How about, because of the fact that physicists are not JUST physicists, yes, their knowledge should extend significantly beyond the singular focus of their primary subject. It doesn't HAVE to be art, but anyone who wants to specialize in one field should make it a point to be fairly competent in several others, and to have at least a basic background in all of the standard fields. Anything else means that said physicist is poorly prepared for life and probably should not walk outside of that one tiny laboratory.
While it's excellent to be both, being a skilled specialist does not imply that one is intelligent.
The probability is either zero or one, because whether or not the feature being sought is present is a state of nature.
... If you flip a coin, but don't look at the result, then the result is either heads or tails and the outcome present is a state of nature, but the PROBABILITY is 50% (for a fair coin). It is identical for images. It should tip you off when you find yourself using phrases like "the probability is either zero or one", because that statement identifies two states which each have a probability of happening in a random trial.
Such as - you know - which assholes are accepted enough by the corporations, religious nuts and lobbiest groups in the first place to even become viable candidates.
What good is a viable candidate if your vote doesn't count anyway? Accurate voting is an essential element of a democracy, and so it MUST be in place.
If you want a better system, you need to support each component of that better system when it comes along. Sticking your head in the sand and waiting for everything to completely match your dream world isn't going to get you anywhere.
I think your idea is in a good direction, particularly with 1 and 3. I would like to see that implemented as a checkable/uncheckable option under "View" for "Enable plugins". Some pages become much more tolerable if you could disable all the flash/video/sound plugins for just that page.
If you want Firefox with its original advantages and just its original features, why not use the original Firefox?
Well, you'd still need to worry about discovered security bugs. So if you like the original firefox better than the newer ones, you should go fork yourself.
* First, is there a problem that needs solving? Are we really that short of spectrum?
Yes there is, and yes we could always use more. First, terahertz communication has a much higher theoretical bandwidth than gigahertz communication. Second, it's not currently locked down by regulation and existing use. (2.45 GHz isn't used for wireless because it's ideal. In fact, it's a wavelength quite likely to absorbed by biological tissue. It's used because regulations permit that band to be used.)
* Secondly, if this is so great, why hasnt it been done already?
Because the electronic components at that timescale are difficult to build. Ever see a terahertz cpu?
* Next, did anybody do a literature search to see if it has been done?
See for yourself. In a very light perusal through titles, essentially every article says "towards" or "future".
* Next, is this the most economical way to do this?
Probably not, but you have to start somewhere before you can get cheaper.
The general principle that universities use is that anything you turn in, you assign copyright to the university.
By "general principle" I think you mean someone in a university legal department made this up. Since there is no student salary, this is clearly not a work done for hire. So show me a legally enforceable document that students sign which actually transfers this ownership.
Even though it's now a sad joke, there is a law to protect me from that. And failure by those in authority to enforce it should also be an imprisonable* offense. I don't care if it's a civil suit. If it's handled and authorized by a judge in a public courtroom then the government is involved and the law of the land should apply.
The fourth amendment has clearly not been applied in this way, historically speaking, but as of five minutes ago I think I'm a fan of this proposal. I am not a lawyer, but you seem quite right to me that a literal reading of this amendment should apply to civil cases. This would profoundly change the level of evidence required for lawsuits to be filed, which is sensible since the financial burden for legal expenses is similar, and the huge financial penalties can often exceed the fines from criminal cases.
I wonder what it would take to actually get this applied to civil cases. Could a single Supreme Court ruling do it?
if the paper doesn't match the electronic count, then the software either has bugs or has been tampered with (or there are forged paper ballots, but that's easily countered)
This is facilitated by a procedural approach of mandatory on-site auditing of the vote with the paper ballots.
Re:how about polarization
on
Smart Sunglasses
·
· Score: 5, Funny
If you drive with horizontally polarized sunglasses, you cut the glare from the road, but still get glare from the windshield. If you switch to vertical, you cut the glare from the windshield, but not the glare from the road. I don't want to see any reflected light.
