Then there is Canadian Football which has two "50-yard" lines resulting in a 110 yard playing field + two 20 yard end zones being 150 yards.
This, of course, is a result of Canada being a metric nation;^)
But when you say football field, many folks think of a 100-110m FIFA compliant field which is just about matches American football field + endzones which seems to make some sense. On the other hand, I don't have any idea what the Canadians were thinking, except that nobody is going to play their sport except in stadiums in Canada.
It isn't as easy to spot the "fakers" as you might imagine. Especially if you don't speak the same "language".
A personal example come to mind when I say this. A very good friend of mine has a very deep background in math and statistics, but from an economics background. My math and statistics background is mostly physics and control theory based. Over time we've worked with quite a few people and although I was quite able to tell people that were faking through the math when we talked an engineering language (e.g., ergodic process IIR filtering, numerical stability, etc.), but when we started talking about that same stuff from an econometric point of view (e.g., ARMAX modeling), constant translation between the two in my head made it much more difficult for me to tease out the subtle clues that trigger my BS meter...
Earlier in my dealings with my friend, I found my BS meter triggering all the time with his econometric spin on statistical modeling, but as I got to know him better, I realized my BS meter was just faulty. He knew the statistics stuff as well or better than me, but he was speaking a different language to describe the same mathematical concepts, and the papers he read had different set of seminal authors and the common data regularization procedures went by different names. I eventually took the time to learn his econometric vocabulary, but I can say I doubt I will ever be fluent in his way of talking about statistical mathematics. Having experienced this constant translation issue over time, I can say it really makes it hard to have an effective BS meter because you are constantly questioning if your own translation is accurate enough...
FWIW, I'm pretty sure have met a some real 1%-ers in my time at Caltech, and yes some of them are so out of my league that they could been BS-ing me and I still wouldn't know it. One of my classmates would sometimes look at our homework and then come up with some proof that applied some far out algebraic principle and later grin and say, well just kidding, I made that up I don't know if that proof is true, but doesn't it sounds right. Who knows if he was BS-ing or not, as he could talk circles around us in Algebraic-Category theory (and he also managed to learn how to juggle 20+ balls and ride around on a unicycle which was also way beyond me too). However, we never let him divide up the restaurant bills though as we never did fully trust his arithmetic abilities when it came to actual money;^)
What in the world that has to do with gender, I don't know.
Actually, your response exemplifies the issue...
You mentioned that you met folks and felt you didn't measure up. In my experience, many men in the same situation wouldn't factor in if they thought they measured up in their decision making. If they wanted to get into that field and they thought they had some aptitude, they would simply adopt a fake it until they made it approach.
I think that is the part has to do with gender.
Not that it's totally of biological gender origin, but probably mostly gender social conditioning in our society (although there may be some statistical gender bias when it comes to risk taking or blind confidence that is inherent in the fake it until you make it approach to life).
As I've come to realize over time, there are quite a few people that appear to speak a language (say like math, or computer science) but sometimes are just faking their way through it with only a cursory understanding... Sadly, it's sometimes hard to distinguish between them in a general conversation (say like a 45 minute interview or in a social siutation)...
Well, the similarly "radical Christians" are nowhere to be found.
Actually, the option that I pick is that there are similarly "radical Christians".
E.g., the IRA, the LRA, the Nagaland rebels in India, Lebanese Christian Militia groups, the US based Christian Militia groups such as those involved for Ruby Ridge, and Waco, and even some lone-wolf radicalized persons such as the ones responsible for the 2011 Norway attacks on top of the the clichéd plethora of abortion bombers...
Just not finding them discussed by the daily talking head mass media makers dominated by Judeo-Christian populace doesn't mean they don't exist. Pretty much every other mass religion has a high enough quantity of deluded followers to cause potential substantial misrepresentation of a religion (even if the mainstream opinion media doesn't drill it into our collective talking points)...
Like many religions, over time they tend to branch and secularize and sometimes these sects evolve divergent and potentially violent belief that are not held by the majority of adherents. You many dismiss the studies of theologians as merely pandering to the extreme fringe that you see in the over-reported in the media but that itself is a dismissive and radical view. It gives too much weight to the media who appear sometimes to have inadvertently conspired with the media to hijacked the narrative... Okay maybe that was a bit tin-foil hat, but hopefully you get the point;^)
there are very few cases, when a Christian criminal claimed to be following his faith in contradiction to the secular law.
I'm not sure you are entirely on logical footing here. Theologians are those that study the bible as a professional career, probably not a large overlapping set of folks to those that are Christian criminals (unless you think most theologians are criminals, or that most Christian criminals are christian theologians). When I claimed most theologians interpret these things, I meant those that study the bible as a professional career.
Today the overwhelming opinion of Muslims is approving of the Paris murders [theguardian.com]
Again, as cited by the article you linked, you conveniently omitted the opinion of Muslim extremists on the internet qualifier, as if they were somehow representative of all Muslims or Muslim clerics.... Citation of statistically valid poll required please... (to paraphrase your rules).
Except Koran — which is the God's word entirely — adds quite a few of its own...But Mohammed, having seen the sort of idolatry Christians succumb to with their icons and "holy relics", has made his laws a lot stricter.
I don't think you are understanding the origin of the Koran correctly if you use the word of "has made his". Mohammed was an illiterate prophet who allegedly received the word of god and communicated it to scribes which is recorded as the Koran. You can choose to believe what you wish, but I suspect many followers of Islam might use this slip up mischaracterization as a signal that you really have no idea what Islam is about or what the motivation of followers are.
BTW, I am not Islamic, or even religious in the slightest (now or in the past), but have studied the Bible quite in depth in the past (grandfather was a minister) and the Koran more recently just out of pure curiosity and contrast.
