Given the history of the banking industry in Japan in the past few decades, I don't know if you really want to put Japan up there as a model legal example.
The large number of technically insolvent japanese banks saddled with bad real-estate and business loan debt accumulating since the 1990's and the massive corruption of the government regulators of this industry to allow this debt to be "convoy-ed" from bank-to-bank might be a tiny red flag...
By the way, Mt Gox filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan AND the US (in an effort to stall all lawsuits dead in their tracks). Perhaps, you should be referencing the trappings of government where how fraudulent companies can protect themselves from the little-guys (rather than how the government might somehow be protecting the little-guy from fraudulent companies)...
If those behind Mt Gox committed fraud, they may very well be able to make one class action law firm or some bankruptcy-court-appointed-trustee very rich as a small consolation to those that lost money (in addition to that jail thing)...
I think many folks have a severe misunderstanding of the how common core is related to reading material presented to the students.
There is no "science-knowledge" common core material. In common core, science has been integrated entirely within language arts: basically learning the ability to take reading material covering a scientific topic and extract information from the reading material, not learn the subject.
The point is not to teach a12-year old the scientific topics of genetic counseling, meiosis, DNA, etc. It is not *knowledge* based learning, but learning the skills of how to extract facts from written material. At the 12-year old level, for scientific texts, common core wants students to be able to:
- quote accurately from a text - identify 2 or more main ideas from a text and summarize how they are supported by details - explain the relationship or interaction between 2 or more ideas in the text - determine the meaning of common scientific words appropriate to grade level - compare and contrast two texts on the same subject - draw on multiple texts to find the answer to a question - explain how the author uses certain evidence or reasoning to support a specific point - be able to integrate information from multiple texts on the same topic in a writing or speaking exercise
Not surprisingly, these new "science" skills are difficult for students trained to study "topics" and "facts", or have advanced and/or extra-curricular knowledge of a topic from other sources (say a parent), but is a lazy reader or doesn't usually want to examine and/or integrate information from multiple sources (e.g., likes discovering facts from single-source resources like Wikipedia or other Encyclopedia-like authoritative-resource). The goal of common core is not to learn any specific scientific topics, but to teach students how to discover knowledge in a critical-learning way from multiple sources of information. Hopefully these will be useful skills regardless of the topic presented, but is a radical shift in the goal (and probably not well communicated or taught by teachers used to the old fact-based curriculum).
I suspect this is why far-left-leaning and far-right-leaning folks seem to be so dead-set against Common-Core. Training people to get information from multiple sources and identify what evidence they are using to support their point of view is tantamount to learning to think for themselves. You might see how this is really scary for political movements that depend on low-information voters who are expected to tow-the-line...
Don't fret if you child doesn't understand all the nuances of meiosis or DNA, or genetic counseling from reading the supplied texts. The point is for them to learn to be able to read the text and extract ideas, viewpoints, and the logical reasoning (or lack thereof) in the supplied texts. The facts and topics themselves in the reading material are just supposed to be relevant and timely, not canonical parts of a curriculum. Hopefully it will inspire them to do more learning on their own if the topics are interesting (which is why they are supposed to be relevant and timely).
False. The lawyers of the folks at the top also make money.
During a gold rush, it's better to be a seller of shovels. (e.g., Mt Gox) After a gold rush, there's usually no money to pay the lawyers for the seller of said shovels...
On the other hand, the lawyers for the 90% on the bottom get paid handsomely.
As an example, the Bernie Madoff case. Irving Picard's law firm (appointed by the bankruptcy court to recover assets in the Madoff case), will probably gross about $900M for their efforts, where Ira Sorkin, the lawyer for Bernie Madoff, only got paid peanuts in comparison (estimated to be around $250K).
Some accounts would suggest that Ira Sorkin may simply be paying back some previous "debt" (since his family was once a client of Madoff's although they closed out their account long before the Ponzi scheme was unveiled). However, by most accounts, he was merely "phoning-it-in" during the legal proceedings (probably just putting up enough effort for the sake of future business).
I takes more than vision and courage. It takes changing some of the underlying goals.