You should try wearing a larger pair of horizontally polarized sunglasses on top of a normal pair of vertically polarized sunglasses. That will accomplish your goal of not seeing any reflected light.
The problem is very simple. Websites like Paypal should NEVER send a link in an email message which asks for any information to be submitted, and they should announce this policy clearly to their users. If people are going to submit login or other information, they should always use a bookmark or type the url themselves. If everyone followed this protocol, phishing would be impossible.
When it's the taxpayer footing the bill, there's an imperative to have an open bid process without room for bias (positive or negative) or personal preference.
People always talk about an "open bid" process, as if the lowest bid should always win. But using cost as the sole criteria results in quite a bit of waste and inefficiency. By Massachusetts law are the decision makers permitted to consider Diebold's performance record in other states, such as getting decertified in California for fraud, deception, and lying?
I think they just oversaturated the market with spinoff after spinoff.
A lot of the Star Trek spin-offs had very good seasons and very good content. The problem is that most of them were driven into the ground at one point or another by painfully bad writers, and producers who didn't really understand the genre they were producing. They ended up with people involved who wanted to tell other kinds of stories, like Enterprise's repeated obsession with "two people are trapped in a bubble and think they're going to die" or Twilight Zone plots like "let's go back in time and fight lizard Nazis" or "What if the Captain has a lizard baby?". They suffered from producers who sometimes wanted to turn them into a teen drama series. They also suffered from writers who didn't understand the importance of plausibility within the Star Trek universe, and we got plot disasters such as finding a Ford truck and Amelia Earhart in the delta quadrant.
I think very few of the problems which plagued the later Star Treks were due to the choice to have spin-offs, and most of them were simply due to hiring and direction decisions which seemed very unwise.
So far I do not see the Stargates suffering from this problem.
I usually tweak the networking boot script to background the dhcpcd call, since this is such a time consuming part (particularly if you are not plugged into the network and have to wait for it to timeout). But a truly parallelized solution would of course be preferable.
For the cost of one Battlestar Galactica, you could make five Scare Tactics or wrestling shows, and the TV executives want the largest return on their investment.
If it's that easy to make money off of Scare Tactics (which I really doubt), then NBC (which owns the sci-fi channel) could just make a channel of all Scare Tactics type shows, and make money off of both, rather than sacrificing the profit from Sci-Fi to make only the money from Scare Tactics.
After all, is the goal to have the highest profit margin, or the highest profit?
I heard directly from a very highly-placed executive that the network was actually making a conscious effort to move away from SF programming and do more "Scare Tactics" style programming in an effort to capture portions of the SpikeTV market.
This is something I could never get about network executives... They treat humans like a homogeneous blob which can be attracted, and never like the subgroups with diverse interests that humans actually are. SpikeTV has the SpikeTV market because it's aiming for that subgroup. If the Sci-Fi channel desires it, it can have an almost exclusive stranglehold on the sci-fi market by making more good shows like Battlestar Galactica or the Stargate franchise. If that particular COMPANY wants to make money on the SpikeTV market ALSO, then it should make a different channel like SpikeTV, not try to turn sci-fi into it.
I guarantee that if they try to take the Sci-Fi channel in a SpikeTV direction, they will lose the interest of the subgroup that actually likes sci-fi and forms the audience of their network, and this audience will shop around for entertainment from another company. This is so blatantly obvious that I can't understand why network executives, with all their studies of demographics, so frequently seem to not understand this.
Automobiles are an outdated and obsolete technology, or at least should be. The problem is coming up with and implementing the "next step" when the current technology is so ingrained into our society and city planning.
Not to mention the fact that half of the people on the planet do not live in cities, and these are the people who usually have to travel farthest. City planning does not universally solve the problem of transportation.
Well, I originally thought it was trying to play off the fears of "Hillary as Big Brother", but a) I thought that idea wasn't popular among Democrats, even pro-Obama ones, and b) why not, um, actually use scary quotes from Hillary? There's a lot of stuff out there, "We need to stop thinking about what is good for the individual", etc. Instead they just put a video of her rambling about some vague generalities typical of politicians. I just didn't see what was so special.
