I can't help thinking that the "magical" anti-science meddling of religious wing-nut Republicans across the red states (with particularly egregious examples Kansas, Texas, and Alabama) doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in their ability to fix the education system.
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. In an enterprise setting, it means rolling out updates is somewhat simpler. However in an enterprise environment, you've proably got some kind of infrastructure for rolling out updates and would prefer to have more explicit control over update deployment to be able to do regression testing first. As an individual user, do I really want every major shrinkwrapped application setting up a service with admin privilege to update itself? That would be a lot of network-capable code with admin privileges that could have bugs that lead to privilege escalation attacks. On my personal computer, I think I prefer to control that more explicitly.
Sort of. A business analyst may also be involved in business process re-engineering in conjunction with requirements analysis. The classic programmer-analyst generally stuck to gathering/documenting requirements.
Because an update involves replacing executable code. It's a good thing that your regular user accounts don't have permissions to change the executable files on an application that's used by multiple users, including system administrators. The opposite is a major security hole that's begging for a privilege escalation attack the next time an administrator needs to use the browser to download an update.
That's fine. As long as it's a GSM network (true outside of the US), you can just get their cheapest phone that supports a data plan, pull out the SIM and put it into your independent purchase of an unsubsidized, unlocked Android phone.
In a vacuum of other information, that's true. However if you can figure out a plausible mechanism by which you would have causation, then correlation turns causation into a pretty likely case.
Now the brain is a learning apparatus, and its neuroplasticity means that, not only do we learn things through practice, but a "use it or lose it" effect means that we also lose the abilities that we don't practice.
Now there's two effects of constant texting-based communication
You reinforce the speech and thinking patterns of short soundbites, often about trivial matters
Because people have only so much to talk about, by contantly updating people on what is happening to you when you are actually face-to-face there isn't much left that hasn't already been said, so you won't feel a need to do so as much.
The consequences should be pretty obvious: a lack or practice, and therefore skill, in expressing longer coherent streams of thought, and a lack of practice in processing the full sensory stream of facial expressions, body language, and tonal emphasis from face-to-face meetings. The other group that has problems with the latter due to excessive sensory sensitivity show significant problems interacting in social contexts. They are those with autism spectrum disorders.
I agree that, at face value, it's self defeating in terms of promoting self advancement. But it's also quite understandable. As I said above, for 30 years athletics has been one of the few fields where success is based on objective metrics (how fast you run, how far you jump/throw/bat, how many times you scored) and that has helped black athletes become successful role models. That success is about as common as winning the lottery but it's often done on those athletes' own terms (with classic examples like Jessie Owens, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Carl Lewis, Michael Jordan, or Dennis Rodman). The same thing applies to musical greats in blues and jazz and pop: Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Dizzie Gillespie, John Coltrane, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, BB King, Billie Holliday, Etta James, Fats Domino, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson. They composed music on their own terms and many were self-taught.
Contrast that with anybody who takes an academic track, be it in medicine, law, or just post secondary research and teaching. First, it was financially out of reach for most. Secondly all of those involve professional exams and licensing boards that could be very subjective: bar exams, residency periods, medical exams, PhD oral defense, engineering supervised work periods. Those could be heavily manipulated by bigoted board members to keep out black applicants, with the result that much time would have been spent preparing only to be denied the ability to practice. Or even if you managed to get a licence, partnership structures in law, accounting, and other large professional firms would limit your advancement possibilities regardless of your achievements, and the old boys network would prevent you from getting big clients if you started your own firm. How many high profile blacks can you name from those professions? Johnnie Cochran, Clarence Thomas, the Obamas, Anybody else? Do you think one of them might fit that Uncle Tom stereotype a bit? It's not surprising that the "cultural wisdom" would develop that only chumps and Uncle Toms would attempts that track. For decades before and after the Civil Rights battle of the 60s, those opportunities were denied to most blacks unless they were either really lucky or ready to kiss some serious ass. Nowadays the probability of success has likely increased to where the invested effort is likely to pay off. However the perception stays ingrained in the culture because of generational overlap, with 2 generations still alive remembering and passing on their memories of heavy bigotry and discrimination, and because the success stories are few and far between. This is reinforced by constant reminders that the bigotry still exists, from regular racial profiling of young black men by police, to the fact that rich and successful black men still get harassed for DWBs if they are driving better models of vehicles.
