Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?
Just because they think he's an ass doesn't mean their policy goals don't align. Charles De Gaul worked very hard to be a major PITA for the allies, but that was what he needed to do.
This is bad from both sides of the political spectrum too, to the left, if he's a liar, why are we making agreements with him that he won't follow? And to the right, why are we not standing up for our ally? This is going to send them in wonderful circles because everyone hates the French, (believe me, I'm canadian we *really* hate the French), but Israels status is more... ambiguous.
Actually I think it should. I mean, the worst case scenario for climate change is global thermonuclear war. That doesn't really add meaningfully to the discussion. The 'worst case' scenario is basically you keep doing what you were doing when you commissioned this report, because you cannot reasonably predict what other crazy thing people will come up with to do that will destroy the environment. And you expect that at least some of the people will probably do something in the general direction of what you advised, or they wouldn't have asked for the report in the first place.
It really depends on how well you know the students. I can usually tell, even in a class of a couple of hundred students, what sort of quality of work they will produce individually pretty quickly. But not always. If I'm just marking their work, and I'm not speaking to them in class, or the like I may never get a sense of it.
We try (depends on class size) to have one person mark all of the assignment 2's for example. And you try and mark all of the a particular question in one sitting, so it's still fresh in your mind if you've seen another assignment that says basically the same thing. But the classic example I give is the chinese student with a handler doing the work for them (this happens a lot). The work is obviously at a level they were incapable of writing wise, but you have no basis on which to accuse them, it's not on the web tools, it's not the same as any other student assignment, so all you can really do is grade it as though it's their work, and then pay special attention to exams, if the exam and assignments are completely different style or quality then you can maybe raise the issue, or the student will fail anyway.
it's more like $22/hr but you're limited to being paid about 10 hours a week.
And it's not like we don't care, it's that we don't always find it, and if we do we make a judgement call on whether or not it was actually a violation or not. We just gave students a programming assignment on sockets, connecting to one of our own servers and doing some stuff. I'm sure half the class copied their generic socket connect code and simple UI verbatim from the Oracle/sun website, which they might think is cheating, but it's not (at least not on this assignment). We take the attitude that if you can find it on the web, you're going to use it, so we build our assignments assuming that will happen.
Where we catch cheaters is in *written* work, where they have copied from the web. But even then, if you copy one paragraph in a 10 page paper, I may not catch it, and I may not think it worth running through the automated tools (which costs us money) because the paper pretty clearly isn't copied overall. But I catch about 10% of students cheating on things, and that's spanned 4 universities in canada, and I always refer those caught up the chain.
We also know student work together and things like that on assignments. I'm sure some of that crosses the line into copying or the like, but really, if you can't do it on the exam, you're doomed, if you copied it on the assignment drawing a line between where you gave up, and your friend started to help isn't always easy (or sensible).
Without threat of him being shut down by microsoft, and presumably if they're sanctioning it there's some trick on the corporate side or something. They can probably sell a US government version where the unlocker won't work or things along those lines.
Re:Affordable replacement for something paid for
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Well except that the planes currently in service are going to be very old by 2020, or 2025 and that's when the JSF is really going to take off as a major airforce component around the world. I'm sure you'll see roll outs in 2013 or so, but in 2020 you don't want to be relying on aircraft and parts made in 1996, so you are buying an aircraft design for the future, not for today. Compared to the Harriers, F16 A/B even D's, early model F15's, F18's (not necessarily the super hornet) it's a *much* better aircraft in terms of range, performance at range etc. Even without stealth. And having standardized parts across countries sounds appealing (it might not be). It's still better than the Superhornet and the F22 is really the replacement for the F15, but not by as huge a margin, bu then it will be contemporary to the F18E for a lot of its service life anyway.
And of course there's the more modern avionics suite, which is hard to evaluate.
What it's bringing to the table is the same reason you buy a new car when the old one requires $500 in maintenance every month because some other damn thing is wrong with it. And when it comes to aircraft you have to plan for this long in advance.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Part of the game that everyone plays is they pitch it to the public under budget, and but then pay cost overruns anyway, everyone involved knowing full well that there will be cost overruns, but once you're 66 billion dollars invested, another few billion to get you out isn't that much.
The other thing is: what's the alternative? We're having this discussion in canada right now. We have F18's. We are slated to buy F35's, and there are certainly other aircraft we could consider (the Eurofighter for example, or one of the Russian aircraft), or we can stick with what we have. Sticking with what we have is fine, but 15 years from now we may find it rather difficult to get new aircraft quickly if we need them. For the US it's not able to afford (nor would it want) 2000 F22's, so the choices are slim, buying 2000 eurofighters would be politically impractical, and the F35 is a better aircraft anyway. So options are limited at this point. Axing the project and starting afresh would set everything back, and be tremendously expensive - so the F35 project has to work at this point, cost overruns or not.
Or when the government decides it's serious enough to deal with, or when low level officials stop taking bribes. The people in china are part of the pervasive corruption, not the solution.
Like most developing countries, it's not china's laws that are the problem. It's the fact that an envelope full of money will make the law disappear.