Her ramblings showed the entire point of the ad. The ad was implying that Hillary speaks in meaningless and empty rhetoric that the masses eat up like mindless brainwashed drones. It was THIS, rather than any implications of fascism as said elsewhere in this thread, that the ad was presenting. The ad was trying to encourage people to try something fresh and different. It was effective in the internal coherence of this message and in the appropriateness of the analogy for relaying that message, which is why it has received so much attention and popularity.
His being fired shows a hard choice made by his employer, possibly unethical. (Off-the-clock, not associated with the company, etc, etc.)
It was not a hard choice for his employer at all. According to the news, all employee contracts for that company specifically prohibit off-the-clock political productions of this sort by its employees, precisely because perception is more important than reality in their business. They cannot afford to have the perception that a contractor of one political candidate made X advertisement through under the table money, so they have to prohibit all such connections in the terms of their employee contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
... No offense, but you claim you tried six times, and you haven't succeeded once. I think that makes the point that it's not as easy as "just do it".
Good luck in your continued efforts, of course.
In Soviet Russia, vodka drinks your robot?
How about, because of the fact that physicists are not JUST physicists, yes, their knowledge should extend significantly beyond the singular focus of their primary subject. It doesn't HAVE to be art, but anyone who wants to specialize in one field should make it a point to be fairly competent in several others, and to have at least a basic background in all of the standard fields. Anything else means that said physicist is poorly prepared for life and probably should not walk outside of that one tiny laboratory.
While it's excellent to be both, being a skilled specialist does not imply that one is intelligent.
What good is a viable candidate if your vote doesn't count anyway? Accurate voting is an essential element of a democracy, and so it MUST be in place.
If you want a better system, you need to support each component of that better system when it comes along. Sticking your head in the sand and waiting for everything to completely match your dream world isn't going to get you anywhere.
I think your idea is in a good direction, particularly with 1 and 3. I would like to see that implemented as a checkable/uncheckable option under "View" for "Enable plugins". Some pages become much more tolerable if you could disable all the flash/video/sound plugins for just that page.
Well, you'd still need to worry about discovered security bugs. So if you like the original firefox better than the newer ones, you should go fork yourself.
Yes there is, and yes we could always use more. First, terahertz communication has a much higher theoretical bandwidth than gigahertz communication. Second, it's not currently locked down by regulation and existing use. (2.45 GHz isn't used for wireless because it's ideal. In fact, it's a wavelength quite likely to absorbed by biological tissue. It's used because regulations permit that band to be used.)
Because the electronic components at that timescale are difficult to build. Ever see a terahertz cpu?
See for yourself. In a very light perusal through titles, essentially every article says "towards" or "future".
Probably not, but you have to start somewhere before you can get cheaper.
By "general principle" I think you mean someone in a university legal department made this up. Since there is no student salary, this is clearly not a work done for hire. So show me a legally enforceable document that students sign which actually transfers this ownership.
The fourth amendment has clearly not been applied in this way, historically speaking, but as of five minutes ago I think I'm a fan of this proposal. I am not a lawyer, but you seem quite right to me that a literal reading of this amendment should apply to civil cases. This would profoundly change the level of evidence required for lawsuits to be filed, which is sensible since the financial burden for legal expenses is similar, and the huge financial penalties can often exceed the fines from criminal cases.
I wonder what it would take to actually get this applied to civil cases. Could a single Supreme Court ruling do it?
This is facilitated by a procedural approach of mandatory on-site auditing of the vote with the paper ballots.
You should try wearing a larger pair of horizontally polarized sunglasses on top of a normal pair of vertically polarized sunglasses. That will accomplish your goal of not seeing any reflected light.
The protection of political parody goes even further.
The Supreme Court could never side against the guy who did this. There's far too much precedent in support of it.
