Same here. I also got to go into the control room itself, when I was about 8 or so. Told not to touch any of the switches. If only I'd not listened....
This means that corporations often have "headquarters" (a shack holding a person who may or may not be alive at the time) in a State that has little or no corporate tax, even if they do business in areas with gigantic tax rates. Which means the corporations pay next to nothing to work there. The taxes therefore end up coming out of the pockets of employees in those areas, since the money will be raised somehow.
Why would a pirate bother with such complicated methods? The lock must be added, which means it'll be stored as a template in a standard format somewhere - possibly VHDL, SystemC or Verilog.
Thief #1 is ubersmart and simply backdoors the template so he can unlock the chip himself, even though it appears locked to the company.
Thief #2 is reasonably smart. Mask inspections will be against what the computer says the mask should be, not what the high-level description says it should be. Provided testing is sufficiently lax, just omit the mask altogether.
Thief #3 is slap-dash and doesn't care about such fancy stuff. He just rips the source files describing the chips.
Thief #4 is also a bit thuggish. He overwrites the locking templates with dummy files and steals the first batch of chips made. By the time anyone realizes the chips are unprotected, he'll be long-gone.
Was, for a very long time, the world's largest steerable single-dish radio telescope. In fact, for a long time, it was the largest radio telescope. The dish is amazingly precise. Even before an upgrade in 2001, large parts of the surface had defects averaging a millimeter or less. A photo of some of the worst-hit areas show what the weather will do. Although they don't show the defects on the current dish, they do show what the new panels look like in-situ.
But the big dish isn't the only thing at the Jodrel Bank facility. Their homepage mentions that the Square Kilometer Array Programme Development Office is located there. This is an international project of enormous significance. (Imagine being able to see an Earth-sized planet, orbiting at 1 AU from its sun, 100 light-years away, and have enough data to take measurements of what gasses are in the atmosphere.)
Jodrell Bank also has cultural significance and references pepper the British conciousness. Had he not pursued music, Brian May would have been the one slamming the UK Government's move from the offices of Jodrell Bank.
Then there's the research exchange program with Europe. European countries trade time and access at a facility in one country for access to another facility somewhere else, for free. Closing Jodrell Bank will mean British radio astronomers have nothing to trade and will need to pay to access telescopes elsewhere in the world. Access other countries will still get for free. This means research grants will be worth less to someone from Britain than to someone in another country. This will worsen the "brain drain" - nobody wants to live in a country where they can't afford to hold a job. You will have noticed that British scientists are doing far less high-energy physics since they shut the nuclear structure facility in Daresbury (home of Lewis Carrol, interestingly). It's because they can't afford the prices they now have to pay. From free to thousands of dollars an hour, without a single penny more in grant money to cover it.
Finally, there's the secondary impact. It'll likely cause several departments at the University of Manchester to shut their doors forever. Cheshire is a largely agricultural, impoverished region, so the loss of jobs in the community will be severe. Jodrell Bank is also a major tourist icon, which means there's a significant risk tourism will crash in the area - another major source of money. You can only split time on existing telescopes so far, putting astronomers out of work. This is not a degree you can really use to get a job elsewhere. Many existing projects rely on Jodrell Bank as part of a network of telescopes. Losing it will create a lot of ill-will and possibly cost a lot of projects a lot of money in a bid to fill in the data gaps as best they can.
But, then, why should a White Hall mandarin care about such petty details?
Biosphere 2 was a failure because of ants. You can't predict for insects, but a few generalizations can be drawn. If Biosphere 2 had been larger, you would have had more plantlife and more insects. Thus, you get some benefit but not all that you should have. If you keep increasing the size, you keep getting better and better returns. I'm going to guess you'd need three times the nominal size needed by a human in order to compensate for insect life.
Personally, I'd launch a few hundred (yes, hundred) supply rockets first, providing building materials and other necessary resources. I'd also build at one or the other poles, within the permanent ice cap, to minimize the risk from storms.
Unfortunately, said toe was bitten off the Microsoft developer by the Giant Rat of Sumatra (whose tail the world is not yet ready for), which Microsoft keeps in a cage near the cafeteria for just such occasions.
I'm not sure it is fine for a nation. I believe firmly that for accountability to work, all must be accountable. That includes Presidents, Governments, etc. Now, I also believe firmly that accountability can only work when those with the authority are educated enough to apply that authority sensibly. This makes it difficult, but it's workable.