Sure, in the US it's the same way, but the amount of money required is extraordinary. In the US (and the EU and canada) you pay off members of parliament, congress, the senate, you don't pay off the local mayor, city inspector, city engineer in cash, on a daily basis.
In rich countries you pay to have the law rewritten, which at least has the benefit of everyone seeing the new version of the law. In developing countries the law just melts away.
Then you're looking in the wrong places. An undergrad in any science is a support position, or high school teacher. You can do very well for yourself with a PhD in any of the sciences, but you have to set your expectations properly with an undergraduate. You are going to be a lab tech, you might supervise people who only went to college and not university, but your boss will have a PhD. That's just the way it is.
On the other hand, you'll still make more than a mechanic or a college IT guy doing it. But don't act like you're going to be lab director, and don't act like you want to spend your life fiddling with titration tubes.
Chemistry is by far the most employable of the 3 pure sciences with only an undergrad. Physicists compete directly with engineers for jobs that aren't at the PhD level, and the engineers through lobbying have largely won that battle, you can't get hired unless you're an engineer, because everything requires a P.Eng, even if it doesn't, and there's not enough demand, or supply of unemployed undergrads in physics every year to produce much push back.
When I graduated with an undergrad in physics (2002) there were about 1500 people in the US who did the same, and about 170 in canada. You're up in the 2000 + range now, but about 70% of undergrads in physics go on to grad school. Everyone else becomes teachers. Which is the other option for a degree in chemistry.
As to the main thrust of this thread. An undergrad in physics is math. It's not high school playing with toys fun. It's all math, you need to know every little bit about your experiment, and you might get to do an experiment every year or two, if you're lucky (you may redo essentially the same experiment for several years too). If you want anything to ever actually work that people make, like the computer you're working on, there are layers upon layers of PhD's in physics who spent 20 years shooting lasers at solids to see what happens so Intel could figure out how to fab your CPU (even if yours was made by AMD it was still Intel research at the forefront). If you think, even for an undergrad, that Intel, TI, IBM, HP, AMD, US-semi etc. somehow pay their people less than a mechanic... go ahead and tell your kids to be a mechanic. If you thing it's 'playing with toys' fun, it's not. It's math. The all of these companies are preferring H1B visa holders is because first, those are the best and brightest from their home countries and secondly - they actually recognize their job is to do math. It's not to have fun. It's to do math, correctly, so you don't fuck up a production run of 600 wafers.
Don't get me wrong, my PhD is in comp sci, not physics, because a PhD in Comp sci is easier and it pays better. But it's about 10% easier, and it pays about 10% better, both of which are way better than the IT guy who went to college. But a degree in comp sci is only marginally easier than a degree in physics (having done both), the big difference is that people who are naturally computer nerds have to learn a lot less peripheral information to go with CS or software eng than they need for Physics or chemistry. But the core of science is quantifying things, and then doing analysis on the quantization, that is the point, and if US highschools are failing so bad at teaching that, then I have no sympathy. If you're teaching your kid that an undergrad in physics will get paid less than an undergrad in CS that's true, but then CS gets paid less than chemical engineering so why aren't they doing that. If you're teaching that an undergrad is physics will pay less than an IT diploma and an MCSE then you have no f'n clue what the market is, or the people you're training in physics in the US are incompetent, and be thankful you're hiring H1B people who won't fuck it up.
So maybe what it tells us is Javascript is where a lot of people get their start coming from non programming fields, and they hit stack overflow having no clue what they're doing. People who learned programming, in any language, don't land on SO because they know most of the basic stuff anyway, and of course most people who learn to program learn to do so in one of the C family and Java.
A 16 your old legally is a child, they are protected by the state (and can be taken away from home if they have abusive parents, whether they want to go or not, for example), and in legal agreements they cannot sign for themselves without special circumstances. They cannot serve in the army, they cannot collect an adult minimum wage, they cannot be treated like adults legally without special circumstances (which violate both the definition and purpose of separate child laws in the first place).
16 years cannot marry without parental consent, pregnancy - in some specific cases, court approval or the like (unless they are already emancipated).
A 14 year old is not *automatically* tried for murder as an adult, they can, under special circumstances be given that privilege.
You see these things on the news and it biases your perception of what actually happens. In extreme cases children can be emancipated from their parents at very young ages when the parents have no criminal record etc... But in that sense any piece of law can be overturned in a one off basis, for the 99.99% of everyone else 16 year olds are children, are treated that way by several laws, and treaties, and treating them differently is illegal.
AMD and its graphics subdivision also rely on globalfoundries, which used to be the production arm of AMD.
If anything, in the long run, the ARM business might help AMD and nVIDIA even indirectly, a big market for another high end foundry company gives them more potential suppliers.
But I agree, marketing handles itself if you have a good enough product right now. The 6000 series is good, but not revolutionary, but I suppose one could say exactly the same thing about the 500 series from nVIDIA. I wonder if they're both waiting for dx12 or next gen consoles to do much with. When the biggest games launching this year all still have dx9 codepaths except battlefield 3, you know you've got a tough market to break into with the next gen hardware. (COD3, star wars TOR, Skyrim and others all have dx9 support in them, though they also have dx11 paths).
