What should we consider to be more-powerful evidence; one anecdote from an anonymous source, or data? I feel like a science teacher may have told me the answer to this one...
"Further, there was later damage to suggest that the reactor did suffer significant damage during the quake, thus damaging the assumption that the original design and engineering was adequate."
You can't design to withstand 100% of earthquakes. Fukishima was designed so that, based on frequency and strength of quakes, it would have a 99.something% chance of not running into something worse than it could handle; like all nuclear plants are. That was what the engineers were told to do, and they did it; it was designed to withstand an 8.something.
Then it was noticed that the geology was worse than first thought; quakes bigger than 8.something were more frequent than the engineers had been told. Then it's lifetime was extended; more lifetime, more chances to "win". Then it was hit by a 9.0, the fifth-largest earthquake ever recorded, and 10x more powerful than the engineers had been instructed to prepare for.
I'm sure you're all familiar with being given incorrect design requirements and feature creep.
(Note: interpretation based mostly on US law; UK is similar but not identical. If there's something I've got specifically wrong because of that, please let me know.)
If they guy made a reproduction of the original, and tried to sell it AS the original, that's counterfeiting; that's illegal. He didn't; he was clearly inspired by the original, but that's not illegal, THAT'S ART.
If there were some patented process that the original author used to create the work, and this guy used that without permission, that's patent infringement; that's illegal. But you can't patent a series of photoshop steps.
The first guy took a picture, and applied a bunch of filters to it. The second guy took a picture--a notably different one, so obviously no copyright issue--and applied a bunch of filters to it, something which SHOULD have nothing to do with copyright, and yet this judge decided it did.
No, no, no.
Maybe, MAYBE, the original artist could claim that set of filters is his trademark, in which case he'd need to show that potential customers could be confused by the second photographers usage of it. But they did not even try to show that.
It's not PEOPLE, it's GROUPS of people. And it's called Duverger's Law: single-member plurality elections tend toward two-party-dominated governments. If you want a broader selection of views, you need to get away from single-member districts and/or plurality elections. I recommend some form of proportional representation (any will do) and approval voting for elections that are necessarily single-winner (governor, president.)
Add a term to you results-scoring algorithm to account for the ethics and morality you wish to promote. (Minus points for prisoners, but plus points for lowering crime rates; minus points for human experiments, but plus points for increased health.) Problem solved! Now, just to iron out the details...
Engineers are the same in politics as they are elsewhere. They'll fix any well-defined problem, but the solution can only meet two of three criteria: fast, cheap, and high-quality. But voters (like customers) will want all three, and won't define the problem well.
Nope. There is no center, or rather, every point appears to be equivalently central. You can't mark the "center" of the surface of a sphere; that's meaningless. Sure, you can mark the center of the sphere, but the center of the sphere is not a part of the surface of the sphere. If the universe is the surface, then the center is not a part of the universe. From within the universe, the center does not exist. And sure, you could mark any point on the sphere and call it "the center", and every other point on the sphere would move away as the sphere expanded... but the point of view from every other point on the sphere is exactly the same as for the point you picked; none of them are central. You have to read Flatland (it's free; that was a project Gutenberg link!) so you can start to break out of your exclusively-3D thinking.
Yup. Think of it like you're an ant on the surface of an expanding balloon. There is no "center" to the _surface_ of the balloon. Every point on the balloon is moving away from every other point on the balloon, and the further apart two points are, the faster they are moving apart. The "surface" of the universe is 3D though. (Read Flatland, then Sphereland.)
One: meter. Originally, the meter was suppose to be 1/40,000 of the circumference of the earth as measured from poll-to-poll and back. They actually tried to measure this, with surveyors and crap, and they were a bit off on it. Now, yes, it is based on the distance light travels in a vacuum in a specific (very short) amount of time, although it is still very close to that original (inaccurate) measurement. However, you don't need to "worry" about relativistic effects: any measuring device you apply will shrink in the same proportion as what is being measured (because the difference is only visible to an observer in a different reference frame.)