Yep, but the Liberals have finally seen the light on that. In the last convention they seem to finally be willing to accept preferential voting to block the Conservatives, at the risk of having to work within minority governments more often. I guess the fear of Conservative policies overcame their greed for power. I would want a new party leader to commit to it as part of an election platform before I jump for joy, but it's a start. If that pushes the NDP to do the same, then it would be a significant improvement towards having governments that more closely reflect the will of the electorate instead of tyranny of the vocal minority.
Really, you know that many well-organized fishing companies with deep-enough pockets to take on BP in a decade-long lawsuit with multi-million dollar lawyer's fees when their source of income just got wiped out?
All of that doesn't matter if it takes 10 years for the problem to be detected, proven, and lain at your door. By that time you can make out like a bandit, and wind up living off an untouchable multi-million dollar bank account sunning yourself in the Caymans or Barbados.
With pigs, hair and bones and toenails aren't murder evidence that you have to destroy. That said, they probably get ground for animal feed to avoid wasting anything that could make a profit.
Yes. The principle of Mass-Energy Equivalence was developed in its own paper, as a follow on from the concept of relativistic mass which came out of special relativity. That, along with the Special Theory of Relativity and his explanation for the photoelectric effect (the foundation of quantum theory) were three of his Annus Mirabilis papers.
"Massâ"energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be 'converted' to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy." E=mc2 says that there is energy in mass, but it doesn't say that that energy can be released.
What does open the door for nuclear fission bombs is radioactivity, the natural occurring example that atoms can split off into smaller subsets of parts. If the mass of the atom prior to the split (or the merge in fusion) is different from the products, then that difference in mass has to be accounted for through conversion to/absorption of energy. Marie Curie won the 1903 Nobel for her work on radioactivity so Einstein would have known about it by 1905. But the explanation for radioactivity, the decay of nuclei either spontaneously or through stimulation, comes about through quantum theory developed from that first paper on the photoelectric effect, and it took more than 30 years to do it.
So if relativity was wrong - then a nuclear bomb would be harmless as the energy it unleashes wouldn't exist.
While Einstein's principle of mass-energy equivalence initially came out of his idea of relativistic mass, it's not clear that the theory of relativity is the only possible interpretation of space time that allows for mass energy equivalence. Conversely, the idea that electromagnetic energy is quantized, is a strong hint at the wave-particle duality of matter, which is the basis for quantum mechanics. The wave particle duality when applied to electrons bound to an atom leads to an explanation for electron orbitals, and eventually also leads to theories for nuclear interactions.
If you don't believe in light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect, then not only does the bomb not explode, but electron don't fit into nice valence shells but instead collapse into nuclei, chemistry as we know it ceases to exist, so does that bomb, and so do we.
The post I made was, of course, a joke - meant to show how silly it is to apply "belief" to science.
Well then you should have noticed I was replying to cool fjord's use of that term, that I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he meant it in the sense of trusting past research and review on the subject and instead that I was addressing other issues with his rhetorical argument. If you were really serious about showing how silly it is to apply "belief" to science then you would have applied your wit to the original poster who started that poor choice of wording. However it seems likely that you agree with his viewpoint on Climate Change and tried to discredit my point poorly instead. At least the guy with the Douglas Adams reference was funny.
The theory specifically mentioned was relativity. Nuclear processes don't happen as a result of relativity but instead quantum processes.
