According to this 2005 Nature News article about Clauset and his research, the observation that social interactions (deadly feuds) follow a power law distribution dates back at least half a century. Along a similar vein, Neil Johnson (of University of Miami) and research collaborators recently produced a decent model for this kind of distribution (see their paper in Nature from last year).
This is informative? No serious mathematician takes the Erdös number as more than pure entertainment (for what it's worth, I am a professional mathematician). You are essentially advocating authority by association, which can rapidly degenerate into nepotism.
I don't know about other fields, but mathematics is actually one field where truth can be judged (though sometimes it take ridiculously long) and reputation earned.
filesoup has moved to filesoup.co.uk. But I wouldn't recommend that for an educational setting (especially if the OP intends for the teachers/students to join as a member of the community). IIRC, they even have a red light district.
And the majority of people on the planet have IQs also over 85. Your point?
IQ is "supposed" to be normalized to a Gaussian distribution (even though empirically fat tails exist). If the human population do actually follow the Gaussian, the dumb and the wise should balance out in a democracy.
Re:In space nobody can here you play golf!
on
Golf in Space
·
· Score: 1
That doesn't make too much sense. The ISS averages about 7.7km/s or 27.5 megameters per hour. which works out to 17000 mph roughly. A speed of 60,000 mph is about 27km/s. That means that our astronaut friend will need to impart
Aren't there precedents with phonebooks and such that while a particular presentation of facts can be copyrighted, the facts themselves cannot? If that is the case, what is the MLB's lawyer thinking when he advised the go-ahead on the exclusive license and refusal to let fantasy league operators use the stats at a price? Or are they using an alternative definition of "Intellectual Property" that I am not aware of?
Are they seriously trying to argue that records that a player set, as well as numbers calculated from the tabulated performance of an athelete are not facts? I seriously fail to see why MLB thinks that it has any ground here. Though, to be fair, TFA didn't give much insight to the MLB's argument since
Jim Gallagher, a spokesman for Major League Baseball Advanced Media, baseball's Internet arm, declined comment on the lawsuit...
No, this is a hurricane PMS'ing. Your girlfriend won't admit it, but the hurricane in this case was merely pretending to have a monthly in order to have an excuse to throw a garden-variety tantrum.
1) Yes, Euclidean Affine Coordinates is redundant. I included the "affine" part to stress the translation invariance of the Euclidean coordinate system.
2) No, coordinate changes are not necessary by translation. A coordinate change by translation and rotation is an affine transformation. But there can also be scaling and other fun coordinate changes (inversion, squaring, etc.) A translation invariant coordinate would be one in which the metric is independent of the point of choice. If you label the axes of your coordinate system with "quadrance", which is the square of normal distance, the metric at quadrance-coordinate (q_1,q_2) (suppose we are on a plane) would be given by g = 2 dq_1^2 / q_1 + 2 dq_2^2 / q_2, which is not independent of the coordinate points.
The OP was asking about how this "simplified trigonometry" will reduce the complexity in calculating trigonometric integrals in calculus. The thing is that this reduction is basically just based on a coordinate transformation, which means that when you are taking the integral, you still need to multiply by the square root of the metric, and in this case, the jacobian isn't particularly simple. Which means that in the end, you can simplify the integrand (The trigonometric expression) at the expense of adding a non-trivial jacobian, which doesn't make the integral any easier to evaluate.
My point is the following: the Book is trying to introduce a new system of coordinates based on quadrances and spreads. To do any real-world math problem, you will need to either 1) convert from normal Euclidean coordinates to the new coordinates, solve the trigonometric problem, convert back, and finish the rest of the problem in your Euclidean coordinates, or 2) convert the problem to the new coordinate. In the case of evaluating a trigonometric integral, the two are equally difficult as just doing the problem in normal Euclidean coordinates to begin with, so there's not real advantage to using the new coordinate system. In fact, except for purely geometric problems which are disjoint from the underlying coordinate system, most real world problems would be about as difficult in this new coordinate system as in the Euclidean system.
