I thought it was a size issue. Well, a mass issue anyhow. Mars not having enough of it (so not enough gravity) to retain an atmosphere for very long.
One of the reasons I think Venus is a better planet to terraform. It has an atmosphere, we just need something that will break down carbon and sulphur dioxides. The first is easy, and I bet we could engineer something to do the second.
What if girls are more likely to get more out of the toy if it is painted pink, and boys more out of it if there are explosions on the box?
If making cosmetic changes so you have two versions of the same product, one targeted for boys, one for girls, means both will want it and use it more, then that is the way to go. Complete gender neutrality might not be all that appealing, which means the toy will sit on shelves gathering dust instead of getting kids interested in anything.
Why pretend that men and women aren't different and shoot ourselves in the foot by making things less efficient, when working with those differences can improve outcomes?
Yet if you present a child with both sets of "gendered" toys from the start, the majority will prefer those for their own gender. So far as I know it is not well studied. The fact that Larry Summers lost his job running Harvard for suggesting it was worth studying may have had something of a chilling effect. But, he tried it with his own children, from birth, and his son went for trucks and his daughter went for dolls.
That kids will play with anything they can imagine as a toy doesn't mean they don't have preferences that might not be satisfied by the available options.
This isn't about reinforcing gender stereotypes, it's about presentation! Boys and girls like different kinds of toys. If you want a kid to use an educational toy, it had better be a kind of toy they will be willing to play with. Giving a boy a doll (well armed action figures don't count) probably won't work, nor will giving a girl a gun shaped toy.
If you don't give kids toys they will be interested in picking up, any educational value is meaningless.
You absolutely shouldn't. It's total nonsense. It's like saying you should pay a tobacco tax when you purchase a lighter, because it could be used to light a cigarette.
Why worry? Federal law requires that providers allow you to use your own hardware. You'll probably have to tell them, maybe rent a card, but past that they have have to shut up and take it.
The FCC's regulatory authority doesn't extend to space. I'm not saying SpaceX shouldn't tell them, it's the polite thing to do, but asking for permission?
I suppose they know what they're doing, but if the FCC says "no", I think they should consider responding with the finger and a launch.
Sure, given a good key manager, but what about a human? The practical impossibility of breaking modern cryptography goes out the window once you factor in human vulnerabilities. Why brute-force a key if you can trick somebody into giving you a head start?
Hah! Well, I guess I could try harder, but with only six slots available these seem like good choices. I really can't think of anything I could confidently say should be on that list instead of one of what's already there.
I think you have it flipped around. There is a huge supply of money, yes, but it is there to subsidize demand. That means more and more demand for a limited supply of slots at universities. If demand grows faster than supply, prices rise.
You're overlooking the supply/demand aspects of it.
Student loans subsidize demand and interfere with the market's pricing mechanisms. Worse, they encourage demand to grow far faster than supply. So just like with healthcare, repeated attempts to make access more affordable have driven up demand against a relatively immobile supply curve. Since this can only have the effect of raising prices, more "affordability" steps are taken, leaving us with a lovely positive feedback loop.
Well, it can easily be done for under $30k, but if you need to take out student loans the wise approach would be to major in something that will help you pay them back.
Student loans are like taking out a mortgage on your future. You don't want to start off upside-down with said mortgage.
Well, without at least a master's (realistically a PhD considering the competition), you aren't qualified for the one and only actual job in the field - Professor of Philosophy.
Doesn't that imply universities are greedily trying to suck everything they can from students? That's a bit unfair, considering the problem likely has more to do with how we drive up demand for educational resources without increasing supply. The more we subsidize the demand, the more expensive it becomes to satisfy since supply isn't growing at the same rate.
No, I'm saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can decipher a message much faster if you happen to know it ends with an email signature used for unencrypted messages as well. Or you can steal the keys and reduce the problem to guessing a password. For that you can create a custom rainbow table based on biographical data and get a huge head-start.
