No the control experiment did not get the same results. An alternate version of the "drive" that did no comply with the theory it was supposed to work by did. they also tested a control:
"Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energised twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed."
He's at a bad school. As someone currently studying CS or first year course is in C, which a bit of very basic assembler thrown in on the side. Assembler is compulsory in second year, as is perl, and java.
The evidence that most strongly points to the Russian sponsored separatists is that several social media accounts owned by that group posted that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport at the time and place of the crash, and then quickly removed them. And this has been independently verified. (And given this I can accept that it was also a mistake, because it would be pretty stupid to post otherwise).
FYI the plane altered its course because of severe weather it was avoiding and was still flying in the approved corridor. I was in the air on the day in question in a nearby area, and the weather defiantly warranted this.
If they apply through legally defined channels and have something to offer that Australia deems valuable, they will be welcome
You know that requesting asylum is a legally defined channel regardless of how they arrived right? Or at least that is what we agreed to under international law?
Australia has no duty, whatsoever, to care for every unhappy wanderer that comes to the door.
Apart from the legal duty that our government committed to uphold, and our moral responsibility as human beings. If you disagree with this you should lobby the government to withdraw from these treaties instead of making us look bad on the international stage, but considering the government currently has to lie that they are doing this to "save lives" as supposed to pleasing bigots like you I suspect you won't be very successful.
That's just terrible. It is now clear to me that they must avoid this horrible Australia place at all costs.
Yes and soon so will the rest of the world if we continue to do this. We depend on the rest of the world for things like trade and defence. But more importantly the ends do not justify the means, we are not a country that condones torture and show trials.
When did this notion arise that it is the duty of a nation-state to accept any unpapered, uninvited and unwelcome asshole that shows up with a sad story. If that's the case, there is a shit pot of sad stories just waiting to be told to a credulous, bleeding heart jackass like you.
It may have arisen due to the fact that our government signed binding legal agreements with the rest of the world saying that they would do so. Or maybe some people actually have this thing called morals.
What are they doing, in your view, that is so egregious?
Handing over people to be tortured would be at the top of the list. Quickly followed by housing people in inhumain conditions where asylum seekers are regularly beaten, and one was murdered by the guards. Illegally detaining people without trial or appeal would also fall into that category, as would disappearing people and trying to cover up the evidence.
And most other countries can say that same, but all those 1%s add up. Anyone with a moral compass should be terribly ashamed of how the government we elected is treating refugees.
No that wouldn't be politicly viable, instead we get "direct action" which by all independent projections will achieve approximately 0% of our emission target.
Take a look at the first preference vote, Labor lost significantly more than the Liberals gained. To me that would imply that they won due to people voting out the previous government rather than voting for the current. (Anecdotally a large number of people I've spoken to have also said that they voted for this reason, and were to scared to vote for minor parties incase we got a hung parliment)
Actually whilst this is written by someone clearly biased, it does explain quite reasonably the point I am trying to make (and in a clearer manor then the orignal article): Wikipedia: Talk: Historicity of Jesus FAQ
Thank you, it appears that my assumption that an wikipedia article on such a controversial topic would have been reasonably neutral (or biased away from a Christian perspective) was mistaken. However, from the talk it still seems to appear that there is reasonable evidence for Jesus's existence, although not a consensus as the original article implied.
At the time or my original comment the the main article used the term "scholars of antiquity", which in the context would be the the relevant majority of historians. It has since emerged that the evidence to support that claim is less then originally represented in the articles (see the comment below yours).
However it appears that the majority of scholars who have studied the issue (which appears to mainly be bible scholars, so must be taken with a grain of salt) do support this issue, but not many historians have studied it. I would still argue however that there it is still unreasonable to claim that jesus did not exist when there is a reasonably strong body of evidence (as listed in the wikipedia article) to support his existence, and little to no statements from historians to the contrary.