No, it would make learning Calculus all the more painful. He admits in his first chapter that the transcendental trignometric functions "cannot be understood without a better understanding of calculus". The same can be said in reverse. His "prettification" of geometry, while simplifying trigonometric calculations, makes general geometry and calculus more difficult.
For example, instead of working on a Euclidean affine coordinate system, by using "Quadrance" as he calls it, the coordinates would not be translation invariant, and you will be forced to attach a non-trivial measure to make integrals work out. So while the integrand might be simplified in the trigonometric identities, you will end up, instead of integrating over "dx", over something like "1/sqrt(x) dx", which hardly makes the integral any more appealing.
It is not revolutionary, nor redefined. What it does it to rewrite trigonometry in similar thing as the good old "SOH-CAH-TOA" method taught in American high schools.
Wildberger's sole insight are the following:
Instead of using the linear norm, he chooses to use the equivalent quadratic norm for distances, thus removing the squares from Pythagorean theorem. (So, for a right triangle, his version would be BASE + HEIGHT = HYPOTENUSE).
Instead of using angles and calculating sines and cosines from it, he uses the concept of Spread, which is essentially just the sine of the angle squared!!
Well, one immediately sees a problem with the second point when trying to do something more than traditional planar Euclidean geometry: an obtuse angle will have the same spread as one other acute angle, and they share spreads with two other angles greater than pi radians!
His argument is foundamentally flawed even in the first chapter when he "explains" the traditional method of measuring angles. He claims it as the following (paraphrasing):
Take two lines, the measurement of the angle is taken by drawing a unit circle about the intersection point. For each line, choose a point in which the line intersects the unit circle. Take the arc length between the two points, and that gives the angle.
so far so good, but he goes on to argue that
For each line there are two choices of intersection points with the circle, resulting in a total of 8 different pairs with 4 different arc-length measurements.
That is complete bullshit. When I was in middle school in Taiwan, we were taught that 1) we start with two rays instead of two lines. The angle between rays A and B would be given by taking the arc length of on the unit circle by going counter clockwise from A to B. So, semantically, the angle between A and B, and the angle between B and A, would sum up to a nice 2pi.
While colloquially, we often prefer to deal with the smaller of the two measurements.
There are obvious problems with the Quadrance and Spread concept when applied to real life. For one thing, you can't just add Quadrances: say I know that points A B and C are on a line, in that order. Say I also know the distance AB and BC, then the distance AC = AB + BC. But if I measure using the Quadrance, sqrt(AC) = sqrt(AB) + sqrt(BC) would hold. He is just passing the buck in his "redefinition". While making things simpler for trigonometry, he is making things more difficult for other bits of Euclidean geometry.
Similar, while traditionally angles can just sum, his definition using a spread cannot sum angles.
In summary, his "getting rid of sines" is just replacing it with its valuation, which is hardly novel: it is something taught standard in American classrooms (remember SAHCOHTOA?).
It is possible that the giant flying reptiles used a phenomenon called winging ground effect, when a flying object experiences extra lift when skimming the surface of the sea or flat piece of ground.
I believe what they meant is the Wing-in-ground effect. Basically when aircrafts fly low, air is trapped between the wing and the surface, which produces a slightly higher pressure underneath the wings than if the aircraft is travelling at the same speed at high altitudes. Here's another page with information on the WIG effect.
I also wrote my own weblog software... completely in BASH. After I recently got a LiveJournal Account, I've been thinking about coordinating the two.
From what I've seen, it would be best to just mirror the contents directly: LiveJournal has exceedingly well community support in terms of OSS clients for posting/archiving/more. Personally, I use Charm, which is written in python, and has a filter-mode so that I can just pipe my post to Charm and it gets on LJ.
