People will eat it if it is cheaper and reasonable tasting.
My issue is that I'm old-school and think that generally meat tastes better on the fatty side and cooked on the bone, but I'm probably in the minority. For those that prefer sterile low-fat off-the-bone preparations, it'll probably get good enough, soon enough.
I suspect that early on it won't be that much different than the relationship of Crab and Surimi/Krab. Maybe it will get better over time.
In China, the spread of Buddhism basically lead to all sorts of mock-meat products (mostly made of tofu, tempeh, fried-gluten) which people eat regularly even if not vegetarian, so as long as it's tasty, I suspect this lab-grown meat will have enough of a following until it gets entrenched and you can't even order the real thing for some dishes anymore except in a high-end restaurant.
Think about it this way, most people that eat a fair amount of meat on a regular basis will generally unquestioningly eat a sausage or hot-dog when given an opportunity. I think that says it all.
But if the purveyors of this lab-meat try to tackle it from the premium eco-angle, I suspect it will get crushed like synthetic diamonds (which even though are superior in every possible metric to conflict or deBeers diamonds, are perceived to be less desirable and thus unmarketable).
It isn't even a matter of manned vs. unmanned exploration. The Space Shuttle was the Universe's most cost-overridden project ( until the F35 came along). The original promise was that the materials scientists would produce a monohull insulating layer. The moment they gave up and announced it would take 70-zillion separate, custom "bricks" , the program should have been shut down. Heck, it would have been cheaper to shoot astronauts 3 at a time on Sat-Vs, shoot up some payloads & return vehicles (modded Apollo3s) etc. than what it cost to build and maintain the shuttle fleet.
But think of the *jobs*, I mean think of the the *children* supported by those *jobs* (don't you remember the booming job market in the 70's)...
Don't kid yourself, they didn't burn the money, the money was spent to create jobs, not a space shuttle. Unfortunately, the government isn't very efficient when spending money to create jobs (lots of it gets lost in pockets along the way), but that's something you can't fix with money. Well, maybe campaign money is arguably what makes it inefficient, so maybe you can fix the government with *less* money.
I think retrospectively, Shuttle program and the Airbus A380 and A400 programs are probably the most comparable here... The F35 is an order of magnitude above these...
Absolutely right. In Carter's position I would have made the same call, because I'm sure somebody at NASA would have convinced me that reusable must be inherently cheaper eventually, and that we need to go through these growing pains to debug the technology. But in hindsight it was the wrong call, and it set space exploration into a malaise from which is has not yet emerged.
Well, SpaceX and BlueOrigin are crowing about "resuable" being the future of space flight, you might argue that in abstract, idea of the Space Shuttle program wasn't wrong, it was just the wrong architecture**, executed all over a huge geography to get funding instead of efficiently (kinda like Airbus Planes), and managed like a huge bureaucracy (like any other govt program).
I would argue that even theoretically, you could have only fixed 1 out of the 3 issue, and the biggest problem is that it inevitably (because of the funding) became too big to fail which means once it gets to the wrong direction, it's too late making it nearly impossible to fix a wrong architecture.
However, the "malaise" of space exploration isn't really a function of the shuttle. Perhaps it set manned exploration back a decade or so, but space isn't going anywhere. The "malaise" is really because there's no immediacy to the problem (e.g. beat the Russians). Remember, the "space" budget is really a jobs-and-kickbacks budget that happens to to spent of space *stuff*. It's 100% discretionary spending (like a household budget for Netflix or a vacation in Greece).
Sometimes, you want to spend your discretionary money on Netflix, sometimes you want to take a trip to Greece with your money because your friends say it's the best vacation. Maybe your family debates that and makes a decision. However, sometimes you make the executive decision to spend that money to climb Kilimanjaro not because it is easy, but because none of your friends have gone there before and you want to be the first to take a selfie from space (oops, I mean Kilimanjaro, Virgin Galactic isn't operational yet) . To help sell that Kilimanjaro idea, you agree to make a stop-over in Miami for a couple days where your wife's family was from and you agree to buy the kids a new ipad for the trip. Congratulations, you get the trip, but long after the trip, when the selfies have scrolled off the bottom of your Facebook timeline, lament you've been missing out on House of Cards and regret sets in as you open your credit card bill.
If you made the other decision, you would probably still regret it watching House of Cards, trying to forget your friends Instagram pictures from Greece and save up for a trip next year, but really, just get over it, like all discretionary spending, it's never totally satisfying to rehash regrets unless they materially affect your life.
If things are more *immediate* (e.g, you thought your kid had 6months to live), maybe you'd choose to max out your credit cards to take that Greece vacation now (and do the Netflix too). Taking trips around the globe might be a more exhilarating way to live, but probably less sustainable.. China and India are probably spending far less than the US did for their space exploration programs because they effectively waited for the technology curve was more favorable. Space ain't going anywhere anytime soon and maybe we need a bit more "malaise" from our discretionary government spending programs.
