Umm... they are. Most granting agencies require scientists to do this.
Also, what exactly are you suggesting here? Big oil companies paid the scientists to place the earth at the hot edge of the habitable zone so that people would get more scared of it getting hotter? Or is this the "big solar" conspiracy theory again?
It's a "she". But that doesn't make her less of an idiot to blast energy experts for being unrealistic, based on the batshit outrageously unrealistic extrapolation that population will follow exponential growth forever.* I mean, you quite literally can't make this up - even this fictional example of an idiotic extrapolation is not a bad as the real-life case we're looking at right now: http://xkcd.com/605/
Limited-sized planet vs. exponential population growth - what could possibly go wrong?
* and even if you replace the "forever" with "for a while", I wager there are things that will become major issues sooner than energy...
And... it seems to be subject of debate even among people who did specialize in the interpretation of constitutional law: http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/242.abstract
This is definitely a question far beyond the parsing the English language (as both sides in this/. debate have asserted so far).
But to get back on subject: let's say the bottom line is that one sector of the US economy (the movies, music and software industry) will (allegedly) suffer because another sector (gambling - yes even if you consider it government-controlled, it's still a sector of the economy) successfully lobbied lawmakers into violating a WTO treaty. Greedy people doing stupid stuff.
OK, so it looks like there are several different and entirely valid ways of parsing this isolated sentence:
(A) ((any Thing in the Constitution) or (Laws of any State to the Contrary)) notwithstanding.
(B) ((any Thing in the Constitution) or (Laws of any State)) to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(C) (((any Thing in the Constitution) or (Laws)) of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(D) (any Thing in (the Constitution or Laws) of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(A) and (B) are pretty similar in meaning, but (C) and (D) are entirely different. In contemporary English, "or" commonly doesn't have a special precedence, and using this sentence to mean (C) or (D) would arguably be considered poor form (or actually, using the sentence at all would be poor form because it's terribly ambiguous). However, based on the historical context provided by the document you brought in, I have to concede that D must be the correct interpretation after all. But "staying in school" wouldn't tell you that, unless by "staying in school" you mean "specializing in the interpretation of historic documents".
Bzzzt. This appears to be a persistent myth among people who were schooled in the US. The "National Socialists" (NAZIs for short) were about as socialist as the democratic republic of Korea is democratic.
I liked the Merriam-Webster page because it contains the following example, which is almost exactly the same construction as the sentence under debate:
we went to see the show, my objections notwithstanding
I still can't stop laughing with IceBike's "that would be stupid" and "please stay in school" statements... absolutely classic. Perfect example of how strong beliefs can alter one's perception of reality.
This is exactly what a lot of people fail to see. The free market is like Portland cement: stop stirring it for too long and it loses its fluidity and sets into cartels. And say what you will about the EU, they're doing a relatively good job at continuously prodding the big market players for the good of the consumer. Especially compared to the US, where a lot of providers of common services (like cell and internet) overprice and underdeliver.
Even though I'm not a security researcher, I have in a distant past stumbled onto security flaws while trying to interface with something. The claim is entirely plausible. You might want to stop taking these pills you're talking about; they obviously don't help.
Bravo! Well said, sir! There is absolutely nothing wrong in the US, and in particular, nothing needs to be done about income inequality!!! No need whatsoever to worry about the trade deficit either, because we're well on our way to reshape the world into a mirror of ourselves: a free and open market, dominated by corporate interest, which will make the non-problems of income inequality and trade deficit disappear instantly!!! It will be grand! Everyone will be so grateful that they will be struck with awe and bow at our feet!!! Our superiority is like our infrastructure; once it's there, no money or effort needs to be spent on maintaining it!!! There is absolutely no need to carefully look at other developed nations and talk to people who lived both in the US and abroad, because we merely have to turn on the TV to be told that they're all much worse off!!! There is no political paralysis at all in Washington, DC, whereas the European union has never been able to make a single pragmatic decisions about how to cope with the worldwide recession!!! Europe is at the the brink of a new wave of dictatorships and wars - just look at Greece, isn't all of Europe like Greece?!!!