1. People that normally exit the system (graduate) should have a marketable set of skills and knowledge. (economic goal) 2. Everyone should have access to the same learning opportunities. (equality goal) 3. A majority of people will exit the system at approximately the same age. (social stability goal)
I think any real change will require removing all three of these goals. I don't think it is politically viable to remove any of them and still have system that would be likely fundable by the government. All the vision, courage and studying how children learn won't change that.
Interesting rant... So you kid used to be on the honor roll and student of the month, and now he's not. So you want to raise your kid's self esteem yet when things are over their head, you think it makes them feel stupid?
Can we all have honor students? Is it always possible "smart" people to be in a situation where always know what's going on? Is it possible that parents are making kids feel stupid by overly high expectations?
Perhaps raising robust kids that don't always know the answer, or need to have constant pats on the back, but have enough self drive to survive that situation is what we should really be teaching in the primary school years. Is memorizing the times table, or dumbing down the curriculum so that the top N% of the students are unchallenged so they can have high self esteem performing some effectively meaningless exercise something even worth striving for?
Disclaimer: I'm a college-application anarchist who thinks all admissions departments should be taken out and shot, and applicants selected using the time-honored Staircase Method.
Well, that says a lot right there. However, the SAT is a useful assessment tool similar to the staircase method or simply admitting alphabetically by middle name.
Generic colleges need to sort their applicants somehow and desire a CYA from discrimination lawsuits, SAT is a good place holder...
Selective colleges pretty much ignore SATs anyhow, except that if you can't be bothered to take the test and score reasonably well relative to the average joe (or jane), you probably won't be bothered to graduate on time either, so they will probably look the other way on your application... Almost all selective colleges primarily look at are weighted GPA (underwater basketweaving 'A's don't really count), and extra curricular activities. Most use the SAT as a threshold thing (if you score above some threshold that pretty much puts you in the heavyweight staircase category for that criteria, if you score below some threshold, you are a lightweight and better have some other area where you can add some weight).
On the other hand, having worked with undergrad admission departments in the past, I can say, that they can already be somewhat characterized by anarchy and various people going rogue, so I don't know what you hope to gain by taking them out;^)
The problem being that Common Core is a step *away* from universal literacy.
Really? Putting aside on how you would actually create tests to assess reaching Common Core goals, what about the Common Core do you object to? Or is it simply a objection to any and all standardized testing (regardless of the material)?
The Common Core asks students to read stories and literature, as well as more complex texts that provide facts and background knowledge in areas such as science and social studies. Students will be challenged and asked questions that push them to refer back to what they’ve read. This stresses critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills that are required for success in college, career, and life.
These Standards define what students should understand and be able to do in their study of mathematics. Asking a student to understand something means asking a teacher to assess whether the student has understood it. But what does mathematical understanding look like? One hallmark of mathematical understanding is the ability to justify, in a way appropriate to the student’s mathematical maturity, why a particular mathematical statement is true or where a mathematical rule comes from. There is a world of difference between a student who can summon a mnemonic device to expand a product such as (a + b)(x + y) and a student who can explain where the mnemonic comes from. The student who can explain the rule understands the mathematics, and may have a better chance to succeed at a less familiar task such as expanding (a + b + c)(x + y). Mathematical understanding and procedural skill are equally important, and both are assessable using mathematical tasks of sufficient richness.
Yes and no. AFAICT, much of the Ukrainian missile tech development is apparently in Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk and Pavlograd.
Although Kiev is certainly quite a distance away from Donetsk area (probably the most "Russian" part of Ukraine), the other two location(s) are very nearby and under quite a bit of influence from Russia.
One big problem for Ukraine with this move by Russia is that it tends to promote a situation where the core of Ukraine (around Kiev) morphs into a land-locked state that needs to negotiate with Russia for access Black sea. This is trending to be a sequel of the "russia-wants-a-warm-water-port" meme from the pre-cold-war times...
Research laboratories are exempt from OSHA regulations.
That is not true.
AFAIK, Academic or Industry Lab makes no difference, all research labs are treated the same by OSHA lab regulations. Labs that solely do Quality Assessment/Control procedures for production facilities are the only labs exempt from OSHA lab regulations. Even labs that do environmental testing, or say simple blood testing are covered by OSHA lab regulations. The exemption is really strict, so basically no research or general analysis can be done in the lab.
