Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution...
You seem to think the Constitution exists IN SPITE of the government, but to the contrary it exists BECAUSE governments (of all types) push the boundaries and strive for more power.
I don't think the designers appreciate the difficulties what they are proposing.
First they suggest someone could/should have thousands of these autonomous vehicles sitting around (in an operational state) waiting for oil spills (with no auxiliary purpose).
Second they ignore the sheer chaos that would ensue as thousands of small, low-profile vehicles travel in and around other vessels necessary to actually stop/control an oil spill. These things wont show up on radar. They probably can't be seen at night, and are likely difficult or impossible to avoid by the large ships that get called to such oil spill areas. So either you have to drastically rework ship traffic to avoid the robots, maintain exclusion areas around the robots, or banish the robots to areas away from essential ship traffic.
Third, operating autonomous vehicles at sea is very difficult. Doing so on these scales is not only difficult, it's absolutely unheard of. Nigh impossible. Keeping small numbers of autonomous vehicles operational, launching them, and successfully recovering them is no easy task. The only way you can really hope to deploy autonomous vehicles in these numbers is if they are disposable and you have no intention of recovering them.
Finally, what happens when a storm or, God forbid, a hurricane decides to stroll by? Are you supposed to send out crews to wrangle up the 5000 vehicles bobbing around the increasingly rough seas? Do you leave them to their fate/demise?
This whole idea wreaks of idealistic nonsense and poor engineering.
Unfortunately your opinion does not qualify you to dictate what is and is not morally or ethically acceptable behavior (neither does your political affiliation, nor having or not having a uterus, but then again, with simplistic reasoning such as yours, I'm not surprised you've resorted to chauvinism). Saying "it's science" or "it's progress" doesn't answer the question of whether it *SHOULD* be done... Throughout history there have been countless examples of clearly ethically dubious behavior and even blatant atrocities in an attempt to illicit some scientific "advancement" of one form or another. You don't want to debate the morality of the destruction of embryos. You want to castigate anyone who disagrees with you and frame them as somehow anti-Science. It's asinine and you (should) know it.
Your analogy is erroneous in that there is no such thing as "normal" weather or "normal" climate.
Human body temperatures don't fluctuate noticeably unless there is a problem (to which you allude). The same cannot be said for weather or climate.
By the way: "proxy data" is laughable. I'll just leave it at that.
I'll bet this Tate guy would use his iTunes in the production of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons if not for the courageous and providential oversight provided by St. Jobs's.
If you have students just beginning, the most important thing you can do to help them is to introduce them to a language/framework they can tinker with themselves. C and C++ can be problematic if the students run Windows at home. Be honest. If the students have as little experience as you say, the students will get far more benefit from becoming familiar with a language they can use at home, on the weekends, or whenever they feel like tinkering than they will being shoehorned into using C to fit under a competition's "CPU limit".
Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with VB or Pascal, so I didn't comment on them.
You are mistaken. By "single solution" they are not referring to a "solution" to the problem, but a "solution" to the problem of calculating the solution.
That is, the class of problems are related in such a way that an efficient algorithm for one is an efficient algorithm for all (because each problem can be decomposed in polynomial time time into "sister" problems of the same class).
"I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race."
That wouldn't have anything to do with your desire to see your career funded, would it? Research fellowship get denied?
Do you have any idea how much these schools (and the conference as a whole) make in ticket revenues? They have the largest stadiums in the country and they are usually packed every weekend.
The hard part about teaching principles (especially to those who are not educated in the internal technical mechanics of a computer) is cutting through the "magic" of it all.
Those who study Computer Science get a heavy dose of Computer Engineering education for one simple reason: it's almost impossible to really understand good software principles without understanding (I mean, really understanding) how the hardware does what it does.
Without a foundation based on the basic knowledge of data paths, ALU's, registers, state machines, etc, etc, pretty much any principle or knowlege can be trivialized away as "magic" or "someone else's job".
Without a doubt, the most enlightening class in my college career was the class where we had to write control unit microcode for a given architecture (in a simulator), then develop software in assembly, manually translate that code into binary, and run it.
I think it's unreasonable to expect anything more than operational knowledge of programming from someone without such knowlege.
I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.
Are you insane? Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids? Any "near earth" asteroids would be on eccentric orbits. I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth. It certainly would be extremely dangerous (you know, with the risk of being stranded in a 100+ year orbit, ejected from the inner solar system, etc, etc).
The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons: they are close and they are "easy" to land on. The hard part about either is getting there and getting back. Asteroids are harder to get to, more dangerous to approach, more difficult to land on, and far more difficult to leave.
You don't know what you are talking about.
"There is no legitimate reason to hoard domains, except to capitalize on the scarcity."
There is no legitimate reason to hoard diamonds, either, except to capitalize on the scarcity.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNcyAEtXjyI&feature=related
That's not gonna work. The OP wants the students to be able to remove it.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution...
You seem to think the Constitution exists IN SPITE of the government, but to the contrary it exists BECAUSE governments (of all types) push the boundaries and strive for more power.
I don't think the designers appreciate the difficulties what they are proposing.
First they suggest someone could/should have thousands of these autonomous vehicles sitting around (in an operational state) waiting for oil spills (with no auxiliary purpose).
