Subtle or tricky quantum-mechanical effects are washed out or destroyed at higher temperatures (all of the atom's kinetic energy that is what we measure as temperature). So anything new and quantum mechanical is likely to be done near absolute zero, since that's the easiest environment to work in.
Sure, as long as you lock up the jury members for the duration of the case and provide them with Internet access so that the proxy server is meaningful. Except then you'd need to enter in to evidence all of their Internet communications, which would probably be voluminous and almost never relevant to the case. I'm sure they'd appreciate having their e-mails being entered into public record.
If the sources of error or noise can theoretically be reduced to the point that we could make the observation, or if there's a regime where we could make the observation (e.g., at enormous scales), then it's still observable. "Observable" by no means requires that we are actually capable of observing it with current technology.
If, on the other hand, fundamental error sources (those that cannot be reduced) result in the signal being theoretically impossible to separate from the noise, then it's not observable. (That's a rare case.)
That's part of the title, which is what I claimed was the incorrect part. The summary simply says that Fox News viewers *are* more misinformed, which only implies correlation. ("Makes" certainly implies causality.)
The problem is that you clearly don't appreciate that scientists all know that you can construct an arbitrary model to fit known data. It may have been a revelation to you, but it's not a revelation to any of the people you're criticizing. That's why existing models, string theories included, don't simply fit existing data, and why the fundamental test of a model in science is its ability to predict the results of future experiments.
The "public option" would have been a government-managed health care insurance agency.
So, if the health care system collapsed, "the public option" probably wouldn't do much good, since it's just a different insurance system.
If the health care insurance system collapsed, then it might be the case that a public option would be created -- in which case it still wouldn't be government-run health care. (At least, no more than what we have now is insurance-run health care.)
In the U.S., we don't get health care from the government. We don't even get health insurance from the government, unless you fall under Medicare or Medicaid.
Actually, micro-black holes of the size the LHC would generate, if they didn't evaporate through Hawking radiation, would take eons to absorb any appreciable portion of the Earth.
Also, it won't stop the crazy people for which facts were never a factor. Have vaccines and autism taught you nothing?
If something has effects that can be observed, then it is observable.
Stated another way, something that is unobservable has *no* observable effects whatsoever. (Or, for any observable effect, it is impossible to determine if it is caused by the unobservable thing or by something else.)
It's not like we can take photographs of quarks. Observing indirect effects is how most observing is done.
The summary is only wrong if your perspective has been influenced by the title. It doesn't suggest there was any causation testing, just that "ill-informed" and "watches Fox News" are correlated.
UL testing isn't a product comparison, it's a test for standards conformance. The requirements for independence and impartiality are substantially different.
A distributor isn't going to buy books that the distributor can't resell.
This decision only applies to products obtained overseas, not products manufactured overseas. So if a foreign printer sells books to an American distributor who then sells books to American consumers, the American consumers retain the right to resell their books, since they obtained it domestically. It's the American distributor who could find themselves in the position of being barred from reselling the books.
What this does is give a foreign manufacturer greater ability to place restrictions on American distributors in exchange for the right to resell their goods. (For example, it can be used to kill foreign grey-market products.)
So yes, it does provide a benefit to companies to manufacture overseas. Free-trade policies already provide a pretty significant benefit to manufacturing outside the U.S., though. What it doesn't do is give foreign companies direct leverage over American consumers by preventing them from reselling goods.
Absolutely not. There are lots of things that you are unable to agree to in contracts. For starters, you are extremely limited in your ability to sign away fundamental rights. On top of that, laws apply lots of additional, more situational, restrictions on particular sorts of contracts. For example, my state places a lot of restrictions on the contract between the landlord of a residential property and the tenant. (It also asserts that there are certain terms to a rental agreement, even if they're not stated in the contract.)
Finally, it's all subject to judicial review and interpretation. For example, many terms in EULAs are widely considered unenforceable. The company can write down that these are the terms, and assert that you agreed to them, but if you fight against them in court, there's no guarantee that everything stated in the contract really applies.
I only meant that, in the general sense, contracts are legally binding.
Mastercard and Visa both stopped accepting payments for Wikileaks for policy breach (or some shit like that) yet you can still make donations to the goddamn KKK through them.
Probably "not being the KKK" isn't part of their policy. It's sort of a rare requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually a medial s character, rather than an f. At some point the medial s was gotten rid of in favor of the final s.
Subtle or tricky quantum-mechanical effects are washed out or destroyed at higher temperatures (all of the atom's kinetic energy that is what we measure as temperature). So anything new and quantum mechanical is likely to be done near absolute zero, since that's the easiest environment to work in.
Sure, as long as you lock up the jury members for the duration of the case and provide them with Internet access so that the proxy server is meaningful. Except then you'd need to enter in to evidence all of their Internet communications, which would probably be voluminous and almost never relevant to the case. I'm sure they'd appreciate having their e-mails being entered into public record.