You are comparing the common practice of westernized Christians to that of radical Muslims.
FYI, the christian bible is somewhat ambiguous on the tenant of following secular law vs god's law. As I remember it, although much of the gospels deals with the idea you bring up about submission to the laws of man, in Acts 5, the apostles clearly state that "We must obey god rather than men." when confronted by authorities with illegally prothesizing their new Jesus worshiping religion. The take-way by most Christian theologians on this topic is that the bible says you should always honor the laws of man, but you must fear and obey God's word when it conflicts.
That kind of pulls the rug out from your so called saving grace depending on how you interpret God's word. If you think god is telling you to stone someone, you should "fear god" and obey, but if it's something simply described that someone else stoned for some specific reason in the bible and God didn't tell you to do it, well, perhaps you should honor to the laws of man (this is a paraphrase of Peter 2). Kind of a slippery slope for a radicalized religious type isn't it?
In case you aren't aware, the reason the Muslim and Christian (and Jewish) religions seem to be so close is that they hold several common old testament scriptures as canon. It is these old testament books that have the aformentioned description of religious law and punishments. The main difference of Christianity is the identification of the prophet of Jesus and how he may or may not be the embodiment of god (depending on how the Christian sect interpretation of the trinity, etc). The gospels which recount the early days of the christian church and the Revelations about the second coming and salvation are really the only "technical" differences in the basics of the religion. The details are really in the interpretation of the same texts and unsurprisingly track each other very closely (e.g., like halal and kosher foods, similar but not the same)...
FWIW, providing much of the information about institutions such as graduation rates, student debt, etc is already required by Title IV... Except for faculty pay and overhead.
Although that information might be interesting for a typical community college, that information is likely silly for a typical private prestigious research universities. Basically private universities charge whatever they want and don't even bother computing the fraction of pay for "teaching " for hot-shot faculty members (who are basically hired as research grant rain makers), but still teach as part of department rotations (or even for "fun"). Also splitting the administrative costs for research and teaching at these types of institutions would be difficult at best. List price tuition at these types universities are basically funny money. Nearly every student pays a different amount due to private grants given to gross up loans and required parental contribution to the full tuition amount.
For most prestigious private schools, I suspect if they were required to do this crap, they would simply opt-out of the loan programs and finance loans through their endowments. This wouldn't impact their application rates, nor the tuitions they charge at all, it would likely only punish middle class students (who rely the most on these programs). The ~$5000/year cap on most of these programs is a drop in the bucket for the institution, but a big deal for the middle class family trying to put their kids through these types of schools. Once free of federal direct loans, all your other proposed requirements would then be moot for those institutions.
As for your loan repayment suggestions, I suspect you already realize this means it isn't a loan you are getting (with someone fronting the money and expecting to get paid back with enough interest to make it worth the risk). This would make it basically more like an entitlement program (like social security or medicare or unemployment insurance, or worker's comp) which needs to be funded somehow by a combination of fees (getting payments from those that can "afford to pay back") and taxing others to make up the difference. Not that this is wrong, but you should call a spade a spade. It is no longer a student loan, but a progressive tax you pay for taking advantage of a reduced cost education.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.
Although you can probably label every born on earth as ignorant to make any case, I suspect all such behavior by religious "moderates" (including Christians) is simply explained away by suppression of cognitive dissonance.
For example, the GPL (in abstract) vs GPL v3, vs what they do in their day job for their employer. Some people will happily work for a company that chooses to for a MIT/BSD license (or perhaps closed-source license), yet privately support a more radical GPL v3 position and occasionally hope for a more radical change. In fact over time, their radical views might mellow and reject GPL embrace a more moderate MIT/BSD philosophy yet still promote the GPL out of fear of persecution by their comrades.
There's no need to call these people out as being "ignorant, in denial or just lying -- either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause". It's simply a common behavior hedge in a social environment. We are all ignorant, in denial and often lie to our selves or other people and fear persecution and privately root for things that advance our causes which generally causes cognitive dissonance. It's just a matter of degree and how much we are able to suppress the discomfort associated with it.
For example you can't be filming in the United States and commit actual crimes, like robbing a bank and then filming it in order for a movie.
I think you are confused. Actually, filming a real bank robbery (even if you film it yourself) is perfectly fine. The mere act of filming your action (e.g., the bank robbery) does not make the crime legal, however. I doubt that such a film can even be excluded as evidence against you by self incrimination since the camera is not you (although it may be more difficult to establish a chain of custody). People get caught on "tape" by their own security cameras all the time and that is not problem as far as I know.
For the most part, there is no laws in the US to control what people should make movies about. The only filming that appears to be out of bounds today from a legal point of view is child pornography and sadly the laws against this do not stop it either...
FWIW, it appears from the paper that this extra "mass" is an artifact of analyzing entangled particles in a linearized gravity framework and observing a stress-energy tensor term that seems to appear higher for entangled particles and radiated away as particles move to decoherence. This perhaps might be considered the mass of the entanglement.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be cool if the reason for the observed equivalency of gravitational mass and inertial mass was somehow related to quantum entanglement? (yes I know this is unrelated to this phenomena, but still)...
That is not true. Apple has invested billions in Corning, Samsung, Foxconn, etc. You have only heard about GT because it blew up.
Although I only have access to public information, AFAIK, it isn't Apple that invested in Corning, actually it is Samsung that invested in Corning (~7.4% stake which makes Samsung the largest single shareholder of Corning).
Although in the past, Apple had made an investment in Samsung Semiconductor to ensure flat panel technology availability, I believe they no longer use Samsung flatpanels nor hold that investment.
For their semiconductors, their relationship appears to be a foundry deal only. Samsung has made investments themselves on fab capacity based on being an Apple supplier. Of course as industry practice, Apple likely makes component pre-payments based on forecast demand on a discount basis (which gives Samsung funds to finance it), but that's not the same as an equity investment.
On the other hand, Apple apparently has invested a few billion in Sharp as their new flat panel supplier. There is also a rumored multi-billion dollar Foxconn investment (for expanding iphone production capacity), but I can find no public evidence of a Corning investment.
That's not to say that Apple and Corning don't collaborate very closely on gorilla glass production, but there doesn't appear to be this billion dollar investment in Corning that you are referring to.
Interesting that they both use the same supplier for their critical component and are competing products....I'm guessing neither have enough money to build their own production labs like Apple did with that special glass they use.
Apple didn't spend their own money on production of their "special" glass (it is purchased gorilla glass 4 from Dow Corning)... On that whole GT advanced technologies sapphilre disaster, they attempted to purchase their own production labs (and lease them back to GT for production), but apparently that ain't gonna happen now...
Imagine how amazing they would be as a joint company.
Actually Nvidia, Apple, AMD, Qualcomm and Xilinx are major customers of TSMC's advanced processes and all are subject to the whims of the supply and demand for wafers at TSMC. It's just that Apple is a bigger and newer customer and generally customers in that position get preferential treatment to win their business. FWIW, at a capital cost of about $2B, I don't think Nvidia and AMD are going to get back into the fab biz any time soon. Then their is the whole poly silicon suppliers and wafer suppliers and Applied Materials steppers, etc, etc... Companies are all highly independent on specialized suppliers. This is not unsual in this business (or any other modern enterprise). Very few companies are totally vertically integrated these days...
A lot of that's true, but I'm not sure how you think public money passes through universities to textbook companies? (In reality, it's students paying textbook companies directly.)
In reality, public money passes through government default subsidized student loan programs to allow students to borrow money at favorable interest rates to allow many students to pay textbook companies that otherwise could not afford to pay textbook companies. But I digress...
Fortunately, student funding/debt has very little to do with how most universities are funding their research. In actuality, most prestigious research universities are pretty much directly funded by public money (including private institutions in the USA) in the form of research grants. The tuition they charge their student (esp at the undergraduate level) generally is a small part of a typical schools budget and generally could easily be covered by a fraction of their endowment income. Most grant money *includes* overhead for operations.
However, student funding has very much to do with how universities fund their non-research operations that aren't covered by grant overhead. This is especially true at institutions that do no research at all and of course most acute at diploma mills.
The reason that prestigious research universities charge students so much is that it conveys a sense of value to the education they are providing and is easy to get the students to take out loans (esp publically subsidized loans) for their education and once they max out loans, they often discount the remainder to cover the difference. The reason less prestigious universities charge so much is that more prestigious universities set the price point high (basically a type of comparative level-set pricing collusion).
Sadly, the way it is set up now, by making it so easy to borrow, the government is essentially tax/spending the students future income to transfer this wealth to universities. Is it fair that only students are burdened with this "tax" rather than the public at large? The universities are charging more because it's easy for the students to borrow the money and the students are caught in the middle. Why is the government making it so easy for students to go into massive debt (esp for diploma mill paper)? Well that's a political question...
Textbook money is also a drop in the bucket at any research university. Other than undergrads, who's using textbooks for research anyhow? Instead, researchers are reading and writing papers for journals that are probably 10x worse at gouging money than the worst offending textbook companies.
That summary is a total superficial read of the article.
It seems to me the point of the article was that 1994 (the web 1.0 boom of silicon valley) seemingly should have been more women friendly, but the valley was already being run by money from the previous booms in silicon valley and for a multitude of reasons which they list (e.g., male dominated venture capital firms), was unfriendly to women as chronicled by the biographies of the class of '94 from Stanford. One of the reason they cited was that women seem to gravitate towards "safe" jobs (e.g., law, finance, medicine) and a new "boys-club" mentality of the startup culture (specifically mentioning Paypal which was a Stanford dominated startup).
These same trends were most certainly true both before 1994 and after 1994 and not exclusive to Stanford... TFA didn't say techs' gender gap started at Stanford. TFA used Stanford as emblematic of the issue.
I'm really tired of having cat litter everything in my home.
There's an obvious solution this... Assuming you don't want a cat or a home...
No? Can we assume this is the only product on the market (and before it was invented, cats littered homes with reckless abandon)... If in the end, this is your only solution, then make your piece with the DRM, or with bypassing it. Don't forget, you always have a choice..
Solution: a pallet tax. The money from the tax will go to... well, nevermind where the money goes. We need to tax these job-killing pallets now!
FWIW, the longshoremen solution is a container royalty central collection fund which is like a "tax" for intermodal shipping containers... The money from this "tax" goes to... the few folks that got to keep their jobs (to pay for lost employment opportunities).
There isn't a specific pallet tax that I know of... Yet... (although there are often redemption-like fee associated with pallets)
Think of the dock works who lost their jobs due to this "marvelous" invention. It's this efficiency and automation we have to fight against or nobody will have a job again./sarcasm
You may have meant it sarcastically, but since the 60's, longshoremen have acquiesced to the use of efficient containerization in exchange for a royalty payment to compensate for lost job opportunity... You can read about the on-going fight about this here
Of course, jobs have been lost, but the folks that still have jobs are being compensated quite well for the time they took to process the container, almost as if they actually stuffed and stripped the cargo (what packing/unpacking is called in maritime transport lingo) w/o actually doing so...
This has less to do with pallets, but advent of multi-modal shipping containers.
FWIW, having worked in a warehouse for a production line, I can say that even material handling w/o pallets is basically a non-starter. The line expediters in our warehouse worked with unpacked material and the inventory tracking and special transport handling that went along with that is easily on par with simply just discarding the partial pallet storage that was left in its wake. It isn't just shipping that relies on the magic of pallets...