Um, did you actually read the article or the talk page (where it says the dispute has been resolved). I was actually surprised at the consensus, but the article provides good evidence for it. It also primarily focuses on evidence that isn't from scripture (hence why I assumed you hadn't read the article),
Here's another wikipedia article. Although the other one seems less biased. (I don't have time to wade to check for other article using google, and given wikipedia's primary demographic it is more likely to be accurate then me checking other sources)
Perhaps you should check your facts instead of blindly dismissing things, which is ironically exactly what you and others have been accusing people supporting the historic evidence of Jesus's existence of doing.
And in the gun-control debate, we have in fact had ample time and opportunity to control for other factors. And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation. Yet even so, as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up, Y (violent crime of all sorts) has continued to go down. Therefore: X does not cause Y. Q.E.D.
And yet crime in other Western Countries (ones without guns) has gone down similar amounts, so either increased guns in America causes lower crime in other countries (unlikely) or there are other factors that you have not controlled for. By Occams Razor the latter is much more likely.
No, there really is not a lot of evidence that Yeshua ben Youssif existed. There's a single paragraph in Josephus that everyone agrees was faked, and that's it for contemporary mentions. Peter and Paul existed, but we just have their say-so for it, and not even original texts for that; the earliest surviving documents were recorded centuries after the events.
Joe Sixpack saying he's an atheist doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist. The lack of evidence means he didn't exist.
[citation needed]
It seems that the majority of historians disagree with you: Historicity of Jesus
It is designed for systems where you are using a large number of different technologies, possibly across multiple computers within the robot. (Although I raised exactly the same point you did when I started using it). It has a lot of existing libraries for various hardware components and makes it very easy to add more, which is very helpful when you don't have time to find and stick all the different libraries for these components together yourself.
That being said the documentation, and official tutorials are absolutely terrible and often contain out of date information, or tell you to do things which are no longer available in the current release. This can add a lot of time to projects.
Accurate or repeatable? You've never used one of these systems have you?
And you've never used one of these systems where you need to collect accurate date (such as this one would). It also has to be more durable then your hobby plane, and possibly fly a lot longer whilst carrying heavier equipment to use for wildlife monitoring (HD cameras, backup radios, radar, etc (depending on what exactly it was doing).
Protip: look how much an accurate GPS unit it costs, an accurate one is well over a $100. (Think closer to $1000).
What about radar?
This is a wildlife monitoring drone, it's going to need reasonable range and that means good battery life and low power equipment. Add $100+ to all purchases and a reasonable budget for a long life, lightweight battery.
Autonomous navigation and other custom software features (which need to be extensively tested with your possibly unique hardware combination) ass at least $5000
My university does this (records sound and computer screens so not always useful), a very small number of lecturers turn it off. It is good for catching up or reviewing a topic, but I tend to find that the face to face lecturers allow me to learn better. (And I take notes on my laptop)
One of my lecturers has gone further and recorded all of his lecturers with videos, it allows the course to cover more content as the pre-recorded lectures don't take up class time where extension lecturers and some repeat content is provided.
"Laptop note takers' tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning. If you can type quickly enough, word-for-word transcription is possible, whereas writing by hand usually rules out capturing every word."
So the problem is that laptop users have bad note taking skills, not that laptops cause students to remember less... (Or rather people have bad note taking skills and it's easier to take bad notes on a laptop)
No its because the industry is changing, and there is a number of independent publishers offering authors similar rates, and those services (e.g. smashworlds). Amazon are sticking with the times and taking advantage of new technology to offer authors a different deal.
Considering that's what Amazon does with their kindle app (if you read a series the next book will usually be in the recommendations section on the Amazon home page), it wouldn't surprise me if they did that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Finally, a 50 ohm RF resistive load was used in place of the test article to verify no significant systemic effects that would cause apparent or real torsion pendulum displacements. The RF load was energised twice at an amplifier output power of approximately 28 watts and no significant pendulum arm displacements were observed."
