I feel that 50% of the states is too high a bar. I think it should be either 1/3 or 1/4. In either case there would clearly not be a national consensus that it should be a law.
I also feel that state attorney generals should be able to initiate impeachment actions against federal officials (judges, legislators AND members of the executive branch. Including cabinet officials, military officers, and civil servants). N.B.: Just because a state attorney general initiates an impeachment action doesn't mean that it would be tried in a state court. In some of those cases impeachment proceedings are already defined. I do not, however, feel that high military officers should have their impeachment tried in military courts. Federal court seems appropriate. And the proceedings should be public and televised. The same seems appropriate for civil service impeachments. Possibly cabinet officials should be tried by the Senate or the House.
P.S.: I don't have a great deal of faith in the US court system, having followed the SCOX vs. IBM, Novell, Crysler, et al. over the last seven years. But it's probably the best reasonable option...IF the proceedings are open and made public.
N.B.: This won't fix a clearly broken system. That would require a more major restructuring...say a limit on the length of any one bill, and an automatic sunset clause on every single piece of legislature, including those already passed, of, say, 20 years. Possibly 10. If each law were restricted to no more than 3000 words, and each law needed to be passed every 20 years, then we might see some improvement over time. Possibly there should also be a hard limit on the total number of laws, but I have no idea what a reasonable limit would be. (Certainly no more than a normal person could read and understand in 10 years.)
And none of the sweeping delegation of executive powers to minor officials. The vast bureaucracy is largely a mistake. Possibly much of it was necessary before computers, but now it's more a problem than a help. Cf. C. Northcote Parkinson. (Some bureaucracy is necessary. But there should probably be an ombudsman for ever 20 or so bureaucrats.)
Why is that a troll? Outside, that is, of suggesting that the Democrats are particularly protective of human rights.
It's unpleasant, but it seems rather accurate. And having the Democrats in power hasn't toned down the abuses, though it may have kept them from escalating more.
But how is that different from an optimizing compiler? Is separating the optimizer from the compiler really worth a patent? And in that case, aren't the various compile-to-C implementations of various languages examples?
Sorry, every interpretation of this I've encountered looks like it has LOTS of prior art.
N.B.: I've been told that it's dangerous for programmers to read patents, and also dangerous for non-patent-attorneys (i.e., not just attorneys, but patent-attorneys) to claim to understand what a patent says. So I'm NOT going to read the original.
It's one of the standard techniques in Evolutionary Programming (also known by other names, sorry).
You take a code base, make a bunch of permutations, check each one, including the parents, for optimality against some test, select a few for the next generation, and repeat.
You prefer to do permutations, because random mutations are more likely to fail, but you also throw in a few of those so you don't get stuck in a dead end. You tree-structure (or some such) the code, so that the permutations come in all different sizes.
N.B.: Permutations can cause things like copying one branch over into (or onto) another, changing the order of evaluation (i.e. exchanging left and right), deletion of branches, switching branches, etc.
In this description I've presumed that the tree was binary, but this isn't always the case.. If it isn't the operations used as permutators become more varied. And I'm no expert, I've barely skimmed the literature. But I've already encountered these methods.
Possibly in the instance of shooting the cameraman they believed they were acting in proper defense of another. That can't excuse shooting the people trying to rescue the wounded.
*Perhaps* under the law it isn't murder. It's murder as I use the word.
Murder: Intentionally killing someone who is neither attacking nor threatening you or someone you are obligated to defend and who you did not have good reason to believe was either attacking nor threatening either you or someone you were obligated to defend .
The fact of Lehman's collapse wasn't at all improbable. It was just impossible to predict from the outside WHEN it would happen, because the information was intentionally withheld. (I think it was also illegally withheld, but IANAL.)
Blaming WWI on the assassination of the ArchDuke is what history books do. That's because they like nice, simple, explanations. But if it hadn't been one cause, it would have been another. The treaties didn't happen by accident. (For that matter, it's not clear that there wasn't any outside instigation, or at least knowledge. It's a possibility, but there's no real reason to believe it.)
If you think of these things as "improbable statistical outliers", that merely proves that you don't understand the situation.
Now there ARE Black Swans. The Dinosaur Killing Meteor (+ Volcano eruptions?) is one. One could predict that something like that would happen eventually, but prediction of how, where, and how big? was impossible. It still is.
If you walk around with your eyes closed, the accident you have isn't a Black Swan just because it's life changing, and you couldn't predict it without opening your eyes. The airplane crashing on your head, however, IS such an event.
So neither the collapse of Lehrman nor the assassination of the Archduke are Black Swans. Lenin taking over Russia, however, might be. Not that lots of people didn't know that he was going to try, but that just about nobody could predict the kind of result. Hitler was, I think, another of a similar kind. So was Attila. (Not so sure about Genghis Khan, but probably. Tamerlane, however, wasn't.)
But lets think a bit more. Wouldn't Ghandi also be a Black Swan? Black Swans aren't necessarily destructive in any conventional sense. Merely game-changing and unpredictable.
You're thinking of arsenic or antimony. Used to be all the rage in cosmetics. (Though now that I think of it, at that time pale skin was all the rage. I think arsenic was for pallor and antimony was for those attractive black circles under they eyes.)
If it's been submerged in salt water for any long period of time (months? weeks?) then it's going to need a major overhaul before it's operational again. And if it's old (a decade? longer?) then the fuel will need to be reprocessed before it can be used (as an explosive).
So it's not that simple. If your nuclear element is less pure then you need more of it. If your machinery has been sufficiently damaged by salt water, then it needs to be replaced.
If these were old "Fatman" design bombs, then there'd be lots more reason to worry. Modern designs are a lot touchier and usually have tighter operational requirements.
Calculus or Analytic Geometry? I can see learning trig in Analytic Geometry, but not in Calculus. (It's true some places merge the two into on course, but if it doesn't involve the theory of limits, it's not Differential Calculus. (Probably not Integral Calculus either, but I don't remember clearly enough to assert that.)
N.B.: Integral Calculus uses lots of trig identities, but it's no place to learn trig. Ditto for Differential Calculus, but less stringently "no place". Still...in Calculus trig functions were used as functions, not as geometric things. That was Analytic Geometry.
I've never been a good artist...but then I studied for awhile with a good teacher. I became MUCH better than average. Lots much. But I still wasn't drawn to the field, so I've let it lapse. I could probably pick it up again with a few weeks of hard work, but I'm not likely to.
OTOH, my wife studied with the same teacher several times a long, and before I dropped it for lack of interest, she wasn't as good (technically) as I was. But she enjoys it, so she's kept on. By now she's much better than I ever was.
So skill isn't enough, and motivation isn't enough, and talent isn't enough. You need all three. But the least important is talent. (And skill implies the fortune of having a good teacher. Most art teachers don't qualify, even more than most math teachers don't qualify. A *LOT* more.)
They didn't even do thorough DNA testing. There *ARE* DNA differences between identical twins. Certain sequences aren't stable, and either stretch or shrink with each cell division, to the point that by the time one is "adult" (before 12 years) it's possible to tell the difference between identical twins. But you need to be a lot more thorough than just testing at 12 sites (or whatever they use this year).
PDF is basically a specialized subset of Forth. Unlike Postscript, it was presumed to be safe. This, however, may show otherwise.
Postscript is essentially a specialized dialect (not subset) of Forth. It is clearly Turing complete, so a Postscript program might do nearly anything. PDF had been presumed to have been safely neutered. This calls that into question.
P.S.: No, I didn't read the original article. This is all basic background stuff, with a few of my speculations about what this "exploit" means. I tried to indicate where I was speculating.
You *can't* be "very familiar with how a voucher system would work", because there are so many possibilities. They cover the range from quite good to abominably bad.
Ideally a voucher system would put very few restrictions on what could be a "school". It should cover everything from a parent's cooperative nursery school to an Advanced Placement University for teens. I'm dubious about religious schools. The teaching of religion should not be payable with in vouchers. But I'm not at all sure this means that the school shouldn't rent it's rooms from a church. (Just that if it did, eviction should be quite difficult, an only be possible either over summer break or between semesters...and with 6-months notice.) (Should other landlords by bound by the same rules? Seems likely.)
N.B.: By my definition of a "good voucher program" there would be no requirement of teacher accreditation. Not saying it shouldn't happen, merely that the *government* shouldn't require it. If it's a good system, then of course the parents should require it. (I happen to believe that the current system is about as good as flipping a coin. If were to become a selling point, it would need to improve itself a LOT.)
P.S.: In my flavor of libertarianism the feds wouldn't stop most of their accreditation of various varieties...but they couldn't forbid vendors from selling merchandise that didn't meet their licensing requirements. Just from saying that it had been approved. And other groups could run their own licensing programs. Trademark style law would be favored over patent style law. (So those who object to
But *WHY* are the teachers useless? It's not because the don't care. People entering the teaching profession care more than most, and many who are retiring still care. It's not because they're stupid. I've known and know many teachers.
Hint: The teachers that I know who are the best teachers have never gone to a University Dept. of Education. Most of them are legally forbidden to teach in a public school. Most of them would be unwilling to even try to operate in that kind of an environment.
(I'm leaving out the administration. I don't know enough about it. All I know about it is that every good teacher I've known either worked around it or despised it.)
That said, "best teacher" comes in lots of different modalities. The best music teacher I know refers to another teacher as the best music teacher that she knows "for those who are already well trained at the basics of music, and want to study the piano". Neither of them handle large groups well. One of them can handle boys better than the other. Etc.
When I went to school the two best teachers that I had taught only a few students in the class, and essentially babysat the others. (Even that was distracting.) Other teachers gave generalized instruction to the entire class, which left half the class bored and the other half confused.
Part of the problem was that class sizes were far too large. 30 is unreasonable for primary, and most secondary instruction. A study I once say claimed that in the high school years there was a definite break in the amount of learning that occurred between class sizes of 16 and 19. (With the students in the class with 16 students learning a lot more.) Could be. I suspect that it varies a lot with class composition AND subject. Many college classes seem to do quite well with 20 or more students, at least as long as there are smaller sections. (But I'm not convinced that a class size of 300 is ever better than a video. Perhaps the video should be shown during the section meetings? And stopped and re-run with detailed explanations from the TA whenever things got confusing to someone.)
Note, by the way, that college professors have almost never gotten a degree from the dept. of Education. Some are very bad teachers, but more of them are good teachers than is common among the earlier grades.
Before the internet, the public library was an excellent place to find learning...if you wanted to. (I didn't usually, but I did enough of the time, and my very amusements tended to be cerebral, so that didn't matter.)
Role models are even more important. Fictional ones as well as real ones. I tended to read Tom Swift, the Oz books, and E.E.Smith, which gave me a really weird set of role models, but they were all about people facing problems and dealing with them in a morally responsible manner. (Never mind that Lensmen blew up entire planets full of sentient beings. It was moral. Mentor said so. After I passed into my later teens I started wondering about that. But that had to do with "What is moral?", which is a separate problem from "Are you moral, or just opportunist?")
P.S.: The lessons taught by the Oz books are considerably different from those taught by the "Wizard of Oz" movie, which I am told I hated even as a child because of the way it mutilated the book. (But I did like the songs.)
Those observations actually *ARE* scientific evidence for dark matter. Unfortunately, they don't constrain what it could be very tightly. The current dark matter theory can shift to something else without changing it's name (and has in the past).
E.g., what is the temperature of the dark matter? For awhile there was argument between the hot dark matter interpretation and the cold dark matter interpretation...but both camps agreed it wasn't made of protons or neutrons and didn't radiate in the infrared.