*Shudder.* If anything will ever bring the US to its knees, it will be this line of thinking. Sounds a bit like what the North Korean government tells its citizens, come to think of it.
I'm contemplating a tool that doesn't let us do that, but all that comes to mind is an animated paperclip saying "It looks like you're writing a security feature."
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but you're utterly missing the point. They're not complaining they have too much work; they take that as something that comes with the job. They are complaining Forbes is painting them as having not a lot of work, which is blatantly untrue and unfair. It's not about the work, it's about the defamation. I really thought that was quite clear from my previous post - or did you stop reading after the first paragraph?
If you increase the average energy in certain types of quantum systems beyond a certain point, the entropy starts to go down again. Take a large number of ordinary binary bits and define the average energy as the number of 1s and the entropy as (the logarithm of) the number of combinations/binary numbers that have that many 1s. You'll see that there's only one combination for "all 0s" (entropy=0), the entropy peaks at "50% 1s", and then goes down again to reach 0 at "all 1s". I tried to explain that here.
You're welcome to introduce your own temperature scale. It won't be a linear function of the existing temperature scales and will be very inconventient for practical purposes, though.
It's just a quirk in our temperature scale. What we define as infinite K is not the highest-energy state that can be reached. It's the highest state that can be reached through heating, but higher states can be reached through other mechanisms. Once we realized that, we needed another scale for the higher-energy states at the other side of infinity, so we started using negative numbers for them. So negative temperatures are not at the cold side of 0K, but at the hot side of inifinity K. More complete explanations here and here.
Slashdot Mirror
yes i do want to dispute one fact
At least you're honest about it by starting your post with a fair warning that it's not worth reading.
You're violating the format, buddy:
5) ???
6) Profit!
No wonder you suck at Calculus; you were actually sitting in a Calcolos class.
I'll get my coat...
Umm... they are. Most granting agencies require scientists to do this.
Also, what exactly are you suggesting here? Big oil companies paid the scientists to place the earth at the hot edge of the habitable zone so that people would get more scared of it getting hotter? Or is this the "big solar" conspiracy theory again?
It's a "she". But that doesn't make her less of an idiot to blast energy experts for being unrealistic, based on the batshit outrageously unrealistic extrapolation that population will follow exponential growth forever.* I mean, you quite literally can't make this up - even this fictional example of an idiotic extrapolation is not a bad as the real-life case we're looking at right now:
http://xkcd.com/605/
Limited-sized planet vs. exponential population growth - what could possibly go wrong?
* and even if you replace the "forever" with "for a while", I wager there are things that will become major issues sooner than energy...
So, Dave asks, what early software was influential and worthy of a Software Hall of Fame?
Note the complete absence of the words "in the market".
Xerox Alto / Xerox Star (Sheesh!)
Not everyone has been schooled in the USA, you insensitive clod!
And... it seems to be subject of debate even among people who did specialize in the interpretation of constitutional law: http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/242.abstract /. debate have asserted so far).
This is definitely a question far beyond the parsing the English language (as both sides in this
But to get back on subject: let's say the bottom line is that one sector of the US economy (the movies, music and software industry) will (allegedly) suffer because another sector (gambling - yes even if you consider it government-controlled, it's still a sector of the economy) successfully lobbied lawmakers into violating a WTO treaty. Greedy people doing stupid stuff.
OK, so it looks like there are several different and entirely valid ways of parsing this isolated sentence:
(A) ((any Thing in the Constitution) or (Laws of any State to the Contrary)) notwithstanding.
(B) ((any Thing in the Constitution) or (Laws of any State)) to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(C) (((any Thing in the Constitution) or (Laws)) of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(D) (any Thing in (the Constitution or Laws) of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding.