If you actually want electronics, Shenzen is your place. However, if you are actually just into PC/computer gear, Guanghua in Taipei is probably a better bet.
No, stinky tofu relationship to tofu is analogous to cheese and milk.
Gutter oil is something totally different, it is usually boiled and filtered, and bleached (in less than sanitary conditions) to a state comparable to normal cooking oil. Unfortunately, although it looks okay, it still contains lots really bad chemicals. If you think you are avoiding it by simply avoiding stinky unfamiliar foods, you (and your digestive track) are simply fooling yourselves.
If you mean by "begging the question" that I assuming the conclusion that extra curricular predict better academic performance, although it's true I presented no evidence, I did work with admissions at the alma-mater and the admissions department coordinated with many other selective schools to mine this data (unfortunately, it is not public data and quite old since I graduated many moons ago).
However, if you mean by "begging the question" in the more colloquial sense that I am implicitly or rhetorically raising another question about selective vs non-selective, that is certainly *not* the case. Although it's true that social anxieties are an important part of college life adaptation, the distribution of people in less selective colleges tends to be in a range where the "book-worm" really is still in the upper part of the distribution (where selective schools are picking off the outliers), and thus don't suffer as much displacement in class ranking (maybe the top person in an average HS will fall to the top 10% of a typical school, where they may actually fall to the 50% percentile or lower in a selective school).
Of course this is all averages, and everyone's experience is different, but one of the primary goals of a typical selective school is to only admit people that have the best chance of successfully graduating and being successful in life (regardless of their SAT score).
You might ask why not just admit people that pay the most tuition or some other criteria, but tuition is really a small part of the financial consideration of a selective school. It's more important to graduate people that will be successful in life later, both for prestige purposes and as a population to solicit future gifts to the institution. Being good a taking tests is not a leading indicator of this.
As others have mentioned, if you assume a normal distribution of test takers and a finite number of questions on a test, accurately measuring anything on the upper tail of the distribution is really not statistically valid (given the number of "trials" to measure the SAT score is also limited and the fact that people game the system). After some point, the measurement is really just a range. For the SAT, where there is more noise than signal probably occurs around 700/800 on a specific test (remember, SAT is also renormalized to match historical distributions, so we are talking about missing 1-3 questions over the entire non-experimental questions you are scored on. If you cutoff is lower (say 600 or so), the measurements are more statistically valid.
Actually, at more selective schools, above a certain level, GPAs and SATs are totally uncorrelated to collegiate performance.
The best indicator of performance at selective schools (as most admission folks at selective schools will tell you), is sustained participation and leadership rolls in Extra Curricular activities (e.g., treasurer of Club X, going to State in sport Y, second chair playing instrument Z, attending Community college classes, volunteering w/ organization W, starting your own business, etc).
This is somewhat because nearly all high achievers have at least a little ego and many book worms don't tend to handle environments where they aren't the top performers grade-wise and have few alternative places to park their egos. Unlike the highly skewed distribution at Lake Wobegon, nearly 1/2 the folks are below average in a typical class.
You would probably be unsurprised at the vast number of applications that have 4.6 GPAs scored perfect on the SAT and as extra-curriculars list paying a "little-piano" and National Honor society. A standing joke is to wonder how little that piano actually is and how hard it must be to hit the note you want on those "little-keys".
We should have RFID incorporated into our license plates so that these scans can be done more efficiently and without optical recognition required. Myriad uses, including monitoring of parking lots a and capacities, sporting events, airports / train stations, toll collection, law enforcement.
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
By "this kind of thing", you mean using a camera in public, right? Is that really illegal in Europe?
In many countries, it is effectively illegal to take pictures that would compromise privacy of an individual in public. Here's a per-country summary in case you are actually interested in learning about this and aren't just spouting typical/. incredulity...
Really there's only a right to take a picture in the US.
If you had separate accounts, why not just have the husband write 1/2 the mortgage check and the wife write the other 1/2 to the bank and put both check in the envelope and mail it to the bank? Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the mortgage?