**the Shuttle architecture (like others) is only nominally "resuable": SRB is toasted, a recovered external fuel tank needs rework, as does the shuttle engines. Similarly, Falcon has second stage which is toasted, a recovered first stage which needs rework and the Dragon is theoretically about as reusable as the shuttle. Not too different abstractly, but arguably a better architecture.
For the flight management system to land the aircraft, both the airplane and the particular runway have to support it.
And when this stuff is down for maintenance (e.g., NOTAM: !SFO 06/005 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359)** , the pilot needs to really be able to fly the plane, or bad things happen (Flight OZ214)...
It might be interesting to note that for the flight in question, even though the landing was not fully automated, the pilots still actually left the plane in an partial "auto-pilot" mode, but apparently one that did not actually engage the auto-throttle. By the time the pilot/co-pilot noticed their airspeed was too low, it was too late to execute a go-around...
**(NOtice To Airmen: SanFranciscO airport, NAVigation Instrument Landing System for RunWaY 28-Left Glide Path OuT of Service With Effect From UTC 2013, June 1, 2:00 to 2013 Aug 22, 11:59pm)
Anyone that reacts to a VP pick is a dumb fuck. VP is literally the most meaningless position in our government.
Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).
Let's see, LBJ was simply selected by JFK to secure the southern vote and spent most of his time as VP feuding with Bobby. Of course LBJ didn't even have a VP to cast a tiebreaker after Kennedy was shot (wasn't till his full term that he brought on Hubert Humphrey as VP immortalized in this Lehrer song). Nixon picked Spiro Agnew (good choice there). Ronald Reagan picked Alexander Haig? (just joking). And of course we all know GHWB picked Dan Quayle(e)?
On the other hand, the Dems have had better luck recently with with Mondale, Algore, and Joe "3-am" Biden...
I suspect the thing stopping companies (like Google) from opening offices in a particular place (like Fresno) in [...]
A lot of people who work in Silicon Valley live in Fresno and commute four hours each way every day. I knew a coworker at eBay who carpooled with four other people, each person driving one day out of the week. If Google opened a satellite campus in Fresno, they will probably have 50+ employees to staff it.
Given the stereotypical sillyvalley culture (e.g, young, unmarried, saying late at work, etc, etc), I suspect these people do not fit the profile of a company leader that can keep the torch for the company culture for a remote office.
Having been through these remote office actualities with companies of different size, the empirical evidence is that finding acceptable site leaders is often the biggest obstacles. A warm body (even if a outstanding technical contributor) is insufficient qualifications for being a site leader. You generally need to find someone fully invested in the koolaid, yet still respected many people in the company... Even if you do find one of these people, sometimes they don't have all the skills that are needed and you find that need more than one person to make it work.
Then you need to keep your fingers crossed that those site leaders you pick don't morph on you (e.g, turn out to be an empire builder, unmanageable remote operator, or zombie worker, other such corporate parasite) when nobody is around watching them....
from opening up shop in Fresno where the jobs are much needed.
I suspect the thing stopping companies (like Google) from opening offices in a particular place (like Fresno) is that whoever proposes that idea in the company probably wants to find some qualified person currently in the company to move there to supervise the buildup of the company at that location to preserve the company culture.
If you want some BigAssTechCompany to open an office in Fresno, probably the best way to do that is to join said BigAssTechCompany at the headquarters (perhaps in the bay area), work your way up the ladder and become a known leader in the company. Then you can make your case that it would make sense to open an office in Fresno and if the higher-ups agree, then move to Fresno and become a site leader.
If it actually made sense (not saying Fresno makes sense), but nobody has done it yet, it is probably because the transplant-able person that could make it happen doesn't yet work for BigAssTechCompany, or maybe such a person doesn't actually want to move back to Fresno after working in at headquarters for a while (perhaps enjoys living bay area or has kids in school, etc, etc, or maybe has just grown to hate enduring the summer heat in Fresno)...
The trick is that they're (probably) not actually violating the law in most of these cases. I'm under the impression that it's not the employer that normally hires the H1B replacement. Instead, they decide to "outsource" IT from their own employees to Wipro or Infosys or similar Indian company whose US subsidiaries are the ones bringing in all the H1B-visa employees.
Obviously a violation of the spirit of the law, but unless someone has some relatively damning evidence leaked from inside one of the outsourcing firms, there's nothing to stick a letter-of-the-law violation to.
IANAL, but just thinking maybe the reverse "trick" is to take the recent NLRB decision that concluded that by it's actions, McD's a *joint* employer of their franchisees' employees and apply it in this situation. If a company is now effectively a *joint* employer of the H1B replacement, the company is effectively hiring a cheaper H1B replacement for the worker they fired which might come under scrutiny.
Now you could still outsource a function, but not a job. But now, there effectively would be no training of replacements, because the contracting company you hired would need to replace the operations completely (not just a job). Of course many functions might be amenable to this (e.g, payroll, hr, etc are commonly completely outsourced as a function), but at least this avoids the issue of needing to train a replacement for a outsourced job.
Although you can't fight immigration policy at the state level, Ms Clinton is a conspirator in its impact.