My suggestion would be to have a third house, selected at random from the entire pool of individuals in the United States with demonstrably high IQs and/or EQs and/or education. They don't have to be registered to vote, born in any particular country, they just have to be US citizens at the time and eligible for jury duty. This jury, however, is rather unusual. Aside from being randomly selected from a tiny subset of the jury pool, and not being in a criminal or civil case, that is. It would be supervised and moderated by a senior judge, since the house activity is cast in the form of a trial.
This jury would have the power to try and "convict" (ie: veto) any one single bill that is submitted at the time the jury is in session. Just the one. The bill must be submitted for trial by national referendum. After they reach a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt or innocent (by a majority no less than 9 of the 12), the jury is disbanded.
They would also have the power to try any one individual in Government on a charge of "no confidence", including the President, but again that trial would be their sole action. They couldn't do anything else if they did that. Again, who they tried, if anyone, would be decided by national referendum, not by the jury, but because it's a much more significant action, I'd argue that it would require a 2/3rds majority of votes cast to put a member of the executive on trial in this way. The verdict must again be beyond all reasonable doubt, but also must be unanimous. A verdict of guilty authorizes a national vote on whether to recall that individual. Again, because impeachment is supposed to be extremely hard and this circumvents most of the existing system, I'd argue this would need a very substantial majority. 3/4 of all votes cast or 2/3 of all voters (whether they voted or not) would seem reasonable.
Since this would be essentially a para-justice system, appeals would be through the Federal court system, but those appeals would be heard under the legal code established for this system, rather than for civil or criminal law. The interesting problem would be a Supreme Court appeal on the recall of a Supreme Court judge. Would you need the judge to recuse themselves, or since the full court would presumably be needed, would they by definition be amongst those hearing the case?
This would put the powers of veto and impeachment in the hands of the citizenry, but in a way that is very tightly controlled. The idea is to slow angry and resentful people to the point where they can see if their anger or resentment is even real, have that checked over impartially, and if it's valid, then give the reasoning and feeling that is expressed by the general populace as anger and resentment power to hold the Government responsible. Not during election season, when politicians play nice and bribe their voters, but at any time.
The idea is to also prevent such power from ever being controlled by outside sources (hence the jury pool mechanism) amd to prevent mood-of-the-week attitudes from having that power directly.
Of course, there are a million and one reasons why this won't work, but if the circle is to be truly complete and democracy is to be functional, then the current election system is inadequate for a feedback loop and has become far too severely corrupted. There needs to be an uncorruptable feedback loop, even if the requirement to keep it uncorruptable makes it slow, careful, limited and itself subject to higher authorities.
I propose this, not on the chance anyone'll give a damn, but because I think the current system lacks any kind of idiot-proof feedback system and that won't happen if nobody considers the possibility that there might actually be an idiot-proof system.
Well, I'm personally not impressed by LCD or plasma. I'm old-fashioned, perhaps, but I question whether you can achieve the same resolutions, the same refresh rates, the same dynamic ranges for the same screen size, once you pass a critical size. CRTs can work with distributed tubes, it's just the logical inverse of an array of receivers. You can't parallelize plasma so easily and I'm not convinced you could parallelize LCD well enough. Ultimately, I think CRT will survive in the very high-end market, the same way thermionic valves have, because their replacements have limited range.
Sony won't cry over dumping Trinitron for a long time, but eventually the videophiles will be paying the kinds of money the audiophiles are, for home theater with the greatest CRT technology. If it's not derived from ideas used in Trinitron, I'd be surprised, which would leave Sony to wonder why they didn't go for it first.
The Drain virus taught a lot of noobs that disk drives are not washer/dryers. The cascade virus brought new meaning to the saying that what lights up must come down. Early viruses were very educational.
Oh, I quite agree. It could be anything from simple error to a whole new level of scientific thought. New realms of science would only really be detectable and correctable by experts in the field (except possibly for some very specific cases where it's a relatively minor adjustment - quantization of a parameter normally taken as being on a wholly continuous realm might be testable by an amateur). If this is a new field of science, or the application of an existing concept (such as QM gravity), then you're looking at a Nobel prize at the least. Too many unknowns.
If we have deviations, we'll be transparent about the deviations
Is he saying that Microsoft is filled with transparent deviants? We can be certain this doesn't refer to standards, given the problems with compatibility.