What? No. I'm saying that the way it was defined for the purposes of export control could be argued as having defined it in a way that protects access to it under the 2nd amendment.
Like this:
Exporting cryptography is prohibited under arms export rules.
Therefore, cryptography is an element of the category "arms"
The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.
Therefore the right to encrypt is protected under the 2nd amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the reasons I think Venus is a better planet to terraform. It has an atmosphere, we just need something that will break down carbon and sulphur dioxides. The first is easy, and I bet we could engineer something to do the second.
If making cosmetic changes so you have two versions of the same product, one targeted for boys, one for girls, means both will want it and use it more, then that is the way to go. Complete gender neutrality might not be all that appealing, which means the toy will sit on shelves gathering dust instead of getting kids interested in anything.
Why pretend that men and women aren't different and shoot ourselves in the foot by making things less efficient, when working with those differences can improve outcomes?
That kids will play with anything they can imagine as a toy doesn't mean they don't have preferences that might not be satisfied by the available options.
If you don't give kids toys they will be interested in picking up, any educational value is meaningless.
You absolutely shouldn't. It's total nonsense. It's like saying you should pay a tobacco tax when you purchase a lighter, because it could be used to light a cigarette.
Offer them a "deal" - one for $500k, both for $750k
Why worry? Federal law requires that providers allow you to use your own hardware. You'll probably have to tell them, maybe rent a card, but past that they have have to shut up and take it.
What about the federal regulations requiring them to allow you to use your own hardware?
This pleases me greatly. I'm sick of having to uninstall that crap from all my workstations.
after all, we generate power from microbial respiration! We just call them mitochondria.
Well, there is a lot of space up there. ~1,292,613,096,000 km^3
I suppose they know what they're doing, but if the FCC says "no", I think they should consider responding with the finger and a launch.
Sure, given a good key manager, but what about a human? The practical impossibility of breaking modern cryptography goes out the window once you factor in human vulnerabilities. Why brute-force a key if you can trick somebody into giving you a head start?
What else is a company to do when somebody costs them billions?
Hah! Well, I guess I could try harder, but with only six slots available these seem like good choices. I really can't think of anything I could confidently say should be on that list instead of one of what's already there.
I think you have it flipped around. There is a huge supply of money, yes, but it is there to subsidize demand. That means more and more demand for a limited supply of slots at universities. If demand grows faster than supply, prices rise.
Student loans subsidize demand and interfere with the market's pricing mechanisms. Worse, they encourage demand to grow far faster than supply. So just like with healthcare, repeated attempts to make access more affordable have driven up demand against a relatively immobile supply curve. Since this can only have the effect of raising prices, more "affordability" steps are taken, leaving us with a lovely positive feedback loop.
Student loans are like taking out a mortgage on your future. You don't want to start off upside-down with said mortgage.
Well, without at least a master's (realistically a PhD considering the competition), you aren't qualified for the one and only actual job in the field - Professor of Philosophy.
Doesn't that imply universities are greedily trying to suck everything they can from students? That's a bit unfair, considering the problem likely has more to do with how we drive up demand for educational resources without increasing supply. The more we subsidize the demand, the more expensive it becomes to satisfy since supply isn't growing at the same rate.
Usually, I immediately disagree with picks for this sort of thing. Not this time.
No, I'm saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can decipher a message much faster if you happen to know it ends with an email signature used for unencrypted messages as well. Or you can steal the keys and reduce the problem to guessing a password. For that you can create a custom rainbow table based on biographical data and get a huge head-start.
Like this:
Exporting cryptography is prohibited under arms export rules.
Therefore, cryptography is an element of the category "arms"
The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment.
Therefore the right to encrypt is protected under the 2nd amendment.
I know, but they don't need to go with a pure brute force approach.
I have a feeling the NSA can break pretty much anything, so long as they don't need their computers for anything else for a few days or weeks.