Lots of people who are slashdotters are the ones writing the software to be deployed in future. 2 years ago I had iPhone projects out the wazoo (before that it was Nokia/Qt and blackberry), last year it was blackberry because we're close to RIM and they gave us free stuff, along with iPhone and QT was gone, this year it's android, and next year we're slated for WP7.5 or WP8.
Windows phone development is pretty easy, and I have a suspicion they can angle into the business market from RIM, while still tying into the xbox for gaming related stuff on the phone, that's a fairly big market. The big player in all of this is samsung. Sony is in the Android court, Nokia in MS. RIM is off doing it's own thing in fantasy land, and without steve jobs to sell their bad stuff Apple is going to be in trouble. With Google buying Moto mobile and Nokia and MS drinking the same kool-aid in the same bed, Samsung is the big player in all of this, and as much as they might be in the Android camp now a better corporate connected experience from MS could quickly sway them (or google going crazy with Motorola Mobile somehow).
I think WP7 devices will be as powerful as androids, but, loathe as I am to credit steve ballmer with anything, his 'you need a degree in CS to use an Android' is hyperbole, but not far off. MS could make a much cleaner experience with an equally powerful store and change the game considerably, if they can get Samsung and Nokia to produce decent handsets quickly.
The people who have enough money to be relevant have the whitehouse switchboard on speed dial, and get letters inviting them to fund-raising events that cost more per table than a minimum wage employee makes in a year.
If you think your money is hard earned try listening to one of these politician types beg for more money after you spent thousands of dollars a plate and flew out on your private plane to listen to him. That's the kind of of hard work that gets you liberty, everything else is an illusion created to make you feel better about your shitty job.
Re:Folks seem pretty on board with this, but this
on
The RMS Tour Rider
·
· Score: 1
seems silly but it 'proves' you did at least spend a couple of hours listening to this guy talk, which can be enough to distinguish you from the other grad student who didn't bother to show.
Alas I don't have time to fully pick apart the relativity argument (which is wrong btw, they appear at the speed of light relative to each other, time dilation and all that), but they are actually sourcing the neutrinos themselves. Since photons are massless, but neutrinos might have mass they should be more effected by gravity, or equally, but that's one of the questions. Photons self interact, it's possible neutrinos self interact less than photons, meaning the 'speed of light' we observe is actually not quite the maximum possible velocity.
The earths movement and rotation during measurement is a well known quantity, so that shouldn't be an issue, but you're right, there's a lot of very tricky calculations going on here because you're combining high speeds, short distances and very small times, and a small error somewhere can make a big difference.
I used to be an atomic physicist, and my girlfriend worked at a major neutrino observatory (and still works in the field), and this information is not really relevant to either of us. It's very narrowly focused on the details of experimental construction of very specific experiments. It is the detail work scientists actually do, but the details of specific experiments only serve to confuse people who aren't specialists.
I have heard, from neutrino experts, several good ideas on why, on a theoretical basis, neutrinos could go faster than light, and I've heard several guesses as to how the experiment could be failing, but quite frankly I'll leave them to be the experts and let me know if they discover anything interesting after the fact. For now the details of detector delay times and synchronization and all of the stuff that goes into this require far beyond my desired time investment. Alas, I have a halloween party with a bunch of them tomorrow so I may be hearing more about it whether I want to or not.
And the galaxy Sii has a replacable battery and survives a drop test much better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKxgsrJFhw
Even the Galaxy SI was a pretty good phone compared to the apple equivalents.
I'm a big guy, so the Galaxy SII being larger is a big plus for me, and certainly not a downside (I have big pockets for it, for example), but not everyone wants a small slate in their pocket.
They are: Different sizes, use different processors (one clocked 40% faster than the other), different internal storage (factor of 4), different radio antennae (one is penta band, one quad), one has 1 gig of ram, the other 512.
I'm guessing, since they're the same thickness that there's some parts overlap, but it looks like on the important stuff they are completely different.
As though they are mutually exclusive. 100% vaccination means you don't need to cure it, and prevention is far preferable (and usually cheaper) than trying to fix it after it goes badly.
It's not like cancer is one disease that we can just cure. It's a symptom of huge array of diseases and mutations, HPV vaccine goes after one of the causes.
Other teachers and professors. Professors experiment, and get it wrong, a lot, you take the tidbits of things you learned to do right and you put those into a classroom.
And like every other job, you take people who've done it well, ask them how they did so well, if they know, you stand them in the front of a room of their peers and tell them about it.
The root problem the gates foundation has is that they aren't sure what constitutes a good teacher. That's probably in part because it's a moving target. A good teacher today, and a good teacher 20 years ago aren't the same thing, the classroom has changed as have childrens approaches to information and their access to alternate data. In an evolving market place it's hard to know how to do these things.
With teachers parents always had a fit on PD days, because they had to pay someone else to take care of their kids that day. Teachers had to show up and go to conferences or the like - that was where they're supposed to learn to be better teachers.
It's sort of a silly argument. Connected doesn't mean controls, and most of them are public companies, with ownership held by things like pension plans and mutual funds.