Very very occasionally, mainstream scientists goof up big-time. They make an invalid assumption and ignore solutions that fall outside of that, don't check results correctly, or something along those lines. The tables of results that the Wright Brothers originally worked from were inaccurate, which is why it took them so long to build anything that could fly. Only after they recalculated from experimentation (by building their own wind tunnel) did they succeed. Copernicus and Kepler also made their respective contributions by observing errors between theory and reality, not by any great knowledge or expertise.
That sort of discovery, however, is (a) exceptionally rare, and (b) almost only ever happens when layman experiments are possible. In this case, we have a very small error - far smaller than can be directly measured by any amateur facility. It is very unlikely an amateur will solve this puzzle through a direct attack like that. The best hope for an amateur to attack this problem is if the models describing the motion of the probes in an N-body system contain a numerical error that has been overlooked somehow.
What sort of error? Well, since the error has been overlooked, I'd start by looking for a term that has been approximated to make the maths easier. We're probably all familiar with oscillating systems where sin(x) is not equal to x unless x=0, but where the substitution is made anyway. We're also probably all familiar with Hooke's Law, which also linearises a non-linear system, an which also totally breaks down even as an approximation outside a given range. This sort of error is an easy one to miss, because it's an approximation those scientists will be extremely familiar with. Familiarity breeds contempt - in this case, a level of blindness to the fact that it's an approximation at all.
This is a good place to start because these sorts of error can be extremely small and because non-experts are actually more likely to be able to see it, as they're not so ingrained with particular ways of doing things.
Is this likely? Not particularly, but it sounds much more likely than an entirely, hitherto unknown, law of physics. It also seems much more likely than exotic particles, aliens or a wash in the fabric of space/time (sofas notwithstanding). And because it is the best bet for armchair science sleuths, it's the obvious thing to target first.
If that fails? Well, the next-best bet is an extension of the above, that a known force does not operate entirely as predicted by the equations, even if it does operatate entirely as predicted by the model. (eg: if gravity is quantized, then all acceleration/deceleration through gravity must occur in minimum step sizes. The continuous equations used can't work below a certain scale, whatever that might be. It's simpler to work with continuous equations, so we simplify the maths by using those even though we know that they're physically wrong. It's still an error by simplification, but where the errors occur when interpolating rather than extrapolating.)
Actually, it would be kind of neat if this is a case of quantized gravity, as it would clearly define the parameters of the hypothetical graviton and assist greatly in the search for a grand unified theory. I very much doubt it, but it would be nice.
Again, though, this is something amateurs can attack. It doesn't require a PhD to identify candidates for potential errors in interpretation of a model. Amateurs may not be able to fix the problem, but even identifying a term that is suspect and could produce the magnitude of error observed would likely be a major step forward. And, again, because scientists may be too close to the problem and because GR physicists tend not to pay much attention to QM (and vice versa) because the two models conflict, it's a problem that being too knowledgeable about may hinder solving it.
Froma researcher's point of view, it's more profitable to have further research. Actually getting things into production would eliminate the chance of pushing the research costs up. Investors would look at it as further research tidying up the details and cleaning up loose ends. It is in their interests never to have a final conclusion. The best answer is to give them a significantly larger budget and a restricted timeline. Give the researchers ten times the budget, lock them in a research facility in North Dakota. Tie the air conditioning and heating to a timer. Each year, reduce the power. Either they build a reactor in the designated time, or suffer the climate. The ultimate in extreme reality shows, where getting kicked off is not a good idea.
Well, since it's Slashdotted, here's a few ideas to keep you going until tea time. ogo, or one of the other Exchange-lookalikes would make Ubuntu much more corporate-friendly. Just watch for license issues.
ATLAS (the maths package) is in need of an update, as is HDF5. OPeNDAP seems to be very popular in the scientific world and would likely be big in the corporate world if they knew it existed. OpenIMPACT could reasonably be taken as important to software developers. VSIPL++ maybe less so, but I'd bet it would be used by a fair few if part of the distro.
The Constitution is a law governing the Government, it is not a law governing individuals. As such, the Constitution can say nothing about individuals. Besides which, the Constitution is a document concerning itself with what is permitted. The "Bill of Rights" is a misnomer, it is merely a bill of permissions. The Government can add/remove amendments (the 2nd included) any time enough States concur with large enough majorities. If it can be taken away, then it is not inalienable and is not a right.
