It's not a farce, it's the very basis of the scientific method.
The very first step you have to take when you make a scientific claim is to design a falsifiable hypothesis.
Logic and your observation is not anything you're expected to have faith is, logic is easily replicated and provable from it's base rules and the entire point of peer review is so other people can make their own observations and check if they math yours.
There is no dogma, everything is testable and repeatable.
"That really depends, again, on what type of music we're talking about here. I've been to shows where I've walked out because the sound was terrible (never for my favorite bands, but that's kind of why they're my favorites: they almost always sound good) and other shows where the bands were heckled by the crowd to the point that they cut their set short. And recently, too.
What you're describing sounds very similar to the pop scene, where loyalty to artists lasts as long as they remain the hippest kids on the block and not whether or not they produce good music."
I was talking about for example afterski's where the quality of the band isn't horribly important aslong as they play the music the audience wants and keep the mood right.
I thought it was generally accepted that it's impossible for a human to sing in perfect pitch.
Personally I find it fairly interesting to see how people use technology to make better sounding music.
Anyhow it's probably not very important if all the sound can be replicated in full quality live since a live audience performance is all about the environment and the show and people care a lot less about how the actual music sounds.
AFAIK most of the technical problems have been solved, the idea is that you lift up a satellite carrying several heavy rods of tungsten equipped with small fins and a targeting computer and then you just drop it ontop of whatever you want destroyed, apparently a telephone pole sized rod will have about the same impact as a small nuke. All of this is from the wikipedia article.
However as you say the problem is mostly political, who in their right mind would let you launch orbital weapons, they'd just shoot it down on the way up.
Once you're in orbit you don't even need a warhead. The V2 missiles the germans used did most of their damage by weight alone(I can't find any reference to this right now, maybe it was a myth?).
That list is so redudant, A) every thing on the list is a subset of mathematics, B) everything except mathematics is a subset of physics, C) aorolasticity is a subset of materials science etc etc
Also I'd generally expect more then one scientist to be working on the problem, it's not like a single person is expected to be an expert in all fields.
Predicting climate is somewhat similar to trying to estimate what time a train will arrive at the station, predicting the weather is somewhat similar to trying to estimate at what millimeter of the train track the train will be in the future.
I just know that where I live(in Sweden) there has been a number of cases in the news where corrupt personnel has been caught by cross referencing the transactions of several cards. This obviously only catches the one that stole the card not the one that might be using it.
Hmm, it would be really interesting to just put 4 more GB of RAM into the computer and make a ramdisk out of it and then point the windows pagefile to the ramdisk. That should hopefully once and for all put an end to that painfull trashing.
Actually most people that copy CC's tend to get caught since it only takes 2 cards to be able to notice that both bought things from the same place and then the employer can check who's was on shift.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a farce, it's the very basis of the scientific method.
The very first step you have to take when you make a scientific claim is to design a falsifiable hypothesis.
Logic and your observation is not anything you're expected to have faith is, logic is easily replicated and provable from it's base rules and the entire point of peer review is so other people can make their own observations and check if they math yours.
There is no dogma, everything is testable and repeatable.
"That really depends, again, on what type of music we're talking about here. I've been to shows where I've walked out because the sound was terrible (never for my favorite bands, but that's kind of why they're my favorites: they almost always sound good) and other shows where the bands were heckled by the crowd to the point that they cut their set short. And recently, too.
What you're describing sounds very similar to the pop scene, where loyalty to artists lasts as long as they remain the hippest kids on the block and not whether or not they produce good music."
I was talking about for example afterski's where the quality of the band isn't horribly important aslong as they play the music the audience wants and keep the mood right.
I thought it was generally accepted that it's impossible for a human to sing in perfect pitch.
Personally I find it fairly interesting to see how people use technology to make better sounding music.
Anyhow it's probably not very important if all the sound can be replicated in full quality live since a live audience performance is all about the environment and the show and people care a lot less about how the actual music sounds.
AFAIK most of the technical problems have been solved, the idea is that you lift up a satellite carrying several heavy rods of tungsten equipped with small fins and a targeting computer and then you just drop it ontop of whatever you want destroyed, apparently a telephone pole sized rod will have about the same impact as a small nuke. All of this is from the wikipedia article.
However as you say the problem is mostly political, who in their right mind would let you launch orbital weapons, they'd just shoot it down on the way up.
In the same way it doesn't have to be a complicated equation to be math, you're using a lot more math subconsciously then you think you are.
I don't think leader means what you think it does:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leader
http://nniling.us/435/
My point was just that it's redundant saying it requires engineering AND mathematics, you can't possibly be an engineer without knowing maths.
The very fact that the word "antisemitic" exists makes me one, quite the same way i find the word feminist retarded.
Once you're in orbit you don't even need a warhead. The V2 missiles the germans used did most of their damage by weight alone(I can't find any reference to this right now, maybe it was a myth?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
There is nothing about the term president that implies that you were elected, it just means leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President
That list is so redudant, A) every thing on the list is a subset of mathematics, B) everything except mathematics is a subset of physics, C) aorolasticity is a subset of materials science etc etc
Also I'd generally expect more then one scientist to be working on the problem, it's not like a single person is expected to be an expert in all fields.
Because they want to keep the other 70%?
It was a British journal.
I wonder when companies will realize that trying to silence people in this modern age will just lead to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Predicting climate is somewhat similar to trying to estimate what time a train will arrive at the station, predicting the weather is somewhat similar to trying to estimate at what millimeter of the train track the train will be in the future.
You probably opted in as part of your contract the same way you probably opted in to them getting your first born.
yes, but afaik they're opt-in usually as a part of your telephone subscription.
In Sweden it's defined as any combination of data that can individually identify a person.
When will companies face accountability for the damages they cause due to lax data security?
That would make it a serious pain in the ass to do time calculations.
The problem is that some things that are a requirement for actually surviving have a very high energy draw. Heating, fridge and stove comes to mind.
I just know that where I live(in Sweden) there has been a number of cases in the news where corrupt personnel has been caught by cross referencing the transactions of several cards. This obviously only catches the one that stole the card not the one that might be using it.
Hmm, it would be really interesting to just put 4 more GB of RAM into the computer and make a ramdisk out of it and then point the windows pagefile to the ramdisk. That should hopefully once and for all put an end to that painfull trashing.
Actually most people that copy CC's tend to get caught since it only takes 2 cards to be able to notice that both bought things from the same place and then the employer can check who's was on shift.
It's relatively trivial and not very expensive to just set up a second account with a second debit card with alot less money on it.