For example, as a prominent NY politician, she lobbied hard for a new Tata office in upstate NY that would purportedly grow to 200 jobs.
"Well, of course I know that they outsource jobs, that they've actually brought jobs to Buffalo. They've created 10 jobs in Buffalo and have told me and the Buffalo community that they intend to be a source of new jobs in the area, because, you know, outsourcing does work both ways." - I'mWithHer
Of course, under a microscope, Tata was not able to run business as usual, so they folded up tent and moved elsewhere...
OK, in the pre-industrial-era you might have known about someone who was 50+ but probably not. Almost everyone died sooner.
Apparently, this is a common myth about the pre-industrial era. People didn't just die in their 40's back then. If you look at the life-expectancy at birth, they are heavily dragged down by infant deaths and childhood disease which have greatly reduced since the pre-industrial-era. Even in medieval times, if you lived past 21, you could reasonably expect to live into your sixties (but of course 40% of people died before their 21st birthday).
As can my teeth which have no cavities in my entire adult life despite a diet high in meat (all kinds) and sugar (cereal every morning plus, in some form, candy at night). Dentist is amazed how strong my teeth are and the no cavity thing.
That's probably because caries (aka cavities) are not caused by sugar or meat, but by acid. How much acid your teeth will experience (relative to the foods you consume) is mostly related to the composition (and volume) of your saliva, how close your teeth are spaced and your brushing and flossing habits and your night-time saliva situation (nose/mouth breather/snoring).
The "strength" and composition of your teeth? Not so much (although there is apparently a small effect that allows some enamel to bind better with fluoride than average).
I don't know that simply making ideas understandable is a good standard on which to judge theoretical science theories.
In fact one might argue that one of Einstein's most "intriguing" yet understandable thought experiment was the so-called E-P-R paradox (that foreshadowed the demonstration of the effect of quantum entanglement). In this quite reasonable and understandable paper he and his cohorts attempted to argue that a wave function could not encode the full description of reality because of the consequences, there was something else required. By using math, they basically forced the hand of those that favored the Copenhagen interpretation of QM to accept what was then considered absurd.
This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does, not disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this.
Of course as we know, it didn't end up going the way they thought it should go (regardless of how strong of personality they had or how understandable their argument was).
There's a saying that gets kicked around theoretical physicists: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." -Niels Bohr
Take for instance the simple problem of computing the area of a walkway around a pool with a certain perimeter. One of the formulations is a quadratic equation with one positive and one negative solution for the are. Clearly "negative area" has no physical interpretation (you can't build it), so you ignore that result.
Or you don't ignore the result because you note that one possible physical interpretation of area is a "vector" cross product. One way this vector cross product area can be used is a 3d graphics pipeline can distinguish between front facing and back facing polygons and cull back facing polygons to save processing work by looking at the sign of the projected orientation of that vector (assuming you are careful about the topological representation of the polygon vertices).
Or you can ignore it an have your graphics card do twice as much work...
It's not so easy to simply discard results that may appear to be non-physical. They may have an unlikely association or have some predictive abilities that are applicable to the real world. In the field of electrical engineering, we often work with "imaginary" numbers because they are not only convenient way to handle the "phase" of an electrical oscillation, but they also help in computing associated magnetic oscillations and can be even be used to as a very useful tool to bridge the transitions between oscillatory and exponential dampening in electrical field behavior across material boundaries.
You may argue the computations aren't "real", but sometimes these mathematical contrivances might eventually be associated with the prediction of other real physical effects because of the underlying physics. Wouldn't you say that tends to blur the line a bit...
The recommendation lists these items for fair use...
1. research or study; 2. criticism or review; 3. parody or satire; 4. reporting news; 5. professional advice; 6. quotation; 7. non-commercial private use; 8. incidental or technical use; 9. library or archive use; 10.education; and 11.access for people with disability.
I think the fair use exemptions for "professional advice", "library or archive use", and "education" are kind of the sticking points (where the big corps are against "non-commercial private use" which basically is file sharing).
For example, if a big company (say google) were to make a library or archive (let's call it books.google.au for arguments sake) where they allow free access to copyrighted material (with side banner ads which they get money for) do they get a fair use exemption? Also a blanket educational exemption is a bit of a problem for say instructional material (or may even the Wiggles). IMO, they really need to clean it the recommendation a bit.
On the other hand, you can make a case that Australia is being simply opportunist on this and are really just after a free ride. The rationale they give is...
Overall, given that most new works consumed in Australia are sourced from overseas and their creation is unlikely to be responsive to changes in Australia’s exceptions, adoption of a fair use provision in Australia is likely to deliver net benefits to the Australian community.
Basically, they are saying expanding fair use won't hurt Australia because authors won't stop producing stuff in English just because Australians are pirating it.
Competent marketers first have to believe their own bullshit, if only for a second.
Disagree. Actually, competent marketers (like sales people) understand what their audience believes, yet they have to be grounded in reality**. My experience (having worked with marketing folks in several startups and large companies) is that the moment they get sucked into their own reality distortion field (aka drink their own koolaid), they are generally lost in a cesspool of over-promise and under-deliver and damage control unless they get religion and crawl their way out.