Two: kilogram. They originally did it by a cubic centimeter (which is why the base unit name was the gram) not a cubic decimeter; when the changed to cubic decimeter/liter though they didn't redefine gram, they just said they were defining the KILOgram. And yes, it was at zero degrees, but it was also--unspecified but assumed--at one atmosphere of pressure. Later, it was changed to be at 4 degrees, since that's when water is at its most-dense (again, at 1 atm.) and that's the mass that the reference mass was based on, but since then the reference mass is the ONLY thing the measure is based on. Which is handy, because (as you've surely guessed) the value would change at different pressures (or if the definition of a meter changed) but is bad because you can't just describe a kilogram; you have to physically use the reference mass.
Three: Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit also used water, yes, but it was salt water (he was interested in international shipping, which goes through oceans, which are full of salt water). Salt water freezes at 0 F and boils at 100 F; nothing to do with degrees in a circle.
Now, bonus question: why is the pressure measurement "1mm of water" not equal to 1/10th of the pressure measurement "1cm of water"?
And still zero deaths attributable from the disaster due to radiation.
Did you know that in March--the same month as Fukishima--that a worker at an aging US power plant, scheduled to be closed and currently down for maintenance, was killed in an explosion? But it wasn't a nuclear plant (it was coal) so no one cared. The company's been fined, but no government is committing to shutting down 100% of its coal plants.
And yeah, it's still too early to detect any increase in cancer rates, but by the six-month mark, Chernobyl had killed about 300 people via acute radiation sickness, so I don't see how anyone can claim this either IS worse than Chernobyl or WILL BE worse. 300 versus zero.
Like everything else in biology, usually complex proteins. Let Me Wiki That For You. (Although this technology seems quite different, I believe the basic idea is still the same.)
My sarcasmometer is busted but: Yes smart guy, transistors currently contain protons. The difference is that, in this transistor, the protons are the "moving part", rather than electrons (and electron holes).
Because it's EPIC. I guess you could argue whether having multiple fixed-length instructions is "different enough" to justify calling it something different, but Intel's marketers (and at least some of their engineers) thought so.
"Education is expensive for the same reason home prices spiked."
Wow; I didn't realize that student loan officers were convincing undergrads to take out bigger loans than they needed (and loans that the lenders knew were bigger than the students could afford) just so they could sell them off to bundlers. And that those bundlers didn't care about the possibility of non-payment, because they were just combining them all together, skimming a top tranche off the top, and selling it as a AAA-safe investment, even though they knew it wasn't that safe. And now that the truth is out, that those top student loan bundle investments weren't that safe, there's a bunch of empty diplomas, just sitting out there on the market, with the grass growing up around them...
I have an engineering degree from a top-tier college, but my student loan payment is less than $100 month. How? Because my family was poor, and so I qualified for extensive need-based aid. College is expensive because rich people can afford to pay for expensive college, but need-based aid is the greatest price discrimination ploy ever. If you've got the brains and the drive (and a little luck) then you can go to a top-tier school, regardless of the listed cost. You and your family will be on the hook for all you can possibly afford, but they will find an amount which you CAN afford.
Why is (the list-price of) education expensive? Because the rich are growing ever-richer.
The point of leaking is to expose malfeasance. The point of redacting the leaked material was to limit collateral damage to those who had not acted poorly. You only leak what you need to leak in order to expose the bad acts and bad actors, but no more than that.
WikiLeaks' act of leaking the original (redacted) leaks and their suit against this new (non-redacted) leak are a consistent stance from the point of doing the most good while avoiding the most damage. But oh, to live in your simple world...
Slashdot Mirror
What should we consider to be more-powerful evidence; one anecdote from an anonymous source, or data? I feel like a science teacher may have told me the answer to this one...
"Further, there was later damage to suggest that the reactor did suffer significant damage during the quake, thus damaging the assumption that the original design and engineering was adequate."