If the husband buys all the food, then presumably he would know how much was spent on food and ask for 1/2 from his wife so he must know not to spend too much or too little if there was a joint account (there must be money in the account to spend before the wife contributes her monthly share). Or if there is a budget for food, you could have a recurring transfer for food money from one account for another. Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the food?
You may not find discussing money and expenses a useful discussion, but that doesn't mandate that solution either.
If you are writing your own printf for a multi-threaded system, you may not want all thread to write into the same buffer, but similarly, you wouldn't necessarily make one thread server (of money) and one thread the client (of client), you might have a thread that join the output of the two thread into a single buffer (say a joint buffer where you store all the characters that you output from the system). Hmm, maybe a *joint* checking account?
Why do you feel it is still necessary to have a separate checking account and only reimburse *him* for mutual expenses? (credit card, I can understand keeping credit separate has some actual benefits)...
Is it some sort his money is our money and my money is my money issue? Or some sort of trust issue? Just asking, to each their own, but since you seemed to make it into some kind of strange point of paying your husband (which is somewhat different than paying your live-in-boyfriend). I assume both names are on the mortgage, (so the bank could come after you if your husband didn't pay it). Why the asymmetry?
I guess I'm the all the money in one pot kind-of person. My wife pays all the bills online from our joint checking account and we are both effectively authorized to transfer money willy-nilly from each other's accounts, but when we were dating, of course it was totally different.
This way, the federal government can prevent those irritating demonstrations like this ones in Ukraine.
Don't worry about it, the government can already just commandeer the cell tower backhaul network and/or central office. This would be a simple escalation from what they are doing in the Ukraine right now by identifying phones near a protest area and sending them this text message...
"Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a riot."
The whole illusion of being able to use your cell phone when the government doesn't want you is really just a delusion anyhow...
No, the police never claimed if what they were doing was illegal or legal. THEY DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is an example of how the government generally claims this is legal...
The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.
A US Supreme court decision effectively decided that absent a change in statute, pen-registers/trap-and-traces do *not* constitute a search or even a reasonable expectation of privacy (as opposed to wire-taps which listen in on the actual communication). This assertion has been used in the past and continues to be the basis of arguments that it is not unconstitutional. As to the legality, that is up to congress, but to date, it isn't illegal, because there are no laws against what they are doing.
But the police are doing something illegal, that's the whole point.
The police claim how they are using the equipment is legal. If they are in fact correct, people might want to change the law, if they are not correct, they are breaking the law. I don't believe this has been established yet from the legal system's point of view (although that doesn't prevent pendants from jumping the gun).
No, you melted someone's eyes, you are not home free. Regardless if you tell the police how you melted that person's eye, you are in the wrong because you did melt their eyes.
Someone (like the court or the defendant) might assume that you might have used a beam weapon to melt eyes, but maybe you didn't (maybe you used a discount laser eye surgical machine that you got from ebay). A court might attempt to compel you to say what you used to melt that person's eye, and maybe you signed a NDA saying that you couldn't tell anyone if you used their equipment on a specific job. The question is do you have additionally responsibilities to disclose NDA information about the use of equipment, not that you are home free.
The argument is that someone else might have their eyes melted and there might be a community interest in outing this seller of beam weapons so it can be regulated to prevent injuries to others, but that is a question for a court to decide independently, not something that depends on the outcome of this specific case.
That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people. That is just plain absurd! It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant. Just because you are using a new piece of tech to do it does not make it legal!
No, this is like saying if you invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't yet illegal to use it to do thing that don't break current laws. Since killing people is currently against the law, you couldn't do that. Threatening people with bodily harm is also against the law.
However, using it in a pulse mode to reshape your cornea to improve vision is probably okay unless they pass a law against it even though it *could* cook your eyeballs and fry your brain until you die if it wasn't pulsed for a short enough duration.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the history of the banking industry in Japan in the past few decades, I don't know if you really want to put Japan up there as a model legal example.
The large number of technically insolvent japanese banks saddled with bad real-estate and business loan debt accumulating since the 1990's and the massive corruption of the government regulators of this industry to allow this debt to be "convoy-ed" from bank-to-bank might be a tiny red flag...
