More seriously, though, a couple dozen of kilograms of electrons, confined to the volume on the order of a human being, would wreak quite a havoc on Earth. The electric forces would be quite astonishing -- probably larger than any gravity forces seen anywhere in the Solar System.
I agree, yet on some level I think that understanding and communications go somewhat hand-in-hand. If there is someone who is supposedly very good in some field, yet can't explain his work, at least in terms of key concepts, to a semi-layman in that field, I start suspecting his/her real understanding.
I've run into plenty of people who seem very good at what they do, yet the truth is that they have limited grasp of the basics of their field -- they merely blindly reapply, in a formulaic style, whatever they learned/read some time ago. Common example of a person thin-on-understanding would be almost everyone who ignites computer language flamefests. It takes real understanding to be able to filter out usability and productivity breakthroughs offered by some programming platform from marketing speak and hearsay. Yet you often hear just the latter.
Nope, 6th kid died shortly after the wreck. I was wrong that the crash was due to unsecured load, though, it was due to a loose mudflap retainer breaking off. A horrible thing...
Your implied claim is that speeding past 25 mph over the limit is "rare". Nothing of the sort. Heck, I know of a few places on I-70 where they purposefully lower the violation on your ticket so that they won't have to appear in court, because they are so effective at catching speeders they'd have to be testifying for weeks every year. No shit.
Nope, the debate is over whether everyone should bear the costs of healthcare and rehabilitation for those who get injured because they don't wear the seatbelts.
You're wrong. In the U.S. at least, local codes determine what's what. If you're within city limits, you're subject to city law. Most city codes treat everything as criminal offense (crime) where not expressly indicated otherwise. You then will have an enumerated list of offenses that are not criminal offenses but merely infarctions (matters of civil law). Speeding is an infarction usually only in a limited range, for example up to 24 mph over the limit. Anything over that is a crime by default, since it's not enumerated not to be.
A dead TPS in modern cars with mechanically linked throttle (no accel-by-wire) provides redundancy only; you don't need it for proper fuel management. Mass air sensor + air temperature gives you all required information for the latter. The signal is used for shiftpoint selection by the transmission, so you will likely get a trouble code for that, of course. In older cars (say '93 Volvo 940), there was a mechanical downshift cable, and the TPS was simply a set of two microswitches to detect idle and WOT, the latter for performance (extra enrichment).
They often do, but they are not used to determine speed. They are used for traction control / dynamic stability augmentation to determine lateral accelerations, and to deploy airbags.
It does. There are two "speeds" one can speak of: tire speed, and engine speed. The ECU measures both, and yes, it will use the tire speed (really: transmission output shaft speed) for shifting, etc. The ECU can also be getting the tire speed signals from the ABS/TRAC computer. Anyway, all those are usually available on the "engine" CAN bus in the vehicle, and it's trivial to record all of them. You can easily determine when the wheels lost traction, etc.
Nitpick: the family consisted of a pastor and his wife, and 9 kids. Six of the children died in the crash. I'm not sure if all 9 were in the van at the time, though. So, certainly not the whole family. Alas, having to watch your kids die in a gasoline fire, trapped inside of a van, is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. The crash happened due to unsecured load sliding off the truck and hitting the van, puncturing the gas tank.
Ha ha ha. You are not serious, I hope? In case you are serious: I think I've run into a couple doctors who seriously, just as you claim, have no clue what they have memorized. They know it all, they are proud of all the work they put into memorizing stuff, yet they understand nothing. My wife got almost killed by such doctors, and I don't wish them upon you either.
In medicine, memorization is pretty much overhyped. They forget plenty of what they memorized for the various courses they took. Supposedly it trains their brains or something. It's bullshit as far as I can tell. In medical fields there's plenty of specialization, and star doctors are usually stars because they are great researchers, or because they are extremely manually skilled in their craft, they of course can be both. A surgeon has to remember surprisingly little of the medical school curriculum. I think that a vet has to remember way more stuff than, say, a transplant surgeon does.
Oh boy. Just because two dogs are named the same doesn't mean they are the same dog.
Variables in algebra have nothing to do with variables in programming languages. In algebra, variables are syntactic sugar. They are used when we don't want to use fixed values. Such variables have no temporal aspect, they encompass the whole problem, there is no notion of them changing value, and there's no notion of any sort of storage being associated with them. A variable in algebra denotes a particular but perhaps unknown yet member of a particular set (of numbers, vectors, matrices, etc). It's something that comes up relatively naturally as you teach algebra. First you do everything with set numbers, and eventually you can do without set numbers once there is enough understanding of how numbers interact in algebraic expressions.