(A) and (B) are pretty similar in meaning, but (C) and (D) are entirely different. In contemporary English, "or" commonly doesn't have a special precedence, and using this sentence to mean (C) or (D) would arguably be considered poor form (or actually, using the sentence at all would be poor form because it's terribly ambiguous). However, based on the historical context provided by the document you brought in, I have to concede that D must be the correct interpretation after all. But "staying in school" wouldn't tell you that, unless by "staying in school" you mean "specializing in the interpretation of historic documents".
Bzzzt. This appears to be a persistent myth among people who were schooled in the US. The "National Socialists" (NAZIs for short) were about as socialist as the democratic republic of Korea is democratic.
we went to see the show, my objections notwithstanding
I still can't stop laughing with IceBike's "that would be stupid" and "please stay in school" statements... absolutely classic. Perfect example of how strong beliefs can alter one's perception of reality.
The constitution does not give foreign powers the right to override our own constitution. That would be totally stupid.
This is why reading is fundamental. Please stay in school.
Forgive me the colloquialism, but... LOL!
Reading comprehension: F.
This is exactly what a lot of people fail to see. The free market is like Portland cement: stop stirring it for too long and it loses its fluidity and sets into cartels. And say what you will about the EU, they're doing a relatively good job at continuously prodding the big market players for the good of the consumer. Especially compared to the US, where a lot of providers of common services (like cell and internet) overprice and underdeliver.
Even though I'm not a security researcher, I have in a distant past stumbled onto security flaws while trying to interface with something. The claim is entirely plausible. You might want to stop taking these pills you're talking about; they obviously don't help.
Yeah, I had Poe's law in mind when adding those last 2 sentences.
Bravo! Well said, sir! There is absolutely nothing wrong in the US, and in particular, nothing needs to be done about income inequality!!! No need whatsoever to worry about the trade deficit either, because we're well on our way to reshape the world into a mirror of ourselves: a free and open market, dominated by corporate interest, which will make the non-problems of income inequality and trade deficit disappear instantly!!! It will be grand! Everyone will be so grateful that they will be struck with awe and bow at our feet!!! Our superiority is like our infrastructure; once it's there, no money or effort needs to be spent on maintaining it!!! There is absolutely no need to carefully look at other developed nations and talk to people who lived both in the US and abroad, because we merely have to turn on the TV to be told that they're all much worse off!!! There is no political paralysis at all in Washington, DC, whereas the European union has never been able to make a single pragmatic decisions about how to cope with the worldwide recession!!! Europe is at the the brink of a new wave of dictatorships and wars - just look at Greece, isn't all of Europe like Greece?!!!
*Shudder.* If anything will ever bring the US to its knees, it will be this line of thinking. Sounds a bit like what the North Korean government tells its citizens, come to think of it.
I'm contemplating a tool that doesn't let us do that, but all that comes to mind is an animated paperclip saying "It looks like you're writing a security feature."
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but you're utterly missing the point. They're not complaining they have too much work; they take that as something that comes with the job. They are complaining Forbes is painting them as having not a lot of work, which is blatantly untrue and unfair. It's not about the work, it's about the defamation. I really thought that was quite clear from my previous post - or did you stop reading after the first paragraph?
Pot - kettle, kettle - pot.
If you increase the average energy in certain types of quantum systems beyond a certain point, the entropy starts to go down again. Take a large number of ordinary binary bits and define the average energy as the number of 1s and the entropy as (the logarithm of) the number of combinations/binary numbers that have that many 1s. You'll see that there's only one combination for "all 0s" (entropy=0), the entropy peaks at "50% 1s", and then goes down again to reach 0 at "all 1s". I tried to explain that here.
You're welcome to introduce your own temperature scale. It won't be a linear function of the existing temperature scales and will be very inconventient for practical purposes, though.
It's just a quirk in our temperature scale. What we define as infinite K is not the highest-energy state that can be reached. It's the highest state that can be reached through heating, but higher states can be reached through other mechanisms. Once we realized that, we needed another scale for the higher-energy states at the other side of infinity, so we started using negative numbers for them. So negative temperatures are not at the cold side of 0K, but at the hot side of inifinity K. More complete explanations here and here.
Try this; it's a bit shorter and the quantum mechanics is masked as binary logic.