This is sensationalist reporting as usual. According to TFA
linked in the post:
Section 104 of the ART Act directs that preregistration procedures must be in place by October 24, 2005. 17 U.S.C. 408(f)(1). To comply with this time frame and to facilitate efficient processing of preregistration claims, inter alia, the proposed rule calls for filing such claims by electronic means only. At this point in the process of
developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.
They are not being poopie-heads by denying the existence of alterative browsers: instead, they were fully well-aware of their existence and the importance of them. It is just that a deadline is coming up and they haven't quite finished implementing their solutions for everyone yet, and they are asking the public whether they should ask of an extension on the deadline so they can finish the development.
Look, game/software companies do this all the time: release something for just MS Windows first because they have the largest consumer pool and later on finish development for other platforms.
Of course, the fact the website will function for an unspecified period in only IE is not cool, and I plan to write in about that. But do get your facts straight before you send in that letter to the Copyright Office.
Try blocking it for 5 minutes. I've been using a perl + iptables solution for it. From my log files, I see that the attacking script typically tries for 3-5 minutes after it gets the first connection-time-out.
Me too, have seen it for more than a year. After three days totalling 2K+ connections (logrotate could barely keep up (= ), I slapped together a very simple perl script.
It is by no means flawless, nor elegant. At start up I run
tail -f/var/log/pwdfail/current | ssh_blklst.pl
and drop the connection for 1 hour after 5 pwd fail attempts.
Oh, and comments and improvements are welcome.
I did look into IDS, but I realized that the only open port being my SSH port, I probably don't need all that sophisticated software...
Joss noted that while Stanford was dismayed by the
actions of the candidates who tried to gain
unauthorized access, it "did not rush to judgment
given the limited information available to us
initially. By carefully reviewing the file of each
applicant involved in these incidents, we upheld
the business school's values while treating each
applicant fairly...
That's quite a "holier than thou" sneer at Harvard and MIT.
What I am truly surprised is that none of the schools took actions against ApplyYourSelf as far as I know: rather, the focus has all been on whether the schools took action against the students. I think this plays heavily on the public's fear of "hacking". Just because the applicants peeked using a computer, it suddenly made it such a grave matter.
First, I think ApplyYourSelf should bear some responsibility for not properly securing their web-app in a way that such an action is possible. For many people (and I'd even venture to say that in public opinion), anything that is accessible by typing a URL into a browser window might as well be published. I don't really think the school has the right to penalize the applicants for accessing information that has been made available to them.
Secondly, this whole business has been blown out of proportion: the students were only able to look at their admission status, and that even hinges on the fact that the schools have already published those information to the website. It is not as if the students were actually "hacking" in the sense of escalating their privilege and modifying their admission status. I just don't think this incident is an acurate enough illustration of their moral fibers to warrant such decisions (though I generally have no sympathy for business school applicants).
Thirdly, I think the whole finding out the admission status thing is more akin to being impatient and calling up the admission office with the knowledge that the drunk receptionist would accidentally let the admission status slip out. So why the applicants were treated so harshly and why the ApplyYourself service was not is really troubling me.
On the other hand, I regularly get 28 - 29 mpg on the family 2004 CRV, while my mom gets about 24-25 when she visits. IMHO, it's all about the braking: I try to minimize the amount I hit the brakes when I drive, so that less energy is dissipated into heat. If I see a redlight 100 yards up, I just let go of the gas and let to car slowly drift toward the light.
My highschool physics teacher is a car-nut, and I remember him telling me about cars one time: just getting a smooth ride won't get you better MPG numbers. The MPG is actually also a function of the speed you are moving at. He claims that most cars (i.e. normal consumer SUVs or Sedans) have the efficienty topping out at around 55-70 mph, and that number usually have to do with engine tuning and aerodynamical drag.
Theoretically, if you know the exact MPG profile for you car as a function of speed, you can calculate the most efficient way of accelerating.