If the sources of error or noise can theoretically be reduced to the point that we could make the observation, or if there's a regime where we could make the observation (e.g., at enormous scales), then it's still observable. "Observable" by no means requires that we are actually capable of observing it with current technology.
If, on the other hand, fundamental error sources (those that cannot be reduced) result in the signal being theoretically impossible to separate from the noise, then it's not observable. (That's a rare case.)
That's part of the title, which is what I claimed was the incorrect part. The summary simply says that Fox News viewers *are* more misinformed, which only implies correlation. ("Makes" certainly implies causality.)
Hawking isn't a string theorist.
The problem is that you clearly don't appreciate that scientists all know that you can construct an arbitrary model to fit known data. It may have been a revelation to you, but it's not a revelation to any of the people you're criticizing. That's why existing models, string theories included, don't simply fit existing data, and why the fundamental test of a model in science is its ability to predict the results of future experiments.
The "public option" would have been a government-managed health care insurance agency.
So, if the health care system collapsed, "the public option" probably wouldn't do much good, since it's just a different insurance system.
If the health care insurance system collapsed, then it might be the case that a public option would be created -- in which case it still wouldn't be government-run health care. (At least, no more than what we have now is insurance-run health care.)
In the U.S., we don't get health care from the government. We don't even get health insurance from the government, unless you fall under Medicare or Medicaid.
He means an Ayn Rand libertarian.
Actually, micro-black holes of the size the LHC would generate, if they didn't evaporate through Hawking radiation, would take eons to absorb any appreciable portion of the Earth.
Also, it won't stop the crazy people for which facts were never a factor. Have vaccines and autism taught you nothing?
It's a good thing you and the rest of Slashdot are around to teach scientists, poorly, simple principles of science.
No, a particular prediction made by a string theory would be a string hypothesis.
If you have such a poor understanding of the scientific use of the word "theory", then you should use "string model" instead.
If something has effects that can be observed, then it is observable.
Stated another way, something that is unobservable has *no* observable effects whatsoever. (Or, for any observable effect, it is impossible to determine if it is caused by the unobservable thing or by something else.)
It's not like we can take photographs of quarks. Observing indirect effects is how most observing is done.
The summary is only wrong if your perspective has been influenced by the title. It doesn't suggest there was any causation testing, just that "ill-informed" and "watches Fox News" are correlated.
It has little to do with the theoretical security of the browser code, but it has a lot to do with the practical security of using the browser.
UL testing isn't a product comparison, it's a test for standards conformance. The requirements for independence and impartiality are substantially different.
Well, you've misinterpreted their ruling. The ruling you imagine is much more ridiculous than the actual ruling.
A distributor isn't going to buy books that the distributor can't resell.
This decision only applies to products obtained overseas, not products manufactured overseas. So if a foreign printer sells books to an American distributor who then sells books to American consumers, the American consumers retain the right to resell their books, since they obtained it domestically. It's the American distributor who could find themselves in the position of being barred from reselling the books.
What this does is give a foreign manufacturer greater ability to place restrictions on American distributors in exchange for the right to resell their goods. (For example, it can be used to kill foreign grey-market products.)
So yes, it does provide a benefit to companies to manufacture overseas. Free-trade policies already provide a pretty significant benefit to manufacturing outside the U.S., though. What it doesn't do is give foreign companies direct leverage over American consumers by preventing them from reselling goods.
For one, your example isn't journalism by a long shot. For another, it's only about half the Twitter limit.
Same way people know the documents on WikiLeaks haven't been modified prior to publication, I imagine.
Not to say anything about Bush, but estimating IQ from SAT score can't possibly be all that accurate.
Using that standard, note that Wikileaks is not an actual human and is not located in the U.S.
By that unconstructive measure, laws aren't legally binding, either. The only thing that's legally binding is what the executive chooses to enforce.
Also, in common law countries, there are not actually laws that make contracts legally binding.
Absolutely not. There are lots of things that you are unable to agree to in contracts. For starters, you are extremely limited in your ability to sign away fundamental rights. On top of that, laws apply lots of additional, more situational, restrictions on particular sorts of contracts. For example, my state places a lot of restrictions on the contract between the landlord of a residential property and the tenant. (It also asserts that there are certain terms to a rental agreement, even if they're not stated in the contract.)
Finally, it's all subject to judicial review and interpretation. For example, many terms in EULAs are widely considered unenforceable. The company can write down that these are the terms, and assert that you agreed to them, but if you fight against them in court, there's no guarantee that everything stated in the contract really applies.
I only meant that, in the general sense, contracts are legally binding.
Mastercard and Visa both stopped accepting payments for Wikileaks for policy breach (or some shit like that) yet you can still make donations to the goddamn KKK through them.
Probably "not being the KKK" isn't part of their policy. It's sort of a rare requirement.