(Besides which, the 2nd only permits militias to bear arms, it does not permit militias to bear ANY arms, and the reference to individuals is merely a prohibition of preventing individuals from being in a militia by preventing them from bearing those arms militias are permitted to bear.)
The only rights you have are those described in the Declaration of Independence as being rights. Those just are. They don't need the Declaration to be true, they ARE true simply by right of being. It is easy to confuse rights and permissions, but it is a grave mistake to do so. When a society assumes it has more rights than actually exist (or, indeed, fewer), you create hostility and instability. This is not to say that a person should like or appreciate the fact that those events/actions important to them can be taken away without notice or warning. A person should stand for what matters to them. But they should do so honestly, not under false pretenses.
Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been. Under the NPT, it is a privilege granted only to very specific nations under very specific conditions. You weren't granted that privilege, but more importantly, it IS a privilege.
That is why I adhere to Classical thought, that experimental science is merely a tiny subset of science. Those who are only interested in experimental science fail to see the full extent of the proofs, testable hypotheses, knowledge and understanding that never go near a physical lab. Liberate science, give in to the full range of possibilities opened up by the Classical philosopher-scientists, the most recent of which is the Gedankenexperiment. This is the realm occupied by many of the truly brilliant scientists because it's not limited by the religion of the test tube.
In Classical science, everything can be reformulated as a testable hypothesis, just not necessarily a hypothesis testable in the physical world, which the Classical mind regards as a corrupt and noisy form of the pure essences it reflects. Because the physical world is seen as an imperfect reflection of what is ultimately "real", physical experiments are never going to be conclusive or proof of anything. On the other hand, everything can be reduced to some combination of logical thought, lateral thought and herustics.
The three rival theories (life forming on Earth, life forming on Mars/another world then travelling to Earth, life forming in deep space then travelling to Earth) can be tested without the need of a single lab experiment, purely by applying sufficient reasoning of the three basic kinds outlined. It might take longer, but you'll be more confident in your results.
If something is truly a right, an inalienable right, then it cannot be given, taken or surrendered. Those things that are given or taken are called privileges. A parent can grant or withdraw privileges from their children, for example, but cannot withdraw those children's rights. (Thus, countries that withdraw privileges are quite literally "nanny states".)
The question is, is free speech actually a right or is it merely a privilege that the privileged are granted? If it is the former, then that is absolute and inviolate. There's no two ways about it. If it is the latter, then yes, certain jobs may withdraw certain privileges that would be granted to others.
What you can't have is it both ways. I honestly don't care which American society wants to define it as being, as it is using an ambiguous interpretation that is far too often more about convenience than about standards in life. Less ambiguity, even if more restrictive, can't be any worse.
Depends on the degree meant. It is possible to synthetically build very short strands of DNA (life) from basic components (non-life) and it is possible to electrostatically generate many basic components from raw chemicals. The build chain is not yet complete, since we cannot (yet) go from start to finish automatically, but recent theories on where life started on Earth (in extreme cold, or near undersea volcanos) would modify the experiment outside what can currently be done with any ease in a biochem lab.
There is nothing mystical about life, it's just chemical processes and structured molecules. The difference is that there is organization to the molecules such that the molecules appear to self-replicate. Of course, they don't "self-replicate", a double helix of nucleotides has no concept of self, so cannot have any intent to replicate anything. It's just a biochemical machine which chemically builds another chain. It so happens that the machine (unreiably) copies itself. If it didn't, it couldn't build a living organism. It has to be unreliable, in order to move forward, in order to have got to the point of being replicating inthe first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Same here. I also got to go into the control room itself, when I was about 8 or so. Told not to touch any of the switches. If only I'd not listened....
This means that corporations often have "headquarters" (a shack holding a person who may or may not be alive at the time) in a State that has little or no corporate tax, even if they do business in areas with gigantic tax rates. Which means the corporations pay next to nothing to work there. The taxes therefore end up coming out of the pockets of employees in those areas, since the money will be raised somehow.
Thief #1 is ubersmart and simply backdoors the template so he can unlock the chip himself, even though it appears locked to the company.
Thief #2 is reasonably smart. Mask inspections will be against what the computer says the mask should be, not what the high-level description says it should be. Provided testing is sufficiently lax, just omit the mask altogether.
Thief #3 is slap-dash and doesn't care about such fancy stuff. He just rips the source files describing the chips.
Thief #4 is also a bit thuggish. He overwrites the locking templates with dummy files and steals the first batch of chips made. By the time anyone realizes the chips are unprotected, he'll be long-gone.
But the big dish isn't the only thing at the Jodrel Bank facility. Their homepage mentions that the Square Kilometer Array Programme Development Office is located there. This is an international project of enormous significance. (Imagine being able to see an Earth-sized planet, orbiting at 1 AU from its sun, 100 light-years away, and have enough data to take measurements of what gasses are in the atmosphere.)
Jodrell Bank also has cultural significance and references pepper the British conciousness. Had he not pursued music, Brian May would have been the one slamming the UK Government's move from the offices of Jodrell Bank.
Then there's the research exchange program with Europe. European countries trade time and access at a facility in one country for access to another facility somewhere else, for free. Closing Jodrell Bank will mean British radio astronomers have nothing to trade and will need to pay to access telescopes elsewhere in the world. Access other countries will still get for free. This means research grants will be worth less to someone from Britain than to someone in another country. This will worsen the "brain drain" - nobody wants to live in a country where they can't afford to hold a job. You will have noticed that British scientists are doing far less high-energy physics since they shut the nuclear structure facility in Daresbury (home of Lewis Carrol, interestingly). It's because they can't afford the prices they now have to pay. From free to thousands of dollars an hour, without a single penny more in grant money to cover it.
Finally, there's the secondary impact. It'll likely cause several departments at the University of Manchester to shut their doors forever. Cheshire is a largely agricultural, impoverished region, so the loss of jobs in the community will be severe. Jodrell Bank is also a major tourist icon, which means there's a significant risk tourism will crash in the area - another major source of money. You can only split time on existing telescopes so far, putting astronomers out of work. This is not a degree you can really use to get a job elsewhere. Many existing projects rely on Jodrell Bank as part of a network of telescopes. Losing it will create a lot of ill-will and possibly cost a lot of projects a lot of money in a bid to fill in the data gaps as best they can.
But, then, why should a White Hall mandarin care about such petty details?
I think it's Plan 11 from Outer SCO.
Personally, I'd launch a few hundred (yes, hundred) supply rockets first, providing building materials and other necessary resources. I'd also build at one or the other poles, within the permanent ice cap, to minimize the risk from storms.
Unfortunately, said toe was bitten off the Microsoft developer by the Giant Rat of Sumatra (whose tail the world is not yet ready for), which Microsoft keeps in a cage near the cafeteria for just such occasions.
My suggestion would be to have a third house, selected at random from the entire pool of individuals in the United States with demonstrably high IQs and/or EQs and/or education. They don't have to be registered to vote, born in any particular country, they just have to be US citizens at the time and eligible for jury duty. This jury, however, is rather unusual. Aside from being randomly selected from a tiny subset of the jury pool, and not being in a criminal or civil case, that is. It would be supervised and moderated by a senior judge, since the house activity is cast in the form of a trial.
This jury would have the power to try and "convict" (ie: veto) any one single bill that is submitted at the time the jury is in session. Just the one. The bill must be submitted for trial by national referendum. After they reach a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt or innocent (by a majority no less than 9 of the 12), the jury is disbanded.
They would also have the power to try any one individual in Government on a charge of "no confidence", including the President, but again that trial would be their sole action. They couldn't do anything else if they did that. Again, who they tried, if anyone, would be decided by national referendum, not by the jury, but because it's a much more significant action, I'd argue that it would require a 2/3rds majority of votes cast to put a member of the executive on trial in this way. The verdict must again be beyond all reasonable doubt, but also must be unanimous. A verdict of guilty authorizes a national vote on whether to recall that individual. Again, because impeachment is supposed to be extremely hard and this circumvents most of the existing system, I'd argue this would need a very substantial majority. 3/4 of all votes cast or 2/3 of all voters (whether they voted or not) would seem reasonable.
Since this would be essentially a para-justice system, appeals would be through the Federal court system, but those appeals would be heard under the legal code established for this system, rather than for civil or criminal law. The interesting problem would be a Supreme Court appeal on the recall of a Supreme Court judge. Would you need the judge to recuse themselves, or since the full court would presumably be needed, would they by definition be amongst those hearing the case?
This would put the powers of veto and impeachment in the hands of the citizenry, but in a way that is very tightly controlled. The idea is to slow angry and resentful people to the point where they can see if their anger or resentment is even real, have that checked over impartially, and if it's valid, then give the reasoning and feeling that is expressed by the general populace as anger and resentment power to hold the Government responsible. Not during election season, when politicians play nice and bribe their voters, but at any time.
The idea is to also prevent such power from ever being controlled by outside sources (hence the jury pool mechanism) amd to prevent mood-of-the-week attitudes from having that power directly.
Of course, there are a million and one reasons why this won't work, but if the circle is to be truly complete and democracy is to be functional, then the current election system is inadequate for a feedback loop and has become far too severely corrupted. There needs to be an uncorruptable feedback loop, even if the requirement to keep it uncorruptable makes it slow, careful, limited and itself subject to higher authorities.
I propose this, not on the chance anyone'll give a damn, but because I think the current system lacks any kind of idiot-proof feedback system and that won't happen if nobody considers the possibility that there might actually be an idiot-proof system.
Based on these notes, placed on a public web server by one of Princeton's greatest mathematical minds, where would humans go?
Sony won't cry over dumping Trinitron for a long time, but eventually the videophiles will be paying the kinds of money the audiophiles are, for home theater with the greatest CRT technology. If it's not derived from ideas used in Trinitron, I'd be surprised, which would leave Sony to wonder why they didn't go for it first.
The Drain virus taught a lot of noobs that disk drives are not washer/dryers. The cascade virus brought new meaning to the saying that what lights up must come down. Early viruses were very educational.
Oh, I quite agree. It could be anything from simple error to a whole new level of scientific thought. New realms of science would only really be detectable and correctable by experts in the field (except possibly for some very specific cases where it's a relatively minor adjustment - quantization of a parameter normally taken as being on a wholly continuous realm might be testable by an amateur). If this is a new field of science, or the application of an existing concept (such as QM gravity), then you're looking at a Nobel prize at the least. Too many unknowns.
Is he saying that Microsoft is filled with transparent deviants? We can be certain this doesn't refer to standards, given the problems with compatibility.
Bar rules these days seem to be limited to carding people who look under 21.
That sort of discovery, however, is (a) exceptionally rare, and (b) almost only ever happens when layman experiments are possible. In this case, we have a very small error - far smaller than can be directly measured by any amateur facility. It is very unlikely an amateur will solve this puzzle through a direct attack like that. The best hope for an amateur to attack this problem is if the models describing the motion of the probes in an N-body system contain a numerical error that has been overlooked somehow.
What sort of error? Well, since the error has been overlooked, I'd start by looking for a term that has been approximated to make the maths easier. We're probably all familiar with oscillating systems where sin(x) is not equal to x unless x=0, but where the substitution is made anyway. We're also probably all familiar with Hooke's Law, which also linearises a non-linear system, an which also totally breaks down even as an approximation outside a given range. This sort of error is an easy one to miss, because it's an approximation those scientists will be extremely familiar with. Familiarity breeds contempt - in this case, a level of blindness to the fact that it's an approximation at all.
This is a good place to start because these sorts of error can be extremely small and because non-experts are actually more likely to be able to see it, as they're not so ingrained with particular ways of doing things.
Is this likely? Not particularly, but it sounds much more likely than an entirely, hitherto unknown, law of physics. It also seems much more likely than exotic particles, aliens or a wash in the fabric of space/time (sofas notwithstanding). And because it is the best bet for armchair science sleuths, it's the obvious thing to target first.
If that fails? Well, the next-best bet is an extension of the above, that a known force does not operate entirely as predicted by the equations, even if it does operatate entirely as predicted by the model. (eg: if gravity is quantized, then all acceleration/deceleration through gravity must occur in minimum step sizes. The continuous equations used can't work below a certain scale, whatever that might be. It's simpler to work with continuous equations, so we simplify the maths by using those even though we know that they're physically wrong. It's still an error by simplification, but where the errors occur when interpolating rather than extrapolating.)
Actually, it would be kind of neat if this is a case of quantized gravity, as it would clearly define the parameters of the hypothetical graviton and assist greatly in the search for a grand unified theory. I very much doubt it, but it would be nice.
Again, though, this is something amateurs can attack. It doesn't require a PhD to identify candidates for potential errors in interpretation of a model. Amateurs may not be able to fix the problem, but even identifying a term that is suspect and could produce the magnitude of error observed would likely be a major step forward. And, again, because scientists may be too close to the problem and because GR physicists tend not to pay much attention to QM (and vice versa) because the two models conflict, it's a problem that being too knowledgeable about may hinder solving it.
F1 networks go round in circles at 240 mph.
Froma researcher's point of view, it's more profitable to have further research. Actually getting things into production would eliminate the chance of pushing the research costs up. Investors would look at it as further research tidying up the details and cleaning up loose ends. It is in their interests never to have a final conclusion. The best answer is to give them a significantly larger budget and a restricted timeline. Give the researchers ten times the budget, lock them in a research facility in North Dakota. Tie the air conditioning and heating to a timer. Each year, reduce the power. Either they build a reactor in the designated time, or suffer the climate. The ultimate in extreme reality shows, where getting kicked off is not a good idea.
ATLAS (the maths package) is in need of an update, as is HDF5. OPeNDAP seems to be very popular in the scientific world and would likely be big in the corporate world if they knew it existed. OpenIMPACT could reasonably be taken as important to software developers. VSIPL++ maybe less so, but I'd bet it would be used by a fair few if part of the distro.
(Besides which, the 2nd only permits militias to bear arms, it does not permit militias to bear ANY arms, and the reference to individuals is merely a prohibition of preventing individuals from being in a militia by preventing them from bearing those arms militias are permitted to bear.)
The only rights you have are those described in the Declaration of Independence as being rights. Those just are. They don't need the Declaration to be true, they ARE true simply by right of being. It is easy to confuse rights and permissions, but it is a grave mistake to do so. When a society assumes it has more rights than actually exist (or, indeed, fewer), you create hostility and instability. This is not to say that a person should like or appreciate the fact that those events/actions important to them can be taken away without notice or warning. A person should stand for what matters to them. But they should do so honestly, not under false pretenses.
Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been. Under the NPT, it is a privilege granted only to very specific nations under very specific conditions. You weren't granted that privilege, but more importantly, it IS a privilege.
In Classical science, everything can be reformulated as a testable hypothesis, just not necessarily a hypothesis testable in the physical world, which the Classical mind regards as a corrupt and noisy form of the pure essences it reflects. Because the physical world is seen as an imperfect reflection of what is ultimately "real", physical experiments are never going to be conclusive or proof of anything. On the other hand, everything can be reduced to some combination of logical thought, lateral thought and herustics.
The three rival theories (life forming on Earth, life forming on Mars/another world then travelling to Earth, life forming in deep space then travelling to Earth) can be tested without the need of a single lab experiment, purely by applying sufficient reasoning of the three basic kinds outlined. It might take longer, but you'll be more confident in your results.
The question is, is free speech actually a right or is it merely a privilege that the privileged are granted? If it is the former, then that is absolute and inviolate. There's no two ways about it. If it is the latter, then yes, certain jobs may withdraw certain privileges that would be granted to others.
What you can't have is it both ways. I honestly don't care which American society wants to define it as being, as it is using an ambiguous interpretation that is far too often more about convenience than about standards in life. Less ambiguity, even if more restrictive, can't be any worse.
Depends on the degree meant. It is possible to synthetically build very short strands of DNA (life) from basic components (non-life) and it is possible to electrostatically generate many basic components from raw chemicals. The build chain is not yet complete, since we cannot (yet) go from start to finish automatically, but recent theories on where life started on Earth (in extreme cold, or near undersea volcanos) would modify the experiment outside what can currently be done with any ease in a biochem lab.
There is nothing mystical about life, it's just chemical processes and structured molecules. The difference is that there is organization to the molecules such that the molecules appear to self-replicate. Of course, they don't "self-replicate", a double helix of nucleotides has no concept of self, so cannot have any intent to replicate anything. It's just a biochemical machine which chemically builds another chain. It so happens that the machine (unreiably) copies itself. If it didn't, it couldn't build a living organism. It has to be unreliable, in order to move forward, in order to have got to the point of being replicating inthe first place.
No, everyone is a lifelong learner, it's just 90% of people learn at a rate of sqrt(-1) facts and infinite advertising jingles a minute.