That's Renault Samsung Motors, a company owned mostly (80%) by Renault.
And Renault Samsung Motors is what is left over from Samsung Motor (SMI) after SMI went belly up and the remnants were sold to Renault in 2000 and the 20% Samsung share of RSM is actually held by their credit card holding company.
Initially, SMI built cars based on a Nissan platform and sold into Korea, but now they build on a Renault platform and sell only as RSM in korea (outside korea the same cars are badged as Renault). As part of financial agreements, RSM is currently allowed to use the Samsung name in the products they sell (until 2020) when it is likely to be retired (since it appears that Samsung wants back into the auto market).
FWIW, in the south bay, there are really only HSC/Halted and Anchor, although if you just need some "old-crap" you might find it with a trip over to Weird-stuff. Fry's doesn't really sell much any more, and the other stores in the area are more akin to electronic "toy" stores than electronic parts stores (kind of like what radio shack used to be). I think that's more a *maker* influence they don't sell electronics any more.
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me.
Suppose 97% of your military commanders came forward and told you they believed that a country would invade. They show you satellite images of how the enemy forces are building up. They can't tell you for sure what would happen. The infrastructure, economy, and way of life could be entirely ruined. The country may never recover. Or maybe the invaders will just walk through and not do a thing.
Let's assume you have a VERY small military, just a token gesture really to make your citizens happy. Would you want the country to:
a) Decrease defense spending. b) Maintain defense spending. c) Increase defense spending.
Of course maintain or even decrease defense spending!
We have satellite images showing China, ISIS (and maybe even Russia) building up enemy forces in the South China sea, Syria/Iraq, and Ukraine. We don't know for sure what would happen. The infrastructure, economy, and way of life of millions can be entirely ruined. The countries may never recover. Or maybe the invaders will just walk through and not do a thing.
And we are decreasing defense spending. From a peak spending in 2011 of $705B, we a projecting under $600B for 2015 and holding steady...
Just as Obama has promised, we are trending the spending on defense down to 2.3% of GDP. Regardless of what happens in the world. Why lead anymore? We shouldn't be the most powerful country on earth. Let the others countries pick up the slack.
Or were you trying to make a point about CO2 emissions and global warming? Isn't the answer the same: Why lead anymore? We shouldn't be the most powerful country on earth. Let the other countries pick up the slack.
Somehow I don't think that was the answer you were looking for;^) You of coruse can't just declare "war" on global warming and have the result the way you want it to...
Apparently these refineries are the size of a moonshine still
If you don't care about cracking the heavy stuff it's not so difficult to only distill out the light stuff - very wasteful but you get something.
Not that ISIS probably cares about being efficient, but AFAIK, the type of oil in the northern Iraq region control by ISIS is exceptionally light crude (as light as 48 API aka champagne crude) where they don't actually require much cracking to get usable fractions. The Rumalia fields (in Basura in the south) tend to be the ones with mixed and heavier crude oil and more complicated refining to get usable fractions.
The thing that boogles me the most is ISIL/ISIS/Daash were and most likely still are exporting large amounts of oil despite having skies full of opposing fighters and bombers.
That's because nobody wants to "bomb" the oil production fields. The reasons given are this...
* ecological disaster associated with a burning oil field that nobody might be able to put out for years because of the fighting * if/when ISIS is defeated, it's the oil only source of income for the government
All those fighters/bombers are doing are bombing the mobile refineries hidden and scattered around the country. Word on the street is that ISIS is buying the parts for making these mobile refineries out of parts bought from Alibaba so they can make them about as fast as anyone can bomb them. Apparently these refineries are the size of a moonshine still and the cart the refined product is sold relatively locally. That's the problem with a fungible commodity, there's literally no way to stop the black market. If they can make it, they *can* sell it...
FWIW, I think Joan Daemen might object to your classification of him as a famous woman (unless you were going for the minority designation with him as someone from Belgium).
It's now so onerous to run an organization the IRS considers a "real" charity that lots of big money that actually cares about accomplishing something, will soon be taking similar steps.
It is not *onerous* to run a legal non-profit (e.g., "real" charity). The provisions in the law Mr. Z. probably doesn't like about legal charities is that they aren't allowed to *hoard* money and must spend most of their annual income on charitable pursuits every year (a $1B will throw off a bunch of imputed income at a minimum that will need to be distributed). If you want to *hoard* your money or not spend all of it on charitable pursuits, you might consider the legal provisions *onerous* and want an LLC.
In contrast, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an actual legal charity. What Mr. Z is doing is similar to a trust (e.g., the kind of legal structure that directs how your inheritance is distributed after you die). There's no requirement that a trust spend the money charitably (you may have heard of trials and tribulations of many trustfund babies) and there is no requirement to disclose how it is distributed.
I'll give Mr. Z the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he doesn't want a non-profit because he has no idea what charitable cause to spend his money on yet (he had so much luck with NJ schools donation) and doesn't want to be forced to spend the money right away until his has time to figure it out. On the other hand he could have just said that, so maybe he has an ulterior motive.