What no one was anticipating is that the bots are extremely effective of looking like a high value consumer.
Actually, what is surprising is that these supposed high value customers are not in fact actually bots (instead of essentially being web users programmed to be overconsumers by a history of exposure to saturation advertising and silly enough to click on adverts for stupid things).
Philosophically, when some thing exhibits indistinguishable from another (e.g, a consumer exhibiting behavior indistinguishable from a bot), are these high-value consumers not really acting like "artificial" bots? Because we know these "artificial" bots (aka high-value consumers) aren't actually buying anything, but are simply browsing indiscriminately out of boredom and collecting browser-based exploits from the wild to expand real bot nets in a symbiotic relationship.
On a similar note, people always wondered if the anti-virus companies actually were in cahoots with the virus writers. How do with know the ad platform companies aren't simply promulgating a myth of the ephemeral existence of high-value consumers that want to be identified in a sea of bots by the latest and greatest sophisticated ad platform subscription?
As I understand it, most of the power company's objections to solar is being forced to buy the power back and subsidize it.
Maintaining the lines to your house is a fixed cost and they are recovering that cost using amortization over periodic billing based on usage. People who go solar are essentially the freeloaders in this system as they pay less of the overhead for the amount of transmission service they receive. This is not unlike the gasoline tax for highway funding debate or numerous other situations.
Governments tend to attempt to make things simpler for consumers by mandating "tariffed" service to avoid "skimming" by the providers. Unfortunately that generally doesn't work as governments generally attempt to use these regulations for subsidizing service for some by burdening others and the companies just get smarter about skimming. Unfortunately, some customers discover the workarounds to freeload for a while (e.g., internet VoIP w/o universal service fund fees, or solar panels with forced power buyback, or electric cars that pay no gas tax). They claim their microeconomic observation about their freeloading is the new economic reality and people should just wake up and smell the coffee.
Unfortunately, when there are too many freeloaders them, then the model just breaks down and need to be fixed so that more people pay full freight. Often, the freeloaders then discover that paying full freight isn't makes the it much less attractive (but at least they got theirs whilst the getting was good). The result is generally simply a different reality than the previous, but generally not much different.
For example, the power company would much rather demand be totally flat. Provisioning for more power is a big capital cost (building power plants, increasing transmission capacity, etc.) that they can only recover by amortization. This is the reality that the power companies lived in the 80's with nuclear power decommissioning. Sadly, we have a big nasty habit of kicking the can down the road on these things...
At least when you collect a welfare check directly from the government you are being honest with yourself...
Actually, some of it *is* on the Earth; at least some samples are. It's not like they dug a hole to examine it there and say "Sorry, boys, but we gotta leave this thing in the Earth if we're gonna say 'It's in Earth.'"
FWIW, the bridgmanite samples in question (technically a phase of a perovskite crystal structure mineral) does not exist outside the pressure/temperatures which occur *in* the earth which is why samples have never been discovered *on* the earth before (although they certainly have likely existed, no-one has discovered/isolated them before). The interesting thing about this sample is that we didn't have to create the pressure/temperature (apparently 24 gigapascals and 2300 kelvin) in order to form it as these conditions were temporarily created when the meteorite impacted earth.
It would kind of be like if nobody had seen a diamond before, but they were theorized to exist, and someone held up amorphous coal and said it was a sample of diamond because it was just carbon. Of course even though diamonds take somewhat high temperature and pressure to create, it isn't too high, so there are an abundance of diamond fields that exist on the surface of the earth w/o any digging required, so this is kind of a bad example from a scarcity point of view, but from a phase mineral structure point of view, hopefully that "clarifies" it...
The downside is that although this discovery is consistent with the theory of bridgmanite, we still don't have a sample of bridgmanite created in its natural environment *in* the earth, so we still don't know if this is what is actually there. To dredge up the diamond analogy again, there is of course another carbon mineral that is even stronger than cubic diamond called lonsdaleite (aka hexagonal diamond) that can form under higher temperature/pressure conditions like meteorite strikes. So, since this is merely consistent with theory and not an actual sample, apparently, the jury is still out if this sample is representative of bridgmanite or perhaps there's yet another configuration of perovskite that occurs deep inside the earth we haven't figured out yet...
To create another analogy, it's kinda like how we keep on finding all sorts of carbon nano{tube,sheet,fibres} configurations that we haven't discovered before that have unique and potentially useful properties.
"5G will be a dramatic overhaul and harmonisation of the radio spectrum," - really? How?
You might be assuming dramatic will be better. You might also be assuming harmonization will mean everyone should use the same technology.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting this statement? They might be technically correct in their statement yet the technology will be a total fail, no?;^)
At least in the USA for 4G, there was/is a lot of dramatic overhaul of the network after WiMax's demise and harmonization of the spectrum means the commercial availability of a penta-band phone...
Lower transportation costs, well frankly if those go up, I see a likely benifit regarding more local jobs. I don't see batteries powering those massive container ships, but then again, there is more oil for that kind of shit if it isn't being used in cars, for other power etc.
I don't think you understand the economics of container shipping. First of all, they used the worst possible polluting fuel (aka bunker fuel) because it is unregulated internationally. Secondly, at 15 knots, these ship consume less than 50 tons/day. However at 25 knots, fuel consumption rises to about 300 tons/day. It's all about speed, not the moving with the ships.
(also cars and powerplants can't really use bunker fuel even if it's reprocessed, it won't be economical).
Slashdot Mirror
Then there is Canadian Football which has two "50-yard" lines resulting in a 110 yard playing field + two 20 yard end zones being 150 yards.