He's at a bad school. As someone currently studying CS or first year course is in C, which a bit of very basic assembler thrown in on the side. Assembler is compulsory in second year, as is perl, and java.
UNSW teaches C, and OS, and microprocessors (which I belive includes assembler). You do Java in second or third year.
The evidence that most strongly points to the Russian sponsored separatists is that several social media accounts owned by that group posted that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport at the time and place of the crash, and then quickly removed them. And this has been independently verified. (And given this I can accept that it was also a mistake, because it would be pretty stupid to post otherwise).
FYI the plane altered its course because of severe weather it was avoiding and was still flying in the approved corridor. I was in the air on the day in question in a nearby area, and the weather defiantly warranted this.
If they apply through legally defined channels and have something to offer that Australia deems valuable, they will be welcome
You know that requesting asylum is a legally defined channel regardless of how they arrived right? Or at least that is what we agreed to under international law?
Australia has no duty, whatsoever, to care for every unhappy wanderer that comes to the door.
Apart from the legal duty that our government committed to uphold, and our moral responsibility as human beings. If you disagree with this you should lobby the government to withdraw from these treaties instead of making us look bad on the international stage, but considering the government currently has to lie that they are doing this to "save lives" as supposed to pleasing bigots like you I suspect you won't be very successful.
That's just terrible. It is now clear to me that they must avoid this horrible Australia place at all costs.
Yes and soon so will the rest of the world if we continue to do this. We depend on the rest of the world for things like trade and defence. But more importantly the ends do not justify the means, we are not a country that condones torture and show trials.
When did this notion arise that it is the duty of a nation-state to accept any unpapered, uninvited and unwelcome asshole that shows up with a sad story. If that's the case, there is a shit pot of sad stories just waiting to be told to a credulous, bleeding heart jackass like you.
It may have arisen due to the fact that our government signed binding legal agreements with the rest of the world saying that they would do so. Or maybe some people actually have this thing called morals.
What are they doing, in your view, that is so egregious?
Handing over people to be tortured would be at the top of the list. Quickly followed by housing people in inhumain conditions where asylum seekers are regularly beaten, and one was murdered by the guards. Illegally detaining people without trial or appeal would also fall into that category, as would disappearing people and trying to cover up the evidence.
And most other countries can say that same, but all those 1%s add up.
Anyone with a moral compass should be terribly ashamed of how the government we elected is treating refugees.
No that wouldn't be politicly viable, instead we get "direct action" which by all independent projections will achieve approximately 0% of our emission target.
Take a look at the first preference vote, Labor lost significantly more than the Liberals gained. To me that would imply that they won due to people voting out the previous government rather than voting for the current. (Anecdotally a large number of people I've spoken to have also said that they voted for this reason, and were to scared to vote for minor parties incase we got a hung parliment)
actually until pretty recently Australia used soccer as well (it has now been phased out officially, but sadly some people still use it)
Actually whilst this is written by someone clearly biased, it does explain quite reasonably the point I am trying to make (and in a clearer manor then the orignal article): Wikipedia: Talk: Historicity of Jesus FAQ
Thank you, it appears that my assumption that an wikipedia article on such a controversial topic would have been reasonably neutral (or biased away from a Christian perspective) was mistaken. However, from the talk it still seems to appear that there is reasonable evidence for Jesus's existence, although not a consensus as the original article implied.
At the time or my original comment the the main article used the term "scholars of antiquity", which in the context would be the the relevant majority of historians. It has since emerged that the evidence to support that claim is less then originally represented in the articles (see the comment below yours).
However it appears that the majority of scholars who have studied the issue (which appears to mainly be bible scholars, so must be taken with a grain of salt) do support this issue, but not many historians have studied it. I would still argue however that there it is still unreasonable to claim that jesus did not exist when there is a reasonably strong body of evidence (as listed in the wikipedia article) to support his existence, and little to no statements from historians to the contrary.