A bank that holds my money doesn't actually own my money. If I then turn around and, via the bank, invest in some other company, the bank has touched my money, they may have charged me a service fee for the connection, but they didn't control the money. That makes them connected, as part of the transaction, so sort of by definition banks and major capital lenders will be towards the top of the list, by virtue of touching all of the transactions between everyone else.
The are some far more influential corporations than show up on that list (gazprom and saudi armaco for example) which are essentially government owned, the Emirates soverign wealth fund and the norwegian one again directly control far more wealth than a lot of players on those lists.
The authors of the article are assuming (wrongly) that touching assets equates to controlling them, which is why BNP Paribas and Deutche bank are ranked so high (basically they are the two big banks in France and germany, and have about 3.2 and 2.5 trillion USD in assets that touch their business). It's certainly valid, when comparing bank to bank, to look at the total assets under management, that reflects the overall size of the bank. But compared to Exxon Mobile or Walmart the numbers are mostly meaningless.
Also keep in mind that all of these companies are dwarfed by even small governments, and that all corporations exist at the pleasure of their host governments who can, and regularly do seize them for the 'good of the people'(politicians in power). Only 3 companies in the world have more revenue that the government of the netherlands, Walmart, Exxon Mobile and royal dutch shell (netherlands 360 billions USD, Walmart 420, exxon 370, RDS 368), but the netherlands is actually spending about 400 billion a year. So they, in a year, control more wealth than all but walmart. And that's the netherlands, with 16 million people.
Think of it this way: Walmart probably does its corporate accounts with bank of america and one of the big financials, morgan stanley or Goldman sachs sort of thing. Now, is the money that walmart has walmarts, or BofAs? The way these guys are counting it BofA is ranked higher than walmart, because they collect all of Walmarts revenue, and revenue from a bunch of other people. But Walmart could take all it's money and start doing its banking through Walton Co Bank, founded 2012, and suddenly BofA would drop a few hundred billion dollars on the list and walmart would magically appear. So which has more power, Walmart's revenue or the bank that holds that money on their behalf?
Don't get me wrong, banks collect piles of fees for things, especially because they, in managing assets stored with them make a pile of money, but there are bigger and more powerful entities than banks, and banks like everyone else are subject to government regulation. They have enough money they can generally pay off politicians to get them convenient regulation, but that's a consequence of democracy and government salaries, and is no different than Walmart and their billions or GM and their billions.
how does it have much to do with government funding you or not? If you live in canada you use maps by the government of canada, and unless it's the specific focus of your research, you don't try and pick sides on political issues (like boundaries, for example the science of continental shelves and the like). If you need a map you pick something and role with it. That means if you're chinese, you use the chinese maps, if you're american you use american maps and so on. There's no 'correct' map, that's the point, if there was a single correct map of israel and palestine or china, or canada and denmark, or the falklands or the like there wouldn't be a dispute, but there are disputes and everyone who looks at a map with political boundaries knows full well that a number of areas are 'under discussion'.
There's no 'the government insisted I use this map because I'm a researcher!' it's 'the government believes these maps to be correct', so that's what you use. I suppose if you're in the PRC it's more heavy handed, but everyone knows that's what happens in authoritarian states.
Really, what's the alternative? Do we all have to use UK government maps, since Nature is a UK journal? I can find a few people in argentina and spain who might disagree with that. That's still biasing your maps to one particular ideology after all. You could try and mark territory as 'disputed' where applicable, but then very large blobs of the world become disputed quickly. Was US independence legal? How about the Louisiana purchase or the the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo that handed over california, nevada, arizona and a few other places? How about he European settlement of the americas? How about European notions of states at all, rather than religious or ethnic maps? Do you really want to mark all of china as 'disputed'? Depending on the government of the day in Taiwan they may or may not prefer that. (Some parties there still believe themselves the only legitimate government of all of china, whatever that means, while others seek an independent island, special administrative status etc.). Most of the world is disputed by somebody, you'd never be able to display anything useful if you tried to appeal to everyone.
Hell even antarctica, which should be the easiest to sort out, is disputed territory. No one visited there until the modern notions of territory and nation states existed, no one is settled there, there are legal agreements around who owns the place and who can (or more accurately cannot) claim any of it, and yet still Norway, the UK and a few others have large slices of the place claimed, in case we suddenly change our minds and allow them to keep past claims or something. (If it made any sense I'm sure it would be sorted out).
Remember, even deciding that an area is 'under dispute' is a political statement about the legitimacy of the claims made on it. There's no way to avoid being political about it, that's not government meddling, that's just the nature of law and politics at all.
SOE (EQ, SWG, whatever that star wars adventure kids game is), the PSP, qirosity or however their marketing dipshit spelled it which is a mobile music service. Also, once you create an account it exists forever basically (I'm sure they *can* be deleted, but usually aren't).
The playstation network, and sony's network services in general are a whole lot bigger than just the PS3. There's a lot of overlap between PSP and PS3 owners probably, but the other services not necessarily. How many people played the Matrix onine, Clone wars adventures, vanguard and registered their PSP and Sony-Ericsson phone all using just one account? Most of those people don't overlap, so there' s a lot of accounts (some of which will be so outdated as to be useless).
Slashdot Mirror
Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?
