Let's say that, in the course of the hypothetical Chinese revolution, 50,000,000 people are killed. This is roughly the number of people who died in World War 2. That's a lot of people, well over a hundred times the entire population of the USA.
What? The USA has around 290 million people. How is fifty million over a hundred times the entire population of the USA? Unless I'm misunderstanding something...
Scoring perfectly on an exam does not translate (pun intended) into being able to speak the language well.
A perfect score means a student can read and write a language well, but speaking is very different (pronunciation), hence why having a conversation can be difficult.
In my experience, foreign students I've worked with frequently comprehend the meaning of a written word but not that same word spoken.
I'm glad to see you have the intelligence to classify all 291 million Americans.... I'd rather be interpreted as arrogant than bitter like the rest of the world.
Whereas you just have the intelligence to classify the other 5.7 billion people in the world.
Likewise for Australia. I don't live there, but I heard these stories when I was visiting.
Tourists (including Americans) came down for the Olympics. Some where known to ask if they could see Uluru (Ayers Rock) during an afternoon when they had a couple hours free. Olypmics were in Sydney. Uluru is a four hour drive from Alice Springs, in the middle of the country. Ha!
Guess most people are ignorant of geography in regions not their own.
Your scenarios of shotguns being pressed to skulls, while cinematic, have very little foundation in reality.
Between you, E-Rock, and some searching on Google, I would have to agree: more guns in the US seems beneficial for us. It makes me wonder what would have happened if someone in the factory in Mississippi had a gun earlier today. I would like to point out something about the comment above. I used this example because a friend of mine had a gun pressed to his head (it was a handgun, though, not a shotgun) during a home invasion, so it's a real-life thing to me.
Secondly, I agree that you cannot buy a gun through a dealer without a background check, but I do not believe a similar law has been passed for gun shows (though I've heard of several bills being debated in both state and federal legislatures). Correct me if I'm wrong (and provide links, please).
Since I'm a worst-case scenario kinda guy, I'd be interested in hearing either yours or E-Rock's response to the following scenario. Assume that everyone has a gun in their house with a trained operator. What do the criminals do now? Do they give up their life of crime, turn towards crimes with less possibility of injury (shop-lifting, B&E unguarded stores, scams, etc.), or do they start an arms race? What do they do when there are no more easy targets?
Everyone being armed will lead to a decrease in certain crimes but an increase in others.
As you point out, the casual robber will be dissuaded. The armed robber, however, still has the advantage of surprise that will prevent you from using your gun. Armed robberies/muggings/home invasions will increase, and more people will probably be killed/injured as a result (when some idiot decides to draw his.38 Special in response to a shotgun pressed against his skull). What if they get the idea of taking a hostage everytime they enter a house, as added security for them? What would you do if you walk into the living room with your.50 Desert Eagle, only to find someone holding a Saturday Night Special to your child's temple?
This also brings up the question, where do you keep the guns in your home? Under the pillow, locked and loaded? Bad idea. In a gun safe? Great idea, especially with kids around, but almost worthless in case of a home invasion ("Could you hold on just a sec? I need to get my gun out of the safe.").
See what I mean about the illusion of security? If we (the US) required people to undergo gun safety training (AFAIK, Hunter Safety training is required for people born after Jan. 1, 1973) and a background check, I would love the idea of a gun in every home because I think that would genuinely increase security. Without that, I think it's just a bad idea. An uneducated and armed society is not safe.
In most normal situations, having a gun won't help you at all. If you get mugged by someone with a gun, do you really think you'll be able to draw it before the mugger shoots you in the head? Doubt it.
I support the second amendment as a defense against a tyrannical government, so I can protect my house, and because I find target shooting fun. Feeling invincible just because you carry a gun is foolish.
Nowadays people routinely characterize a natural product with only a few milligrams of a compound, thanks to high-field NMR, high resolution mass spec, etc.
I was more of a Lemonade Stand guy on the Apple IIC, myself.
I can barely remember the "music" to it, but you can't complain about the graphics. The sun only had ten pixels, max, and you could see them plain as day.