This, of course, is a result of Canada being a metric nation ;^)
But when you say football field, many folks think of a 100-110m FIFA compliant field which is just about matches American football field + endzones which seems to make some sense. On the other hand, I don't have any idea what the Canadians were thinking, except that nobody is going to play their sport except in stadiums in Canada.
It isn't as easy to spot the "fakers" as you might imagine. Especially if you don't speak the same "language".
A personal example come to mind when I say this. A very good friend of mine has a very deep background in math and statistics, but from an economics background. My math and statistics background is mostly physics and control theory based. Over time we've worked with quite a few people and although I was quite able to tell people that were faking through the math when we talked an engineering language (e.g., ergodic process IIR filtering, numerical stability, etc.), but when we started talking about that same stuff from an econometric point of view (e.g., ARMAX modeling), constant translation between the two in my head made it much more difficult for me to tease out the subtle clues that trigger my BS meter...
Earlier in my dealings with my friend, I found my BS meter triggering all the time with his econometric spin on statistical modeling, but as I got to know him better, I realized my BS meter was just faulty. He knew the statistics stuff as well or better than me, but he was speaking a different language to describe the same mathematical concepts, and the papers he read had different set of seminal authors and the common data regularization procedures went by different names. I eventually took the time to learn his econometric vocabulary, but I can say I doubt I will ever be fluent in his way of talking about statistical mathematics. Having experienced this constant translation issue over time, I can say it really makes it hard to have an effective BS meter because you are constantly questioning if your own translation is accurate enough...
FWIW, I'm pretty sure have met a some real 1%-ers in my time at Caltech, and yes some of them are so out of my league that they could been BS-ing me and I still wouldn't know it. One of my classmates would sometimes look at our homework and then come up with some proof that applied some far out algebraic principle and later grin and say, well just kidding, I made that up I don't know if that proof is true, but doesn't it sounds right. Who knows if he was BS-ing or not, as he could talk circles around us in Algebraic-Category theory (and he also managed to learn how to juggle 20+ balls and ride around on a unicycle which was also way beyond me too). However, we never let him divide up the restaurant bills though as we never did fully trust his arithmetic abilities when it came to actual money ;^)
What in the world that has to do with gender, I don't know.
Actually, your response exemplifies the issue...
You mentioned that you met folks and felt you didn't measure up.
In my experience, many men in the same situation wouldn't factor in if they thought they measured up in their decision making.
If they wanted to get into that field and they thought they had some aptitude, they would simply adopt a fake it until they made it approach.
I think that is the part has to do with gender.
Not that it's totally of biological gender origin, but probably mostly gender social conditioning in our society (although there may be some statistical gender bias when it comes to risk taking or blind confidence that is inherent in the fake it until you make it approach to life).
As I've come to realize over time, there are quite a few people that appear to speak a language (say like math, or computer science) but sometimes are just faking their way through it with only a cursory understanding... Sadly, it's sometimes hard to distinguish between them in a general conversation (say like a 45 minute interview or in a social siutation)...
Well, the similarly "radical Christians" are nowhere to be found.
Actually, the option that I pick is that there are similarly "radical Christians".
E.g., the IRA, the LRA, the Nagaland rebels in India, Lebanese Christian Militia groups, the US based Christian Militia groups such as those involved for Ruby Ridge, and Waco, and even some lone-wolf radicalized persons such as the ones responsible for the 2011 Norway attacks on top of the the clichéd plethora of abortion bombers...
Just not finding them discussed by the daily talking head mass media makers dominated by Judeo-Christian populace doesn't mean they don't exist. Pretty much every other mass religion has a high enough quantity of deluded followers to cause potential substantial misrepresentation of a religion (even if the mainstream opinion media doesn't drill it into our collective talking points)...
Like many religions, over time they tend to branch and secularize and sometimes these sects evolve divergent and potentially violent belief that are not held by the majority of adherents. You many dismiss the studies of theologians as merely pandering to the extreme fringe that you see in the over-reported in the media but that itself is a dismissive and radical view. It gives too much weight to the media who appear sometimes to have inadvertently conspired with the media to hijacked the narrative... Okay maybe that was a bit tin-foil hat, but hopefully you get the point ;^)
there are very few cases, when a Christian criminal claimed to be following his faith in contradiction to the secular law.
I'm not sure you are entirely on logical footing here. Theologians are those that study the bible as a professional career, probably not a large overlapping set of folks to those that are Christian criminals (unless you think most theologians are criminals, or that most Christian criminals are christian theologians). When I claimed most theologians interpret these things, I meant those that study the bible as a professional career.
Today the overwhelming opinion of Muslims is approving of the Paris murders [theguardian.com]
Again, as cited by the article you linked, you conveniently omitted the opinion of Muslim extremists on the internet qualifier, as if they were somehow representative of all Muslims or Muslim clerics.... Citation of statistically valid poll required please... (to paraphrase your rules).
Except Koran — which is the God's word entirely — adds quite a few of its own.. .But Mohammed, having seen the sort of idolatry Christians succumb to with their icons and "holy relics", has made his laws a lot stricter.
I don't think you are understanding the origin of the Koran correctly if you use the word of "has made his". Mohammed was an illiterate prophet who allegedly received the word of god and communicated it to scribes which is recorded as the Koran. You can choose to believe what you wish, but I suspect many followers of Islam might use this slip up mischaracterization as a signal that you really have no idea what Islam is about or what the motivation of followers are.
BTW, I am not Islamic, or even religious in the slightest (now or in the past), but have studied the Bible quite in depth in the past (grandfather was a minister) and the Koran more recently just out of pure curiosity and contrast.
You are comparing the common practice of westernized Christians to that of radical Muslims.