You can't design to withstand 100% of earthquakes. Fukishima was designed so that, based on frequency and strength of quakes, it would have a 99.something% chance of not running into something worse than it could handle; like all nuclear plants are. That was what the engineers were told to do, and they did it; it was designed to withstand an 8.something.
Then it was noticed that the geology was worse than first thought; quakes bigger than 8.something were more frequent than the engineers had been told. Then it's lifetime was extended; more lifetime, more chances to "win". Then it was hit by a 9.0, the fifth-largest earthquake ever recorded, and 10x more powerful than the engineers had been instructed to prepare for.
I'm sure you're all familiar with being given incorrect design requirements and feature creep.
If they guy made a reproduction of the original, and tried to sell it AS the original, that's counterfeiting; that's illegal. He didn't; he was clearly inspired by the original, but that's not illegal, THAT'S ART.
If there were some patented process that the original author used to create the work, and this guy used that without permission, that's patent infringement; that's illegal. But you can't patent a series of photoshop steps.
The first guy took a picture, and applied a bunch of filters to it. The second guy took a picture--a notably different one, so obviously no copyright issue--and applied a bunch of filters to it, something which SHOULD have nothing to do with copyright, and yet this judge decided it did.
No, no, no.
Maybe, MAYBE, the original artist could claim that set of filters is his trademark, in which case he'd need to show that potential customers could be confused by the second photographers usage of it. But they did not even try to show that.
Damnit, my strike tags on your "the" got edited out! Now I'M going to get nit-picked.
(Nitpicky edit)
"To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts..."
(/Nitpicky edit)
It's not PEOPLE, it's GROUPS of people. And it's called Duverger's Law: single-member plurality elections tend toward two-party-dominated governments. If you want a broader selection of views, you need to get away from single-member districts and/or plurality elections. I recommend some form of proportional representation (any will do) and approval voting for elections that are necessarily single-winner (governor, president.)
Add a term to you results-scoring algorithm to account for the ethics and morality you wish to promote. (Minus points for prisoners, but plus points for lowering crime rates; minus points for human experiments, but plus points for increased health.) Problem solved! Now, just to iron out the details...
Engineers are the same in politics as they are elsewhere. They'll fix any well-defined problem, but the solution can only meet two of three criteria: fast, cheap, and high-quality. But voters (like customers) will want all three, and won't define the problem well.
When they started, there was no Wikipedia. But I guess it shows some sort of grim determination that they bothered to finish?
Nope. There is no center, or rather, every point appears to be equivalently central. You can't mark the "center" of the surface of a sphere; that's meaningless. Sure, you can mark the center of the sphere, but the center of the sphere is not a part of the surface of the sphere. If the universe is the surface, then the center is not a part of the universe. From within the universe, the center does not exist. And sure, you could mark any point on the sphere and call it "the center", and every other point on the sphere would move away as the sphere expanded... but the point of view from every other point on the sphere is exactly the same as for the point you picked; none of them are central. You have to read Flatland (it's free; that was a project Gutenberg link!) so you can start to break out of your exclusively-3D thinking.
Yup. Think of it like you're an ant on the surface of an expanding balloon. There is no "center" to the _surface_ of the balloon. Every point on the balloon is moving away from every other point on the balloon, and the further apart two points are, the faster they are moving apart. The "surface" of the universe is 3D though. (Read Flatland, then Sphereland.)
One: meter. Originally, the meter was suppose to be 1/40,000 of the circumference of the earth as measured from poll-to-poll and back. They actually tried to measure this, with surveyors and crap, and they were a bit off on it. Now, yes, it is based on the distance light travels in a vacuum in a specific (very short) amount of time, although it is still very close to that original (inaccurate) measurement. However, you don't need to "worry" about relativistic effects: any measuring device you apply will shrink in the same proportion as what is being measured (because the difference is only visible to an observer in a different reference frame.)