Just because they think he's an ass doesn't mean their policy goals don't align. Charles De Gaul worked very hard to be a major PITA for the allies, but that was what he needed to do.
This is bad from both sides of the political spectrum too, to the left, if he's a liar, why are we making agreements with him that he won't follow? And to the right, why are we not standing up for our ally? This is going to send them in wonderful circles because everyone hates the French, (believe me, I'm canadian we *really* hate the French), but Israels status is more... ambiguous.
Actually I think it should. I mean, the worst case scenario for climate change is global thermonuclear war. That doesn't really add meaningfully to the discussion. The 'worst case' scenario is basically you keep doing what you were doing when you commissioned this report, because you cannot reasonably predict what other crazy thing people will come up with to do that will destroy the environment. And you expect that at least some of the people will probably do something in the general direction of what you advised, or they wouldn't have asked for the report in the first place.
It really depends on how well you know the students. I can usually tell, even in a class of a couple of hundred students, what sort of quality of work they will produce individually pretty quickly. But not always. If I'm just marking their work, and I'm not speaking to them in class, or the like I may never get a sense of it.
We try (depends on class size) to have one person mark all of the assignment 2's for example. And you try and mark all of the a particular question in one sitting, so it's still fresh in your mind if you've seen another assignment that says basically the same thing. But the classic example I give is the chinese student with a handler doing the work for them (this happens a lot). The work is obviously at a level they were incapable of writing wise, but you have no basis on which to accuse them, it's not on the web tools, it's not the same as any other student assignment, so all you can really do is grade it as though it's their work, and then pay special attention to exams, if the exam and assignments are completely different style or quality then you can maybe raise the issue, or the student will fail anyway.
The IPCC figured people someone would actually listen to them and start to make cuts, when they made their worst case predictions. They were wrong.
it's more like $22/hr but you're limited to being paid about 10 hours a week.
And it's not like we don't care, it's that we don't always find it, and if we do we make a judgement call on whether or not it was actually a violation or not. We just gave students a programming assignment on sockets, connecting to one of our own servers and doing some stuff. I'm sure half the class copied their generic socket connect code and simple UI verbatim from the Oracle/sun website, which they might think is cheating, but it's not (at least not on this assignment). We take the attitude that if you can find it on the web, you're going to use it, so we build our assignments assuming that will happen.
Where we catch cheaters is in *written* work, where they have copied from the web. But even then, if you copy one paragraph in a 10 page paper, I may not catch it, and I may not think it worth running through the automated tools (which costs us money) because the paper pretty clearly isn't copied overall. But I catch about 10% of students cheating on things, and that's spanned 4 universities in canada, and I always refer those caught up the chain.
We also know student work together and things like that on assignments. I'm sure some of that crosses the line into copying or the like, but really, if you can't do it on the exam, you're doomed, if you copied it on the assignment drawing a line between where you gave up, and your friend started to help isn't always easy (or sensible).
Without threat of him being shut down by microsoft, and presumably if they're sanctioning it there's some trick on the corporate side or something. They can probably sell a US government version where the unlocker won't work or things along those lines.
Well except that the planes currently in service are going to be very old by 2020, or 2025 and that's when the JSF is really going to take off as a major airforce component around the world. I'm sure you'll see roll outs in 2013 or so, but in 2020 you don't want to be relying on aircraft and parts made in 1996, so you are buying an aircraft design for the future, not for today. Compared to the Harriers, F16 A/B even D's, early model F15's, F18's (not necessarily the super hornet) it's a *much* better aircraft in terms of range, performance at range etc. Even without stealth. And having standardized parts across countries sounds appealing (it might not be). It's still better than the Superhornet and the F22 is really the replacement for the F15, but not by as huge a margin, bu then it will be contemporary to the F18E for a lot of its service life anyway.
And of course there's the more modern avionics suite, which is hard to evaluate.
What it's bringing to the table is the same reason you buy a new car when the old one requires $500 in maintenance every month because some other damn thing is wrong with it. And when it comes to aircraft you have to plan for this long in advance.
Part of the game that everyone plays is they pitch it to the public under budget, and but then pay cost overruns anyway, everyone involved knowing full well that there will be cost overruns, but once you're 66 billion dollars invested, another few billion to get you out isn't that much.
The other thing is: what's the alternative? We're having this discussion in canada right now. We have F18's. We are slated to buy F35's, and there are certainly other aircraft we could consider (the Eurofighter for example, or one of the Russian aircraft), or we can stick with what we have. Sticking with what we have is fine, but 15 years from now we may find it rather difficult to get new aircraft quickly if we need them. For the US it's not able to afford (nor would it want) 2000 F22's, so the choices are slim, buying 2000 eurofighters would be politically impractical, and the F35 is a better aircraft anyway. So options are limited at this point. Axing the project and starting afresh would set everything back, and be tremendously expensive - so the F35 project has to work at this point, cost overruns or not.
Or when the government decides it's serious enough to deal with, or when low level officials stop taking bribes. The people in china are part of the pervasive corruption, not the solution.
Like most developing countries, it's not china's laws that are the problem. It's the fact that an envelope full of money will make the law disappear.