That is NOT true. Ever picked up a telescope? Just because you can see that bird 500 yards away nesting on its little twig doesn't mean that it can see you just as well.
Oh, one of my professors does it much differently...
Prof:... and the superlocrian scale here ---BRRRRRRIIING--- [Amanda looks up all embarassed] [Prof walks over to Amanda, picks up the cell phone from next to her handbag.] Prof: Yo. Phone:... Prof: What you want? Phone:... Prof: Yeah! This is Horatio. What you want with my woman? [the other end hangs up]
It never fails to amuse... (funny how some students just don't learn).
The part that actually requires construction is the part where he projects the text on a slab of glass that is placed between him and the video recorder.
The whole point of the teleprompter, rather than a fancy-schmancy projected PowerPoint display, is that the person reading the teleprompter stares directly into the video camera: from his point of view the text is directly in front of the camera. The slab of glass at 45 degree angle means that the text on the prompter will not be reflected into the camera.
Of course, the reflection means that the texts all apper mirrored, compared to the laptop screen. Personally, I don't understand why he needed to export the document in postscript and mirror flip it. Wouldn't it be alright if he just add another mirror?
what do you propose for changes in legislature to ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid for that time?
So what are they to answer? That they will push for legislation that ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid? The president cannot do jack about the legislative branch (at least technically according to the separation of power build into the US government). All they can do is to try to push the agenda through. But that is already stated in the question...
which means that the question basically just boils down to a "yes/no" question, to which, of course, both candidates will answer "yes".
While this might be a nice question to muse about, I highly doubt much can be done in the term of one president. Furthermore, there really isn't an answer to this question... what? you propose passing out condoms to every single person in Africa?
Unless the entire world implements China's One-Child policy, the lack of sex ed in third world countries (and some parts of the "civilized world" too), and the general "enjoyment" at hand will most likely dictate the human population to continue to increase.
Most likely this question will just elicit some sort of general response about education and (in cases of candidates not morally against it) birth control.
I believe the grandparent used the word illegally. The question is not about limiting immigration, but about controlling illegal immigration.
Perhaps you don't remember, but there were even instances when in California certain individuals recommended granting voting rights to people without citizenship. For new immigrants like me, the question is not about economy or nationalist feelings, but about justice. The point is that the illegal immigrants are ripping off the citizens/PRs when they receive financial aids and such without contributing to the pool in the first place.
(As a side note, why would you use the words "nationalist trash" on the comment made apparently be a second gen. immigrant? and why would a second generation immigrant propose limiting immigration at all?)
Slashdot Mirror
According to this 2005 Nature News article about Clauset and his research, the observation that social interactions (deadly feuds) follow a power law distribution dates back at least half a century. Along a similar vein, Neil Johnson (of University of Miami) and research collaborators recently produced a decent model for this kind of distribution (see their paper in Nature from last year).
This is informative? No serious mathematician takes the Erdös number as more than pure entertainment (for what it's worth, I am a professional mathematician). You are essentially advocating authority by association, which can rapidly degenerate into nepotism. I don't know about other fields, but mathematics is actually one field where truth can be judged (though sometimes it take ridiculously long) and reputation earned.
filesoup has moved to filesoup.co.uk. But I wouldn't recommend that for an educational setting (especially if the OP intends for the teachers/students to join as a member of the community). IIRC, they even have a red light district.
And the majority of people on the planet have IQs also over 85. Your point?
IQ is "supposed" to be normalized to a Gaussian distribution (even though empirically fat tails exist). If the human population do actually follow the Gaussian, the dumb and the wise should balance out in a democracy.
It's Willy the Squowse!
Even if he is Russian, I can't believe that he has higher power output than a nuclear powerplant.
In reality, I don't think that ball would go much faster than the ISS itself.