By the way, Mt Gox filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan AND the US (in an effort to stall all lawsuits dead in their tracks). Perhaps, you should be referencing the trappings of government where how fraudulent companies can protect themselves from the little-guys (rather than how the government might somehow be protecting the little-guy from fraudulent companies)...
If those behind Mt Gox committed fraud, they may very well be able to make one class action law firm or some bankruptcy-court-appointed-trustee very rich as a small consolation to those that lost money (in addition to that jail thing)...
I think many folks have a severe misunderstanding of the how common core is related to reading material presented to the students.
There is no "science-knowledge" common core material. In common core, science has been integrated entirely within language arts: basically learning the ability to take reading material covering a scientific topic and extract information from the reading material, not learn the subject.
The point is not to teach a12-year old the scientific topics of genetic counseling, meiosis, DNA, etc. It is not *knowledge* based learning, but learning the skills of how to extract facts from written material. At the 12-year old level, for scientific texts, common core wants students to be able to:
- quote accurately from a text
- identify 2 or more main ideas from a text and summarize how they are supported by details
- explain the relationship or interaction between 2 or more ideas in the text
- determine the meaning of common scientific words appropriate to grade level
- compare and contrast two texts on the same subject
- draw on multiple texts to find the answer to a question
- explain how the author uses certain evidence or reasoning to support a specific point
- be able to integrate information from multiple texts on the same topic in a writing or speaking exercise
Not surprisingly, these new "science" skills are difficult for students trained to study "topics" and "facts", or have advanced and/or extra-curricular knowledge of a topic from other sources (say a parent), but is a lazy reader or doesn't usually want to examine and/or integrate information from multiple sources (e.g., likes discovering facts from single-source resources like Wikipedia or other Encyclopedia-like authoritative-resource). The goal of common core is not to learn any specific scientific topics, but to teach students how to discover knowledge in a critical-learning way from multiple sources of information. Hopefully these will be useful skills regardless of the topic presented, but is a radical shift in the goal (and probably not well communicated or taught by teachers used to the old fact-based curriculum).
I suspect this is why far-left-leaning and far-right-leaning folks seem to be so dead-set against Common-Core. Training people to get information from multiple sources and identify what evidence they are using to support their point of view is tantamount to learning to think for themselves. You might see how this is really scary for political movements that depend on low-information voters who are expected to tow-the-line...
Don't fret if you child doesn't understand all the nuances of meiosis or DNA, or genetic counseling from reading the supplied texts. The point is for them to learn to be able to read the text and extract ideas, viewpoints, and the logical reasoning (or lack thereof) in the supplied texts. The facts and topics themselves in the reading material are just supposed to be relevant and timely, not canonical parts of a curriculum. Hopefully it will inspire them to do more learning on their own if the topics are interesting (which is why they are supposed to be relevant and timely).
False. The lawyers of the folks at the top also make money.
During a gold rush, it's better to be a seller of shovels. (e.g., Mt Gox)
After a gold rush, there's usually no money to pay the lawyers for the seller of said shovels...
On the other hand, the lawyers for the 90% on the bottom get paid handsomely.
As an example, the Bernie Madoff case. Irving Picard's law firm (appointed by the bankruptcy court to recover assets in the Madoff case), will probably gross about $900M for their efforts, where Ira Sorkin, the lawyer for Bernie Madoff, only got paid peanuts in comparison (estimated to be around $250K).
Some accounts would suggest that Ira Sorkin may simply be paying back some previous "debt" (since his family was once a client of Madoff's although they closed out their account long before the Ponzi scheme was unveiled). However, by most accounts, he was merely "phoning-it-in" during the legal proceedings (probably just putting up enough effort for the sake of future business).
I takes more than vision and courage. It takes changing some of the underlying goals.
1. People that normally exit the system (graduate) should have a marketable set of skills and knowledge. (economic goal)
2. Everyone should have access to the same learning opportunities. (equality goal)
3. A majority of people will exit the system at approximately the same age. (social stability goal)
I think any real change will require removing all three of these goals. I don't think it is politically viable to remove any of them and still have system that would be likely fundable by the government. All the vision, courage and studying how children learn won't change that.
Interesting rant... So you kid used to be on the honor roll and student of the month, and now he's not. So you want to raise your kid's self esteem yet when things are over their head, you think it makes them feel stupid?