In imperative programming, a variable is a symbol denoting a storage element of some sort. The storage element is stateful, there's a temporal aspect to it -- its state evolves in time. Suddenly a variable can take on different values at different points in time, and other variables' values may depend on it not only algebraically but also sequentially. That's why compiler writing is hard: such imperative variables are very hard to deal with in general. Explaining all of their intricacies to a demanding student is almost like doing an impromptu compiler writing tutorial.
In algebra, when you write x = y and claim it as a true statement, it means just that symbols x and y can be used interchangeably. In imperative programming, it means no such thing of course. If = denotes assignment, then x=y means that at a particular point in time (perhaps a recurring one, too!) value stored in y is copied over to x. If = denotes equality, then x=y means a boolean expression whose value is true if the values stored in x and y are somehow equal, again -- at a particular point in time.
The notions of assignment, passing and returning are equivalent, the latter are syntactic sugar for the former, but assignment by itself is hard because it exposes the temporal nature of imperative variables.
Side nitpick: since this is an international site, it'd help if one wouldn't use very localized terms such as "Algebra 1". I went to elementary and high school where we didn't assign any such names to subjects. All of this material was taught under the subject of Mathematics, and I don't think we used the word algebra much if at all. I vaguely remember hearing "algebraic equations", but that's perhaps it. The first time I really heard it used to denote a subject was in college, when we had a course named Linear Algebra. We never had a stand-alone "algebra" course ever. Even in countries where you assign such names, it's not exactly obvious how the material would be split across courses. So Algebra I to you may well be something very different than Algebra I to someone else. Heck, students often speak in shorthand, and in college we dropped the word Linear from Linear Algebra. You'd hear physics undergrads going "how was your algebra" when they would speak of Linear Algebra.
It is a mountain kingdom, lots of hydro potential and very few people.
That'd be true if you were talking about, say, the U.S. state of Colorado. Switzerland is fairly densely populated, and there's plenty of people living almost everywhere in the mountains.
Unfortunately, the whole ROI approach to IT is something some stupid MBA came up with. IT's "ROI" is about as good as that of company outings. When done well, it keeps people happy. It's entirely about ethics and not being a dick, not about ROI. I agree that there are plenty of corporations where IT is has to be always proven to provide "ROI" to warrant spending any money. Thus you get technological debts and unhappy people. IT is not an investment, just like cleaning the freaking floors in the office isn't an investment. It's a cost. Talking of ROI with relation to costs is retarded. Slashing costs? -- sure, but try keeping your office filthy and see where it leads. Same goes for guest- and employee-friendly IT. This could be explained to a kid, yet grown up people keep repeating the "IT ROI" mantra yet the simple facts whoosh over their heads...
What's the problem with having some egress filtering to prevent spam escaping from pwned machines, and with having proper NAT infrastructure in place to log everything? If the network is set up properly, each wired guest machine can be on its own vlan. At work, I use Zultys ZIP4x4 phones set up such that each port on their built-in network switch is on its own VNET. Each phone uses 3 vlans that way. Thus every machine is isolated from all others -- runs on its own network segment with the only other host being the router. This saves the need for wired guests to use vpns. The routing/filtering is done from the physical interface (the one that sees vlan tags), so there's just one network interface visible on the linux machine (instead of one per vlan).
For wireless clients, things are harder of course -- so far I've simply established an open network where all you can do is get a WPA PSK key for your node -- different one is generated for each MAC, and they are cached for one business day. Then you can associate with the encrypted network, and things are transparently handled such that each node uses a different key. This is the closest I could get to having each wireless node in an isolated segment. Of course they are all in the same contention domain, but they don't see other users' packets' contents.
Since every guest host only sees the "outside" (via a transparent proxy, NAT and firewall), there's no way for malware to propagate between guest nodes, and they don't disrupt non-guest connectivity:non-guest wireless uses separate channels, and bandwidth is allocated in the "backhaul" links so that guest traffic always has lower priority than non-guest traffic. Easy once you get it working.
I agree, but my point wasn't that CFC replacement contribution was even measurable. The "1000s of times" came from lab tests, not from experiments in atmosphere, I hope that's obvious enough. All I meant is that there's no silver bullet, no free lunch. Everything we use has some drawbacks. Everyone got so worked up and my point just whoooooshed far above. Sigh.
Slashdot Mirror
More seriously, though, a couple dozen of kilograms of electrons, confined to the volume on the order of a human being, would wreak quite a havoc on Earth. The electric forces would be quite astonishing -- probably larger than any gravity forces seen anywhere in the Solar System.