Aren't there precedents with phonebooks and such that while a particular presentation of facts can be copyrighted, the facts themselves cannot? If that is the case, what is the MLB's lawyer thinking when he advised the go-ahead on the exclusive license and refusal to let fantasy league operators use the stats at a price? Or are they using an alternative definition of "Intellectual Property" that I am not aware of?
Are they seriously trying to argue that records that a player set, as well as numbers calculated from the tabulated performance of an athelete are not facts? I seriously fail to see why MLB thinks that it has any ground here. Though, to be fair, TFA didn't give much insight to the MLB's argument since
No, this is a hurricane PMS'ing. Your girlfriend won't admit it, but the hurricane in this case was merely pretending to have a monthly in order to have an excuse to throw a garden-variety tantrum.
1) Yes, Euclidean Affine Coordinates is redundant. I included the "affine" part to stress the translation invariance of the Euclidean coordinate system.
2) No, coordinate changes are not necessary by translation. A coordinate change by translation and rotation is an affine transformation. But there can also be scaling and other fun coordinate changes (inversion, squaring, etc.) A translation invariant coordinate would be one in which the metric is independent of the point of choice. If you label the axes of your coordinate system with "quadrance", which is the square of normal distance, the metric at quadrance-coordinate (q_1,q_2) (suppose we are on a plane) would be given by g = 2 dq_1^2 / q_1 + 2 dq_2^2 / q_2, which is not independent of the coordinate points.
The OP was asking about how this "simplified trigonometry" will reduce the complexity in calculating trigonometric integrals in calculus. The thing is that this reduction is basically just based on a coordinate transformation, which means that when you are taking the integral, you still need to multiply by the square root of the metric, and in this case, the jacobian isn't particularly simple. Which means that in the end, you can simplify the integrand (The trigonometric expression) at the expense of adding a non-trivial jacobian, which doesn't make the integral any easier to evaluate.
My point is the following: the Book is trying to introduce a new system of coordinates based on quadrances and spreads. To do any real-world math problem, you will need to either 1) convert from normal Euclidean coordinates to the new coordinates, solve the trigonometric problem, convert back, and finish the rest of the problem in your Euclidean coordinates, or 2) convert the problem to the new coordinate. In the case of evaluating a trigonometric integral, the two are equally difficult as just doing the problem in normal Euclidean coordinates to begin with, so there's not real advantage to using the new coordinate system. In fact, except for purely geometric problems which are disjoint from the underlying coordinate system, most real world problems would be about as difficult in this new coordinate system as in the Euclidean system.
No, it would make learning Calculus all the more painful. He admits in his first chapter that the transcendental trignometric functions "cannot be understood without a better understanding of calculus". The same can be said in reverse. His "prettification" of geometry, while simplifying trigonometric calculations, makes general geometry and calculus more difficult.
For example, instead of working on a Euclidean affine coordinate system, by using "Quadrance" as he calls it, the coordinates would not be translation invariant, and you will be forced to attach a non-trivial measure to make integrals work out. So while the integrand might be simplified in the trigonometric identities, you will end up, instead of integrating over "dx", over something like "1/sqrt(x) dx", which hardly makes the integral any more appealing.
It is not revolutionary, nor redefined. What it does it to rewrite trigonometry in similar thing as the good old "SOH-CAH-TOA" method taught in American high schools.
Wildberger's sole insight are the following:
- Instead of using the linear norm, he chooses to use the equivalent quadratic norm for distances, thus removing the squares from Pythagorean theorem. (So, for a right triangle, his version would be BASE + HEIGHT = HYPOTENUSE).
- Instead of using angles and calculating sines and cosines from it, he uses the concept of Spread, which is essentially just the sine of the angle squared!!