Two: kilogram. They originally did it by a cubic centimeter (which is why the base unit name was the gram) not a cubic decimeter; when the changed to cubic decimeter/liter though they didn't redefine gram, they just said they were defining the KILOgram. And yes, it was at zero degrees, but it was also--unspecified but assumed--at one atmosphere of pressure. Later, it was changed to be at 4 degrees, since that's when water is at its most-dense (again, at 1 atm.) and that's the mass that the reference mass was based on, but since then the reference mass is the ONLY thing the measure is based on. Which is handy, because (as you've surely guessed) the value would change at different pressures (or if the definition of a meter changed) but is bad because you can't just describe a kilogram; you have to physically use the reference mass.
Three: Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit also used water, yes, but it was salt water (he was interested in international shipping, which goes through oceans, which are full of salt water). Salt water freezes at 0 F and boils at 100 F; nothing to do with degrees in a circle.
Now, bonus question: why is the pressure measurement "1mm of water" not equal to 1/10th of the pressure measurement "1cm of water"?
Well, it's a military comm system, so it's more like swords into sword-supporting infrastructure.
You should get the latest bugfixed version; 3.6.22 is out (and working flawlessly, I should point out.)
And still zero deaths attributable from the disaster due to radiation.
Did you know that in March--the same month as Fukishima--that a worker at an aging US power plant, scheduled to be closed and currently down for maintenance, was killed in an explosion? But it wasn't a nuclear plant (it was coal) so no one cared. The company's been fined, but no government is committing to shutting down 100% of its coal plants.
And yeah, it's still too early to detect any increase in cancer rates, but by the six-month mark, Chernobyl had killed about 300 people via acute radiation sickness, so I don't see how anyone can claim this either IS worse than Chernobyl or WILL BE worse. 300 versus zero.
Damnit. I knew that; stupid fingers. Where is it written that, every time you correct someone, you will make an obvious and stupid error?
Alpha radiation in a deuterium nucleus--2 protons and 2 neutrons--not a lone proton.
Like everything else in biology, usually complex proteins. Let Me Wiki That For You. (Although this technology seems quite different, I believe the basic idea is still the same.)
That's the point: this is a step towards fixing the problem of interpreting nerve signals.
My sarcasmometer is busted but: Yes smart guy, transistors currently contain protons. The difference is that, in this transistor, the protons are the "moving part", rather than electrons (and electron holes).
No, you're right. Now, what do you get if you take a hydrogen atom, and ionize it?
Because it's EPIC. I guess you could argue whether having multiple fixed-length instructions is "different enough" to justify calling it something different, but Intel's marketers (and at least some of their engineers) thought so.
Wow; I didn't realize that student loan officers were convincing undergrads to take out bigger loans than they needed (and loans that the lenders knew were bigger than the students could afford) just so they could sell them off to bundlers. And that those bundlers didn't care about the possibility of non-payment, because they were just combining them all together, skimming a top tranche off the top, and selling it as a AAA-safe investment, even though they knew it wasn't that safe. And now that the truth is out, that those top student loan bundle investments weren't that safe, there's a bunch of empty diplomas, just sitting out there on the market, with the grass growing up around them...
I have an engineering degree from a top-tier college, but my student loan payment is less than $100 month. How? Because my family was poor, and so I qualified for extensive need-based aid. College is expensive because rich people can afford to pay for expensive college, but need-based aid is the greatest price discrimination ploy ever. If you've got the brains and the drive (and a little luck) then you can go to a top-tier school, regardless of the listed cost. You and your family will be on the hook for all you can possibly afford, but they will find an amount which you CAN afford.
Why is (the list-price of) education expensive? Because the rich are growing ever-richer.
The point of leaking is to expose malfeasance. The point of redacting the leaked material was to limit collateral damage to those who had not acted poorly. You only leak what you need to leak in order to expose the bad acts and bad actors, but no more than that.
WikiLeaks' act of leaking the original (redacted) leaks and their suit against this new (non-redacted) leak are a consistent stance from the point of doing the most good while avoiding the most damage. But oh, to live in your simple world...
Social signaling.
Why do you buy $30 t-shirts with hilarious geeky in-jokes, when the 3-for-$5 pack of t-shirts are, functionally, identical?
Social signaling.