What is it?? Who knows. I'm not really convinced it's particulate. But I don't know what the alternative could be.
If this is the dark matter, then a lot of theories are going to need to be revised. There are good reasons why the dark matter was believed to be non-baryonic (i.e., without neutrons & protons). If this is the "missing matter", then the prevalence of helium vs. hydrogen needs a new explanation.
Yeah, but the confidence values are wrong. Not that you can make better ones, but they hide assumptions of the "I didn't think of that" variety.
Which is why engineers oversample. (But they also tend not to select their samples correctly. O, well.)
Oversampling is good. Being careful about your sample selection is good. But even better is to *also* mix in some actual random samples...because there are effects you didn't think of. (Note that this increases both the amount of oversampling and the expense of the study. And it doesn't decrease the care with which the statistically selected sample must be chosen.)
But 15 is too small for any statistical conclusions other that deadly or generally safe or somewhere in between. This report seems to say that this procedure is generally safe. (It also looks promising as a treatment, but that's too much to say from this sample.)
Odd. it caused me to wonder about clearing malaria out of people. Something that's never been possible. But I suppose that depends on being able to locate the cells in which it's hiding, and I don't know whether *that's* possible.
That's a tremendously BAD difference. Usually when the state brings charges it requires evidence at criminal law standards. Civil law is *much* looser. (Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Proof should be required to win, but only "good faith" is required to file a suit. And there's no test for that.)
Additionally, if we're talking about border crossings, the people at the borders (I hesitate to call them guards) have a reputation for theft, lack of accountability, etc. ANYTHING that gives them more power is a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel that 50% of the states is too high a bar. I think it should be either 1/3 or 1/4. In either case there would clearly not be a national consensus that it should be a law.
I also feel that state attorney generals should be able to initiate impeachment actions against federal officials (judges, legislators AND members of the executive branch. Including cabinet officials, military officers, and civil servants).
N.B.: Just because a state attorney general initiates an impeachment action doesn't mean that it would be tried in a state court. In some of those cases impeachment proceedings are already defined. I do not, however, feel that high military officers should have their impeachment tried in military courts. Federal court seems appropriate. And the proceedings should be public and televised. The same seems appropriate for civil service impeachments. Possibly cabinet officials should be tried by the Senate or the House.
P.S.: I don't have a great deal of faith in the US court system, having followed the SCOX vs. IBM, Novell, Crysler, et al. over the last seven years. But it's probably the best reasonable option...IF the proceedings are open and made public.
N.B.: This won't fix a clearly broken system. That would require a more major restructuring...say a limit on the length of any one bill, and an automatic sunset clause on every single piece of legislature, including those already passed, of, say, 20 years. Possibly 10.
If each law were restricted to no more than 3000 words, and each law needed to be passed every 20 years, then we might see some improvement over time. Possibly there should also be a hard limit on the total number of laws, but I have no idea what a reasonable limit would be. (Certainly no more than a normal person could read and understand in 10 years.)
And none of the sweeping delegation of executive powers to minor officials. The vast bureaucracy is largely a mistake. Possibly much of it was necessary before computers, but now it's more a problem than a help. Cf. C. Northcote Parkinson. (Some bureaucracy is necessary. But there should probably be an ombudsman for ever 20 or so bureaucrats.)
Why is that a troll? Outside, that is, of suggesting that the Democrats are particularly protective of human rights.
It's unpleasant, but it seems rather accurate. And having the Democrats in power hasn't toned down the abuses, though it may have kept them from escalating more.
But how is that different from an optimizing compiler? Is separating the optimizer from the compiler really worth a patent? And in that case, aren't the various compile-to-C implementations of various languages examples?
Sorry, every interpretation of this I've encountered looks like it has LOTS of prior art.
N.B.: I've been told that it's dangerous for programmers to read patents, and also dangerous for non-patent-attorneys (i.e., not just attorneys, but patent-attorneys) to claim to understand what a patent says. So I'm NOT going to read the original.
