Yep. Something was not included in the math. Also missing: a plausible means of entangling a boxfull of particles and a plausible means of using the entanglement to harvest energy. But aside from the mathematical sleight of hand and the unphysicality, everything looks legit.
According to classical theology, which is totally unsubstantiated by biblical text. Just because it's been taught for more than a thousand years doesn't make it biblical.
"Substantiated" by the Biblical text? Somebody mod that Funny.
Exactly. We need diplomacy, not bombs. We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman", stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up, and slash military spending. Consider Switzerland, for example.
Switzerland is only made safe by the fact that its neighbors all know it's not worth a fight. It's high and mountainous with passes that are easily closed by a small force, and you can bypass it on any side that's convenient. A stance of passive defense didn't save Belgium or France from Nazi Germany or practically anybody else in WWII.
More to the point the military is not equipped in a cost-efficient manner. If a $50M dollar plane can do the job, Congress finds a way to buy a $200M plane. Consequently they can only afford 1/4 as many planes. The $200M plane can't do the job of four $50M planes so the effectiveness of the force is diminished. Therefore that justifies buying twice as many planes as they can afford. The initial justification for the $200M plane is that it's so incredibly important that the pilots be as safe as possible when we put them in harm's way. But they don't give the common infantryman or even his commanding officer $200M worth of equipment. The fact is a fleet of 10x as many $20M planes could do more than the job of the $200M planes they intend to buy because quantity has a quality all its own.
What *actually* happens, as you would know if you've been following the current case of the M-1 and a hundred like it before, is that the Pentagon decides that they don't want to spend their money on something that they don't think will help them accomplish their mission, and the the defense contractors who will lose funding run screaming to their congresscritter, who the goes screaming to the public that the {commies,terrorists,aliens} will win if the Pentagon is not allowed to spend all those billions of dollars in their district, so Congress puts in the defense budget even though the Pentagon doesn't want it.
'Cause we got to keep that pork flowing.
Correct. In short, the President has little to do with these decisions. It's almost all Congress (including the Senate). It has been this way for decades.
Problem there is that one side controls the "peers."
That's just stupid. Most qualified scientists agree So we can't trust them to review each other's work . If we applied that sort of thinking everywhere there would be no accepted concensus on basic arithmetic.
This author is not talking about lawsuits or "there oughta be a law". She's just putting the information out there and letting people see for themselves why so many people are saying it's just not cool to own Apple products any more.
Unless this is just a cynical attempt to get some attention by mentioning Apple's name.
But they don't dare raise the issue in an interview. Managers and HR people are trained to steer conversation away from such subjects even if the interviewee brings it up.
Living in Venice doesn't look so sucky; New Orleans doesn't look to sucky, especially around Mardi Gras, and of course there's always the Netherlands, they might be offended if you said lining in their country sucks.
I think they'd all admit that it's a little uncomfortable worrying about what happens if a levee fails. The New Orleans folks have some painful experiences to relate in that regard.
It goes deeper than you might think. Software and computing innovation has mostly come from the commercial, closed source world. Unix came out of Bell Labs (though not wholly so). Major new capabilities came largely in response to commercial needs and a desire to make or increase profits. The idea of a GUI with a mouse came from Xerox and was popularized (and commercialized) by Apple. Major types of applications mostly came from the commerical world. Word processors came from for-profit outfits like Wang, Data General and Corel. Spreadsheets started with Lotus and greatly extended by Microsoft. Relational databases were invented at IBM. And the same goes for many of the lower-level concepts as well. I could go on and on.
The open source world co-opted all those ideas. It has produced mostly (inexact) copies of original work done in closed-source environments. It's almost always playing catch-up. Linux is a derivative work based on Unix. OpenOffice is a knockoff of Microsoft Office, etc. Linux GUIs are made to work similar to MacOS and Windows which are based on the pioneering Xerox GUI. Open-source databases use concepts originally developed by IBM.
This is not to say that having free and open versions of all these things is not valuable. It is. It's just not very innovative. The irony is that there are barriers to innovation in the closed-source world that don't exist in open-source. Nevertheless, closed source efforts continue to charge ahead and OSS never seems to catch up and rarely to bring anything new to the world.
I don't know why it happens this way. I suppose that maybe it's the profit motive in action. But it sees like if nothing major changes about the way software creators work, you will always be lagging behind if you insist on FOSS purity. Users want to install whatever works best on their machines. If there's a free software that does the job admirably, they'll use it. But often there will be some applications that either don't exist yet or don't stand up to serious comparison with the commerical closed-source programs. So most computers running Linux are going to have commercial closed-source software on them.
Because she can write a technical specification, understand the real world applications, communicate with the customers, her boss and the users. Because when I hire a software engineer, she has to know how to think about more than just code.
If you can't understand the simple abstractions of algebra and use them intuitively to understand basic problems, you're not educated enough to manage a business. Those who CAN do the math will have you for breakfast. It's particularly galling to hear this horseshit from someone who may be "educating" America's next generation of leaders.
In most places political discrimination is OK. Not in California though. If you live there it's asking for a lawsuit to ask about politics or sexual orientation or gender identity.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Something was not included in the math. Also missing: a plausible means of entangling a boxfull of particles and a plausible means of using the entanglement to harvest energy. But aside from the mathematical sleight of hand and the unphysicality, everything looks legit.
I can create something out of nothing ?
Well God did *that* some 6,000 years ago.
According to classical theology, which is totally unsubstantiated by biblical text. Just because it's been taught for more than a thousand years doesn't make it biblical.
"Substantiated" by the Biblical text? Somebody mod that Funny.