FYI, the christian bible is somewhat ambiguous on the tenant of following secular law vs god's law. As I remember it, although much of the gospels deals with the idea you bring up about submission to the laws of man, in Acts 5, the apostles clearly state that "We must obey god rather than men." when confronted by authorities with illegally prothesizing their new Jesus worshiping religion. The take-way by most Christian theologians on this topic is that the bible says you should always honor the laws of man, but you must fear and obey God's word when it conflicts.
That kind of pulls the rug out from your so called saving grace depending on how you interpret God's word. If you think god is telling you to stone someone, you should "fear god" and obey, but if it's something simply described that someone else stoned for some specific reason in the bible and God didn't tell you to do it, well, perhaps you should honor to the laws of man (this is a paraphrase of Peter 2). Kind of a slippery slope for a radicalized religious type isn't it?
In case you aren't aware, the reason the Muslim and Christian (and Jewish) religions seem to be so close is that they hold several common old testament scriptures as canon. It is these old testament books that have the aformentioned description of religious law and punishments. The main difference of Christianity is the identification of the prophet of Jesus and how he may or may not be the embodiment of god (depending on how the Christian sect interpretation of the trinity, etc). The gospels which recount the early days of the christian church and the Revelations about the second coming and salvation are really the only "technical" differences in the basics of the religion. The details are really in the interpretation of the same texts and unsurprisingly track each other very closely (e.g., like halal and kosher foods, similar but not the same)...
FWIW, providing much of the information about institutions such as graduation rates, student debt, etc is already required by Title IV... Except for faculty pay and overhead.
Although that information might be interesting for a typical community college, that information is likely silly for a typical private prestigious research universities. Basically private universities charge whatever they want and don't even bother computing the fraction of pay for "teaching " for hot-shot faculty members (who are basically hired as research grant rain makers), but still teach as part of department rotations (or even for "fun"). Also splitting the administrative costs for research and teaching at these types of institutions would be difficult at best. List price tuition at these types universities are basically funny money. Nearly every student pays a different amount due to private grants given to gross up loans and required parental contribution to the full tuition amount.
For most prestigious private schools, I suspect if they were required to do this crap, they would simply opt-out of the loan programs and finance loans through their endowments. This wouldn't impact their application rates, nor the tuitions they charge at all, it would likely only punish middle class students (who rely the most on these programs). The ~$5000/year cap on most of these programs is a drop in the bucket for the institution, but a big deal for the middle class family trying to put their kids through these types of schools. Once free of federal direct loans, all your other proposed requirements would then be moot for those institutions.
As for your loan repayment suggestions, I suspect you already realize this means it isn't a loan you are getting (with someone fronting the money and expecting to get paid back with enough interest to make it worth the risk). This would make it basically more like an entitlement program (like social security or medicare or unemployment insurance, or worker's comp) which needs to be funded somehow by a combination of fees (getting payments from those that can "afford to pay back") and taxing others to make up the difference. Not that this is wrong, but you should call a spade a spade. It is no longer a student loan, but a progressive tax you pay for taking advantage of a reduced cost education.
I'm unaware of Christian God (or any of His prophets) calling for killing in his name.
Leviticus 24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Thus, I tend to think, that these good people are either ignorant, in denial, or just lying — either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause.
Although you can probably label every born on earth as ignorant to make any case, I suspect all such behavior by religious "moderates" (including Christians) is simply explained away by suppression of cognitive dissonance.
For example, the GPL (in abstract) vs GPL v3, vs what they do in their day job for their employer. Some people will happily work for a company that chooses to for a MIT/BSD license (or perhaps closed-source license), yet privately support a more radical GPL v3 position and occasionally hope for a more radical change. In fact over time, their radical views might mellow and reject GPL embrace a more moderate MIT/BSD philosophy yet still promote the GPL out of fear of persecution by their comrades.
There's no need to call these people out as being "ignorant, in denial or just lying -- either out of fear of persecution or to advance their cause". It's simply a common behavior hedge in a social environment. We are all ignorant, in denial and often lie to our selves or other people and fear persecution and privately root for things that advance our causes which generally causes cognitive dissonance. It's just a matter of degree and how much we are able to suppress the discomfort associated with it.
For example you can't be filming in the United States and commit actual crimes, like robbing a bank and then filming it in order for a movie.
I think you are confused. Actually, filming a real bank robbery (even if you film it yourself) is perfectly fine. The mere act of filming your action (e.g., the bank robbery) does not make the crime legal, however. I doubt that such a film can even be excluded as evidence against you by self incrimination since the camera is not you (although it may be more difficult to establish a chain of custody). People get caught on "tape" by their own security cameras all the time and that is not problem as far as I know.
For the most part, there is no laws in the US to control what people should make movies about. The only filming that appears to be out of bounds today from a legal point of view is child pornography and sadly the laws against this do not stop it either...
FWIW, it appears from the paper that this extra "mass" is an artifact of analyzing entangled particles in a linearized gravity framework and observing a stress-energy tensor term that seems to appear higher for entangled particles and radiated away as particles move to decoherence. This perhaps might be considered the mass of the entanglement.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be cool if the reason for the observed equivalency of gravitational mass and inertial mass was somehow related to quantum entanglement? (yes I know this is unrelated to this phenomena, but still)...
That is not true. Apple has invested billions in Corning, Samsung, Foxconn, etc. You have only heard about GT because it blew up.
Although I only have access to public information, AFAIK, it isn't Apple that invested in Corning, actually it is Samsung that invested in Corning (~7.4% stake which makes Samsung the largest single shareholder of Corning).
Although in the past, Apple had made an investment in Samsung Semiconductor to ensure flat panel technology availability, I believe they no longer use Samsung flatpanels nor hold that investment.
For their semiconductors, their relationship appears to be a foundry deal only. Samsung has made investments themselves on fab capacity based on being an Apple supplier. Of course as industry practice, Apple likely makes component pre-payments based on forecast demand on a discount basis (which gives Samsung funds to finance it), but that's not the same as an equity investment.