Can we all have honor students? Is it always possible "smart" people to be in a situation where always know what's going on? Is it possible that parents are making kids feel stupid by overly high expectations?
Perhaps raising robust kids that don't always know the answer, or need to have constant pats on the back, but have enough self drive to survive that situation is what we should really be teaching in the primary school years. Is memorizing the times table, or dumbing down the curriculum so that the top N% of the students are unchallenged so they can have high self esteem performing some effectively meaningless exercise something even worth striving for?
Maybe that is something to think about...
Disclaimer: I'm a college-application anarchist who thinks all admissions departments should be taken out and shot, and applicants selected using the time-honored Staircase Method.
Well, that says a lot right there. However, the SAT is a useful assessment tool similar to the staircase method or simply admitting alphabetically by middle name.
Generic colleges need to sort their applicants somehow and desire a CYA from discrimination lawsuits, SAT is a good place holder...
Selective colleges pretty much ignore SATs anyhow, except that if you can't be bothered to take the test and score reasonably well relative to the average joe (or jane), you probably won't be bothered to graduate on time either, so they will probably look the other way on your application... Almost all selective colleges primarily look at are weighted GPA (underwater basketweaving 'A's don't really count), and extra curricular activities. Most use the SAT as a threshold thing (if you score above some threshold that pretty much puts you in the heavyweight staircase category for that criteria, if you score below some threshold, you are a lightweight and better have some other area where you can add some weight).
On the other hand, having worked with undergrad admission departments in the past, I can say, that they can already be somewhat characterized by anarchy and various people going rogue, so I don't know what you hope to gain by taking them out ;^)
The problem being that Common Core is a step *away* from universal literacy.
Really? Putting aside on how you would actually create tests to assess reaching Common Core goals, what about the Common Core do you object to? Or is it simply a objection to any and all standardized testing (regardless of the material)?
The Common Core asks students to read stories and literature, as well as more complex texts that provide facts and background knowledge in areas such as science and social studies. Students will be challenged and asked questions that push them to refer back to what they’ve read. This stresses critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills that are required for success in college, career, and life.
These Standards define what students should understand and be able to do in their study of mathematics. Asking a student to understand something means asking a teacher to assess whether the student has understood it. But what does
mathematical understanding look like? One hallmark of mathematical understanding is the ability to justify, in a way appropriate to the student’s mathematical maturity, why a particular mathematical statement is true or where a mathematical rule comes from. There is a world of difference between a student who can summon a mnemonic device to expand a product such as (a + b)(x + y) and a student who can explain where the mnemonic comes from. The student who can explain the rule understands the mathematics, and may have a better chance to succeed at a less familiar task such as expanding (a + b + c)(x + y). Mathematical understanding and procedural skill are equally important, and both are assessable using mathematical tasks of sufficient richness.
Yes and no. AFAICT, much of the Ukrainian missile tech development is apparently in Kiev, Dniepropetrovsk and Pavlograd.
Although Kiev is certainly quite a distance away from Donetsk area (probably the most "Russian" part of Ukraine), the other two location(s) are very nearby and under quite a bit of influence from Russia.
One big problem for Ukraine with this move by Russia is that it tends to promote a situation where the core of Ukraine (around Kiev) morphs into a land-locked state that needs to negotiate with Russia for access Black sea. This is trending to be a sequel of the "russia-wants-a-warm-water-port" meme from the pre-cold-war times...
Science is never settled and always ready to accept change.
However, science pendants are often heard claiming certain science is settled and are highly resistant to accept additional input.
Certainly no rational person would disagree with they, would they?
Research laboratories are exempt from OSHA regulations.
That is not true.
AFAIK, Academic or Industry Lab makes no difference, all research labs are treated the same by OSHA lab regulations. Labs that solely do Quality Assessment/Control procedures for production facilities are the only labs exempt from OSHA lab regulations. Even labs that do environmental testing, or say simple blood testing are covered by OSHA lab regulations. The exemption is really strict, so basically no research or general analysis can be done in the lab.
Last I had heard, Akihabara was the Asia tech city that all geeks had to make a pilgrimage to.
Only if you are into otaku...
