearly every gripe with Javascript stems from the first and last items on your list. 99% of the javascript I come across is written as if it is C, which causes all sorts of confusion with scope and efficiency.
Second and third, true enough, but Javascript is not alone.
Other languages with tons of theoretical cred share the newline/semicolon problems (Haskell, for example).
If more programmers understood functional idioms, Javascript wouldn't have such a bad reputation.
By popular media, I meant non-web sources like cable news and radio.
These faux nerds would not even be able to understand the distinction you just made; i.e., they used the term "open source" inappropriately when talking about other issues, of which they were also ignorant.
It's not just Jobs' Reality Distortion Field, not by a long shot. The seemingly-purposeful ignorance of analysts makes me suspicious, too, but Jobs wasn't the first name to come to mind. Apple has only the most recent of the walled gardens among many.
And if you think what's going on in the wireless world with Apple is scary, check out the astroturf from the telco and ISP associations on slashdot. They'd like to tell you what applications (read whole stack) you can use, as well. The assault on the web we know and love is coming from many vectors.
So yeah, I'll take a rain-check on the Jobs-hating party. I do agree that the App Store model is horrible, though.
I think you're on to something putting "analyst" instead of "expert" in quotes. I couldn't remember exactly what they were called in the biz.
Thank you. I'd been searching for the words all morning.
They are wrong because there isn't any law that states that. Shareholders can sue, but only for a pretty limited set of reasons, all of which fall under really serious malfeasance or gross incompetence by officers. You can't sue (and win against) Jerry Yang and the board for not selling to Microsoft, for example.
I'm guessing you really want to know where the meme came from, and I couldn't say for sure (besides the CNBC stuff).
I can tell you that securities litigation was a very large industry in the 1990s. It was an extortion racket, and most successful player was Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman. The financial rag columnists (sycophants all) toned down their rhetoric after the four partners pled guilty to federal charges, but there was a decade where no one told the truth about the issue. Even non-financial news sources spread the gospel, as they were informed by the same columnists (so-called experts).
I think that the belief also fits in a common world-view the sees dollars as magic, and it sometimes provides cover for bad behavior.
In short, I think it had inflated exposure when billions were being made in a racket, it's used as an excuse by companies that behave badly, and it allows day-traders to act righteously indignant.
YMMV, IANAL, etc.
I had the same thoughts.
I would be much more interested in hearing what the top ten Japanese or Korean ISPs have to say about U.S. broadband.
Not flaming you here, this is an honest question.
Are you saying this for the specific case of Google, or are you saying this because you think that public companies can only act in the interest of profit?
If it is the latter, are you saying that all companies only act in the interest of growth by nature of being a company, or are you saying that Google is compelled to act in the interest of growth (i.e., Google is compelled to perform an action that is good for growth and socially harmful, if that action is technically legal)?
If you are saying that Google is compelled by securities law to act badly, you're wrong, despite what the people with rolled-up sleeves say on CNBC.
Umm... That's from their marketing campaign. Yes, it's stupid, on multiple levels.
Did you sign up just to say that? Or are you a coward with a new sockpuppet?
Wow... You're right. Ick!
I thought that this submission was a little strange coming from them, as their recent submissions on the subject have been decidedly anti-NN astroturf pieces. Maybe they were expecting us to get mad about the patent thing?
I've been annoyed before with their inanity, but I thought they were just gold-standard-libertarian-fundamentalists. I had no idea that they're actually stoking-hatred-of-immigrants-traditionalist-nazis.