Consider the amount of CO2 emitted to mine bauxite, convert bauxite to aluminium, ship aluminium half way around the world, form Coke can, fill with fizzy water, ship filled cans half way across the country, etc, etc.
Compare this with the CO2 emitted when you fill a class of water from the tap.
Yes, I understand that in an ideal world most
of the energy in the equation could be
generated without burning fossil fuels. But
until then... see above.
But... if you are already in Arizona doing something unspeakable (which may or may not involve Natalie Portman, hot grits and/or lightning strikes)... then the chance of getting malaria is higher than you probably realise!
Are the students given a lesson on the original "limited monopoly" intention of copyright and patent, or is this just intended to perpetuate the current status quo?
Do really you think that the average 4th grader is equipped to understand these concepts?
ISAS succeeded in deploying a big thin film for solar sail in space for the first time in the world.
ISAS launched a small rocket S-310-34 from Uchinoura Space Center in Kagoshima, Japan, at 15:15, August 9, 2004 (Japan Standard Time). The launch was the culmination of a historic new technology, the world-first successful full-fledged deployment of big films for solar sail.
My interpretation of this and the rest of the article is that they were testing deployment
mechanisms for sail material, rather than
deploying a working solar sail.
The pictures in the article which
show the test sail deployed immediately behind
the launch vehicle imply the same thing. The
following text says that the launch vehicle reentered and splashed down 400 seconds after
liftoff. This can only mean that both the LV
and the sail experiment were in ballistic
flight when the latter was deployed. For
a solar sail to work, it would need to be
deployed after orbital insertion (or after escaping the magnetosphere.) The article
does not mention orbital insertion, nor was
there time for this to occur.
So, they get $250 Million cash. What do they do with it? If they are lucky they can invest it in shares that returns a steady $25M pa... i.e. what they started with. At the same time, they have dipped out on the opportunity to grow the company from one that returns $25M pa to a $250M or $2.5B pa.
This might make sense if they thought that the long-term growth and profit prospects were poor.
However, the fact that the VC's are sniffing around is indicative that prospects for growth in particular are actually pretty good.
If they simply wanted to get out of the grind,
they could hand over management responsibility to someone else... like Bill Gates has done. If they get a good CEO, the money will roll in regardless. AND, the CEO won't have to keep looking over his shoulder at the stock price. Which will be more conducive to a sound long-term strategy.
BTW It is the VC which prcess really founder equity more thab ip process.
The mice developed BSE-like symptoms one to two years later, the team report in Science1. They became weak and shaky, and post-mortem analysis revealed that their brains were full of holes and rogue prion proteins.
Critically, when the mouse brains were ground up and injected into healthy rodents, they too became ill. This is the acid test for any prion disease, says Legname.
Note that the mice didn't just die. They developed BSE-like symptoms and their brains
showed BSE-like degeneration. And the ground
up brain material was capable of passing on
the disease to other mice. Assuming that the research was properly controlled and it can be reproduced by other labs, it pretty much nails the issue.
I didn't get my paper this morning and was angry until I read this.
If you get angry about something as trivial as the
paper not arriving, you need to be on stronger medication. Chill out dude, and be thankful for
all of bad news that you didn't have to read about
over breakfast:-)
This is obviously flamebait, but I'll respond anyhow.
Kids are worthless because they can't do anything yet, and more money (and labor) has to be invested into them before they become useful. The age of the maximum human's worth is around 25 years.
You seem to be equating a childs "worth" with
their current economic earning power. From a purely economic standpoint, this is ludicrous because it ignores potential future earning power. (If shared in XYZ return a zero dividend in 2004,
this does not necessarily make them worthless. Or if it does, I'll happily accept them as a worthless gift:-)
From a genetic stand point, a person's worth could
be equated with their potential to enhance the
propagation of their genes. Even a grandmother has genetic worth because she can do
things to make it more likely that her grandchildren will have children.
Besides... any rational discussion of "worth"
has to include to mention who / what something
has worth to.
Remember the Green / Blue Mars novels by Kim Stanley Robinson where they create an atmosphere on Mars?
Well it looks like it wouldn't be viable without
also finding a way to generate an Earth-like magnetic field.
I guess it depends on your construction of "first class". The definition you cite is for first class data types. I was using it in the sense that the class declaration is not a first class construct in Java. In particular, there is this
awkward issue about non-local variables.
... and you can refer to a non-final attribute from a named or anonymous inner class. What you can't do is refer to a non-final local variable from an anonymous inner class.
Correct. My mistake.
final finalFoo = foo; Object bar = new Object() { private myFoo = finalFoo; // myFoo now acts as 'foo' would if this was // *really* a closure. }
The comment is incorrect. If there was a real closure, then foo could be non-final, and the result of assignments to foo would be apparent in any code in which foo is still in scope. In slightly different code, a single foo might be visible in multiple instances of the anonymous inner class.
But clearly each instance of myFoo is only in scope for a single instance of the inner class.
instance. Hence this is not a simulation of a closure. To do that, you'd need another object
to carry the shared 'foo' variable.
But you probably really knew that... just like I really knew that an inner class can refer to a non-final attribute.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
No I do not think there is any significant distinction.
Saying that aluminium is harmless when you ignore the process that creates it is missing the point. It is the process that is harmful.