The best marketers are actual appear to be a bit schizophrenic in that they can be both the audience and the marketer at the same time. You gotta stay away from them for your own sanity;^)
** they know (or ask someone who should know) if things are theoretically possible before they commit and they always hedge a bit when they promise. They know that you can only sell the sizzle, if you can deliver the steak.
Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...
Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...
Because there was no one else running on the Democrat side. Nosiree...
Because the Dem leadership cleared the deck for her because she is a campaign money generating machine with potential coattails. Bernie is only still around because he is an independent (who happens to be carpetbagging as a democrat to get committee assignments and to run for president)...
So then what does that make us? Nothing but merely exobytes of data in a sack of liquid, filled with billions of much smaller exobytes of data in sacks of fluid? If we really find a way to manipulate DNA, we've unlocked life itself. Haven't we?
FWIW, we *already* have a ways to manipulate DNA (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9). However, we don't fully understand the code yet...
You have a car that accepts a valet key (short key) and a owner key (long key). Both keys open the door and start the engine, but only the owner key opens the glove box. The flaw in this system is that allows for the possibility for some hacker to "forge" a long key that opens the glove box with a different "key" (that is known to the hacker) which has the short key attributes you check all the time (e.g., opens the door and starts the engine), but doesn't actually open the glove box (which you don't do very often), yet still superficially appears to be a long key that *might* open a glove box (even though the "key" won't actually open your glove box if you tried it).
It isn't the end of the world, since a valet can't do this swap (because you only give them the short valet key, but you generally don't give the long owner key to anyone), but if somehow someone gets access to your keystore and swaps your owner key for this long "key" forgery, there might be a problem (maybe you occasionally get drunk and install malicious apps)...
Since you haven't recently attempted to use your "key" to open the glove box recently, when you decide to have a locking gun rack installed which you want to work on the same long owner "key" you have. You get the person that makes the lock for the gun rack to key to lock with the "key" from your keystore. Now, you aren't aware of it yet, but the hacker will now have the ability to steal the gun because they have a copy of the "key" that opens your gun rack even if though don't have a copy of the original long key that can open your glove box. You eventually figure it all out when a cop stops on suspicion that your gun has been used in a crime and you look back and see your gun rack locked, empty, but undamaged, and your "key" works on the gun rack, but won't open your glove compartment to get your car registration papers. Circumstantially speaking, it then sucks to be you;^)
Of course the real hash-then-encrypt isn't really the same as the short-key/long-key car analogy given above, but it's the best car analogy I could come up with...
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
Surprisingly, Mr Comey, actually admitted this in his statement...
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Why can't people like Mr Comey run for public office?
Does the implied warranty of merchantability even apply to services? My understanding was that it applied to goods. (A blood test would be a service; a blood test kit would be a good).
Fitness might be arguable, though again, it seems only apply to goods. Maybe workmanlike quality--I am assuming that applies under US common law, but I am not sure how one would apply it to a medical service.
IANAL, but my understanding is that the law imposes upon a party who contracts to render a service for another an implied warranty to perform the service with that degree of skill, efficiency and knowledge that is possessed by those of ordinary skill, competency and standing in the particular trade or profession in which the performer is employed. However, there is always a question of liability (as opposed to simply refunding the monies originally paid to perform the service). In this case, it may take gross negligence, or intentional misconduct to trigger actual liability.
You might argue that Theranos intentionally performed misconduct because they knew their machines did not exhibit ordinary competency, or that knowingly operating the diagnostic machines they purchased with untrained operators was an act of gross negligence (where ordinary negligence might be letting operator certifications expire or not checking them in the first place). But perhaps those might be hard to prove in a court of law, so they may get a negotiated settlement to avoid strict liablity...
Saw a similar concept on Gizmag a few years back except that the pod was loaded onto the fuselage where the current passenger compartment is
Apparently, this showed up as an Airbus patent last year (presumably to "fix" the issue of embark/disembark time of a big plane like an A380). Also saw a similar idea presented in the First International Paper Airplane Contest (sponsored by Scientific American back in 1967).
Pods are probably a better idea if combined with the idea of a containerized multi-modal cargo. Imagine if you can board a pod on a rail transport at a city center. The pod moves by rail to an airport where the passengers do not have to exit the pod and the pod is loaded on a plane (maybe with other pods). After landing at the destination airport, the pod is unload to rail, and moved by rail to the final destination (presumably another city center). Of course, your luggage travels underneath to your final destination.
Then airport can then be pretty far from the city center (e.g., I'm thinking about Denver International Airport from my ex home town), but you can have the convenience of using transport hubs near the city center.
Slashdot Mirror
People will eat it if it is cheaper and reasonable tasting.
My issue is that I'm old-school and think that generally meat tastes better on the fatty side and cooked on the bone, but I'm probably in the minority. For those that prefer sterile low-fat off-the-bone preparations, it'll probably get good enough, soon enough.
I suspect that early on it won't be that much different than the relationship of Crab and Surimi/Krab. Maybe it will get better over time.