Sure, in the US it's the same way, but the amount of money required is extraordinary. In the US (and the EU and canada) you pay off members of parliament, congress, the senate, you don't pay off the local mayor, city inspector, city engineer in cash, on a daily basis.
In rich countries you pay to have the law rewritten, which at least has the benefit of everyone seeing the new version of the law. In developing countries the law just melts away.
Then you're looking in the wrong places. An undergrad in any science is a support position, or high school teacher. You can do very well for yourself with a PhD in any of the sciences, but you have to set your expectations properly with an undergraduate. You are going to be a lab tech, you might supervise people who only went to college and not university, but your boss will have a PhD. That's just the way it is.
On the other hand, you'll still make more than a mechanic or a college IT guy doing it. But don't act like you're going to be lab director, and don't act like you want to spend your life fiddling with titration tubes.
Chemistry is by far the most employable of the 3 pure sciences with only an undergrad. Physicists compete directly with engineers for jobs that aren't at the PhD level, and the engineers through lobbying have largely won that battle, you can't get hired unless you're an engineer, because everything requires a P.Eng, even if it doesn't, and there's not enough demand, or supply of unemployed undergrads in physics every year to produce much push back.
When I graduated with an undergrad in physics (2002) there were about 1500 people in the US who did the same, and about 170 in canada. You're up in the 2000 + range now, but about 70% of undergrads in physics go on to grad school. Everyone else becomes teachers. Which is the other option for a degree in chemistry.
As to the main thrust of this thread. An undergrad in physics is math. It's not high school playing with toys fun. It's all math, you need to know every little bit about your experiment, and you might get to do an experiment every year or two, if you're lucky (you may redo essentially the same experiment for several years too). If you want anything to ever actually work that people make, like the computer you're working on, there are layers upon layers of PhD's in physics who spent 20 years shooting lasers at solids to see what happens so Intel could figure out how to fab your CPU (even if yours was made by AMD it was still Intel research at the forefront). If you think, even for an undergrad, that Intel, TI, IBM, HP, AMD, US-semi etc. somehow pay their people less than a mechanic... go ahead and tell your kids to be a mechanic. If you thing it's 'playing with toys' fun, it's not. It's math. The all of these companies are preferring H1B visa holders is because first, those are the best and brightest from their home countries and secondly - they actually recognize their job is to do math. It's not to have fun. It's to do math, correctly, so you don't fuck up a production run of 600 wafers.
Don't get me wrong, my PhD is in comp sci, not physics, because a PhD in Comp sci is easier and it pays better. But it's about 10% easier, and it pays about 10% better, both of which are way better than the IT guy who went to college. But a degree in comp sci is only marginally easier than a degree in physics (having done both), the big difference is that people who are naturally computer nerds have to learn a lot less peripheral information to go with CS or software eng than they need for Physics or chemistry. But the core of science is quantifying things, and then doing analysis on the quantization, that is the point, and if US highschools are failing so bad at teaching that, then I have no sympathy. If you're teaching your kid that an undergrad in physics will get paid less than an undergrad in CS that's true, but then CS gets paid less than chemical engineering so why aren't they doing that. If you're teaching that an undergrad is physics will pay less than an IT diploma and an MCSE then you have no f'n clue what the market is, or the people you're training in physics in the US are incompetent, and be thankful you're hiring H1B people who won't fuck it up.
So maybe what it tells us is Javascript is where a lot of people get their start coming from non programming fields, and they hit stack overflow having no clue what they're doing. People who learned programming, in any language, don't land on SO because they know most of the basic stuff anyway, and of course most people who learn to program learn to do so in one of the C family and Java.
or refuse schooling, a lawyer etc.
A 16 your old legally is a child, they are protected by the state (and can be taken away from home if they have abusive parents, whether they want to go or not, for example), and in legal agreements they cannot sign for themselves without special circumstances. They cannot serve in the army, they cannot collect an adult minimum wage, they cannot be treated like adults legally without special circumstances (which violate both the definition and purpose of separate child laws in the first place).
16 years cannot marry without parental consent, pregnancy - in some specific cases, court approval or the like (unless they are already emancipated).
A 14 year old is not *automatically* tried for murder as an adult, they can, under special circumstances be given that privilege.
You see these things on the news and it biases your perception of what actually happens. In extreme cases children can be emancipated from their parents at very young ages when the parents have no criminal record etc... But in that sense any piece of law can be overturned in a one off basis, for the 99.99% of everyone else 16 year olds are children, are treated that way by several laws, and treaties, and treating them differently is illegal.
AMD and its graphics subdivision also rely on globalfoundries, which used to be the production arm of AMD.
If anything, in the long run, the ARM business might help AMD and nVIDIA even indirectly, a big market for another high end foundry company gives them more potential suppliers.
But I agree, marketing handles itself if you have a good enough product right now. The 6000 series is good, but not revolutionary, but I suppose one could say exactly the same thing about the 500 series from nVIDIA. I wonder if they're both waiting for dx12 or next gen consoles to do much with. When the biggest games launching this year all still have dx9 codepaths except battlefield 3, you know you've got a tough market to break into with the next gen hardware. (COD3, star wars TOR, Skyrim and others all have dx9 support in them, though they also have dx11 paths).