It's one of the standard techniques in Evolutionary Programming (also known by other names, sorry).
You take a code base, make a bunch of permutations, check each one, including the parents, for optimality against some test, select a few for the next generation, and repeat.
You prefer to do permutations, because random mutations are more likely to fail, but you also throw in a few of those so you don't get stuck in a dead end. You tree-structure (or some such) the code, so that the permutations come in all different sizes.
N.B.: Permutations can cause things like copying one branch over into (or onto) another, changing the order of evaluation (i.e. exchanging left and right), deletion of branches, switching branches, etc.
In this description I've presumed that the tree was binary, but this isn't always the case.. If it isn't the operations used as permutators become more varied. And I'm no expert, I've barely skimmed the literature. But I've already encountered these methods.
That's not what the verbal comments seem to show.
Possibly in the instance of shooting the cameraman they believed they were acting in proper defense of another. That can't excuse shooting the people trying to rescue the wounded.
And if he'd been brought to a fair trial, he wouldn't have been convicted of murder. Homicide, yes. Possibly criminal insanity. But not murder.
*Perhaps* under the law it isn't murder. It's murder as I use the word.
Murder: Intentionally killing someone who is neither attacking nor threatening you or someone you are obligated to defend and who you did not have good reason to believe was either attacking nor threatening either you or someone you were obligated to defend .
Your examples could use a bit of work.
The fact of Lehman's collapse wasn't at all improbable. It was just impossible to predict from the outside WHEN it would happen, because the information was intentionally withheld. (I think it was also illegally withheld, but IANAL.)
Blaming WWI on the assassination of the ArchDuke is what history books do. That's because they like nice, simple, explanations. But if it hadn't been one cause, it would have been another. The treaties didn't happen by accident. (For that matter, it's not clear that there wasn't any outside instigation, or at least knowledge. It's a possibility, but there's no real reason to believe it.)
If you think of these things as "improbable statistical outliers", that merely proves that you don't understand the situation.
Now there ARE Black Swans. The Dinosaur Killing Meteor (+ Volcano eruptions?) is one. One could predict that something like that would happen eventually, but prediction of how, where, and how big? was impossible. It still is.
If you walk around with your eyes closed, the accident you have isn't a Black Swan just because it's life changing, and you couldn't predict it without opening your eyes. The airplane crashing on your head, however, IS such an event.
So neither the collapse of Lehrman nor the assassination of the Archduke are Black Swans. Lenin taking over Russia, however, might be. Not that lots of people didn't know that he was going to try, but that just about nobody could predict the kind of result. Hitler was, I think, another of a similar kind. So was Attila. (Not so sure about Genghis Khan, but probably. Tamerlane, however, wasn't.)
But lets think a bit more. Wouldn't Ghandi also be a Black Swan? Black Swans aren't necessarily destructive in any conventional sense. Merely game-changing and unpredictable.
You're thinking of arsenic or antimony. Used to be all the rage in cosmetics. (Though now that I think of it, at that time pale skin was all the rage. I think arsenic was for pallor and antimony was for those attractive black circles under they eyes.)
If it's been submerged in salt water for any long period of time (months? weeks?) then it's going to need a major overhaul before it's operational again. And if it's old (a decade? longer?) then the fuel will need to be reprocessed before it can be used (as an explosive).
So it's not that simple. If your nuclear element is less pure then you need more of it. If your machinery has been sufficiently damaged by salt water, then it needs to be replaced.
If these were old "Fatman" design bombs, then there'd be lots more reason to worry. Modern designs are a lot touchier and usually have tighter operational requirements.
Calculus or Analytic Geometry? I can see learning trig in Analytic Geometry, but not in Calculus. (It's true some places merge the two into on course, but if it doesn't involve the theory of limits, it's not Differential Calculus. (Probably not Integral Calculus either, but I don't remember clearly enough to assert that.)