Or English people. (Yes you read that right, in Australia you can't donate blood if you lived in the UK before 1996)
Um, did you actually read the article or the talk page (where it says the dispute has been resolved). I was actually surprised at the consensus, but the article provides good evidence for it. It also primarily focuses on evidence that isn't from scripture (hence why I assumed you hadn't read the article),
Here's another wikipedia article. Although the other one seems less biased. (I don't have time to wade to check for other article using google, and given wikipedia's primary demographic it is more likely to be accurate then me checking other sources)
Perhaps you should check your facts instead of blindly dismissing things, which is ironically exactly what you and others have been accusing people supporting the historic evidence of Jesus's existence of doing.
And in the gun-control debate, we have in fact had ample time and opportunity to control for other factors. And it is extremely important to note that try as we might, we have found no other causal factors that apply to the situation. Yet even so, as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up, Y (violent crime of all sorts) has continued to go down. Therefore: X does not cause Y. Q.E.D.
And yet crime in other Western Countries (ones without guns) has gone down similar amounts, so either increased guns in America causes lower crime in other countries (unlikely) or there are other factors that you have not controlled for. By Occams Razor the latter is much more likely.
No, there really is not a lot of evidence that Yeshua ben Youssif existed. There's a single paragraph in Josephus that everyone agrees was faked, and that's it for contemporary mentions. Peter and Paul existed, but we just have their say-so for it, and not even original texts for that; the earliest surviving documents were recorded centuries after the events.
Joe Sixpack saying he's an atheist doesn't mean Jesus didn't exist. The lack of evidence means he didn't exist.
[citation needed]
It seems that the majority of historians disagree with you: Historicity of Jesus
It is designed for systems where you are using a large number of different technologies, possibly across multiple computers within the robot. (Although I raised exactly the same point you did when I started using it). It has a lot of existing libraries for various hardware components and makes it very easy to add more, which is very helpful when you don't have time to find and stick all the different libraries for these components together yourself.
That being said the documentation, and official tutorials are absolutely terrible and often contain out of date information, or tell you to do things which are no longer available in the current release. This can add a lot of time to projects.
Accurate or repeatable? You've never used one of these systems have you?
And you've never used one of these systems where you need to collect accurate date (such as this one would). It also has to be more durable then your hobby plane, and possibly fly a lot longer whilst carrying heavier equipment to use for wildlife monitoring (HD cameras, backup radios, radar, etc (depending on what exactly it was doing).
Protip: look how much an accurate GPS unit it costs, an accurate one is well over a $100. (Think closer to $1000).
What about radar?
This is a wildlife monitoring drone, it's going to need reasonable range and that means good battery life and low power equipment. Add $100+ to all purchases and a reasonable budget for a long life, lightweight battery. Autonomous navigation and other custom software features (which need to be extensively tested with your possibly unique hardware combination) ass at least $5000
No, they're just being cheap by not installing cameras in every lecture theatre. I've yet to have any lecturers who has turned the system off though.
My university does this (records sound and computer screens so not always useful), a very small number of lecturers turn it off. It is good for catching up or reviewing a topic, but I tend to find that the face to face lecturers allow me to learn better. (And I take notes on my laptop)
One of my lecturers has gone further and recorded all of his lecturers with videos, it allows the course to cover more content as the pre-recorded lectures don't take up class time where extension lecturers and some repeat content is provided.
"Laptop note takers' tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning. If you can type quickly enough, word-for-word transcription is possible, whereas writing by hand usually rules out capturing every word."
So the problem is that laptop users have bad note taking skills, not that laptops cause students to remember less... (Or rather people have bad note taking skills and it's easier to take bad notes on a laptop)
No its because the industry is changing, and there is a number of independent publishers offering authors similar rates, and those services (e.g. smashworlds). Amazon are sticking with the times and taking advantage of new technology to offer authors a different deal.
Considering that's what Amazon does with their kindle app (if you read a series the next book will usually be in the recommendations section on the Amazon home page), it wouldn't surprise me if they did that.