I agree, yet on some level I think that understanding and communications go somewhat hand-in-hand. If there is someone who is supposedly very good in some field, yet can't explain his work, at least in terms of key concepts, to a semi-layman in that field, I start suspecting his/her real understanding.
I've run into plenty of people who seem very good at what they do, yet the truth is that they have limited grasp of the basics of their field -- they merely blindly reapply, in a formulaic style, whatever they learned/read some time ago. Common example of a person thin-on-understanding would be almost everyone who ignites computer language flamefests. It takes real understanding to be able to filter out usability and productivity breakthroughs offered by some programming platform from marketing speak and hearsay. Yet you often hear just the latter.
You're right of course. s/infarction/infraction/ One learns every day, ha! Thank you.
I think fanaticism is wrong no matter which way it goes. Fanatical atheists are just as bad. You are one it seems.
Nope, 6th kid died shortly after the wreck. I was wrong that the crash was due to unsecured load, though, it was due to a loose mudflap retainer breaking off. A horrible thing...
Ah, another localization issue, then ;)
Your implied claim is that speeding past 25 mph over the limit is "rare". Nothing of the sort. Heck, I know of a few places on I-70 where they purposefully lower the violation on your ticket so that they won't have to appear in court, because they are so effective at catching speeders they'd have to be testifying for weeks every year. No shit.
Nope, the debate is over whether everyone should bear the costs of healthcare and rehabilitation for those who get injured because they don't wear the seatbelts.
See my other post. You're quite wrong. Criminal speeding is nothing rare.
You're wrong. In the U.S. at least, local codes determine what's what. If you're within city limits, you're subject to city law. Most city codes treat everything as criminal offense (crime) where not expressly indicated otherwise. You then will have an enumerated list of offenses that are not criminal offenses but merely infarctions (matters of civil law). Speeding is an infarction usually only in a limited range, for example up to 24 mph over the limit. Anything over that is a crime by default, since it's not enumerated not to be.
A dead TPS in modern cars with mechanically linked throttle (no accel-by-wire) provides redundancy only; you don't need it for proper fuel management. Mass air sensor + air temperature gives you all required information for the latter. The signal is used for shiftpoint selection by the transmission, so you will likely get a trouble code for that, of course. In older cars (say '93 Volvo 940), there was a mechanical downshift cable, and the TPS was simply a set of two microswitches to detect idle and WOT, the latter for performance (extra enrichment).
They often do, but they are not used to determine speed. They are used for traction control / dynamic stability augmentation to determine lateral accelerations, and to deploy airbags.
It does. There are two "speeds" one can speak of: tire speed, and engine speed. The ECU measures both, and yes, it will use the tire speed (really: transmission output shaft speed) for shifting, etc. The ECU can also be getting the tire speed signals from the ABS/TRAC computer. Anyway, all those are usually available on the "engine" CAN bus in the vehicle, and it's trivial to record all of them. You can easily determine when the wheels lost traction, etc.
That's what you get when you offshore map digitization / map entry to a place where they have absolutely no context to what they are doing.
Care to explain what "riding over pavement" means? Are cyclists forbidden from using paved roads?!
Nitpick: the family consisted of a pastor and his wife, and 9 kids. Six of the children died in the crash. I'm not sure if all 9 were in the van at the time, though. So, certainly not the whole family. Alas, having to watch your kids die in a gasoline fire, trapped inside of a van, is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. The crash happened due to unsecured load sliding off the truck and hitting the van, puncturing the gas tank.
Because, obviously, giving your employees something they'd find pleasant to look at is just unthinkable, right?
Ha ha ha. You are not serious, I hope? In case you are serious: I think I've run into a couple doctors who seriously, just as you claim, have no clue what they have memorized. They know it all, they are proud of all the work they put into memorizing stuff, yet they understand nothing. My wife got almost killed by such doctors, and I don't wish them upon you either.
In medicine, memorization is pretty much overhyped. They forget plenty of what they memorized for the various courses they took. Supposedly it trains their brains or something. It's bullshit as far as I can tell. In medical fields there's plenty of specialization, and star doctors are usually stars because they are great researchers, or because they are extremely manually skilled in their craft, they of course can be both. A surgeon has to remember surprisingly little of the medical school curriculum. I think that a vet has to remember way more stuff than, say, a transplant surgeon does.
Oh boy. Just because two dogs are named the same doesn't mean they are the same dog.
Variables in algebra have nothing to do with variables in programming languages. In algebra, variables are syntactic sugar. They are used when we don't want to use fixed values. Such variables have no temporal aspect, they encompass the whole problem, there is no notion of them changing value, and there's no notion of any sort of storage being associated with them. A variable in algebra denotes a particular but perhaps unknown yet member of a particular set (of numbers, vectors, matrices, etc). It's something that comes up relatively naturally as you teach algebra. First you do everything with set numbers, and eventually you can do without set numbers once there is enough understanding of how numbers interact in algebraic expressions.