Well, one immediately sees a problem with the second point when trying to do something more than traditional planar Euclidean geometry: an obtuse angle will have the same spread as one other acute angle, and they share spreads with two other angles greater than pi radians!His argument is foundamentally flawed even in the first chapter when he "explains" the traditional method of measuring angles. He claims it as the following (paraphrasing):
so far so good, but he goes on to argue that That is complete bullshit. When I was in middle school in Taiwan, we were taught that 1) we start with two rays instead of two lines. The angle between rays A and B would be given by taking the arc length of on the unit circle by going counter clockwise from A to B. So, semantically, the angle between A and B, and the angle between B and A, would sum up to a nice 2pi. While colloquially, we often prefer to deal with the smaller of the two measurements.There are obvious problems with the Quadrance and Spread concept when applied to real life. For one thing, you can't just add Quadrances: say I know that points A B and C are on a line, in that order. Say I also know the distance AB and BC, then the distance AC = AB + BC. But if I measure using the Quadrance, sqrt(AC) = sqrt(AB) + sqrt(BC) would hold. He is just passing the buck in his "redefinition". While making things simpler for trigonometry, he is making things more difficult for other bits of Euclidean geometry.
Similar, while traditionally angles can just sum, his definition using a spread cannot sum angles.
In summary, his "getting rid of sines" is just replacing it with its valuation, which is hardly novel: it is something taught standard in American classrooms (remember SAHCOHTOA?).
I also wrote my own weblog software... completely in BASH. After I recently got a LiveJournal Account, I've been thinking about coordinating the two.
From what I've seen, it would be best to just mirror the contents directly: LiveJournal has exceedingly well community support in terms of OSS clients for posting/archiving/more. Personally, I use Charm, which is written in python, and has a filter-mode so that I can just pipe my post to Charm and it gets on LJ.
W
This is sensationalist reporting as usual. According to TFA linked in the post:
They are not being poopie-heads by denying the existence of alterative browsers: instead, they were fully well-aware of their existence and the importance of them. It is just that a deadline is coming up and they haven't quite finished implementing their solutions for everyone yet, and they are asking the public whether they should ask of an extension on the deadline so they can finish the development.Look, game/software companies do this all the time: release something for just MS Windows first because they have the largest consumer pool and later on finish development for other platforms.
Of course, the fact the website will function for an unspecified period in only IE is not cool, and I plan to write in about that. But do get your facts straight before you send in that letter to the Copyright Office.
Try blocking it for 5 minutes. I've been using a perl + iptables solution for it. From my log files, I see that the attacking script typically tries for 3-5 minutes after it gets the first connection-time-out.
Me too, have seen it for more than a year. After three days totalling 2K+ connections (logrotate could barely keep up (= ), I slapped together a very simple perl script.
/var/log/pwdfail/current | ssh_blklst.pl
Script
It is by no means flawless, nor elegant. At start up I run
tail -f
and drop the connection for 1 hour after 5 pwd fail attempts.
Oh, and comments and improvements are welcome.
I did look into IDS, but I realized that the only open port being my SSH port, I probably don't need all that sophisticated software...
Quote:
Joss noted that while Stanford was dismayed by the
actions of the candidates who tried to gain
unauthorized access, it "did not rush to judgment
given the limited information available to us
initially. By carefully reviewing the file of each
applicant involved in these incidents, we upheld
the business school's values while treating each
applicant fairly...
That's quite a "holier than thou" sneer at Harvard and MIT.
What I am truly surprised is that none of the schools took actions against ApplyYourSelf as far as I know: rather, the focus has all been on whether the schools took action against the students. I think this plays heavily on the public's fear of "hacking". Just because the applicants peeked using a computer, it suddenly made it such a grave matter.
First, I think ApplyYourSelf should bear some responsibility for not properly securing their web-app in a way that such an action is possible. For many people (and I'd even venture to say that in public opinion), anything that is accessible by typing a URL into a browser window might as well be published. I don't really think the school has the right to penalize the applicants for accessing information that has been made available to them.