Lots of people who are slashdotters are the ones writing the software to be deployed in future. 2 years ago I had iPhone projects out the wazoo (before that it was Nokia/Qt and blackberry), last year it was blackberry because we're close to RIM and they gave us free stuff, along with iPhone and QT was gone, this year it's android, and next year we're slated for WP7.5 or WP8.
Windows phone development is pretty easy, and I have a suspicion they can angle into the business market from RIM, while still tying into the xbox for gaming related stuff on the phone, that's a fairly big market. The big player in all of this is samsung. Sony is in the Android court, Nokia in MS. RIM is off doing it's own thing in fantasy land, and without steve jobs to sell their bad stuff Apple is going to be in trouble. With Google buying Moto mobile and Nokia and MS drinking the same kool-aid in the same bed, Samsung is the big player in all of this, and as much as they might be in the Android camp now a better corporate connected experience from MS could quickly sway them (or google going crazy with Motorola Mobile somehow).
I think WP7 devices will be as powerful as androids, but, loathe as I am to credit steve ballmer with anything, his 'you need a degree in CS to use an Android' is hyperbole, but not far off. MS could make a much cleaner experience with an equally powerful store and change the game considerably, if they can get Samsung and Nokia to produce decent handsets quickly.
The people who have enough money to be relevant have the whitehouse switchboard on speed dial, and get letters inviting them to fund-raising events that cost more per table than a minimum wage employee makes in a year.
If you think your money is hard earned try listening to one of these politician types beg for more money after you spent thousands of dollars a plate and flew out on your private plane to listen to him. That's the kind of of hard work that gets you liberty, everything else is an illusion created to make you feel better about your shitty job.
seems silly but it 'proves' you did at least spend a couple of hours listening to this guy talk, which can be enough to distinguish you from the other grad student who didn't bother to show.
Alas I don't have time to fully pick apart the relativity argument (which is wrong btw, they appear at the speed of light relative to each other, time dilation and all that), but they are actually sourcing the neutrinos themselves. Since photons are massless, but neutrinos might have mass they should be more effected by gravity, or equally, but that's one of the questions. Photons self interact, it's possible neutrinos self interact less than photons, meaning the 'speed of light' we observe is actually not quite the maximum possible velocity.
The earths movement and rotation during measurement is a well known quantity, so that shouldn't be an issue, but you're right, there's a lot of very tricky calculations going on here because you're combining high speeds, short distances and very small times, and a small error somewhere can make a big difference.
Not that helpful for non experts.
I used to be an atomic physicist, and my girlfriend worked at a major neutrino observatory (and still works in the field), and this information is not really relevant to either of us. It's very narrowly focused on the details of experimental construction of very specific experiments. It is the detail work scientists actually do, but the details of specific experiments only serve to confuse people who aren't specialists.
I have heard, from neutrino experts, several good ideas on why, on a theoretical basis, neutrinos could go faster than light, and I've heard several guesses as to how the experiment could be failing, but quite frankly I'll leave them to be the experts and let me know if they discover anything interesting after the fact. For now the details of detector delay times and synchronization and all of the stuff that goes into this require far beyond my desired time investment. Alas, I have a halloween party with a bunch of them tomorrow so I may be hearing more about it whether I want to or not.
And the galaxy Sii has a replacable battery and survives a drop test much better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKxgsrJFhw
Even the Galaxy SI was a pretty good phone compared to the apple equivalents.
I'm a big guy, so the Galaxy SII being larger is a big plus for me, and certainly not a downside (I have big pockets for it, for example), but not everyone wants a small slate in their pocket.
The lumina 800 isn't even the same size and an n9 let alone the same phone
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/26/nokia-lumia-800-vs-nokia-n9-the-tale-of-the-tape/
They are: Different sizes, use different processors (one clocked 40% faster than the other), different internal storage (factor of 4), different radio antennae (one is penta band, one quad), one has 1 gig of ram, the other 512.
I'm guessing, since they're the same thickness that there's some parts overlap, but it looks like on the important stuff they are completely different.
As though they are mutually exclusive. 100% vaccination means you don't need to cure it, and prevention is far preferable (and usually cheaper) than trying to fix it after it goes badly.
It's not like cancer is one disease that we can just cure. It's a symptom of huge array of diseases and mutations, HPV vaccine goes after one of the causes.
Other teachers and professors. Professors experiment, and get it wrong, a lot, you take the tidbits of things you learned to do right and you put those into a classroom.
And like every other job, you take people who've done it well, ask them how they did so well, if they know, you stand them in the front of a room of their peers and tell them about it.
The root problem the gates foundation has is that they aren't sure what constitutes a good teacher. That's probably in part because it's a moving target. A good teacher today, and a good teacher 20 years ago aren't the same thing, the classroom has changed as have childrens approaches to information and their access to alternate data. In an evolving market place it's hard to know how to do these things.
With teachers parents always had a fit on PD days, because they had to pay someone else to take care of their kids that day. Teachers had to show up and go to conferences or the like - that was where they're supposed to learn to be better teachers.
It's sort of a silly argument. Connected doesn't mean controls, and most of them are public companies, with ownership held by things like pension plans and mutual funds.