FWIW, as I recall being forced to distribute the imputed income annually was an issue with Warren Buffet donating his money to the B&M Gates foundation. He conditioned his donation on Mr Gates stepping down from MSFT and operating his foundation full time rather than leave it to foundation employees (and likely be pissed away).
FWIW, the very notion of "public" school as a tax payer funded development is a recent development of society. Previous notions of "public" schools simply meant that they were open to members of the public to *pay* rather than schooling only available to a certain class of people (e.g., sons or apprentices of people in a society of practitioners).
The main reason the government got involved was that it was becoming clear that some basic forms of education were needed to supply the raw material (e.g., workers) for the new non-merchantile economy. Thus tax-payer funded basic education was started not unlike tax-payer funded road construction: a way to create infrastructure to grow the economy. The majority of tax-payers generally benefit from growth in the economy, so it's a legitimate use of government money.
Of course now it's been going on for a while and people think of it as an entitlement or a social equalizer, and even more something that shouldn't be sway by the banal rationale of economic concerns, but that is an even more recent development and not necessarily one based on general benefit of all tax payers.
That is somewhat of a simplistic rebuttal to a complicated subject.
There are such a thing as *scholarships* that some people get to help them pay to attend schools which they cannot personally afford. Although some of them are need based, but some are simply are merit based (a strange concept). Sometimes people can given partial scholarships or even full scholarships to attend a school (such as medical school) and not even have to pay back anything (e.g., my uncle for instance got one of those mysterious scholarships to attend medical school)...
Millions in scholarship money goes unclaimed every year (estimates vary from $100M-$200M), that that doesn't even include the estimated $2 Billion in pell-grant money that high-school seniors didn't claim by attending an accredited college w/o filling out the FAFSA form.
As you point out, not everyone is suited for a given field, so the idea that everyone should be able to afford to get a degree that they want is somewhat a strange notion (even if we need all sorts of people to get those degrees). So why not just stick with the current scholarship/grant scheme? Does it have to be *free*?
The common notion that everyone has large student loan debt is a myth. 2/3 of college students graduate with no debt. Of those with debt, the *average* amount of debt is about $10k ($7k in government backed loans), . So who has these massive $100k+ in loans? Why it's the ones that attend exclusive private institutions and advanced degrees (medical school, law school).
Even then, those $100k+ jumbos are only responsible for a small part of the default potential on the loans (most pay back w/o problem within 10 years). The biggest problem student loan problem is those that take out loans to attend private degree-mills like the now bankrupt Corinthian college group. Buying worthless degrees from worthless colleges is the big problem with student debt.
If you want to pick on medical school as one that "should be free", the biggest problem medical practice sees is the *underused* degree. People who have used a slot in the medical school who cease to practice full time after a 10 years is staggering (they call it the 7 year itch in the profession). When questioning doctors about this, the general issue is that even the job is high-paying, the job burns them out. Many medical school admissions people will tell you many go into the profession because of high pay and social status, but fewer go in as their *calling*. Making medical school "free" really doesn't solve this problem at all.
For the record, my uncle got his scholarship essentially for being from a small town in Wyoming. He didn't go back there to practice, but is now practicing in a different small town across the country (Rhode Island). I suspect the scholarship committee gave him the scholarship because they knew it was his *calling* to practice medicine and he was also a small town type who would probably never live in a big city. It didn't work out for them specifically, but they probably had more insight into the him than either the University of Colorado medical school admissions committee, or he had into himself at age 21. Another thing to think about before you think "free" is necessarily the best option.
The ridiculous part is how little they teach nurses, at least in Canada. I have a few friends, and basically they just teach them how to make a bed. The "how to use a needle" course is an optional extra. I guess nursing started out as housewives with no extra skills helping out. And the only thing that has changed since then is that the nurses have less skills, and need to be taught the basics of cleanliness.
In the US what you are describing is a LPN (licensed practical nurse) which is basically an extinct species (replaced almost exclusively with medical technicians who essentially start with only on-the-job training). Going to school for an LPN is like a community college class.
This is totally different than a RN (registered nurse), or a ARNP (advance registered nurse practitioner) the later of which is basically taking over the role of the GP. RNs generally require basically equivalent to a specialized bachelor's program.
One of the positive sides is if the financial services company is going to make money, the prices for an ISA becomes a good proxy for letting students know which potential majors are likely to be more valuable to society and thus earn them more income over the course of the payback period. So doctors and engineers, yes, womyn's studies, not so much...
I think students already know which potential majors are likely to be more *lucrative*. A potential student may *value* them differently than society and that is generally why these less lucrative majors are pursued.
The problem is that students still need to eat (and potentially pay back those pesky student loans) and sadly at that age, practicality often isn't high on ones agenda. All the futures markets in ISAs in the world can't fix stupid, just like posting calories per serving in a fast food restaurant, the message is either ignored or treated as a temptation to spite.
US industry got out of the reactor business... all we have is servicing companies.
I guess if you think of Westinghouse (based in Pittsburgh, PA, but owned mostly by Toshiba) and GE-Hitachi (based in Willmington NC) as strictly Japanese companies.
In any case, given that the two largest reactor builders Rosatom (Russia), and Ariva (France) are bordering on insolvency, perhaps it's best that US industry got out the the reactor construction business. Both Ariva and Rosatom are trying to juggle projects in Finland (Olkiluoto/Ariva) and Hanhikivi/Rosatom) which are struggling with cost overruns and in the multi-billions of euros...
But -- profit in and of itself is not a sufficient, or indeed, even a necessary condition for exploration. The islands of Polynesia were explored, settled and exploited at least a millenia before Europe even knew the earth was round, using only naked eye observations to navigate.
You might argue that in the case of Polynesia, survival was the sufficient condition to explore and settle new islands. As the population grew and the resources diminished on islands, the populations were pushed to explore and settle new islands.
And what about northern europe's contribution to exploration? When Erik the Red and his kin went a'viking, they took it across at least one ocean, with only their own eyesight to guide them.
Wasn't Erik the Red evicted from iceland for murder? By all accounts I know about viking voyages were mostly to exploit resources as well, and very limited settlements were made due to poor relations with the native populations.
Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that engineers are trained to follow rules and so it attracts people who are happy to follow rules without necessarily questioning them or completely understanding the reasoning behind them.
On the other hand scientists will question every rule you give them and even when they believe that the rules might be right they will still spend their time poking them to see if they really do apply everywhere....which is why we can be so annoying at times especially to those trying to use toxic, religious dogma to persuade others to commit irrational and immoral acts.>
I don't think I agree with this generalization.
Most engineers I know aren't the blind rule follower types. They are looking to creatively apply the rules they know about to solve interesting problems, and if they don't know, they are happy to experiment and make their own rules-of-thumb. Rather than follow the rules, they question the rules all the time to find a way around the rules.
On the other hand, many scientists I know are the "lawyer" types that want to kill all creativity that don't follow the rules (even if the rules have to be "tortured" to apply in that situation). I've known a few that would even get borderline violent when people were speculating outside the box.
I think that the common personality type that makes both scientists and engineers easier targets for terrorist recruitment is experience with social isolation and elitist attitudes that make it easy for them to dehumanize people that don't think like they do. Couple that with standard recruiting techniques and those people are easy to re-baseline (the key to radicalization).
The process of radicalization of a target generally starts by attempting to break rules that the target holds dear. Safety, fairness, corruption of heroes, falsification of memes, etc are all standard techniques here. Since no "rules" are universal, it's usually easy for a trained handler to pick low-hanging fruit here.
Next the handler introduce the target to a benign organization, it's important in this phase to help shift the identification to a different group. Helping out in a cultural center, or volunteering to assist in charitable causes will help the target empathize with the plight of people sympathetic to the terrorist group. The more socially isolated the person was before, the easier this processes (don't have to break as many existing ties).
During this assimilation time, the handler will probe how much the target might be willing to rule breaking by feeding them more propaganda to get them to normalize and accept the new rules (e.g., it's okay to hurt these specific people because they deserve it).
Finally, there's the "requirement". Involve the target in an operation where they don't have to do much of anything, but see if they run. If they don't run, the handler has likely created a new terrorist. It could be attending a protest, or spraying graffiti, or adding a "like" to radical facebook post. This is often called the "foot-in-the-door".
Then there is the "escalation" stage. Generally, promises are used in this stage (guarantee of appreciation, acceptance, heaven, virgins, glory, whatever) and involves helping prepare for a simple low-risk operation. The act of asking to help prepare is generally an easy ask, the target doesn't have to do the operation, but feels like they are involved. For engineers and scientists it might be asking to consult on some technical aspect or give ideas about how they might overcome some technical problem. Maybe they want to a DoS attack on the enemy during a religious holiday. They don't need the answer to the problem (they will generally already have it figured out), but they make the target feel like they are contributing something (e.g., hey that was a good idea, maybe we'll think about that next time).
Since engineers and scientists naturally enjoy solving problems and sharing their knowledge, they fall i
The only reason the USSR and America were adversaries was the conflict over economic systems. that conflict no longer exists.
Hardly. Russia and USA are adversaries over economic *power* not systems and will be in the forseeable future. They are still economic adversaries even though the economic systems have changed.
However, they are unlikely to be closer to the USA than China because the USA would like to keep China adversary closer (because they are a bigger economic threat).
To conflict over economic systems is a lark. Regardless of the system, it's all about economic power.
On the other hand, the USA conflict with Cuba is about politics, regardless of their economic system. Cuba was supposed one of the "spoils" the USA got in the Spanish-American war. It was supposed to be under our sphere of influence, but they overthrew the government the USA backed, so like an rebel teenager that attempts independence we attempted to "disown" them. The cuban revolutionaries weren't originally communists (e.g., DRE, and even Castro) but mostly socialists, but the USA's fear of the experience in Southeast Asia basically set the stage for fear to manifest itself to reality.
For the record, I do think ISIS will get squashed or fade out, but the longer that something like that festers, the longer it has to influence Muslims around the world to radicalize.
I'm sure the royalty in Europe thought something similar about insignificant "democracy" being declared in north america. It is easy to predict with confidence the incumbents will eventually squash or their ferver will fade out, but often to stop it requires action, and that's something the current leadership (not a specific leader, but the collective leadership) doesn't seem to have the stomach for...
We have no allies on the ground in that region, Russia has al-Assad, but "we" don't like him. Everyone else on the ground is mostly unreliable (to us), and the caliphate is making enough money on refineries that we won't bomb/squash, so they probably won't fade-out by themselves.
People were perhaps (rightly) upset when we "installed" vindictive leaders to clean up messes like this in the past, but sometimes in retrospect, it may be too harsh to condemn this as short sighted before you look at all the other options they had presented to them. Sometime there are simply no good options and waiting for the perfect option may not be the right answer either...
Source to that last point that they pay tax on US profits?
I'm sure they will happily pay tax on any profits they have left after they pay their foreign subsidiary based in Ireland all the management and consulting fees, deduct the inflated research and development expenses, and sales and marketing campaign subcontracts, and extra profit surcharges...
They're altering the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.
If you ask nicely, they may throw in the floor mats.... Or not...
Doing science and funding science are two different things. Unless they can increase their numbers in congress, it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to fund science anytime soon.
Actually, even if the D-party can increase their numbers in congress, it is unlikely they will *want* to fund science over their other spending priorities, meaning there is probably no hope to increase science funding anytime soon...
Well maybe if WWIII breaks out, science-development might get a boost, but probably not science-research...
The only hope is that a massive budget surplus magically appears so that in addition to giving each taxpayer a $100K annual benefit, they throw some of the extra $$ to science... (okay, no really no hope then;^)
Interconnect gets smaller if you reduce speed as well when you reduce size. If you keep speed constant, interconnect stays the same size and it will consume the same amount of power. Well, roughly. The problem is that at these speeds you are dealing with RF laws, not ordinary electric ones and RF laws are pretty bizarre.
The problem can easily be described to first order "electrically". No bizarre RF laws necessary.
Interconnect is dominated by "resistive" issue (a good approximation of RF-impedance) and capactive coupling (a good approximation to RF field effects)... Since the interconnect is relatively getting thinner and longer, the resistance of that wire is going up (R ~ L/w/h) and it capacitively couples more with nearby lines (Cild = W*L/X or Cimd = H*L/Ls) and makes it take longer to move charge to and from the gate.
Second order effects are mostly "noise" and edge-rate coupling, but even then aggressor/victim and crosstalk issues can be thought of mostly as just distributed "lumped" approximation (e.g., capacitance per um, and mutual inductance per um) where the result is coupling being different at higher frequencies and spacing. No bizarre RF need to get the gist (well, no more than the basic concept of a wall-wart transformer)...
The label I see most often is 'line caught' which implies wild fish. But I expect it also describes a good way to pull a fish out of a fish-farm's pool.
FWIW, there is a small amount of "wild" Atlantic salmon available in the US (~0.5%) so it's *possible* to buy wild Atlantic salmon (I think the *annual* catch limit is 7 Atlantic salmon), but I suspect you are seeing wild or line-caught *ALASKAN* salmon, not Atlantic salmon which is nearly always farmed because of its endangered species status in nearly all the traditional fishery locations prevents large scale commercial fishing.
lol this is basically saying, "don't use it at all."
Generally, the FDA is saying if you attempt to use the non-GM label on something, we aren't going to do anything proactively because there is currently no regulation on the use of that term, but if your customers complain to us about deceptive or misleading labeling, you have been warned.
In their guidance, they give an example for a type of product that might be able to use a non-GM labeling without FDA objection: a food that is derived from a plant that has not been subject to any form of selective breeding might be berries collected from wild plant or open-pollination (non-selective) heirloom varieties.
Right now, I think this guidance is being ignored by the corn and soy industries and they are heavily lobbying for the FDA to adopt the USDA terminology for GMOs to accommodate the current labeling practice (kind of how the "organic" industry lobbied the USDA to codify existing "organic" practices).
For completeness, the FDA strongly warns producers against a "GM-free" label as in the absence of specific regulation for this moniker (which presumably would be some number slightly greater than zero to allow for practical production considerations), this would imply zero and that is likely to be nearly impossible to verify and therefore on the face misleading/deceptive, except potentially a situation on single ingredient products that are individually genetically tested (which is kind of impractical).
What regulatory body enforces what "Non-GMO" means and what the punishment will be for mislabeling?
The FTC under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The USDA regulates the meaning of the word "organic," so they might have authority to regulate "non-gmo" but I'm not entirely sure on that.
The FDA's current guidance in this area is for companies to avoid a "non-GM" label unless the product can be guaranteed to not have components that were produced using any type of genetic modification *including hybridization or selective breeding*.
Instead the FDA recommends that companies use fully defensible statements like "not produced using bioengineering" or "not genetically engineered" to avoid potential future mislabeling consequences of a non-GM or GM-free product assertion, although they are not currently enforcing this recommendation today.
Slashdot Mirror
That's Renault Samsung Motors, a company owned mostly (80%) by Renault.
And Renault Samsung Motors is what is left over from Samsung Motor (SMI) after SMI went belly up and the remnants were sold to Renault in 2000 and the 20% Samsung share of RSM is actually held by their credit card holding company.
Initially, SMI built cars based on a Nissan platform and sold into Korea, but now they build on a Renault platform and sell only as RSM in korea (outside korea the same cars are badged as Renault). As part of financial agreements, RSM is currently allowed to use the Samsung name in the products they sell (until 2020) when it is likely to be retired (since it appears that Samsung wants back into the auto market).
If having encryption key w/o escrow is illegal, then only criminals will have encryption keys that are not escrowed.
Interesting how that works out...
FWIW, in the south bay, there are really only HSC/Halted and Anchor, although if you just need some "old-crap" you might find it with a trip over to Weird-stuff.
Fry's doesn't really sell much any more, and the other stores in the area are more akin to electronic "toy" stores than electronic parts stores (kind of like what radio shack used to be). I think that's more a *maker* influence they don't sell electronics any more.
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me.
Suppose 97% of your military commanders came forward and told you they believed that a country would invade. They show you satellite images of how the enemy forces are building up. They can't tell you for sure what would happen. The infrastructure, economy, and way of life could be entirely ruined. The country may never recover. Or maybe the invaders will just walk through and not do a thing.
Let's assume you have a VERY small military, just a token gesture really to make your citizens happy. Would you want the country to:
a) Decrease defense spending.
b) Maintain defense spending.
c) Increase defense spending.
Of course maintain or even decrease defense spending!
We have satellite images showing China, ISIS (and maybe even Russia) building up enemy forces in the South China sea, Syria/Iraq, and Ukraine. We don't know for sure what would happen. The infrastructure, economy, and way of life of millions can be entirely ruined. The countries may never recover. Or maybe the invaders will just walk through and not do a thing.
And we are decreasing defense spending. From a peak spending in 2011 of $705B, we a projecting under $600B for 2015 and holding steady...
Just as Obama has promised, we are trending the spending on defense down to 2.3% of GDP. Regardless of what happens in the world. Why lead anymore? We shouldn't be the most powerful country on earth. Let the others countries pick up the slack.
Or were you trying to make a point about CO2 emissions and global warming? Isn't the answer the same: Why lead anymore? We shouldn't be the most powerful country on earth. Let the other countries pick up the slack.
Somehow I don't think that was the answer you were looking for ;^) You of coruse can't just declare "war" on global warming and have the result the way you want it to...
If you don't care about cracking the heavy stuff it's not so difficult to only distill out the light stuff - very wasteful but you get something.
Not that ISIS probably cares about being efficient, but AFAIK, the type of oil in the northern Iraq region control by ISIS is exceptionally light crude (as light as 48 API aka champagne crude) where they don't actually require much cracking to get usable fractions. The Rumalia fields (in Basura in the south) tend to be the ones with mixed and heavier crude oil and more complicated refining to get usable fractions.
The thing that boogles me the most is ISIL/ISIS/Daash were and most likely still are exporting large amounts of oil despite having skies full of opposing fighters and bombers.
That's because nobody wants to "bomb" the oil production fields. The reasons given are this...
* ecological disaster associated with a burning oil field that nobody might be able to put out for years because of the fighting
* if/when ISIS is defeated, it's the oil only source of income for the government
All those fighters/bombers are doing are bombing the mobile refineries hidden and scattered around the country. Word on the street is that ISIS is buying the parts for making these mobile refineries out of parts bought from Alibaba so they can make them about as fast as anyone can bomb them. Apparently these refineries are the size of a moonshine still and the cart the refined product is sold relatively locally. That's the problem with a fungible commodity, there's literally no way to stop the black market. If they can make it, they *can* sell it...
FWIW, I think Joan Daemen might object to your classification of him as a famous woman (unless you were going for the minority designation with him as someone from Belgium).
It's now so onerous to run an organization the IRS considers a "real" charity that lots of big money that actually cares about accomplishing something, will soon be taking similar steps.
It is not *onerous* to run a legal non-profit (e.g., "real" charity). The provisions in the law Mr. Z. probably doesn't like about legal charities is that they aren't allowed to *hoard* money and must spend most of their annual income on charitable pursuits every year (a $1B will throw off a bunch of imputed income at a minimum that will need to be distributed). If you want to *hoard* your money or not spend all of it on charitable pursuits, you might consider the legal provisions *onerous* and want an LLC.
In contrast, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an actual legal charity. What Mr. Z is doing is similar to a trust (e.g., the kind of legal structure that directs how your inheritance is distributed after you die). There's no requirement that a trust spend the money charitably (you may have heard of trials and tribulations of many trustfund babies) and there is no requirement to disclose how it is distributed.
I'll give Mr. Z the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he doesn't want a non-profit because he has no idea what charitable cause to spend his money on yet (he had so much luck with NJ schools donation) and doesn't want to be forced to spend the money right away until his has time to figure it out. On the other hand he could have just said that, so maybe he has an ulterior motive.
FWIW, as I recall being forced to distribute the imputed income annually was an issue with Warren Buffet donating his money to the B&M Gates foundation. He conditioned his donation on Mr Gates stepping down from MSFT and operating his foundation full time rather than leave it to foundation employees (and likely be pissed away).
FWIW, the very notion of "public" school as a tax payer funded development is a recent development of society. Previous notions of "public" schools simply meant that they were open to members of the public to *pay* rather than schooling only available to a certain class of people (e.g., sons or apprentices of people in a society of practitioners).
The main reason the government got involved was that it was becoming clear that some basic forms of education were needed to supply the raw material (e.g., workers) for the new non-merchantile economy. Thus tax-payer funded basic education was started not unlike tax-payer funded road construction: a way to create infrastructure to grow the economy. The majority of tax-payers generally benefit from growth in the economy, so it's a legitimate use of government money.
Of course now it's been going on for a while and people think of it as an entitlement or a social equalizer, and even more something that shouldn't be sway by the banal rationale of economic concerns, but that is an even more recent development and not necessarily one based on general benefit of all tax payers.
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
That is somewhat of a simplistic rebuttal to a complicated subject.
There are such a thing as *scholarships* that some people get to help them pay to attend schools which they cannot personally afford. Although some of them are need based, but some are simply are merit based (a strange concept). Sometimes people can given partial scholarships or even full scholarships to attend a school (such as medical school) and not even have to pay back anything (e.g., my uncle for instance got one of those mysterious scholarships to attend medical school)...
Millions in scholarship money goes unclaimed every year (estimates vary from $100M-$200M), that that doesn't even include the estimated $2 Billion in pell-grant money that high-school seniors didn't claim by attending an accredited college w/o filling out the FAFSA form.
As you point out, not everyone is suited for a given field, so the idea that everyone should be able to afford to get a degree that they want is somewhat a strange notion (even if we need all sorts of people to get those degrees). So why not just stick with the current scholarship/grant scheme? Does it have to be *free*?
The common notion that everyone has large student loan debt is a myth. 2/3 of college students graduate with no debt. Of those with debt, the *average* amount of debt is about $10k ($7k in government backed loans), . So who has these massive $100k+ in loans? Why it's the ones that attend exclusive private institutions and advanced degrees (medical school, law school).
Even then, those $100k+ jumbos are only responsible for a small part of the default potential on the loans (most pay back w/o problem within 10 years). The biggest problem student loan problem is those that take out loans to attend private degree-mills like the now bankrupt Corinthian college group. Buying worthless degrees from worthless colleges is the big problem with student debt.
If you want to pick on medical school as one that "should be free", the biggest problem medical practice sees is the *underused* degree. People who have used a slot in the medical school who cease to practice full time after a 10 years is staggering (they call it the 7 year itch in the profession). When questioning doctors about this, the general issue is that even the job is high-paying, the job burns them out. Many medical school admissions people will tell you many go into the profession because of high pay and social status, but fewer go in as their *calling*. Making medical school "free" really doesn't solve this problem at all.
For the record, my uncle got his scholarship essentially for being from a small town in Wyoming. He didn't go back there to practice, but is now practicing in a different small town across the country (Rhode Island). I suspect the scholarship committee gave him the scholarship because they knew it was his *calling* to practice medicine and he was also a small town type who would probably never live in a big city. It didn't work out for them specifically, but they probably had more insight into the him than either the University of Colorado medical school admissions committee, or he had into himself at age 21. Another thing to think about before you think "free" is necessarily the best option.
The ridiculous part is how little they teach nurses, at least in Canada. I have a few friends, and basically they just teach them how to make a bed. The "how to use a needle" course is an optional extra. I guess nursing started out as housewives with no extra skills helping out. And the only thing that has changed since then is that the nurses have less skills, and need to be taught the basics of cleanliness.
In the US what you are describing is a LPN (licensed practical nurse) which is basically an extinct species (replaced almost exclusively with medical technicians who essentially start with only on-the-job training). Going to school for an LPN is like a community college class.
This is totally different than a RN (registered nurse), or a ARNP (advance registered nurse practitioner) the later of which is basically taking over the role of the GP. RNs generally require basically equivalent to a specialized bachelor's program.
One of the positive sides is if the financial services company is going to make money, the prices for an ISA becomes a good proxy for letting students know which potential majors are likely to be more valuable to society and thus earn them more income over the course of the payback period.
So doctors and engineers, yes, womyn's studies, not so much...
I think students already know which potential majors are likely to be more *lucrative*. A potential student may *value* them differently than society and that is generally why these less lucrative majors are pursued.
The problem is that students still need to eat (and potentially pay back those pesky student loans) and sadly at that age, practicality often isn't high on ones agenda. All the futures markets in ISAs in the world can't fix stupid, just like posting calories per serving in a fast food restaurant, the message is either ignored or treated as a temptation to spite.
US industry got out of the reactor business... all we have is servicing companies.
I guess if you think of Westinghouse (based in Pittsburgh, PA, but owned mostly by Toshiba) and GE-Hitachi (based in Willmington NC) as strictly Japanese companies.
In any case, given that the two largest reactor builders Rosatom (Russia), and Ariva (France) are bordering on insolvency, perhaps it's best that US industry got out the the reactor construction business. Both Ariva and Rosatom are trying to juggle projects in Finland (Olkiluoto/Ariva) and Hanhikivi/Rosatom) which are struggling with cost overruns and in the multi-billions of euros...
But -- profit in and of itself is not a sufficient, or indeed, even a necessary condition for exploration. The islands of Polynesia were explored, settled and exploited at least a millenia before Europe even knew the earth was round, using only naked eye observations to navigate.
You might argue that in the case of Polynesia, survival was the sufficient condition to explore and settle new islands. As the population grew and the resources diminished on islands, the populations were pushed to explore and settle new islands.
And what about northern europe's contribution to exploration? When Erik the Red and his kin went a'viking, they took it across at least one ocean, with only their own eyesight to guide them.
Wasn't Erik the Red evicted from iceland for murder? By all accounts I know about viking voyages were mostly to exploit resources as well, and very limited settlements were made due to poor relations with the native populations.
Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that engineers are trained to follow rules and so it attracts people who are happy to follow rules without necessarily questioning them or completely understanding the reasoning behind them.
On the other hand scientists will question every rule you give them and even when they believe that the rules might be right they will still spend their time poking them to see if they really do apply everywhere....which is why we can be so annoying at times especially to those trying to use toxic, religious dogma to persuade others to commit irrational and immoral acts.>
I don't think I agree with this generalization.
Most engineers I know aren't the blind rule follower types. They are looking to creatively apply the rules they know about to solve interesting problems, and if they don't know, they are happy to experiment and make their own rules-of-thumb. Rather than follow the rules, they question the rules all the time to find a way around the rules.
On the other hand, many scientists I know are the "lawyer" types that want to kill all creativity that don't follow the rules (even if the rules have to be "tortured" to apply in that situation). I've known a few that would even get borderline violent when people were speculating outside the box.
I think that the common personality type that makes both scientists and engineers easier targets for terrorist recruitment is experience with social isolation and elitist attitudes that make it easy for them to dehumanize people that don't think like they do. Couple that with standard recruiting techniques and those people are easy to re-baseline (the key to radicalization).
The process of radicalization of a target generally starts by attempting to break rules that the target holds dear. Safety, fairness, corruption of heroes, falsification of memes, etc are all standard techniques here. Since no "rules" are universal, it's usually easy for a trained handler to pick low-hanging fruit here.
Next the handler introduce the target to a benign organization, it's important in this phase to help shift the identification to a different group. Helping out in a cultural center, or volunteering to assist in charitable causes will help the target empathize with the plight of people sympathetic to the terrorist group. The more socially isolated the person was before, the easier this processes (don't have to break as many existing ties).
During this assimilation time, the handler will probe how much the target might be willing to rule breaking by feeding them more propaganda to get them to normalize and accept the new rules (e.g., it's okay to hurt these specific people because they deserve it).
Finally, there's the "requirement". Involve the target in an operation where they don't have to do much of anything, but see if they run. If they don't run, the handler has likely created a new terrorist. It could be attending a protest, or spraying graffiti, or adding a "like" to radical facebook post. This is often called the "foot-in-the-door".
Then there is the "escalation" stage. Generally, promises are used in this stage (guarantee of appreciation, acceptance, heaven, virgins, glory, whatever) and involves helping prepare for a simple low-risk operation. The act of asking to help prepare is generally an easy ask, the target doesn't have to do the operation, but feels like they are involved. For engineers and scientists it might be asking to consult on some technical aspect or give ideas about how they might overcome some technical problem. Maybe they want to a DoS attack on the enemy during a religious holiday. They don't need the answer to the problem (they will generally already have it figured out), but they make the target feel like they are contributing something (e.g., hey that was a good idea, maybe we'll think about that next time).
Since engineers and scientists naturally enjoy solving problems and sharing their knowledge, they fall i
As a general rule, when governments shoot something up, they want it to stay up.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
The only reason the USSR and America were adversaries was the conflict over economic systems. that conflict no longer exists.
Hardly. Russia and USA are adversaries over economic *power* not systems and will be in the forseeable future. They are still economic adversaries even though the economic systems have changed.
However, they are unlikely to be closer to the USA than China because the USA would like to keep China adversary closer (because they are a bigger economic threat).
To conflict over economic systems is a lark. Regardless of the system, it's all about economic power.
On the other hand, the USA conflict with Cuba is about politics, regardless of their economic system. Cuba was supposed one of the "spoils" the USA got in the Spanish-American war. It was supposed to be under our sphere of influence, but they overthrew the government the USA backed, so like an rebel teenager that attempts independence we attempted to "disown" them. The cuban revolutionaries weren't originally communists (e.g., DRE, and even Castro) but mostly socialists, but the USA's fear of the experience in Southeast Asia basically set the stage for fear to manifest itself to reality.
For the record, I do think ISIS will get squashed or fade out, but the longer that something like that festers, the longer it has to influence Muslims around the world to radicalize.