Now if you had said, "I'm going to take this soft snowball and accelerate it to 99.999% of c at your planet", you might have a case. After all it's only a snowball travelling at less than 186,000 miles per hour, how much damage could it do? However I'm not too worried about people who don't believe in Einstein's theory of Relativity managing to accelerate snowball's to 99.999% of c. There's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
Or the reaction where all the white Republicans didn't like a black Democratic president?
That one.
Just like how all the white Democrats didn't like the previous white Republican president?
The Democrats didn't like what Bush did. The Republicans attacked Obama's citizenship through an emphasis on his (half) black roots, and by emphasizing his middle name to create a religious association that didn't exist. Can you seriously claim that those easily disproved crackpot theories didn't get widespread support due to an undercurrent of racism when they clearly appeal to racist/bigoted sentiments?
Not believing in Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't normally involve refusing to take actions to reduce consequences that will likely include hundreds of millions forced to relocate due to rising sea levels, and millions of deaths through starvation, natural disasters, and wars over food and water. So yeah, false equivalency.
I think that by "unaffected by stereotypes" he means "not unfairly labelled with a stereotype that doesn't apply you". Had you been unjustly judged based on a stereotype, you may have been more sensitive to the fact that, even if stereotypes do apply to a large segment of some populations, the reminder is often unfairly grouped in and judged with that sterotype. For example: DWB. If you were affected by a stereotype, you might be more sensitive to the idea that, while that stereotype may provide a useful caution, many or most individuals in that population do not fit that stereotype. You need to judge the individual. Stereotypes are often reduced to guilt by association, even if the association is as tenuous as skin colour.
Well, the reaction to Obama's election showed that, while less prevalent and open than in the 1950's and 1960's, hidden racism against blacks is still pretty strong in the USA. So, in that context, is there any surprise that blacks would try to give their offspring a chance in a field (sports) which is a strong meritocracy and where they are less affected by racist undercurrents? Reduce the racist obstacles and I suspect they will eventually start to select for skills that don't wear out your body as quickly. However, it might take a generation or two to undo the effects of centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help thinking that the "magical" anti-science meddling of religious wing-nut Republicans across the red states (with particularly egregious examples Kansas, Texas, and Alabama) doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in their ability to fix the education system.
Punctuation is important :-)
Alex: Sorry Tragedy, I'm afraid that's not quite correct. . Paul? Paul: What is "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." ?
Um, if you've got 28Vdc, would you really need much more than a Zener diode and a resistor?
Alternatively, they could find and use a Kindle exploit.
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. In an enterprise setting, it means rolling out updates is somewhat simpler. However in an enterprise environment, you've proably got some kind of infrastructure for rolling out updates and would prefer to have more explicit control over update deployment to be able to do regression testing first. As an individual user, do I really want every major shrinkwrapped application setting up a service with admin privilege to update itself? That would be a lot of network-capable code with admin privileges that could have bugs that lead to privilege escalation attacks. On my personal computer, I think I prefer to control that more explicitly.
Well there's always encryption, but they could probably integrate an on-chip co-proc for those functions.
Sort of. A business analyst may also be involved in business process re-engineering in conjunction with requirements analysis. The classic programmer-analyst generally stuck to gathering/documenting requirements.
Re-read. I never said any such thing. I asked if you were.
Because an update involves replacing executable code. It's a good thing that your regular user accounts don't have permissions to change the executable files on an application that's used by multiple users, including system administrators. The opposite is a major security hole that's begging for a privilege escalation attack the next time an administrator needs to use the browser to download an update.
as long as you weren't black or aboriginal. Or are you talking about before Eurpeans landed?
I did not know that. Wow, that sucks.
That's fine. As long as it's a GSM network (true outside of the US), you can just get their cheapest phone that supports a data plan, pull out the SIM and put it into your independent purchase of an unsubsidized, unlocked Android phone.
In a vacuum of other information, that's true. However if you can figure out a plausible mechanism by which you would have causation, then correlation turns causation into a pretty likely case.
Now the brain is a learning apparatus, and its neuroplasticity means that, not only do we learn things through practice, but a "use it or lose it" effect means that we also lose the abilities that we don't practice.
Now there's two effects of constant texting-based communication
The consequences should be pretty obvious: a lack or practice, and therefore skill, in expressing longer coherent streams of thought, and a lack of practice in processing the full sensory stream of facial expressions, body language, and tonal emphasis from face-to-face meetings. The other group that has problems with the latter due to excessive sensory sensitivity show significant problems interacting in social contexts. They are those with autism spectrum disorders.
I agree that, at face value, it's self defeating in terms of promoting self advancement. But it's also quite understandable. As I said above, for 30 years athletics has been one of the few fields where success is based on objective metrics (how fast you run, how far you jump/throw/bat, how many times you scored) and that has helped black athletes become successful role models. That success is about as common as winning the lottery but it's often done on those athletes' own terms (with classic examples like Jessie Owens, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Carl Lewis, Michael Jordan, or Dennis Rodman). The same thing applies to musical greats in blues and jazz and pop: Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Dizzie Gillespie, John Coltrane, Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, BB King, Billie Holliday, Etta James, Fats Domino, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson. They composed music on their own terms and many were self-taught.
Contrast that with anybody who takes an academic track, be it in medicine, law, or just post secondary research and teaching. First, it was financially out of reach for most. Secondly all of those involve professional exams and licensing boards that could be very subjective: bar exams, residency periods, medical exams, PhD oral defense, engineering supervised work periods. Those could be heavily manipulated by bigoted board members to keep out black applicants, with the result that much time would have been spent preparing only to be denied the ability to practice. Or even if you managed to get a licence, partnership structures in law, accounting, and other large professional firms would limit your advancement possibilities regardless of your achievements, and the old boys network would prevent you from getting big clients if you started your own firm. How many high profile blacks can you name from those professions? Johnnie Cochran, Clarence Thomas, the Obamas, Anybody else? Do you think one of them might fit that Uncle Tom stereotype a bit? It's not surprising that the "cultural wisdom" would develop that only chumps and Uncle Toms would attempts that track. For decades before and after the Civil Rights battle of the 60s, those opportunities were denied to most blacks unless they were either really lucky or ready to kiss some serious ass. Nowadays the probability of success has likely increased to where the invested effort is likely to pay off. However the perception stays ingrained in the culture because of generational overlap, with 2 generations still alive remembering and passing on their memories of heavy bigotry and discrimination, and because the success stories are few and far between. This is reinforced by constant reminders that the bigotry still exists, from regular racial profiling of young black men by police, to the fact that rich and successful black men still get harassed for DWBs if they are driving better models of vehicles.
Yep, but the Liberals have finally seen the light on that. In the last convention they seem to finally be willing to accept preferential voting to block the Conservatives, at the risk of having to work within minority governments more often. I guess the fear of Conservative policies overcame their greed for power. I would want a new party leader to commit to it as part of an election platform before I jump for joy, but it's a start. If that pushes the NDP to do the same, then it would be a significant improvement towards having governments that more closely reflect the will of the electorate instead of tyranny of the vocal minority.
Really, you know that many well-organized fishing companies with deep-enough pockets to take on BP in a decade-long lawsuit with multi-million dollar lawyer's fees when their source of income just got wiped out?
All of that doesn't matter if it takes 10 years for the problem to be detected, proven, and lain at your door. By that time you can make out like a bandit, and wind up living off an untouchable multi-million dollar bank account sunning yourself in the Caymans or Barbados.
With pigs, hair and bones and toenails aren't murder evidence that you have to destroy. That said, they probably get ground for animal feed to avoid wasting anything that could make a profit.
Yes. The principle of Mass-Energy Equivalence was developed in its own paper, as a follow on from the concept of relativistic mass which came out of special relativity. That, along with the Special Theory of Relativity and his explanation for the photoelectric effect (the foundation of quantum theory) were three of his Annus Mirabilis papers.
"Massâ"energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be 'converted' to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy." E=mc2 says that there is energy in mass, but it doesn't say that that energy can be released.
What does open the door for nuclear fission bombs is radioactivity, the natural occurring example that atoms can split off into smaller subsets of parts. If the mass of the atom prior to the split (or the merge in fusion) is different from the products, then that difference in mass has to be accounted for through conversion to/absorption of energy. Marie Curie won the 1903 Nobel for her work on radioactivity so Einstein would have known about it by 1905. But the explanation for radioactivity, the decay of nuclei either spontaneously or through stimulation, comes about through quantum theory developed from that first paper on the photoelectric effect, and it took more than 30 years to do it.
While Einstein's principle of mass-energy equivalence initially came out of his idea of relativistic mass, it's not clear that the theory of relativity is the only possible interpretation of space time that allows for mass energy equivalence. Conversely, the idea that electromagnetic energy is quantized, is a strong hint at the wave-particle duality of matter, which is the basis for quantum mechanics. The wave particle duality when applied to electrons bound to an atom leads to an explanation for electron orbitals, and eventually also leads to theories for nuclear interactions.
If you don't believe in light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect, then not only does the bomb not explode, but electron don't fit into nice valence shells but instead collapse into nuclei, chemistry as we know it ceases to exist, so does that bomb, and so do we.
Well then you should have noticed I was replying to cool fjord's use of that term, that I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that he meant it in the sense of trusting past research and review on the subject and instead that I was addressing other issues with his rhetorical argument. If you were really serious about showing how silly it is to apply "belief" to science then you would have applied your wit to the original poster who started that poor choice of wording. However it seems likely that you agree with his viewpoint on Climate Change and tried to discredit my point poorly instead. At least the guy with the Douglas Adams reference was funny.
The theory specifically mentioned was relativity. Nuclear processes don't happen as a result of relativity but instead quantum processes. Now if you had said, "I'm going to take this soft snowball and accelerate it to 99.999% of c at your planet", you might have a case. After all it's only a snowball travelling at less than 186,000 miles per hour, how much damage could it do? However I'm not too worried about people who don't believe in Einstein's theory of Relativity managing to accelerate snowball's to 99.999% of c. There's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
That one.
The Democrats didn't like what Bush did. The Republicans attacked Obama's citizenship through an emphasis on his (half) black roots, and by emphasizing his middle name to create a religious association that didn't exist. Can you seriously claim that those easily disproved crackpot theories didn't get widespread support due to an undercurrent of racism when they clearly appeal to racist/bigoted sentiments?
Not believing in Einstein's Theory of Relativity doesn't normally involve refusing to take actions to reduce consequences that will likely include hundreds of millions forced to relocate due to rising sea levels, and millions of deaths through starvation, natural disasters, and wars over food and water. So yeah, false equivalency.
I think that by "unaffected by stereotypes" he means "not unfairly labelled with a stereotype that doesn't apply you". Had you been unjustly judged based on a stereotype, you may have been more sensitive to the fact that, even if stereotypes do apply to a large segment of some populations, the reminder is often unfairly grouped in and judged with that sterotype. For example: DWB. If you were affected by a stereotype, you might be more sensitive to the idea that, while that stereotype may provide a useful caution, many or most individuals in that population do not fit that stereotype. You need to judge the individual. Stereotypes are often reduced to guilt by association, even if the association is as tenuous as skin colour.
Well, the reaction to Obama's election showed that, while less prevalent and open than in the 1950's and 1960's, hidden racism against blacks is still pretty strong in the USA. So, in that context, is there any surprise that blacks would try to give their offspring a chance in a field (sports) which is a strong meritocracy and where they are less affected by racist undercurrents? Reduce the racist obstacles and I suspect they will eventually start to select for skills that don't wear out your body as quickly. However, it might take a generation or two to undo the effects of centuries.