In China, the spread of Buddhism basically lead to all sorts of mock-meat products (mostly made of tofu, tempeh, fried-gluten) which people eat regularly even if not vegetarian, so as long as it's tasty, I suspect this lab-grown meat will have enough of a following until it gets entrenched and you can't even order the real thing for some dishes anymore except in a high-end restaurant.
Think about it this way, most people that eat a fair amount of meat on a regular basis will generally unquestioningly eat a sausage or hot-dog when given an opportunity. I think that says it all.
But if the purveyors of this lab-meat try to tackle it from the premium eco-angle, I suspect it will get crushed like synthetic diamonds (which even though are superior in every possible metric to conflict or deBeers diamonds, are perceived to be less desirable and thus unmarketable).
Disclaimer: I voted for him both times.
It isn't even a matter of manned vs. unmanned exploration. The Space Shuttle was the Universe's most cost-overridden project ( until the F35 came along). The original promise was that the materials scientists would produce a monohull insulating layer. The moment they gave up and announced it would take 70-zillion separate, custom "bricks" , the program should have been shut down. Heck, it would have been cheaper to shoot astronauts 3 at a time on Sat-Vs, shoot up some payloads & return vehicles (modded Apollo3s) etc. than what it cost to build and maintain the shuttle fleet.
But think of the *jobs*, I mean think of the the *children* supported by those *jobs* (don't you remember the booming job market in the 70's)...
Don't kid yourself, they didn't burn the money, the money was spent to create jobs, not a space shuttle. Unfortunately, the government isn't very efficient when spending money to create jobs (lots of it gets lost in pockets along the way), but that's something you can't fix with money. Well, maybe campaign money is arguably what makes it inefficient, so maybe you can fix the government with *less* money.
I think retrospectively, Shuttle program and the Airbus A380 and A400 programs are probably the most comparable here... The F35 is an order of magnitude above these...
Absolutely right. In Carter's position I would have made the same call, because I'm sure somebody at NASA would have convinced me that reusable must be inherently cheaper eventually, and that we need to go through these growing pains to debug the technology. But in hindsight it was the wrong call, and it set space exploration into a malaise from which is has not yet emerged.
Well, SpaceX and BlueOrigin are crowing about "resuable" being the future of space flight, you might argue that in abstract, idea of the Space Shuttle program wasn't wrong, it was just the wrong architecture**, executed all over a huge geography to get funding instead of efficiently (kinda like Airbus Planes), and managed like a huge bureaucracy (like any other govt program).
I would argue that even theoretically, you could have only fixed 1 out of the 3 issue, and the biggest problem is that it inevitably (because of the funding) became too big to fail which means once it gets to the wrong direction, it's too late making it nearly impossible to fix a wrong architecture.
However, the "malaise" of space exploration isn't really a function of the shuttle. Perhaps it set manned exploration back a decade or so, but space isn't going anywhere. The "malaise" is really because there's no immediacy to the problem (e.g. beat the Russians). Remember, the "space" budget is really a jobs-and-kickbacks budget that happens to to spent of space *stuff*. It's 100% discretionary spending (like a household budget for Netflix or a vacation in Greece).
Sometimes, you want to spend your discretionary money on Netflix, sometimes you want to take a trip to Greece with your money because your friends say it's the best vacation. Maybe your family debates that and makes a decision. However, sometimes you make the executive decision to spend that money to climb Kilimanjaro not because it is easy, but because none of your friends have gone there before and you want to be the first to take a selfie from space (oops, I mean Kilimanjaro, Virgin Galactic isn't operational yet) . To help sell that Kilimanjaro idea, you agree to make a stop-over in Miami for a couple days where your wife's family was from and you agree to buy the kids a new ipad for the trip. Congratulations, you get the trip, but long after the trip, when the selfies have scrolled off the bottom of your Facebook timeline, lament you've been missing out on House of Cards and regret sets in as you open your credit card bill.
If you made the other decision, you would probably still regret it watching House of Cards, trying to forget your friends Instagram pictures from Greece and save up for a trip next year, but really, just get over it, like all discretionary spending, it's never totally satisfying to rehash regrets unless they materially affect your life.
If things are more *immediate* (e.g, you thought your kid had 6months to live), maybe you'd choose to max out your credit cards to take that Greece vacation now (and do the Netflix too). Taking trips around the globe might be a more exhilarating way to live, but probably less sustainable.. China and India are probably spending far less than the US did for their space exploration programs because they effectively waited for the technology curve was more favorable. Space ain't going anywhere anytime soon and maybe we need a bit more "malaise" from our discretionary government spending programs.
**the Shuttle architecture (like others) is only nominally "resuable": SRB is toasted, a recovered external fuel tank needs rework, as does the shuttle engines. Similarly, Falcon has second stage which is toasted, a recovered first stage which needs rework and the Dragon is theoretically about as reusable as the shuttle. Not too different abstractly, but arguably a better architecture.
For the flight management system to land the aircraft, both the airplane and the particular runway have to support it.