If you actually want electronics, Shenzen is your place. However, if you are actually just into PC/computer gear, Guanghua in Taipei is probably a better bet.
No, stinky tofu relationship to tofu is analogous to cheese and milk.
Gutter oil is something totally different, it is usually boiled and filtered, and bleached (in less than sanitary conditions) to a state comparable to normal cooking oil. Unfortunately, although it looks okay, it still contains lots really bad chemicals. If you think you are avoiding it by simply avoiding stinky unfamiliar foods, you (and your digestive track) are simply fooling yourselves.
If you mean by "begging the question" that I assuming the conclusion that extra curricular predict better academic performance, although it's true I presented no evidence, I did work with admissions at the alma-mater and the admissions department coordinated with many other selective schools to mine this data (unfortunately, it is not public data and quite old since I graduated many moons ago).
However, if you mean by "begging the question" in the more colloquial sense that I am implicitly or rhetorically raising another question about selective vs non-selective, that is certainly *not* the case. Although it's true that social anxieties are an important part of college life adaptation, the distribution of people in less selective colleges tends to be in a range where the "book-worm" really is still in the upper part of the distribution (where selective schools are picking off the outliers), and thus don't suffer as much displacement in class ranking (maybe the top person in an average HS will fall to the top 10% of a typical school, where they may actually fall to the 50% percentile or lower in a selective school).
Of course this is all averages, and everyone's experience is different, but one of the primary goals of a typical selective school is to only admit people that have the best chance of successfully graduating and being successful in life (regardless of their SAT score).
You might ask why not just admit people that pay the most tuition or some other criteria, but tuition is really a small part of the financial consideration of a selective school. It's more important to graduate people that will be successful in life later, both for prestige purposes and as a population to solicit future gifts to the institution. Being good a taking tests is not a leading indicator of this.
As others have mentioned, if you assume a normal distribution of test takers and a finite number of questions on a test, accurately measuring anything on the upper tail of the distribution is really not statistically valid (given the number of "trials" to measure the SAT score is also limited and the fact that people game the system). After some point, the measurement is really just a range. For the SAT, where there is more noise than signal probably occurs around 700/800 on a specific test (remember, SAT is also renormalized to match historical distributions, so we are talking about missing 1-3 questions over the entire non-experimental questions you are scored on. If you cutoff is lower (say 600 or so), the measurements are more statistically valid.
Actually, at more selective schools, above a certain level, GPAs and SATs are totally uncorrelated to collegiate performance.
The best indicator of performance at selective schools (as most admission folks at selective schools will tell you), is sustained participation and leadership rolls in Extra Curricular activities (e.g., treasurer of Club X, going to State in sport Y, second chair playing instrument Z, attending Community college classes, volunteering w/ organization W, starting your own business, etc).
This is somewhat because nearly all high achievers have at least a little ego and many book worms don't tend to handle environments where they aren't the top performers grade-wise and have few alternative places to park their egos. Unlike the highly skewed distribution at Lake Wobegon, nearly 1/2 the folks are below average in a typical class.
You would probably be unsurprised at the vast number of applications that have 4.6 GPAs scored perfect on the SAT and as extra-curriculars list paying a "little-piano" and National Honor society. A standing joke is to wonder how little that piano actually is and how hard it must be to hit the note you want on those "little-keys".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
We should have RFID incorporated into our license plates so that these scans can be done more efficiently and without optical recognition required. Myriad uses, including monitoring of parking lots a and capacities, sporting events, airports / train stations, toll collection, law enforcement.
Here in calif, we are already creating future...
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
By "this kind of thing", you mean using a camera in public, right? Is that really illegal in Europe?
In many countries, it is effectively illegal to take pictures that would compromise privacy of an individual in public. /. incredulity...
Here's a per-country summary in case you are actually interested in learning about this and aren't just spouting typical
Really there's only a right to take a picture in the US.
If you had separate accounts, why not just have the husband write 1/2 the mortgage check and the wife write the other 1/2 to the bank and put both check in the envelope and mail it to the bank? Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the mortgage?