On the other hand, Apple apparently has invested a few billion in Sharp as their new flat panel supplier. There is also a rumored multi-billion dollar Foxconn investment (for expanding iphone production capacity), but I can find no public evidence of a Corning investment.
That's not to say that Apple and Corning don't collaborate very closely on gorilla glass production, but there doesn't appear to be this billion dollar investment in Corning that you are referring to.
Interesting that they both use the same supplier for their critical component and are competing products....I'm guessing neither have enough money to build their own production labs like Apple did with that special glass they use.
Apple didn't spend their own money on production of their "special" glass (it is purchased gorilla glass 4 from Dow Corning)...
On that whole GT advanced technologies sapphilre disaster, they attempted to purchase their own production labs (and lease them back to GT for production), but apparently that ain't gonna happen now...
Imagine how amazing they would be as a joint company.
Actually Nvidia, Apple, AMD, Qualcomm and Xilinx are major customers of TSMC's advanced processes and all are subject to the whims of the supply and demand for wafers at TSMC. It's just that Apple is a bigger and newer customer and generally customers in that position get preferential treatment to win their business. FWIW, at a capital cost of about $2B, I don't think Nvidia and AMD are going to get back into the fab biz any time soon. Then their is the whole poly silicon suppliers and wafer suppliers and Applied Materials steppers, etc, etc... Companies are all highly independent on specialized suppliers. This is not unsual in this business (or any other modern enterprise). Very few companies are totally vertically integrated these days...
Yep, that's why nobody lands their boost stage and cuts their costs by a significant fraction... right?
FTFY. Might be true someday, but not today...
A lot of that's true, but I'm not sure how you think public money passes through universities to textbook companies? (In reality, it's students paying textbook companies directly.)
In reality, public money passes through government default subsidized student loan programs to allow students to borrow money at favorable interest rates to allow many students to pay textbook companies that otherwise could not afford to pay textbook companies. But I digress...
Fortunately, student funding/debt has very little to do with how most universities are funding their research. In actuality, most prestigious research universities are pretty much directly funded by public money (including private institutions in the USA) in the form of research grants. The tuition they charge their student (esp at the undergraduate level) generally is a small part of a typical schools budget and generally could easily be covered by a fraction of their endowment income. Most grant money *includes* overhead for operations.
However, student funding has very much to do with how universities fund their non-research operations that aren't covered by grant overhead. This is especially true at institutions that do no research at all and of course most acute at diploma mills.
The reason that prestigious research universities charge students so much is that it conveys a sense of value to the education they are providing and is easy to get the students to take out loans (esp publically subsidized loans) for their education and once they max out loans, they often discount the remainder to cover the difference. The reason less prestigious universities charge so much is that more prestigious universities set the price point high (basically a type of comparative level-set pricing collusion).
Sadly, the way it is set up now, by making it so easy to borrow, the government is essentially tax/spending the students future income to transfer this wealth to universities. Is it fair that only students are burdened with this "tax" rather than the public at large? The universities are charging more because it's easy for the students to borrow the money and the students are caught in the middle. Why is the government making it so easy for students to go into massive debt (esp for diploma mill paper)? Well that's a political question...
Textbook money is also a drop in the bucket at any research university. Other than undergrads, who's using textbooks for research anyhow? Instead, researchers are reading and writing papers for journals that are probably 10x worse at gouging money than the worst offending textbook companies.
That summary is a total superficial read of the article.
It seems to me the point of the article was that 1994 (the web 1.0 boom of silicon valley) seemingly should have been more women friendly, but the valley was already being run by money from the previous booms in silicon valley and for a multitude of reasons which they list (e.g., male dominated venture capital firms), was unfriendly to women as chronicled by the biographies of the class of '94 from Stanford. One of the reason they cited was that women seem to gravitate towards "safe" jobs (e.g., law, finance, medicine) and a new "boys-club" mentality of the startup culture (specifically mentioning Paypal which was a Stanford dominated startup).
These same trends were most certainly true both before 1994 and after 1994 and not exclusive to Stanford... TFA didn't say techs' gender gap started at Stanford. TFA used Stanford as emblematic of the issue.
I'm really tired of having cat litter everything in my home.
There's an obvious solution this... Assuming you don't want a cat or a home...
No? Can we assume this is the only product on the market (and before it was invented, cats littered homes with reckless abandon)...
If in the end, this is your only solution, then make your piece with the DRM, or with bypassing it. Don't forget, you always have a choice..
Solution: a pallet tax. The money from the tax will go to ... well, nevermind where the money goes. We need to tax these job-killing pallets now!
FWIW, the longshoremen solution is a container royalty central collection fund which is like a "tax" for intermodal shipping containers... The money from this "tax" goes to... the few folks that got to keep their jobs (to pay for lost employment opportunities).
There isn't a specific pallet tax that I know of... Yet... (although there are often redemption-like fee associated with pallets)
Think of the dock works who lost their jobs due to this "marvelous" invention. It's this efficiency and automation we have to fight against or nobody will have a job again. /sarcasm
You may have meant it sarcastically, but since the 60's, longshoremen have acquiesced to the use of efficient containerization in exchange for a royalty payment to compensate for lost job opportunity... You can read about the on-going fight about this here
Of course, jobs have been lost, but the folks that still have jobs are being compensated quite well for the time they took to process the container, almost as if they actually stuffed and stripped the cargo (what packing/unpacking is called in maritime transport lingo) w/o actually doing so...
This has less to do with pallets, but advent of multi-modal shipping containers.
FWIW, having worked in a warehouse for a production line, I can say that even material handling w/o pallets is basically a non-starter. The line expediters in our warehouse worked with unpacked material and the inventory tracking and special transport handling that went along with that is easily on par with simply just discarding the partial pallet storage that was left in its wake. It isn't just shipping that relies on the magic of pallets...