Can't say I agree with everything you've said, but I'll give you another reason to not eat meat: I've been to several environmental chemistry seminars in the past year that have mentioned studies showing 10-20% of air pollution in several major cities (e.g. Los Angeles) comes from fast food restaurants (i.e. they've observed high concentrations of organic molecules seen as byproducts of grilling meat but not connected to other processes, such as fuel combustion). Don't have any references for you, but if you have access to SciFinder they shouldn't be too difficult to find.
You probably shouldn't use this statistic if you like to grill mushrooms or veggies, though, because that will create some pollution as well. Personally, I eat a variety of food (inlcuding meat) and find this helps me stay healthy and happy.
Just out of curiousity, how did he come about these parameters? Variational theory uses parameters to determine the upper bounds on energies, but I see nothing wrong with this because they're found during the calculation (by varying them to minimize the energy). This isn't like saying, "Well, we're off by a factor of two here, so let's multiply it by a 'correction factor' and to get the right answer."
I'm just pointing out there are "good" parameters and "bad" parameters.
Your definition is fine for 2- and 3-dimensional vector spaces, but it does not more any sense for spaces of higher dimension because there is not generally a single angle between vectors.
I would disagree with this. One can define a single angle between vectors in n-dimensional space. One can also cleanly define a single angle between two functions of a single variable, say a(x) and b(x), as Cos[theta]=Int[a(x)b(x)*]/{Int[|a(x)|^2]Int[|b(x)| ^2]}, where Int[] is the integral over all space and b(x)* is the complex conjugate of b(x).
That name scares me. The only reason to label this as a "Patriot" Act (the second in series...be sure to collect the whole set!) is to brand people who oppose it as "unpatriotic". Talk about scaring people into complience.
In the end, I think this will run its course just like McCarthyism. A few people will get burned by it (hope I'm not one of them) and then people will start thinking clearly again. The only question is, what's next?
Slashdot Mirror
What? The USA has around 290 million people. How is fifty million over a hundred times the entire population of the USA? Unless I'm misunderstanding something...
Scoring perfectly on an exam does not translate (pun intended) into being able to speak the language well.
A perfect score means a student can read and write a language well, but speaking is very different (pronunciation), hence why having a conversation can be difficult.
In my experience, foreign students I've worked with frequently comprehend the meaning of a written word but not that same word spoken.
I tip my hat to you, sir, for admitting you were wrong.
Whereas you just have the intelligence to classify the other 5.7 billion people in the world.
Sigh.
Likewise for Australia. I don't live there, but I heard these stories when I was visiting.
Tourists (including Americans) came down for the Olympics. Some where known to ask if they could see Uluru (Ayers Rock) during an afternoon when they had a couple hours free. Olypmics were in Sydney. Uluru is a four hour drive from Alice Springs, in the middle of the country. Ha!
Guess most people are ignorant of geography in regions not their own.
Between you, E-Rock, and some searching on Google, I would have to agree: more guns in the US seems beneficial for us. It makes me wonder what would have happened if someone in the factory in Mississippi had a gun earlier today. I would like to point out something about the comment above. I used this example because a friend of mine had a gun pressed to his head (it was a handgun, though, not a shotgun) during a home invasion, so it's a real-life thing to me.
Secondly, I agree that you cannot buy a gun through a dealer without a background check, but I do not believe a similar law has been passed for gun shows (though I've heard of several bills being debated in both state and federal legislatures). Correct me if I'm wrong (and provide links, please).
Since I'm a worst-case scenario kinda guy, I'd be interested in hearing either yours or E-Rock's response to the following scenario. Assume that everyone has a gun in their house with a trained operator. What do the criminals do now? Do they give up their life of crime, turn towards crimes with less possibility of injury (shop-lifting, B&E unguarded stores, scams, etc.), or do they start an arms race? What do they do when there are no more easy targets?
Everyone being armed will lead to a decrease in certain crimes but an increase in others.
.38 Special in response to a shotgun pressed against his skull). What if they get the idea of taking a hostage everytime they enter a house, as added security for them? What would you do if you walk into the living room with your .50 Desert Eagle, only to find someone holding a Saturday Night Special to your child's temple?
As you point out, the casual robber will be dissuaded. The armed robber, however, still has the advantage of surprise that will prevent you from using your gun. Armed robberies/muggings/home invasions will increase, and more people will probably be killed/injured as a result (when some idiot decides to draw his
This also brings up the question, where do you keep the guns in your home? Under the pillow, locked and loaded? Bad idea. In a gun safe? Great idea, especially with kids around, but almost worthless in case of a home invasion ("Could you hold on just a sec? I need to get my gun out of the safe.").