But the more important question is: will it taste better than warm beer?
Are bottles slowly cooled in the fridge better tasting?
Bottles don't taste good either way. (Clue for the clueless: open bottle before attempting to consume beer.)
Compare this with the CO2 emitted when you fill a class of water from the tap.
Yes, I understand that in an ideal world most of the energy in the equation could be generated without burning fossil fuels. But until then ... see above.
But... if you are already in Arizona doing something unspeakable (which may or may not involve Natalie Portman, hot grits and/or lightning strikes) ... then the chance of getting malaria is higher than you probably realise!
Be patient, Grasshopper.
That's a bit unfair. Clearly, English is not their native language.
Do really you think that the average 4th grader is equipped to understand these concepts?
The pictures in the article which show the test sail deployed immediately behind the launch vehicle imply the same thing. The following text says that the launch vehicle reentered and splashed down 400 seconds after liftoff. This can only mean that both the LV and the sail experiment were in ballistic flight when the latter was deployed. For a solar sail to work, it would need to be deployed after orbital insertion (or after escaping the magnetosphere.) The article does not mention orbital insertion, nor was there time for this to occur.
So, they get $250 Million cash. What do they do with it? If they are lucky they can invest it in shares that returns a steady $25M pa ... i.e. what they started with. At the same time, they have dipped out on the opportunity to grow the company from one that returns $25M pa to a $250M or $2.5B pa.
This might make sense if they thought that the long-term growth and profit prospects were poor. However, the fact that the VC's are sniffing around is indicative that prospects for growth in particular are actually pretty good.
If they simply wanted to get out of the grind, they could hand over management responsibility to someone else ... like Bill Gates has done. If they get a good CEO, the money will roll in regardless. AND, the CEO won't have to keep looking over his shoulder at the stock price. Which will be more conducive to a sound long-term strategy.
BTW It is the VC which prcess really founder equity more thab ip process.
Sorry, I can't parse that.
No ... give it to me! I have 256 x ZX81's all ready
to hook up!
The mice developed BSE-like symptoms one to two years later, the team report in Science1. They became weak and shaky, and post-mortem analysis revealed that their brains were full of holes and rogue prion proteins.
Critically, when the mouse brains were ground up and injected into healthy rodents, they too became ill. This is the acid test for any prion disease, says Legname.
Note that the mice didn't just die. They developed BSE-like symptoms and their brains showed BSE-like degeneration. And the ground up brain material was capable of passing on the disease to other mice. Assuming that the research was properly controlled and it can be reproduced by other labs, it pretty much nails the issue.
The viola is a fine musical instrument. The problem is that there is almost no decent reportoire for it. (Speaking as an ex-player.)
Bzzzzt!! Bzzzzzzzzzzt!!! This is a family oriented game show!!
Bzzzt. A viola is a musical instrument. Thanks for playing.
Nah ... you get polo from riding about on a horse
trying to whack a little ball with a mallet :-)
(I think you meant "polio" aka "poliomyelitis".)
Why? So he can bag a monkey trophy for his den?
Do these researchers call themselves "quantum spin doctors" or just plain "quantum mechanics"?
I think the reviewer probably meant:
i.e. having some characteristics of oligarchy or anarchy respectively. However, I'm expect Siva explains what he means in detail in his book.If you get angry about something as trivial as the paper not arriving, you need to be on stronger medication. Chill out dude, and be thankful for all of bad news that you didn't have to read about over breakfast :-)
Kids are worthless because they can't do anything yet, and more money (and labor) has to be invested into them before they become useful. The age of the maximum human's worth is around 25 years.
You seem to be equating a childs "worth" with their current economic earning power. From a purely economic standpoint, this is ludicrous because it ignores potential future earning power. (If shared in XYZ return a zero dividend in 2004, this does not necessarily make them worthless. Or if it does, I'll happily accept them as a worthless gift :-)
From a genetic stand point, a person's worth could be equated with their potential to enhance the propagation of their genes. Even a grandmother has genetic worth because she can do things to make it more likely that her grandchildren will have children.
Besides ... any rational discussion of "worth"
has to include to mention who / what something
has worth to.
That's beside the point. The cited article is not about bar codes, or bar codes as a tool for social engineering.
The cited link in fact has little (if anything) to do with barcodes. It is about face recognition systems.
Anyone for a game of Intergalactic Billiards? :-)
Remember the Green / Blue Mars novels by Kim Stanley Robinson where they create an atmosphere on Mars? Well it looks like it wouldn't be viable without also finding a way to generate an Earth-like magnetic field.
I guess it depends on your construction of "first class". The definition you cite is for first class data types. I was using it in the sense that the class declaration is not a first class construct in Java. In particular, there is this awkward issue about non-local variables.
Correct. My mistake.
The comment is incorrect. If there was a real closure, then foo could be non-final, and the result of assignments to foo would be apparent in any code in which foo is still in scope. In slightly different code, a single foo might be visible in multiple instances of the anonymous inner class.
But clearly each instance of myFoo is only in scope for a single instance of the inner class. instance. Hence this is not a simulation of a closure. To do that, you'd need another object to carry the shared 'foo' variable.
But you probably really knew that ... just like I really knew that an inner class can refer to a non-final attribute. :-)