And when this stuff is down for maintenance (e.g., NOTAM: !SFO 06/005 SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359)** , the pilot needs to really be able to fly the plane, or bad things happen (Flight OZ214)...
It might be interesting to note that for the flight in question, even though the landing was not fully automated, the pilots still actually left the plane in an partial "auto-pilot" mode, but apparently one that did not actually engage the auto-throttle. By the time the pilot/co-pilot noticed their airspeed was too low, it was too late to execute a go-around...
**(NOtice To Airmen: SanFranciscO airport, NAVigation Instrument Landing System for RunWaY 28-Left Glide Path OuT of Service With Effect From UTC 2013, June 1, 2:00 to 2013 Aug 22, 11:59pm)
Anyone that reacts to a VP pick is a dumb fuck. VP is literally the most meaningless position in our government.
Unless you're president Kennedy. Or president Nixon. Or unless the VP needs to cast a deciding vote on some very serious matter before the Senate (you do know that's part of the job, right?).
Let's see, LBJ was simply selected by JFK to secure the southern vote and spent most of his time as VP feuding with Bobby. Of course LBJ didn't even have a VP to cast a tiebreaker after Kennedy was shot (wasn't till his full term that he brought on Hubert Humphrey as VP immortalized in this Lehrer song). Nixon picked Spiro Agnew (good choice there). Ronald Reagan picked Alexander Haig? (just joking). And of course we all know GHWB picked Dan Quayle(e)?
On the other hand, the Dems have had better luck recently with with Mondale, Algore, and Joe "3-am" Biden...
I suspect the thing stopping companies (like Google) from opening offices in a particular place (like Fresno) in [...]
A lot of people who work in Silicon Valley live in Fresno and commute four hours each way every day. I knew a coworker at eBay who carpooled with four other people, each person driving one day out of the week. If Google opened a satellite campus in Fresno, they will probably have 50+ employees to staff it.
Given the stereotypical sillyvalley culture (e.g, young, unmarried, saying late at work, etc, etc), I suspect these people do not fit the profile of a company leader that can keep the torch for the company culture for a remote office.
Having been through these remote office actualities with companies of different size, the empirical evidence is that finding acceptable site leaders is often the biggest obstacles. A warm body (even if a outstanding technical contributor) is insufficient qualifications for being a site leader. You generally need to find someone fully invested in the koolaid, yet still respected many people in the company... Even if you do find one of these people, sometimes they don't have all the skills that are needed and you find that need more than one person to make it work.
Then you need to keep your fingers crossed that those site leaders you pick don't morph on you (e.g, turn out to be an empire builder, unmanageable remote operator, or zombie worker, other such corporate parasite) when nobody is around watching them....
from opening up shop in Fresno where the jobs are much needed.
I suspect the thing stopping companies (like Google) from opening offices in a particular place (like Fresno) is that whoever proposes that idea in the company probably wants to find some qualified person currently in the company to move there to supervise the buildup of the company at that location to preserve the company culture.
If you want some BigAssTechCompany to open an office in Fresno, probably the best way to do that is to join said BigAssTechCompany at the headquarters (perhaps in the bay area), work your way up the ladder and become a known leader in the company. Then you can make your case that it would make sense to open an office in Fresno and if the higher-ups agree, then move to Fresno and become a site leader.
If it actually made sense (not saying Fresno makes sense), but nobody has done it yet, it is probably because the transplant-able person that could make it happen doesn't yet work for BigAssTechCompany, or maybe such a person doesn't actually want to move back to Fresno after working in at headquarters for a while (perhaps enjoys living bay area or has kids in school, etc, etc, or maybe has just grown to hate enduring the summer heat in Fresno)...
The trick is that they're (probably) not actually violating the law in most of these cases. I'm under the impression that it's not the employer that normally hires the H1B replacement. Instead, they decide to "outsource" IT from their own employees to Wipro or Infosys or similar Indian company whose US subsidiaries are the ones bringing in all the H1B-visa employees.
Obviously a violation of the spirit of the law, but unless someone has some relatively damning evidence leaked from inside one of the outsourcing firms, there's nothing to stick a letter-of-the-law violation to.
IANAL, but just thinking maybe the reverse "trick" is to take the recent NLRB decision that concluded that by it's actions, McD's a *joint* employer of their franchisees' employees and apply it in this situation. If a company is now effectively a *joint* employer of the H1B replacement, the company is effectively hiring a cheaper H1B replacement for the worker they fired which might come under scrutiny.
Now you could still outsource a function, but not a job. But now, there effectively would be no training of replacements, because the contracting company you hired would need to replace the operations completely (not just a job). Of course many functions might be amenable to this (e.g, payroll, hr, etc are commonly completely outsourced as a function), but at least this avoids the issue of needing to train a replacement for a outsourced job.
Although you can't fight immigration policy at the state level, Ms Clinton is a conspirator in its impact.
For example, as a prominent NY politician, she lobbied hard for a new Tata office in upstate NY that would purportedly grow to 200 jobs.