What no one was anticipating is that the bots are extremely effective of looking like a high value consumer.
Actually, what is surprising is that these supposed high value customers are not in fact actually bots (instead of essentially being web users programmed to be overconsumers by a history of exposure to saturation advertising and silly enough to click on adverts for stupid things).
Philosophically, when some thing exhibits indistinguishable from another (e.g, a consumer exhibiting behavior indistinguishable from a bot), are these high-value consumers not really acting like "artificial" bots? Because we know these "artificial" bots (aka high-value consumers) aren't actually buying anything, but are simply browsing indiscriminately out of boredom and collecting browser-based exploits from the wild to expand real bot nets in a symbiotic relationship.
On a similar note, people always wondered if the anti-virus companies actually were in cahoots with the virus writers. How do with know the ad platform companies aren't simply promulgating a myth of the ephemeral existence of high-value consumers that want to be identified in a sea of bots by the latest and greatest sophisticated ad platform subscription?
As I understand it, most of the power company's objections to solar is being forced to buy the power back and subsidize it.
Maintaining the lines to your house is a fixed cost and they are recovering that cost using amortization over periodic billing based on usage. People who go solar are essentially the freeloaders in this system as they pay less of the overhead for the amount of transmission service they receive. This is not unlike the gasoline tax for highway funding debate or numerous other situations.
Governments tend to attempt to make things simpler for consumers by mandating "tariffed" service to avoid "skimming" by the providers. Unfortunately that generally doesn't work as governments generally attempt to use these regulations for subsidizing service for some by burdening others and the companies just get smarter about skimming. Unfortunately, some customers discover the workarounds to freeload for a while (e.g., internet VoIP w/o universal service fund fees, or solar panels with forced power buyback, or electric cars that pay no gas tax). They claim their microeconomic observation about their freeloading is the new economic reality and people should just wake up and smell the coffee.
Unfortunately, when there are too many freeloaders them, then the model just breaks down and need to be fixed so that more people pay full freight. Often, the freeloaders then discover that paying full freight isn't makes the it much less attractive (but at least they got theirs whilst the getting was good). The result is generally simply a different reality than the previous, but generally not much different.
For example, the power company would much rather demand be totally flat. Provisioning for more power is a big capital cost (building power plants, increasing transmission capacity, etc.) that they can only recover by amortization. This is the reality that the power companies lived in the 80's with nuclear power decommissioning. Sadly, we have a big nasty habit of kicking the can down the road on these things...
At least when you collect a welfare check directly from the government you are being honest with yourself...
Actually, some of it *is* on the Earth; at least some samples are. It's not like they dug a hole to examine it there and say "Sorry, boys, but we gotta leave this thing in the Earth if we're gonna say 'It's in Earth.'"
FWIW, the bridgmanite samples in question (technically a phase of a perovskite crystal structure mineral) does not exist outside the pressure/temperatures which occur *in* the earth which is why samples have never been discovered *on* the earth before (although they certainly have likely existed, no-one has discovered/isolated them before). The interesting thing about this sample is that we didn't have to create the pressure/temperature (apparently 24 gigapascals and 2300 kelvin) in order to form it as these conditions were temporarily created when the meteorite impacted earth.
It would kind of be like if nobody had seen a diamond before, but they were theorized to exist, and someone held up amorphous coal and said it was a sample of diamond because it was just carbon. Of course even though diamonds take somewhat high temperature and pressure to create, it isn't too high, so there are an abundance of diamond fields that exist on the surface of the earth w/o any digging required, so this is kind of a bad example from a scarcity point of view, but from a phase mineral structure point of view, hopefully that "clarifies" it...
The downside is that although this discovery is consistent with the theory of bridgmanite, we still don't have a sample of bridgmanite created in its natural environment *in* the earth, so we still don't know if this is what is actually there. To dredge up the diamond analogy again, there is of course another carbon mineral that is even stronger than cubic diamond called lonsdaleite (aka hexagonal diamond) that can form under higher temperature/pressure conditions like meteorite strikes. So, since this is merely consistent with theory and not an actual sample, apparently, the jury is still out if this sample is representative of bridgmanite or perhaps there's yet another configuration of perovskite that occurs deep inside the earth we haven't figured out yet...
To create another analogy, it's kinda like how we keep on finding all sorts of carbon nano{tube,sheet,fibres} configurations that we haven't discovered before that have unique and potentially useful properties.
There seem to be no place to put even a single 500MHz channel anywhere below 6GHz, yet alone a 2GHz one?
Harmonization in "4G" LTE is called carrier aggregation.
"5G will be a dramatic overhaul and harmonisation of the radio spectrum," - really? How?
You might be assuming dramatic will be better.
You might also be assuming harmonization will mean everyone should use the same technology.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting this statement? They might be technically correct in their statement yet the technology will be a total fail, no? ;^)
At least in the USA for 4G, there was/is a lot of dramatic overhaul of the network after WiMax's demise and harmonization of the spectrum means the commercial availability of a penta-band phone...
Lower transportation costs, well frankly if those go up, I see a likely benifit regarding more local jobs. I don't see batteries powering those massive container ships, but then again, there is more oil for that kind of shit if it isn't being used in cars, for other power etc.
I don't think you understand the economics of container shipping. First of all, they used the worst possible polluting fuel (aka bunker fuel) because it is unregulated internationally. Secondly, at 15 knots, these ship consume less than 50 tons/day. However at 25 knots, fuel consumption rises to about 300 tons/day. It's all about speed, not the moving with the ships.
(also cars and powerplants can't really use bunker fuel even if it's reprocessed, it won't be economical).