See what I mean about the illusion of security? If we (the US) required people to undergo gun safety training (AFAIK, Hunter Safety training is required for people born after Jan. 1, 1973) and a background check, I would love the idea of a gun in every home because I think that would genuinely increase security. Without that, I think it's just a bad idea. An uneducated and armed society is not safe.
Talk about illusions of security.
In most normal situations, having a gun won't help you at all. If you get mugged by someone with a gun, do you really think you'll be able to draw it before the mugger shoots you in the head? Doubt it.
I support the second amendment as a defense against a tyrannical government, so I can protect my house, and because I find target shooting fun. Feeling invincible just because you carry a gun is foolish.
Don't you think that's a slightly biased test?
Tech savvy people run the Internet (hence make more webpages).
Tech savvy people use Linux more often than the general populace.
Therefore more webpages exist about Linux.
It could just be a very outspoken minority. I would trust the results of a random phone survey more than I trust a Google search in this case.
Nowadays people routinely characterize a natural product with only a few milligrams of a compound, thanks to high-field NMR, high resolution mass spec, etc.
A couple grams is a walk in the park.
I have that dead battery problem, too. I bought a new one when it died the first time, but that died way too quickly so I haven't replaced it since.
I guess having to plug it in defeats the purpose of a laptop, doesn't it?
I bought my laptop in Feb. 1998.
It's still running fine today, albeit a little slow (233 MHz was fast when I bought it, I swear!).
Not a philosopher. Just relaying something I read once and agree with.
I'm not saying you should never fight. Sometimes the only thing to do is kick some ass, as evidenced by WWII.
Still, winning without the loss of life is the best way, IMO.
To paraphrase Sun Tzu, fighting a war is the worst way to win it.
I was more of a Lemonade Stand guy on the Apple IIC, myself.
I can barely remember the "music" to it, but you can't complain about the graphics. The sun only had ten pixels, max, and you could see them plain as day.
So the mission is to find evidence of past water on Mars, huh? I hope at least one of the rovers lands in a puddle.
Can't say I agree with everything you've said, but I'll give you another reason to not eat meat: I've been to several environmental chemistry seminars in the past year that have mentioned studies showing 10-20% of air pollution in several major cities (e.g. Los Angeles) comes from fast food restaurants (i.e. they've observed high concentrations of organic molecules seen as byproducts of grilling meat but not connected to other processes, such as fuel combustion). Don't have any references for you, but if you have access to SciFinder they shouldn't be too difficult to find.
You probably shouldn't use this statistic if you like to grill mushrooms or veggies, though, because that will create some pollution as well.
Personally, I eat a variety of food (inlcuding meat) and find this helps me stay healthy and happy.
The reason I heard is that Kentucky owns the rights to the word "Kentucky." Maybe that's just an urban legend, too.
I bet the real reason they did it was because people's attention spans have gotten too short. Six syllables? Not anymore!
Damn. That's a good catch. I didn't notice that when I first read the article.
Makes you wonder...
FORTRAN for number crunching, Perl for skimming output files. Could there be a better harmony?
Posting it again has spawned almost 300.
Very clever...
That's zero for all practical purposes, but "forever" is a long time.
Just out of curiousity, how did he come about these parameters? Variational theory uses parameters to determine the upper bounds on energies, but I see nothing wrong with this because they're found during the calculation (by varying them to minimize the energy). This isn't like saying, "Well, we're off by a factor of two here, so let's multiply it by a 'correction factor' and to get the right answer."
I'm just pointing out there are "good" parameters and "bad" parameters.
I would disagree with this. One can define a single angle between vectors in n-dimensional space. One can also cleanly define a single angle between two functions of a single variable, say a(x) and b(x), as Cos[theta]=Int[a(x)b(x)*]/{Int[|a(x)|^2]Int[|b(x)| ^2]}, where Int[] is the integral over all space and b(x)* is the complex conjugate of b(x).
In the end, I think this will run its course just like McCarthyism. A few people will get burned by it (hope I'm not one of them) and then people will start thinking clearly again. The only question is, what's next?