"Well, of course I know that they outsource jobs, that they've actually brought jobs to Buffalo. They've created 10 jobs in Buffalo and have told me and the Buffalo community that they intend to be a source of new jobs in the area, because, you know, outsourcing does work both ways." - I'mWithHer
Of course, under a microscope, Tata was not able to run business as usual, so they folded up tent and moved elsewhere...
OK, in the pre-industrial-era you might have known about someone who was 50+ but probably not. Almost everyone died sooner.
Apparently, this is a common myth about the pre-industrial era. People didn't just die in their 40's back then. If you look at the life-expectancy at birth, they are heavily dragged down by infant deaths and childhood disease which have greatly reduced since the pre-industrial-era. Even in medieval times, if you lived past 21, you could reasonably expect to live into your sixties (but of course 40% of people died before their 21st birthday).
As can my teeth which have no cavities in my entire adult life despite a diet high in meat (all kinds) and sugar (cereal every morning plus, in some form, candy at night). Dentist is amazed how strong my teeth are and the no cavity thing.
That's probably because caries (aka cavities) are not caused by sugar or meat, but by acid. How much acid your teeth will experience (relative to the foods you consume) is mostly related to the composition (and volume) of your saliva, how close your teeth are spaced and your brushing and flossing habits and your night-time saliva situation (nose/mouth breather/snoring).
The "strength" and composition of your teeth? Not so much (although there is apparently a small effect that allows some enamel to bind better with fluoride than average).
I don't know that simply making ideas understandable is a good standard on which to judge theoretical science theories.
In fact one might argue that one of Einstein's most "intriguing" yet understandable thought experiment was the so-called E-P-R paradox (that foreshadowed the demonstration of the effect of quantum entanglement). In this quite reasonable and understandable paper he and his cohorts attempted to argue that a wave function could not encode the full description of reality because of the consequences, there was something else required. By using math, they basically forced the hand of those that favored the Copenhagen interpretation of QM to accept what was then considered absurd.
This makes the reality of P and Q depend upon the process of measurement carried out on the first system, which does, not disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this.
Of course as we know, it didn't end up going the way they thought it should go (regardless of how strong of personality they had or how understandable their argument was).
There's a saying that gets kicked around theoretical physicists: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." -Niels Bohr
Take for instance the simple problem of computing the area of a walkway around a pool with a certain perimeter. One of the formulations is a quadratic equation with one positive and one negative solution for the are. Clearly "negative area" has no physical interpretation (you can't build it), so you ignore that result.
Or you don't ignore the result because you note that one possible physical interpretation of area is a "vector" cross product. One way this vector cross product area can be used is a 3d graphics pipeline can distinguish between front facing and back facing polygons and cull back facing polygons to save processing work by looking at the sign of the projected orientation of that vector (assuming you are careful about the topological representation of the polygon vertices).
Or you can ignore it an have your graphics card do twice as much work...
It's not so easy to simply discard results that may appear to be non-physical. They may have an unlikely association or have some predictive abilities that are applicable to the real world. In the field of electrical engineering, we often work with "imaginary" numbers because they are not only convenient way to handle the "phase" of an electrical oscillation, but they also help in computing associated magnetic oscillations and can be even be used to as a very useful tool to bridge the transitions between oscillatory and exponential dampening in electrical field behavior across material boundaries.
You may argue the computations aren't "real", but sometimes these mathematical contrivances might eventually be associated with the prediction of other real physical effects because of the underlying physics. Wouldn't you say that tends to blur the line a bit...
Well there are two sides of this coin...
The recommendation lists these items for fair use...
1. research or study;
2. criticism or review;
3. parody or satire;
4. reporting news;
5. professional advice;
6. quotation;
7. non-commercial private use;
8. incidental or technical use;
9. library or archive use;
10.education; and
11.access for people with disability.
I think the fair use exemptions for "professional advice", "library or archive use", and "education" are kind of the sticking points (where the big corps are against "non-commercial private use" which basically is file sharing).
For example, if a big company (say google) were to make a library or archive (let's call it books.google.au for arguments sake) where they allow free access to copyrighted material (with side banner ads which they get money for) do they get a fair use exemption? Also a blanket educational exemption is a bit of a problem for say instructional material (or may even the Wiggles). IMO, they really need to clean it the recommendation a bit.
On the other hand, you can make a case that Australia is being simply opportunist on this and are really just after a free ride. The rationale they give is...
Overall, given that most new works consumed in Australia are sourced from overseas and their creation is unlikely to be responsive to changes in Australia’s exceptions, adoption of a fair use provision in Australia is likely to deliver net benefits to the Australian community.
Basically, they are saying expanding fair use won't hurt Australia because authors won't stop producing stuff in English just because Australians are pirating it.
She's still hot and rich.
She might be still hot, but rich? According to the "experts", her common-stock stake in Theranos is worth approx $0...
Competent marketers first have to believe their own bullshit, if only for a second.
Disagree. Actually, competent marketers (like sales people) understand what their audience believes, yet they have to be grounded in reality**.
My experience (having worked with marketing folks in several startups and large companies) is that the moment they get sucked into their own reality distortion field (aka drink their own koolaid), they are generally lost in a cesspool of over-promise and under-deliver and damage control unless they get religion and crawl their way out.