N.B.: Integral Calculus uses lots of trig identities, but it's no place to learn trig. Ditto for Differential Calculus, but less stringently "no place". Still...in Calculus trig functions were used as functions, not as geometric things. That was Analytic Geometry.
There's a lot more to it than that.
I've never been a good artist...but then I studied for awhile with a good teacher. I became MUCH better than average. Lots much. But I still wasn't drawn to the field, so I've let it lapse. I could probably pick it up again with a few weeks of hard work, but I'm not likely to.
OTOH, my wife studied with the same teacher several times a long, and before I dropped it for lack of interest, she wasn't as good (technically) as I was. But she enjoys it, so she's kept on. By now she's much better than I ever was.
So skill isn't enough, and motivation isn't enough, and talent isn't enough. You need all three. But the least important is talent.
(And skill implies the fortune of having a good teacher. Most art teachers don't qualify, even more than most math teachers don't qualify. A *LOT* more.)
They didn't even do thorough DNA testing. There *ARE* DNA differences between identical twins. Certain sequences aren't stable, and either stretch or shrink with each cell division, to the point that by the time one is "adult" (before 12 years) it's possible to tell the difference between identical twins. But you need to be a lot more thorough than just testing at 12 sites (or whatever they use this year).
Could one make it a postscript executable? Or a Java class file. I wouldn't be too certain that this will *stay* a MSWind only exploit.
This might have the potential to become a truly cross-platform exploit.
PDF is basically a specialized subset of Forth. Unlike Postscript, it was presumed to be safe. This, however, may show otherwise.
Postscript is essentially a specialized dialect (not subset) of Forth. It is clearly Turing complete, so a Postscript program might do nearly anything. PDF had been presumed to have been safely neutered. This calls that into question.
P.S.: No, I didn't read the original article. This is all basic background stuff, with a few of my speculations about what this "exploit" means. I tried to indicate where I was speculating.
You *can't* be "very familiar with how a voucher system would work", because there are so many possibilities. They cover the range from quite good to abominably bad.
Ideally a voucher system would put very few restrictions on what could be a "school". It should cover everything from a parent's cooperative nursery school to an Advanced Placement University for teens. I'm dubious about religious schools. The teaching of religion should not be payable with in vouchers. But I'm not at all sure this means that the school shouldn't rent it's rooms from a church. (Just that if it did, eviction should be quite difficult, an only be possible either over summer break or between semesters...and with 6-months notice.) (Should other landlords by bound by the same rules? Seems likely.)
N.B.: By my definition of a "good voucher program" there would be no requirement of teacher accreditation. Not saying it shouldn't happen, merely that the *government* shouldn't require it. If it's a good system, then of course the parents should require it. (I happen to believe that the current system is about as good as flipping a coin. If were to become a selling point, it would need to improve itself a LOT.)
P.S.: In my flavor of libertarianism the feds wouldn't stop most of their accreditation of various varieties...but they couldn't forbid vendors from selling merchandise that didn't meet their licensing requirements. Just from saying that it had been approved. And other groups could run their own licensing programs. Trademark style law would be favored over patent style law. (So those who object to
But *WHY* are the teachers useless? It's not because the don't care. People entering the teaching profession care more than most, and many who are retiring still care. It's not because they're stupid. I've known and know many teachers.
Hint: The teachers that I know who are the best teachers have never gone to a University Dept. of Education. Most of them are legally forbidden to teach in a public school. Most of them would be unwilling to even try to operate in that kind of an environment.
(I'm leaving out the administration. I don't know enough about it. All I know about it is that every good teacher I've known either worked around it or despised it.)
That said, "best teacher" comes in lots of different modalities. The best music teacher I know refers to another teacher as the best music teacher that she knows "for those who are already well trained at the basics of music, and want to study the piano". Neither of them handle large groups well. One of them can handle boys better than the other. Etc.
When I went to school the two best teachers that I had taught only a few students in the class, and essentially babysat the others. (Even that was distracting.) Other teachers gave generalized instruction to the entire class, which left half the class bored and the other half confused.
Part of the problem was that class sizes were far too large. 30 is unreasonable for primary, and most secondary instruction. A study I once say claimed that in the high school years there was a definite break in the amount of learning that occurred between class sizes of 16 and 19. (With the students in the class with 16 students learning a lot more.) Could be. I suspect that it varies a lot with class composition AND subject. Many college classes seem to do quite well with 20 or more students, at least as long as there are smaller sections. (But I'm not convinced that a class size of 300 is ever better than a video. Perhaps the video should be shown during the section meetings? And stopped and re-run with detailed explanations from the TA whenever things got confusing to someone.)
Note, by the way, that college professors have almost never gotten a degree from the dept. of Education. Some are very bad teachers, but more of them are good teachers than is common among the earlier grades.
Before the internet, the public library was an excellent place to find learning...if you wanted to. (I didn't usually, but I did enough of the time, and my very amusements tended to be cerebral, so that didn't matter.)
Role models are even more important. Fictional ones as well as real ones. I tended to read Tom Swift, the Oz books, and E.E.Smith, which gave me a really weird set of role models, but they were all about people facing problems and dealing with them in a morally responsible manner. (Never mind that Lensmen blew up entire planets full of sentient beings. It was moral. Mentor said so. After I passed into my later teens I started wondering about that. But that had to do with "What is moral?", which is a separate problem from "Are you moral, or just opportunist?")
P.S.: The lessons taught by the Oz books are considerably different from those taught by the "Wizard of Oz" movie, which I am told I hated even as a child because of the way it mutilated the book. (But I did like the songs.)
Death is a pretty nasty side effect, and if it has a "tendency to emerge from dormancy", then it hasn't been cleaned out.
Those observations actually *ARE* scientific evidence for dark matter. Unfortunately, they don't constrain what it could be very tightly. The current dark matter theory can shift to something else without changing it's name (and has in the past).
E.g., what is the temperature of the dark matter? For awhile there was argument between the hot dark matter interpretation and the cold dark matter interpretation...but both camps agreed it wasn't made of protons or neutrons and didn't radiate in the infrared.
What is it?? Who knows. I'm not really convinced it's particulate. But I don't know what the alternative could be.
(Caution: IAMNAAP [I am not an AstroPhysicist])
If this is the dark matter, then a lot of theories are going to need to be revised. There are good reasons why the dark matter was believed to be non-baryonic (i.e., without neutrons & protons). If this is the "missing matter", then the prevalence of helium vs. hydrogen needs a new explanation.
Yeah, but the confidence values are wrong. Not that you can make better ones, but they hide assumptions of the "I didn't think of that" variety.
Which is why engineers oversample. (But they also tend not to select their samples correctly. O, well.)
Oversampling is good. Being careful about your sample selection is good. But even better is to *also* mix in some actual random samples...because there are effects you didn't think of. (Note that this increases both the amount of oversampling and the expense of the study. And it doesn't decrease the care with which the statistically selected sample must be chosen.)
But 15 is too small for any statistical conclusions other that deadly or generally safe or somewhere in between. This report seems to say that this procedure is generally safe. (It also looks promising as a treatment, but that's too much to say from this sample.)
Odd. it caused me to wonder about clearing malaria out of people. Something that's never been possible. But I suppose that depends on being able to locate the cells in which it's hiding, and I don't know whether *that's* possible.
That's a tremendously BAD difference. Usually when the state brings charges it requires evidence at criminal law standards. Civil law is *much* looser. (Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Proof should be required to win, but only "good faith" is required to file a suit. And there's no test for that.)
Additionally, if we're talking about border crossings, the people at the borders (I hesitate to call them guards) have a reputation for theft, lack of accountability, etc. ANYTHING that gives them more power is a bad idea.
Even though what you list is becoming common, it's still a decided minority, even among those approaching 90.