Second they ignore the sheer chaos that would ensue as thousands of small, low-profile vehicles travel in and around other vessels necessary to actually stop/control an oil spill. These things wont show up on radar. They probably can't be seen at night, and are likely difficult or impossible to avoid by the large ships that get called to such oil spill areas. So either you have to drastically rework ship traffic to avoid the robots, maintain exclusion areas around the robots, or banish the robots to areas away from essential ship traffic.
Third, operating autonomous vehicles at sea is very difficult. Doing so on these scales is not only difficult, it's absolutely unheard of. Nigh impossible. Keeping small numbers of autonomous vehicles operational, launching them, and successfully recovering them is no easy task. The only way you can really hope to deploy autonomous vehicles in these numbers is if they are disposable and you have no intention of recovering them.
Finally, what happens when a storm or, God forbid, a hurricane decides to stroll by? Are you supposed to send out crews to wrangle up the 5000 vehicles bobbing around the increasingly rough seas? Do you leave them to their fate/demise?
This whole idea wreaks of idealistic nonsense and poor engineering.
Unfortunately your opinion does not qualify you to dictate what is and is not morally or ethically acceptable behavior (neither does your political affiliation, nor having or not having a uterus, but then again, with simplistic reasoning such as yours, I'm not surprised you've resorted to chauvinism). Saying "it's science" or "it's progress" doesn't answer the question of whether it *SHOULD* be done... Throughout history there have been countless examples of clearly ethically dubious behavior and even blatant atrocities in an attempt to illicit some scientific "advancement" of one form or another. You don't want to debate the morality of the destruction of embryos. You want to castigate anyone who disagrees with you and frame them as somehow anti-Science. It's asinine and you (should) know it.
Yeah, I guess subtlety is not often appreciated around here.
The next time someone at work asks me to do something my response will be "I can't. That's NP."
Your analogy is erroneous in that there is no such thing as "normal" weather or "normal" climate. Human body temperatures don't fluctuate noticeably unless there is a problem (to which you allude). The same cannot be said for weather or climate. By the way: "proxy data" is laughable. I'll just leave it at that.
Sounds like a great way to land a spot on a terrorist watch list, to me...
I'll bet this Tate guy would use his iTunes in the production of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons if not for the courageous and providential oversight provided by St. Jobs's.
Anyone have a clue why the shuttle would be making a retrograde descent?
If you have students just beginning, the most important thing you can do to help them is to introduce them to a language/framework they can tinker with themselves. C and C++ can be problematic if the students run Windows at home. Be honest. If the students have as little experience as you say, the students will get far more benefit from becoming familiar with a language they can use at home, on the weekends, or whenever they feel like tinkering than they will being shoehorned into using C to fit under a competition's "CPU limit". Disclaimer: I have no personal experience with VB or Pascal, so I didn't comment on them.
You are mistaken. By "single solution" they are not referring to a "solution" to the problem, but a "solution" to the problem of calculating the solution. That is, the class of problems are related in such a way that an efficient algorithm for one is an efficient algorithm for all (because each problem can be decomposed in polynomial time time into "sister" problems of the same class).
"I'm really annoyed that health care is currently distracting the Senate from an issue that affects the future of the entire human race." That wouldn't have anything to do with your desire to see your career funded, would it? Research fellowship get denied?
That's all well and good, but we are taxing small businesses into oblivion, and it's only going to get worse.
Spoiler Alert! Protoss win.
Any experiment that doesn't result in a large explosion is a failure.
Do you have any idea how much these schools (and the conference as a whole) make in ticket revenues? They have the largest stadiums in the country and they are usually packed every weekend.
I don't think this is going to be much of a problem. Alcohol and mobile devices don't go well together, and everyone is drunk at SEC games.
"Phillandering Monarch: The Search for an Heir" was, unfortunately, too risque for the Wii.
I think all patriotic Americans have a duty to "pound" some Chinese "servers" in retaliation for this heinous crime.
The hard part about teaching principles (especially to those who are not educated in the internal technical mechanics of a computer) is cutting through the "magic" of it all. Those who study Computer Science get a heavy dose of Computer Engineering education for one simple reason: it's almost impossible to really understand good software principles without understanding (I mean, really understanding) how the hardware does what it does. Without a foundation based on the basic knowledge of data paths, ALU's, registers, state machines, etc, etc, pretty much any principle or knowlege can be trivialized away as "magic" or "someone else's job". Without a doubt, the most enlightening class in my college career was the class where we had to write control unit microcode for a given architecture (in a simulator), then develop software in assembly, manually translate that code into binary, and run it. I think it's unreasonable to expect anything more than operational knowledge of programming from someone without such knowlege.
I wish Bush had set a more realistic goal... landing on near earth asteroids.
Are you insane? Do you have any idea how hard it is to land on asteroids? Any "near earth" asteroids would be on eccentric orbits. I doubt it would even be possible to land on an asteroid and return to Earth. It certainly would be extremely dangerous (you know, with the risk of being stranded in a 100+ year orbit, ejected from the inner solar system, etc, etc). The Moon and Mars are targets for two reasons: they are close and they are "easy" to land on. The hard part about either is getting there and getting back. Asteroids are harder to get to, more dangerous to approach, more difficult to land on, and far more difficult to leave. You don't know what you are talking about.
"There is no legitimate reason to hoard domains, except to capitalize on the scarcity." There is no legitimate reason to hoard diamonds, either, except to capitalize on the scarcity.
No, we weren't a Leggo family.
Clearly.