The best marketers are actual appear to be a bit schizophrenic in that they can be both the audience and the marketer at the same time. You gotta stay away from them for your own sanity ;^)
** they know (or ask someone who should know) if things are theoretically possible before they commit and they always hedge a bit when they promise. They know that you can only sell the sizzle, if you can deliver the steak.
... and now she's running for President.
Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...
Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...
Because there was no one else running on the Democrat side. Nosiree...
Because the Dem leadership cleared the deck for her because she is a campaign money generating machine with potential coattails. Bernie is only still around because he is an independent (who happens to be carpetbagging as a democrat to get committee assignments and to run for president)...
Maybe I should hurry up and file a patent... ;^)
So then what does that make us? Nothing but merely exobytes of data in a sack of liquid, filled with billions of much smaller exobytes of data in sacks of fluid? If we really find a way to manipulate DNA, we've unlocked life itself. Haven't we?
FWIW, we *already* have a ways to manipulate DNA (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9). However, we don't fully understand the code yet...
Or maybe the chase... http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/...
A not so perfect car analogy...
You have a car that accepts a valet key (short key) and a owner key (long key). Both keys open the door and start the engine, but only the owner key opens the glove box. The flaw in this system is that allows for the possibility for some hacker to "forge" a long key that opens the glove box with a different "key" (that is known to the hacker) which has the short key attributes you check all the time (e.g., opens the door and starts the engine), but doesn't actually open the glove box (which you don't do very often), yet still superficially appears to be a long key that *might* open a glove box (even though the "key" won't actually open your glove box if you tried it).
It isn't the end of the world, since a valet can't do this swap (because you only give them the short valet key, but you generally don't give the long owner key to anyone), but if somehow someone gets access to your keystore and swaps your owner key for this long "key" forgery, there might be a problem (maybe you occasionally get drunk and install malicious apps)...
Since you haven't recently attempted to use your "key" to open the glove box recently, when you decide to have a locking gun rack installed which you want to work on the same long owner "key" you have. You get the person that makes the lock for the gun rack to key to lock with the "key" from your keystore. Now, you aren't aware of it yet, but the hacker will now have the ability to steal the gun because they have a copy of the "key" that opens your gun rack even if though don't have a copy of the original long key that can open your glove box. You eventually figure it all out when a cop stops on suspicion that your gun has been used in a crime and you look back and see your gun rack locked, empty, but undamaged, and your "key" works on the gun rack, but won't open your glove compartment to get your car registration papers. Circumstantially speaking, it then sucks to be you ;^)
Of course the real hash-then-encrypt isn't really the same as the short-key/long-key car analogy given above, but it's the best car analogy I could come up with...
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us. Who will be charged for anything and everything they can think of.
Surprisingly, Mr Comey, actually admitted this in his statement...
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Why can't people like Mr Comey run for public office?
So, is it now a federal crime to access someone's social media accounts with passwords that you coerced them to share (schools, companies, CBP, etc.)?
Let us hope this is the case...
Does the implied warranty of merchantability even apply to services? My understanding was that it applied to goods. (A blood test would be a service; a blood test kit would be a good).
Fitness might be arguable, though again, it seems only apply to goods. Maybe workmanlike quality--I am assuming that applies under US common law, but I am not sure how one would apply it to a medical service.
IANAL, but my understanding is that the law imposes upon a party who contracts to render a service for another an implied warranty to perform the service with that degree of skill, efficiency and knowledge that is possessed by those of ordinary skill, competency and standing in the particular trade or profession in which the performer is employed. However, there is always a question of liability (as opposed to simply refunding the monies originally paid to perform the service). In this case, it may take gross negligence, or intentional misconduct to trigger actual liability.
You might argue that Theranos intentionally performed misconduct because they knew their machines did not exhibit ordinary competency, or that knowingly operating the diagnostic machines they purchased with untrained operators was an act of gross negligence (where ordinary negligence might be letting operator certifications expire or not checking them in the first place). But perhaps those might be hard to prove in a court of law, so they may get a negotiated settlement to avoid strict liablity...
Saw a similar concept on Gizmag a few years back except that the pod was loaded onto the fuselage where the current passenger compartment is
Apparently, this showed up as an Airbus patent last year (presumably to "fix" the issue of embark/disembark time of a big plane like an A380).
Also saw a similar idea presented in the First International Paper Airplane Contest (sponsored by Scientific American back in 1967).
Pods are probably a better idea if combined with the idea of a containerized multi-modal cargo. Imagine if you can board a pod on a rail transport at a city center. The pod moves by rail to an airport where the passengers do not have to exit the pod and the pod is loaded on a plane (maybe with other pods). After landing at the destination airport, the pod is unload to rail, and moved by rail to the final destination (presumably another city center). Of course, your luggage travels underneath to your final destination.
Then airport can then be pretty far from the city center (e.g., I'm thinking about Denver International Airport from my ex home town), but you can have the convenience of using transport hubs near the city center.