The billionaire has already been in touch with the scientists who helped clone Dolly the sheep to see what it would take to clone a dinosaur from DNA
The correct response is obvious: "How much money do you have?
But as long as they're dependent on US protection, they do what the USA wants. That's how empires work.
Exactly. We need diplomacy, not bombs. We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman", stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up, and slash military spending. Consider Switzerland, for example.
Switzerland is only made safe by the fact that its neighbors all know it's not worth a fight. It's high and mountainous with passes that are easily closed by a small force, and you can bypass it on any side that's convenient. A stance of passive defense didn't save Belgium or France from Nazi Germany or practically anybody else in WWII.
More to the point the military is not equipped in a cost-efficient manner. If a $50M dollar plane can do the job, Congress finds a way to buy a $200M plane. Consequently they can only afford 1/4 as many planes. The $200M plane can't do the job of four $50M planes so the effectiveness of the force is diminished. Therefore that justifies buying twice as many planes as they can afford. The initial justification for the $200M plane is that it's so incredibly important that the pilots be as safe as possible when we put them in harm's way. But they don't give the common infantryman or even his commanding officer $200M worth of equipment. The fact is a fleet of 10x as many $20M planes could do more than the job of the $200M planes they intend to buy because quantity has a quality all its own.
Will Hussein listen to his OWN generals? Hell no.
What *actually* happens, as you would know if you've been following the current case of the M-1 and a hundred like it before, is that the Pentagon decides that they don't want to spend their money on something that they don't think will help them accomplish their mission, and the the defense contractors who will lose funding run screaming to their congresscritter, who the goes screaming to the public that the {commies,terrorists,aliens} will win if the Pentagon is not allowed to spend all those billions of dollars in their district, so Congress puts in the defense budget even though the Pentagon doesn't want it.
'Cause we got to keep that pork flowing.
Correct. In short, the President has little to do with these decisions. It's almost all Congress (including the Senate). It has been this way for decades.
Make the CEO and Chairman of the Board personally punishable for crimes committed by the company. That would stop most corporate crime.
Either way Facebook is overcharging them for the clicks by 80%.
Problem there is that one side controls the "peers."
That's just stupid. Most qualified scientists agree So we can't trust them to review each other's work . If we applied that sort of thinking everywhere there would be no accepted concensus on basic arithmetic.
I'm sure all the judge will care about is the color of their money.
Yes. I'm still wondering why Murdoch and his FOX ties to hacking haven't resulted in an arrest. Why are CEO's immune while 'regular' people are not?
They can usually erect a barrier of obfuscation between themselves and the lawbreaking. It's called plausible deniabilty.
You don't have a teenage kid.
This author is not talking about lawsuits or "there oughta be a law". She's just putting the information out there and letting people see for themselves why so many people are saying it's just not cool to own Apple products any more.
Unless this is just a cynical attempt to get some attention by mentioning Apple's name.
The investment banks were under a lot more water. Should have left them there.
But they don't dare raise the issue in an interview. Managers and HR people are trained to steer conversation away from such subjects even if the interviewee brings it up.
Living in Venice doesn't look so sucky; New Orleans doesn't look to sucky, especially around Mardi Gras, and of course there's always the Netherlands, they might be offended if you said lining in their country sucks.
I think they'd all admit that it's a little uncomfortable worrying about what happens if a levee fails. The New Orleans folks have some painful experiences to relate in that regard.
Some of us are working on that.
It goes deeper than you might think. Software and computing innovation has mostly come from the commercial, closed source world. Unix came out of Bell Labs (though not wholly so). Major new capabilities came largely in response to commercial needs and a desire to make or increase profits. The idea of a GUI with a mouse came from Xerox and was popularized (and commercialized) by Apple. Major types of applications mostly came from the commerical world. Word processors came from for-profit outfits like Wang, Data General and Corel. Spreadsheets started with Lotus and greatly extended by Microsoft. Relational databases were invented at IBM. And the same goes for many of the lower-level concepts as well. I could go on and on.
The open source world co-opted all those ideas. It has produced mostly (inexact) copies of original work done in closed-source environments. It's almost always playing catch-up. Linux is a derivative work based on Unix. OpenOffice is a knockoff of Microsoft Office, etc. Linux GUIs are made to work similar to MacOS and Windows which are based on the pioneering Xerox GUI. Open-source databases use concepts originally developed by IBM.
This is not to say that having free and open versions of all these things is not valuable. It is. It's just not very innovative. The irony is that there are barriers to innovation in the closed-source world that don't exist in open-source. Nevertheless, closed source efforts continue to charge ahead and OSS never seems to catch up and rarely to bring anything new to the world.
I don't know why it happens this way. I suppose that maybe it's the profit motive in action. But it sees like if nothing major changes about the way software creators work, you will always be lagging behind if you insist on FOSS purity. Users want to install whatever works best on their machines. If there's a free software that does the job admirably, they'll use it. But often there will be some applications that either don't exist yet or don't stand up to serious comparison with the commerical closed-source programs. So most computers running Linux are going to have commercial closed-source software on them.
Because she can write a technical specification, understand the real world applications, communicate with the customers, her boss and the users. Because when I hire a software engineer, she has to know how to think about more than just code.
He said "at best." I concur with Heinlein that they would have to bathe to be considered the best sort of subhumans.
If you can't understand the simple abstractions of algebra and use them intuitively to understand basic problems, you're not educated enough to manage a business. Those who CAN do the math will have you for breakfast. It's particularly galling to hear this horseshit from someone who may be "educating" America's next generation of leaders.
In most places political discrimination is OK. Not in California though. If you live there it's asking for a lawsuit to ask about politics or sexual orientation or gender identity.
The next big hurricane might finish it.
Three more feet and the manatees backs should be safe...