Secondly, this whole business has been blown out of proportion: the students were only able to look at their admission status, and that even hinges on the fact that the schools have already published those information to the website. It is not as if the students were actually "hacking" in the sense of escalating their privilege and modifying their admission status. I just don't think this incident is an acurate enough illustration of their moral fibers to warrant such decisions (though I generally have no sympathy for business school applicants).
Thirdly, I think the whole finding out the admission status thing is more akin to being impatient and calling up the admission office with the knowledge that the drunk receptionist would accidentally let the admission status slip out. So why the applicants were treated so harshly and why the ApplyYourself service was not is really troubling me.
W
On the other hand, I regularly get 28 - 29 mpg on the family 2004 CRV, while my mom gets about 24-25 when she visits. IMHO, it's all about the braking: I try to minimize the amount I hit the brakes when I drive, so that less energy is dissipated into heat. If I see a redlight 100 yards up, I just let go of the gas and let to car slowly drift toward the light.
My highschool physics teacher is a car-nut, and I remember him telling me about cars one time: just getting a smooth ride won't get you better MPG numbers. The MPG is actually also a function of the speed you are moving at. He claims that most cars (i.e. normal consumer SUVs or Sedans) have the efficienty topping out at around 55-70 mph, and that number usually have to do with engine tuning and aerodynamical drag.
Theoretically, if you know the exact MPG profile for you car as a function of speed, you can calculate the most efficient way of accelerating.
That is NOT true. Ever picked up a telescope? Just because you can see that bird 500 yards away nesting on its little twig doesn't mean that it can see you just as well.
Oh, one of my professors does it much differently...
... and the superlocrian scale here ... ...
Prof:
---BRRRRRRIIING---
[Amanda looks up all embarassed]
[Prof walks over to Amanda, picks up the cell phone from next to her handbag.]
Prof: Yo.
Phone:
Prof: What you want?
Phone:
Prof: Yeah! This is Horatio. What you want with my woman?
[the other end hangs up]
It never fails to amuse... (funny how some students just don't learn).
The part that actually requires construction is the part where he projects the text on a slab of glass that is placed between him and the video recorder.
The whole point of the teleprompter, rather than a fancy-schmancy projected PowerPoint display, is that the person reading the teleprompter stares directly into the video camera: from his point of view the text is directly in front of the camera. The slab of glass at 45 degree angle means that the text on the prompter will not be reflected into the camera.
Of course, the reflection means that the texts all apper mirrored, compared to the laptop screen. Personally, I don't understand why he needed to export the document in postscript and mirror flip it. Wouldn't it be alright if he just add another mirror?
So what are they to answer? That they will push for legislation that ensure a woman is not only allowed time off to stay at home, but can afford to do so by being paid? The president cannot do jack about the legislative branch (at least technically according to the separation of power build into the US government). All they can do is to try to push the agenda through. But that is already stated in the question...
which means that the question basically just boils down to a "yes/no" question, to which, of course, both candidates will answer "yes".
W
While this might be a nice question to muse about, I highly doubt much can be done in the term of one president. Furthermore, there really isn't an answer to this question ... what? you propose passing out condoms to every single person in Africa?
Unless the entire world implements China's One-Child policy, the lack of sex ed in third world countries (and some parts of the "civilized world" too), and the general "enjoyment" at hand will most likely dictate the human population to continue to increase.
Most likely this question will just elicit some sort of general response about education and (in cases of candidates not morally against it) birth control.
W
I believe the grandparent used the word illegally. The question is not about limiting immigration, but about controlling illegal immigration.
Perhaps you don't remember, but there were even instances when in California certain individuals recommended granting voting rights to people without citizenship. For new immigrants like me, the question is not about economy or nationalist feelings, but about justice. The point is that the illegal immigrants are ripping off the citizens/PRs when they receive financial aids and such without contributing to the pool in the first place.
(As a side note, why would you use the words "nationalist trash" on the comment made apparently be a second gen. immigrant? and why would a second generation immigrant propose limiting immigration at all?)
W