I'm sure the royalty in Europe thought something similar about insignificant "democracy" being declared in north america. It is easy to predict with confidence the incumbents will eventually squash or their ferver will fade out, but often to stop it requires action, and that's something the current leadership (not a specific leader, but the collective leadership) doesn't seem to have the stomach for...
We have no allies on the ground in that region, Russia has al-Assad, but "we" don't like him. Everyone else on the ground is mostly unreliable (to us), and the caliphate is making enough money on refineries that we won't bomb/squash, so they probably won't fade-out by themselves.
People were perhaps (rightly) upset when we "installed" vindictive leaders to clean up messes like this in the past, but sometimes in retrospect, it may be too harsh to condemn this as short sighted before you look at all the other options they had presented to them. Sometime there are simply no good options and waiting for the perfect option may not be the right answer either...
The world is complicated.
Source to that last point that they pay tax on US profits?
I'm sure they will happily pay tax on any profits they have left after they pay their foreign subsidiary based in Ireland all the management and consulting fees, deduct the inflated research and development expenses, and sales and marketing campaign subcontracts, and extra profit surcharges...
They're altering the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further.
If you ask nicely, they may throw in the floor mats.... Or not...
Doing science and funding science are two different things. Unless they can increase their numbers in congress, it is unlikely that Democrats will be able to fund science anytime soon.
Actually, even if the D-party can increase their numbers in congress, it is unlikely they will *want* to fund science over their other spending priorities, meaning there is probably no hope to increase science funding anytime soon...
Well maybe if WWIII breaks out, science-development might get a boost, but probably not science-research...
The only hope is that a massive budget surplus magically appears so that in addition to giving each taxpayer a $100K annual benefit, they throw some of the extra $$ to science... (okay, no really no hope then ;^)
Interconnect gets smaller if you reduce speed as well when you reduce size. If you keep speed constant, interconnect stays the same size and it will consume the same amount of power. Well, roughly. The problem is that at these speeds you are dealing with RF laws, not ordinary electric ones and RF laws are pretty bizarre.
The problem can easily be described to first order "electrically". No bizarre RF laws necessary.
Interconnect is dominated by "resistive" issue (a good approximation of RF-impedance) and capactive coupling (a good approximation to RF field effects)... Since the interconnect is relatively getting thinner and longer, the resistance of that wire is going up (R ~ L/w/h) and it capacitively couples more with nearby lines (Cild = W*L/X or Cimd = H*L/Ls) and makes it take longer to move charge to and from the gate.
Second order effects are mostly "noise" and edge-rate coupling, but even then aggressor/victim and crosstalk issues can be thought of mostly as just distributed "lumped" approximation (e.g., capacitance per um, and mutual inductance per um) where the result is coupling being different at higher frequencies and spacing. No bizarre RF need to get the gist (well, no more than the basic concept of a wall-wart transformer)...
The label I see most often is 'line caught' which implies wild fish. But I expect it also describes a good way to pull a fish out of a fish-farm's pool.
FWIW, there is a small amount of "wild" Atlantic salmon available in the US (~0.5%) so it's *possible* to buy wild Atlantic salmon (I think the *annual* catch limit is 7 Atlantic salmon), but I suspect you are seeing wild or line-caught *ALASKAN* salmon, not Atlantic salmon which is nearly always farmed because of its endangered species status in nearly all the traditional fishery locations prevents large scale commercial fishing.
*including hybridization or selective breeding*.
lol this is basically saying, "don't use it at all."
Generally, the FDA is saying if you attempt to use the non-GM label on something, we aren't going to do anything proactively because there is currently no regulation on the use of that term, but if your customers complain to us about deceptive or misleading labeling, you have been warned.
In their guidance, they give an example for a type of product that might be able to use a non-GM labeling without FDA objection: a food that is derived from a plant that has not been subject to any form of selective breeding might be berries collected from wild plant or open-pollination (non-selective) heirloom varieties.
Right now, I think this guidance is being ignored by the corn and soy industries and they are heavily lobbying for the FDA to adopt the USDA terminology for GMOs to accommodate the current labeling practice (kind of how the "organic" industry lobbied the USDA to codify existing "organic" practices).
For completeness, the FDA strongly warns producers against a "GM-free" label as in the absence of specific regulation for this moniker (which presumably would be some number slightly greater than zero to allow for practical production considerations), this would imply zero and that is likely to be nearly impossible to verify and therefore on the face misleading/deceptive, except potentially a situation on single ingredient products that are individually genetically tested (which is kind of impractical).
What regulatory body enforces what "Non-GMO" means and what the punishment will be for mislabeling?
The FTC under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The USDA regulates the meaning of the word "organic," so they might have authority to regulate "non-gmo" but I'm not entirely sure on that.
The FDA's current guidance in this area is for companies to avoid a "non-GM" label unless the product can be guaranteed to not have components that were produced using any type of genetic modification *including hybridization or selective breeding*.
Instead the FDA recommends that companies use fully defensible statements like "not produced using bioengineering" or "not genetically engineered" to avoid potential future mislabeling consequences of a non-GM or GM-free product assertion, although they are not currently enforcing this recommendation today.