The problem is very simple. Websites like Paypal should NEVER send a link in an email message which asks for any information to be submitted, and they should announce this policy clearly to their users. If people are going to submit login or other information, they should always use a bookmark or type the url themselves. If everyone followed this protocol, phishing would be impossible.
So what you're saying is that if you're rich and uncool, you can buy cool and own cool, but you can't make it.
Hearing "no" from tech support should never be taken as final until one has asked to speak to a few managers.
People always talk about an "open bid" process, as if the lowest bid should always win. But using cost as the sole criteria results in quite a bit of waste and inefficiency. By Massachusetts law are the decision makers permitted to consider Diebold's performance record in other states, such as getting decertified in California for fraud, deception, and lying?
A lot of the Star Trek spin-offs had very good seasons and very good content. The problem is that most of them were driven into the ground at one point or another by painfully bad writers, and producers who didn't really understand the genre they were producing. They ended up with people involved who wanted to tell other kinds of stories, like Enterprise's repeated obsession with "two people are trapped in a bubble and think they're going to die" or Twilight Zone plots like "let's go back in time and fight lizard Nazis" or "What if the Captain has a lizard baby?". They suffered from producers who sometimes wanted to turn them into a teen drama series. They also suffered from writers who didn't understand the importance of plausibility within the Star Trek universe, and we got plot disasters such as finding a Ford truck and Amelia Earhart in the delta quadrant.
I think very few of the problems which plagued the later Star Treks were due to the choice to have spin-offs, and most of them were simply due to hiring and direction decisions which seemed very unwise.
So far I do not see the Stargates suffering from this problem.
How quickly we forget, but people had babies for quite some time before the cell phone was invented.
I usually tweak the networking boot script to background the dhcpcd call, since this is such a time consuming part (particularly if you are not plugged into the network and have to wait for it to timeout). But a truly parallelized solution would of course be preferable.
If it's that easy to make money off of Scare Tactics (which I really doubt), then NBC (which owns the sci-fi channel) could just make a channel of all Scare Tactics type shows, and make money off of both, rather than sacrificing the profit from Sci-Fi to make only the money from Scare Tactics.
After all, is the goal to have the highest profit margin, or the highest profit?
This is something I could never get about network executives... They treat humans like a homogeneous blob which can be attracted, and never like the subgroups with diverse interests that humans actually are. SpikeTV has the SpikeTV market because it's aiming for that subgroup. If the Sci-Fi channel desires it, it can have an almost exclusive stranglehold on the sci-fi market by making more good shows like Battlestar Galactica or the Stargate franchise. If that particular COMPANY wants to make money on the SpikeTV market ALSO, then it should make a different channel like SpikeTV, not try to turn sci-fi into it.
I guarantee that if they try to take the Sci-Fi channel in a SpikeTV direction, they will lose the interest of the subgroup that actually likes sci-fi and forms the audience of their network, and this audience will shop around for entertainment from another company. This is so blatantly obvious that I can't understand why network executives, with all their studies of demographics, so frequently seem to not understand this.
Any ideas?
Not to mention the fact that half of the people on the planet do not live in cities, and these are the people who usually have to travel farthest. City planning does not universally solve the problem of transportation.
Her ramblings showed the entire point of the ad. The ad was implying that Hillary speaks in meaningless and empty rhetoric that the masses eat up like mindless brainwashed drones. It was THIS, rather than any implications of fascism as said elsewhere in this thread, that the ad was presenting. The ad was trying to encourage people to try something fresh and different. It was effective in the internal coherence of this message and in the appropriateness of the analogy for relaying that message, which is why it has received so much attention and popularity.
It was not a hard choice for his employer at all. According to the news, all employee contracts for that company specifically prohibit off-the-clock political productions of this sort by its employees, precisely because perception is more important than reality in their business. They cannot afford to have the perception that a contractor of one political candidate made X advertisement through under the table money, so they have to prohibit all such connections in the terms of their employee contracts.