If the husband buys all the food, then presumably he would know how much was spent on food and ask for 1/2 from his wife so he must know not to spend too much or too little if there was a joint account (there must be money in the account to spend before the wife contributes her monthly share). Or if there is a budget for food, you could have a recurring transfer for food money from one account for another. Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the food?
You may not find discussing money and expenses a useful discussion, but that doesn't mandate that solution either.
If you are writing your own printf for a multi-threaded system, you may not want all thread to write into the same buffer, but similarly, you wouldn't necessarily make one thread server (of money) and one thread the client (of client), you might have a thread that join the output of the two thread into a single buffer (say a joint buffer where you store all the characters that you output from the system). Hmm, maybe a *joint* checking account?
Problem? No.
Question? Maybe.
Why do you feel it is still necessary to have a separate checking account and only reimburse *him* for mutual expenses? (credit card, I can understand keeping credit separate has some actual benefits)...
Is it some sort his money is our money and my money is my money issue? Or some sort of trust issue? Just asking, to each their own, but since you seemed to make it into some kind of strange point of paying your husband (which is somewhat different than paying your live-in-boyfriend). I assume both names are on the mortgage, (so the bank could come after you if your husband didn't pay it). Why the asymmetry?
I guess I'm the all the money in one pot kind-of person. My wife pays all the bills online from our joint checking account and we are both effectively authorized to transfer money willy-nilly from each other's accounts, but when we were dating, of course it was totally different.
This way, the federal government can prevent those irritating demonstrations like this ones in Ukraine.
Don't worry about it, the government can already just commandeer the cell tower backhaul network and/or central office. This would be a simple escalation from what they are doing in the Ukraine right now by identifying phones near a protest area and sending them this text message...
"Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a riot."
The whole illusion of being able to use your cell phone when the government doesn't want you is really just a delusion anyhow...
No, the police never claimed if what they were doing was illegal or legal. THEY DIDN'T TELL THE COURT ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is an example of how the government generally claims this is legal...
The government has long asserted that it doesn’t need to obtain a probable-cause warrant to use the devices because they don’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages but rather operate like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information.
A US Supreme court decision effectively decided that absent a change in statute, pen-registers/trap-and-traces do *not* constitute a search or even a reasonable expectation of privacy (as opposed to wire-taps which listen in on the actual communication). This assertion has been used in the past and continues to be the basis of arguments that it is not unconstitutional. As to the legality, that is up to congress, but to date, it isn't illegal, because there are no laws against what they are doing.
The hell if they are going to gonna keep paying Sprint when they can just do it themselves... Oh wait...
But the police are doing something illegal, that's the whole point.
The police claim how they are using the equipment is legal. If they are in fact correct, people might want to change the law, if they are not correct, they are breaking the law. I don't believe this has been established yet from the legal system's point of view (although that doesn't prevent pendants from jumping the gun).
No, you melted someone's eyes, you are not home free. Regardless if you tell the police how you melted that person's eye, you are in the wrong because you did melt their eyes.
Someone (like the court or the defendant) might assume that you might have used a beam weapon to melt eyes, but maybe you didn't (maybe you used a discount laser eye surgical machine that you got from ebay). A court might attempt to compel you to say what you used to melt that person's eye, and maybe you signed a NDA saying that you couldn't tell anyone if you used their equipment on a specific job. The question is do you have additionally responsibilities to disclose NDA information about the use of equipment, not that you are home free.
The argument is that someone else might have their eyes melted and there might be a community interest in outing this seller of beam weapons so it can be regulated to prevent injuries to others, but that is a question for a court to decide independently, not something that depends on the outcome of this specific case.
That is like saying if I invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't illegal to use it as there is no law against using newly invented beam weapons to fry people. That is just plain absurd! It's illegal to tap people's phones without a warrant. Just because you are using a new piece of tech to do it does not make it legal!
No, this is like saying if you invent a new beam energy weapon that can cook your eyeballs into a goo and fry your brain until you die, it isn't yet illegal to use it to do thing that don't break current laws. Since killing people is currently against the law, you couldn't do that. Threatening people with bodily harm is also against the law.
However, using it in a pulse mode to reshape your cornea to improve vision is probably okay unless they pass a law against it even though it *could* cook your eyeballs and fry your brain until you die if it wasn't pulsed for a short enough duration.