A bank that holds my money doesn't actually own my money. If I then turn around and, via the bank, invest in some other company, the bank has touched my money, they may have charged me a service fee for the connection, but they didn't control the money. That makes them connected, as part of the transaction, so sort of by definition banks and major capital lenders will be towards the top of the list, by virtue of touching all of the transactions between everyone else.
The are some far more influential corporations than show up on that list (gazprom and saudi armaco for example) which are essentially government owned, the Emirates soverign wealth fund and the norwegian one again directly control far more wealth than a lot of players on those lists.
The authors of the article are assuming (wrongly) that touching assets equates to controlling them, which is why BNP Paribas and Deutche bank are ranked so high (basically they are the two big banks in France and germany, and have about 3.2 and 2.5 trillion USD in assets that touch their business). It's certainly valid, when comparing bank to bank, to look at the total assets under management, that reflects the overall size of the bank. But compared to Exxon Mobile or Walmart the numbers are mostly meaningless.
Also keep in mind that all of these companies are dwarfed by even small governments, and that all corporations exist at the pleasure of their host governments who can, and regularly do seize them for the 'good of the people'(politicians in power). Only 3 companies in the world have more revenue that the government of the netherlands, Walmart, Exxon Mobile and royal dutch shell (netherlands 360 billions USD, Walmart 420, exxon 370, RDS 368), but the netherlands is actually spending about 400 billion a year. So they, in a year, control more wealth than all but walmart. And that's the netherlands, with 16 million people.
Think of it this way: Walmart probably does its corporate accounts with bank of america and one of the big financials, morgan stanley or Goldman sachs sort of thing. Now, is the money that walmart has walmarts, or BofAs? The way these guys are counting it BofA is ranked higher than walmart, because they collect all of Walmarts revenue, and revenue from a bunch of other people. But Walmart could take all it's money and start doing its banking through Walton Co Bank, founded 2012, and suddenly BofA would drop a few hundred billion dollars on the list and walmart would magically appear. So which has more power, Walmart's revenue or the bank that holds that money on their behalf?
Don't get me wrong, banks collect piles of fees for things, especially because they, in managing assets stored with them make a pile of money, but there are bigger and more powerful entities than banks, and banks like everyone else are subject to government regulation. They have enough money they can generally pay off politicians to get them convenient regulation, but that's a consequence of democracy and government salaries, and is no different than Walmart and their billions or GM and their billions.
how does it have much to do with government funding you or not? If you live in canada you use maps by the government of canada, and unless it's the specific focus of your research, you don't try and pick sides on political issues (like boundaries, for example the science of continental shelves and the like). If you need a map you pick something and role with it. That means if you're chinese, you use the chinese maps, if you're american you use american maps and so on. There's no 'correct' map, that's the point, if there was a single correct map of israel and palestine or china, or canada and denmark, or the falklands or the like there wouldn't be a dispute, but there are disputes and everyone who looks at a map with political boundaries knows full well that a number of areas are 'under discussion'.
There's no 'the government insisted I use this map because I'm a researcher!' it's 'the government believes these maps to be correct', so that's what you use. I suppose if you're in the PRC it's more heavy handed, but everyone knows that's what happens in authoritarian states.
Really, what's the alternative? Do we all have to use UK government maps, since Nature is a UK journal? I can find a few people in argentina and spain who might disagree with that. That's still biasing your maps to one particular ideology after all. You could try and mark territory as 'disputed' where applicable, but then very large blobs of the world become disputed quickly. Was US independence legal? How about the Louisiana purchase or the the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo that handed over california, nevada, arizona and a few other places? How about he European settlement of the americas? How about European notions of states at all, rather than religious or ethnic maps? Do you really want to mark all of china as 'disputed'? Depending on the government of the day in Taiwan they may or may not prefer that. (Some parties there still believe themselves the only legitimate government of all of china, whatever that means, while others seek an independent island, special administrative status etc.). Most of the world is disputed by somebody, you'd never be able to display anything useful if you tried to appeal to everyone.
Hell even antarctica, which should be the easiest to sort out, is disputed territory. No one visited there until the modern notions of territory and nation states existed, no one is settled there, there are legal agreements around who owns the place and who can (or more accurately cannot) claim any of it, and yet still Norway, the UK and a few others have large slices of the place claimed, in case we suddenly change our minds and allow them to keep past claims or something. (If it made any sense I'm sure it would be sorted out).
Remember, even deciding that an area is 'under dispute' is a political statement about the legitimacy of the claims made on it. There's no way to avoid being political about it, that's not government meddling, that's just the nature of law and politics at all.
SOE (EQ, SWG, whatever that star wars adventure kids game is), the PSP, qirosity or however their marketing dipshit spelled it which is a mobile music service. Also, once you create an account it exists forever basically (I'm sure they *can* be deleted, but usually aren't).
The playstation network, and sony's network services in general are a whole lot bigger than just the PS3. There's a lot of overlap between PSP and PS3 owners probably, but the other services not necessarily. How many people played the Matrix onine, Clone wars adventures, vanguard and registered their PSP and Sony-Ericsson phone all using just one account? Most of those people don't overlap, so there' s a lot of accounts (some of which will be so outdated as to be useless).