In imperative programming, a variable is a symbol denoting a storage element of some sort. The storage element is stateful, there's a temporal aspect to it -- its state evolves in time. Suddenly a variable can take on different values at different points in time, and other variables' values may depend on it not only algebraically but also sequentially. That's why compiler writing is hard: such imperative variables are very hard to deal with in general. Explaining all of their intricacies to a demanding student is almost like doing an impromptu compiler writing tutorial.
In algebra, when you write x = y and claim it as a true statement, it means just that symbols x and y can be used interchangeably. In imperative programming, it means no such thing of course. If = denotes assignment, then x=y means that at a particular point in time (perhaps a recurring one, too!) value stored in y is copied over to x. If = denotes equality, then x=y means a boolean expression whose value is true if the values stored in x and y are somehow equal, again -- at a particular point in time.
The notions of assignment, passing and returning are equivalent, the latter are syntactic sugar for the former, but assignment by itself is hard because it exposes the temporal nature of imperative variables.
Side nitpick: since this is an international site, it'd help if one wouldn't use very localized terms such as "Algebra 1". I went to elementary and high school where we didn't assign any such names to subjects. All of this material was taught under the subject of Mathematics, and I don't think we used the word algebra much if at all. I vaguely remember hearing "algebraic equations", but that's perhaps it. The first time I really heard it used to denote a subject was in college, when we had a course named Linear Algebra. We never had a stand-alone "algebra" course ever. Even in countries where you assign such names, it's not exactly obvious how the material would be split across courses. So Algebra I to you may well be something very different than Algebra I to someone else. Heck, students often speak in shorthand, and in college we dropped the word Linear from Linear Algebra. You'd hear physics undergrads going "how was your algebra" when they would speak of Linear Algebra.
It is a mountain kingdom, lots of hydro potential and very few people.
That'd be true if you were talking about, say, the U.S. state of Colorado. Switzerland is fairly densely populated, and there's plenty of people living almost everywhere in the mountains.
Unfortunately, the whole ROI approach to IT is something some stupid MBA came up with. IT's "ROI" is about as good as that of company outings. When done well, it keeps people happy. It's entirely about ethics and not being a dick, not about ROI. I agree that there are plenty of corporations where IT is has to be always proven to provide "ROI" to warrant spending any money. Thus you get technological debts and unhappy people. IT is not an investment, just like cleaning the freaking floors in the office isn't an investment. It's a cost. Talking of ROI with relation to costs is retarded. Slashing costs? -- sure, but try keeping your office filthy and see where it leads. Same goes for guest- and employee-friendly IT. This could be explained to a kid, yet grown up people keep repeating the "IT ROI" mantra yet the simple facts whoosh over their heads...
What's the problem with having some egress filtering to prevent spam escaping from pwned machines, and with having proper NAT infrastructure in place to log everything? If the network is set up properly, each wired guest machine can be on its own vlan. At work, I use Zultys ZIP4x4 phones set up such that each port on their built-in network switch is on its own VNET. Each phone uses 3 vlans that way. Thus every machine is isolated from all others -- runs on its own network segment with the only other host being the router. This saves the need for wired guests to use vpns. The routing/filtering is done from the physical interface (the one that sees vlan tags), so there's just one network interface visible on the linux machine (instead of one per vlan).
For wireless clients, things are harder of course -- so far I've simply established an open network where all you can do is get a WPA PSK key for your node -- different one is generated for each MAC, and they are cached for one business day. Then you can associate with the encrypted network, and things are transparently handled such that each node uses a different key. This is the closest I could get to having each wireless node in an isolated segment. Of course they are all in the same contention domain, but they don't see other users' packets' contents.
Since every guest host only sees the "outside" (via a transparent proxy, NAT and firewall), there's no way for malware to propagate between guest nodes, and they don't disrupt non-guest connectivity:non-guest wireless uses separate channels, and bandwidth is allocated in the "backhaul" links so that guest traffic always has lower priority than non-guest traffic. Easy once you get it working.
I agree, but my point wasn't that CFC replacement contribution was even measurable. The "1000s of times" came from lab tests, not from experiments in atmosphere, I hope that's obvious enough. All I meant is that there's no silver bullet, no free lunch. Everything we use has some drawbacks. Everyone got so worked up and my point just whoooooshed far above. Sigh.
You're absolutely right, AC. We will. The only question is: why.
Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.
Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches :(