Because you can't just steer these beams to arbitrary locations... you need to build a beamline that points from CERN to Fermilab. There are a number of these types of experiments worldwide, but they are all point-to-point experiments.
Fraud is really your only choice. Seriously. No accredited program awarding a BS is going to let you skip out on General Education requirements; your two demands are mutually exclusive. That's intentional. BS programs are not technical college programs (which have their place), and they are not skills certificate programs (which also have their place).
If you don't want GenEd, you have two choices: an AAS degree, or a non-accredited BS/BA program. Few if any of those credits will transfer to an accredited program in the future, however. Accreditation provides a minimal guarantee of "quality", which is why colleges go through the (significant) effort required to obtain and maintain the credential. Caveat Emptor.
A final comment: a few additional things the General Education requirements are likely to teach you are 1) that you don't know as much as you think you do, and 2) a little humility.
They didn't, but that doesn't matter to the argument:-)
We know from more nearby GRBs that photons at all energies are emitted throughout the "explosion". That is, high energy photons aren't emitted earlier than lower energy photons. In other words, if you look at the mean emission time for all photons from energy, say, 10keV to 11 keV, and for those from energy 10MeV to 10.1MeV, (and every other energy band), those means are all the same.
Now, if HIGHER energy photons covered the distance faster than lower energy photons, then the MEAN arrival time of those same energy bins would spread out. What these observations showed is that the highest observed energy band and the lowest observed energy band spread out by no more than 0.9 seconds over 7.3 billion years. The "no more than" is the important part... it's actually technical jargon that means "the result is consistent with zero, but since we only observed a small number of events, we can only statistically conclude that the spread was less than 0.9 seconds", typically with 90% or 95% confidence.
Actually, WE (as in the US) have been one of the largest contributor countries, even though we aren't officially a part of the CERN treaty group. The US has nearly 1000 scientists involved in the various LHC experiments, and has directly contributed nearly $600M to the construction of the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Plus, it will contribute to construction of ALICE and LHCb, and many millions more in grants to US based research groups for operations and upgrades. And it has built two Tier 1 LHC computing centers (at Brookhaven and Fermilab), dozens of Tier 2 centers, and as well as a fully equipped remote operations center. So, I date say "yes", the US is slightly involved with this project....
Many companies already include such devices in their phones. The one you have already may have passive water immersion sensors... little stickers that change color if they get wet. I know for a fact that a number of LG and Samsung models have these, just inside the battery compartment. Google "cell phone water sensor" for a flavoring of what's already out there...
It's covered as a "derivative work", transcoding is clearly a derivative in this sense, and you would be screwed:-)
17 U.S.C. Â 106) provides:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....
It is hard to see how transcoding or quality degradation would satisfy any of the "transformation" or "fair use" exceptions.
There is no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
If indeed, it is "impossible to predict earthquakes, it seems to me that getting a minor quake on-the-day of prediction, and the major quake hitting a week later is pretty much as good as could possibly have been expected.
Except that the area around the epicenter of the recent large quake has been having (at least) daily "preshocks" for weeks, and is currently experiencing large numbers of aftershocks. Under that scenario, missing by a week is tantamount to being completely wrong. Whether the response of the authorities was wrong is another question entirely that I won't address.
It likely WAS a unanimous vote, at a meeting of the university faculty. Attendance at those things tends to be shockingly low, however, so only those with skin in the particular game on the agenda tend to show up. It's nearly impossible to tell, as the electronic copies of the minutes are restricted to mit.edu users only.
I only helped one classroom. The school needs more.
The problem I always have with these statements is that this seems to be the end of it. "Getting" the technology into the classroom is not really that big of a problem... there are huge numbers of companies that would gladly take the tax breaks available for donating old computers to schools (that may not put computers on every school desk, but it would be a start).
No, the real problem is finding something USEFUL to do with all that hardware. Just as pens, paper, and chalk aren't enough to teach students math, piles of computers and ethernet switches by themselves aren't enough to teach students.... well, anything.
And if you aren't willing to make a sustained, long term commitment to maintain, repair, and upgrade the hardware, along with ongoing teach training, course development and integration into the greater learning environment, all that hardware isn't going to be any more useful than a truckload of donated boat anchors.
Widescale computing technology deployment in classrooms has, for at least 25 years, been some kind of hold grail. But it's always been a "learning solution" in search of a problem.
The blanket directive "Don't consolidate" is just as specious as the blanket "You should consolidate". Be a smart shopper! We, too, got lots of those "consolidate with us!" letters... we threw most of them out. We eventually did consolidate my wife's loans, cutting the interest rate on most of her debt by more than half. The rate is fixed for the life of the loan, and we get a further rate discount for automatic payments. The effective rate is so low that they are almost paying US to hold the loan once inflation is counted in.
Well, the post you respond to may have been written by a "dimwit", as you say, but he wasn't wrong. On Friday, the "America Serves" section of change.gov said:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
where it now says
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
Either way, the word "require" has disappeared, even if the idea of requiring such "service" hasn't. How they make an end run around the 13th Amendment will be interesting to see.
But if you are sending the package internationally, it is decidedly NOT a federal crime for the Customs agents to open that USPS package and search the contents. Without warrant, same as a border inspection when you are present.
Interestingly, that's the same set of recommendations that most major US Corporations follow when sending their employees outside the US... to make sure the authorities in the both the US and the foreign country don't find anything when they walk through your laptop.
Remember, the rules that we tend to rely on in our home countries don't typically apply in other countries, or even at the borders. If you think that Canadian Customs has any fewer powers than US Customs with regards to laptops, dream on:
CBSA has yet to publish a report detailing its policy on border searches of electronic devices. That said, the CBSA has stated that its examination authority under the Customs Act extends to electronic storage devices. Other sources of information also suggest that they, like their American counterparts, do not accord electronic devices special status at the border. For example, the Canadian Customs Act broadly defines "goods" to include "any document in any form." suggesting no special treatment for electronic documents. Canadian case law also supports this interpretation. In a 2008 Ontario Court of Justice decision, the Court stated that it saw no intrinsic difference between a computer search and a detailed examination of the contents of one's suitcase.
Even more goodness:
From their press releases concerning the confiscation of child pornography, it is evident that CBSA Officers regularly perform spot-checks of laptops at the border. Moreover, in another recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case, the Court justified a customs search of a computer disc by reasoning that searches at the border are routinely held to be reasonable simply because they are searches at the border[.]
Think you're safe in Europe, specifically the UK? Think again:
A spokesman for Customs and Excise said officials would routinely scan laptops for illegal material such as pornography. Encrypted files will be treated in the same way as a ordinary luggage. "So far as we are concerned, there is no difference between an encrypted file and a locked suitcase," said the spokesman. "All travellers entering the country should be prepared to have their equipment scanned."
Customs authorities perform customs controls along the external frontier of the EC and within Germany. As a rule, customs officers check travellers on a random basis without a specific initial suspicion. [...] Occasionally it happens that articles are found during a customs inspection and it cannot be clarified immediately whether they are subject to prohibitions and restrictions or not. [...] In such cases, the articles in question can be seized and submitted to a test by experts.
And remember that most customs rules are harmonized in the EU... things are pretty much the same everywhere. If you peruse the lists of "prohibitions and restrictions" for the EU, you will find many, many things that are perfectly legal to transport into or out of the United States.
Borders everywhere have different legal status than the interior of those same countries... many many fewer protections apply, even in the most "Western" of democracies. Forget that at your own peril.
I know it's the hip thing to worry about Customs rifling through your laptop, but statistically, you have much better things to worry about when bringing your laptop on vacation... among other things:
0) Forgetting to bring the AC plug adapter, 1) Customs services in the foreign country, 2) Airport security on both ends, 3) Simple theft of the laptop during the trip, 4) Putting your laptop bag down on the bus and forgetting it, 5) Spilling coffee on your keyboard at an internet cafe, and 6) Dropping your laptop on your big toe and breaking both.
Practically speaking, Customs agents can't be bothered to search individuals that aren't acting truly "hinky". I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for business. My travel patterns certainly fit a certain "risk" profile (long stays outside the country, frequent travel, watch list name match, etc.) and I've never, in six years of this, ever had anything searched or questioned, much less seized. Practically, it's not worth worrying about.
No... state court interpretations of state law are unreviewable by the federal courts in the absence of preempting federal law. The US Supreme Court can't overturn a state court ruling determined on state law grounds... they don't even have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in those cases. This is at the heart of our federal legal system.
Better still, the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in line with the decision in the way they interpret California law.
This sentence reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the US Federal system operates. In matters of interpreting State laws and constitutions, the State court system has the final say. Federal courts have no authority to independently interpret State laws and constitutions once the State Supreme Court has spoken; they have to take State rulings as uninterpretable "fact". The exceptions are quite limited, and involve preemption by Federal law and disputes under the US Constitution.
In this case, if there are no implicated Federal Statutes, the Federal Courts have to abide by the holdings of the State Supreme Court decision, whether they like it or not.
It's a question of whether the government of California even has the authority to pay people. The law in California, as ruled by the Supreme Court of California, seems to require what the Governor has ordered, and what the Controller is refusing to do:
Though the 69-page Supreme Court decision [in White v. Davis] addressed many legal arguments, its conclusion was unequivocal. "State law does not authorize the controller to disburse state funds to employees until an applicable appropriation" - a state budget - "has been enacted," the court stated. Once a budget is in place, the employees must receive back pay. And to comply with federal law, the court added, during a budget impasse the state must pay hourly workers the federal minimum wage and those who work overtime time-and-a-half pay.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you can't just steer these beams to arbitrary locations ... you need to build a beamline that points from CERN to Fermilab. There are a number of these types of experiments worldwide, but they are all point-to-point experiments.
Better to think of Newton's laws as an "approximation" to the laws of special relativity, rather than the other way around.
Fraud is really your only choice. Seriously. No accredited program awarding a BS is going to let you skip out on General Education requirements; your two demands are mutually exclusive. That's intentional. BS programs are not technical college programs (which have their place), and they are not skills certificate programs (which also have their place).
If you don't want GenEd, you have two choices: an AAS degree, or a non-accredited BS/BA program. Few if any of those credits will transfer to an accredited program in the future, however. Accreditation provides a minimal guarantee of "quality", which is why colleges go through the (significant) effort required to obtain and maintain the credential. Caveat Emptor.
A final comment: a few additional things the General Education requirements are likely to teach you are 1) that you don't know as much as you think you do, and 2) a little humility.
They didn't, but that doesn't matter to the argument :-)
We know from more nearby GRBs that photons at all energies are emitted throughout the "explosion". That is, high energy photons aren't emitted earlier than lower energy photons. In other words, if you look at the mean emission time for all photons from energy, say, 10keV to 11 keV, and for those from energy 10MeV to 10.1MeV, (and every other energy band), those means are all the same.
Now, if HIGHER energy photons covered the distance faster than lower energy photons, then the MEAN arrival time of those same energy bins would spread out. What these observations showed is that the highest observed energy band and the lowest observed energy band spread out by no more than 0.9 seconds over 7.3 billion years. The "no more than" is the important part ... it's actually technical jargon that means "the result is consistent with zero, but since we only observed a small number of events, we can only statistically conclude that the spread was less than 0.9 seconds", typically with 90% or 95% confidence.
Actually, WE (as in the US) have been one of the largest contributor countries, even though we aren't officially a part of the CERN treaty group. The US has nearly 1000 scientists involved in the various LHC experiments, and has directly contributed nearly $600M to the construction of the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Plus, it will contribute to construction of ALICE and LHCb, and many millions more in grants to US based research groups for operations and upgrades. And it has built two Tier 1 LHC computing centers (at Brookhaven and Fermilab), dozens of Tier 2 centers, and as well as a fully equipped remote operations center. So, I date say "yes", the US is slightly involved with this project....
Many companies already include such devices in their phones. The one you have already may have passive water immersion sensors ... little stickers that change color if they get wet. I know for a fact that a number of LG and Samsung models have these, just inside the battery compartment. Google "cell phone water sensor" for a flavoring of what's already out there...
Nice to see that ... the organizers and attendees ... did the right thing and destroyed the data.
No, they CLAIMED to destroy the data..... :-)
It's covered as a "derivative work", transcoding is clearly a derivative in this sense, and you would be screwed :-)
17 U.S.C. Â 106) provides:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....
It is hard to see how transcoding or quality degradation would satisfy any of the "transformation" or "fair use" exceptions.
At least in the US, even a penny is legal tender and can't be rejected because of its denomination
Commonly held belief, but incorrect. According to the United States Treasury:
There is no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
If indeed, it is "impossible to predict earthquakes, it seems to me that getting a minor quake on-the-day of prediction, and the major quake hitting a week later is pretty much as good as could possibly have been expected.
Except that the area around the epicenter of the recent large quake has been having (at least) daily "preshocks" for weeks, and is currently experiencing large numbers of aftershocks. Under that scenario, missing by a week is tantamount to being completely wrong. Whether the response of the authorities was wrong is another question entirely that I won't address.
It likely WAS a unanimous vote, at a meeting of the university faculty. Attendance at those things tends to be shockingly low, however, so only those with skin in the particular game on the agenda tend to show up. It's nearly impossible to tell, as the electronic copies of the minutes are restricted to mit.edu users only.
Google is your friend....
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
I only helped one classroom. The school needs more.
The problem I always have with these statements is that this seems to be the end of it. "Getting" the technology into the classroom is not really that big of a problem ... there are huge numbers of companies that would gladly take the tax breaks available for donating old computers to schools (that may not put computers on every school desk, but it would be a start).
No, the real problem is finding something USEFUL to do with all that hardware. Just as pens, paper, and chalk aren't enough to teach students math, piles of computers and ethernet switches by themselves aren't enough to teach students .... well, anything.
And if you aren't willing to make a sustained, long term commitment to maintain, repair, and upgrade the hardware, along with ongoing teach training, course development and integration into the greater learning environment, all that hardware isn't going to be any more useful than a truckload of donated boat anchors.
Widescale computing technology deployment in classrooms has, for at least 25 years, been some kind of hold grail. But it's always been a "learning solution" in search of a problem.
The blanket directive "Don't consolidate" is just as specious as the blanket "You should consolidate". Be a smart shopper! We, too, got lots of those "consolidate with us!" letters ... we threw most of them out. We eventually did consolidate my wife's loans, cutting the interest rate on most of her debt by more than half. The rate is fixed for the life of the loan, and we get a further rate discount for automatic payments. The effective rate is so low that they are almost paying US to hold the loan once inflation is counted in.
Well, the post you respond to may have been written by a "dimwit", as you say, but he wasn't wrong. On Friday, the "America Serves" section of change.gov said:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
where it now says
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
Either way, the word "require" has disappeared, even if the idea of requiring such "service" hasn't. How they make an end run around the 13th Amendment will be interesting to see.
Digikey sells them. They're pretty cheap:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T083/P2246.pdf
Customs can open the DHL package, too. They can open ANY package that crosses the border....
But if you are sending the package internationally, it is decidedly NOT a federal crime for the Customs agents to open that USPS package and search the contents. Without warrant, same as a border inspection when you are present.
Interestingly, that's the same set of recommendations that most major US Corporations follow when sending their employees outside the US ... to make sure the authorities in the both the US and the foreign country don't find anything when they walk through your laptop.
Remember, the rules that we tend to rely on in our home countries don't typically apply in other countries, or even at the borders. If you think that Canadian Customs has any fewer powers than US Customs with regards to laptops, dream on:
CBSA has yet to publish a report detailing its policy on border searches of electronic devices. That said, the CBSA has stated that its examination authority under the Customs Act extends to electronic storage devices. Other sources of information also suggest that they, like their American counterparts, do not accord electronic devices special status at the border. For example, the Canadian Customs Act broadly defines "goods" to include "any document in any form." suggesting no special treatment for electronic documents. Canadian case law also supports this interpretation. In a 2008 Ontario Court of Justice decision, the Court stated that it saw no intrinsic difference between a computer search and a detailed examination of the contents of one's suitcase.
Even more goodness:
From their press releases concerning the confiscation of child pornography, it is evident that CBSA Officers regularly perform spot-checks of laptops at the border. Moreover, in another recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case, the Court justified a customs search of a computer disc by reasoning that searches at the border are routinely held to be reasonable simply because they are searches at the border[.]
Think you're safe in Europe, specifically the UK? Think again:
A spokesman for Customs and Excise said officials would routinely scan laptops for illegal material such as pornography. Encrypted files will be treated in the same way as a ordinary luggage. "So far as we are concerned, there is no difference between an encrypted file and a locked suitcase," said the spokesman. "All travellers entering the country should be prepared to have their equipment scanned."
Perhaps you think it's just the crazy Brits? Not so fast. The German government says:
Customs authorities perform customs controls along the external frontier of the EC and within Germany. As a rule, customs officers check travellers on a random basis without a specific initial suspicion. [...] Occasionally it happens that articles are found during a customs inspection and it cannot be clarified immediately whether they are subject to prohibitions and restrictions or not. [...] In such cases, the articles in question can be seized and submitted to a test by experts.
And remember that most customs rules are harmonized in the EU ... things are pretty much the same everywhere. If you peruse the lists of "prohibitions and restrictions" for the EU, you will find many, many things that are perfectly legal to transport into or out of the United States.
Borders everywhere have different legal status than the interior of those same countries ... many many fewer protections apply, even in the most "Western" of democracies. Forget that at your own peril.
I know it's the hip thing to worry about Customs rifling through your laptop, but statistically, you have much better things to worry about when bringing your laptop on vacation ... among other things:
0) Forgetting to bring the AC plug adapter,
1) Customs services in the foreign country,
2) Airport security on both ends,
3) Simple theft of the laptop during the trip,
4) Putting your laptop bag down on the bus and forgetting it,
5) Spilling coffee on your keyboard at an internet cafe, and
6) Dropping your laptop on your big toe and breaking both.
Practically speaking, Customs agents can't be bothered to search individuals that aren't acting truly "hinky". I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for business. My travel patterns certainly fit a certain "risk" profile (long stays outside the country, frequent travel, watch list name match, etc.) and I've never, in six years of this, ever had anything searched or questioned, much less seized. Practically, it's not worth worrying about.
No ... state court interpretations of state law are unreviewable by the federal courts in the absence of preempting federal law. The US Supreme Court can't overturn a state court ruling determined on state law grounds ... they don't even have jurisdiction to hear an appeal in those cases. This is at the heart of our federal legal system.
Better still, the San Francisco Chronicle opines that the US Federal courts are likely to fall in line with the decision in the way they interpret California law.
This sentence reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the US Federal system operates. In matters of interpreting State laws and constitutions, the State court system has the final say. Federal courts have no authority to independently interpret State laws and constitutions once the State Supreme Court has spoken; they have to take State rulings as uninterpretable "fact". The exceptions are quite limited, and involve preemption by Federal law and disputes under the US Constitution.
In this case, if there are no implicated Federal Statutes, the Federal Courts have to abide by the holdings of the State Supreme Court decision, whether they like it or not.
I think what Arnold wants to do is a crock
It's a question of whether the government of California even has the authority to pay people. The law in California, as ruled by the Supreme Court of California, seems to require what the Governor has ordered, and what the Controller is refusing to do:
Though the 69-page Supreme Court decision [in White v. Davis] addressed many legal arguments, its conclusion was unequivocal. "State law does not authorize the controller to disburse state funds to employees until an applicable appropriation" - a state budget - "has been enacted," the court stated. Once a budget is in place, the employees must receive back pay. And to comply with federal law, the court added, during a budget impasse the state must pay hourly workers the federal minimum wage and those who work overtime time-and-a-half pay.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10005275?nclick_check=1
...the good governator is probably payed by that system too and you know HIS pay ain't going down.
In fact, you would be wrong:
"Elected officials and their appointees have had their salaries withheld since July 1."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold1-2008aug01,0,1783186.story?page=2
From the article: "Chiang said it would take an additional nine to 10 months to issue back pay"