Please tell me where a 40 yr old male or 50 yr old female can apply for the job as booth babe?
Surprisingly, there is a market for "booth-support" that includes 40yo males and 50yo females, but just not in the tech-conferences.
Around june-august, there are toy/gift shows that make their way around the country. If you have ever wondered where some of the smaller tourist shops get their stuff (the larger ones get their junk through distribution, so that's why it always looks the same in larger stores), it's at these gift shows.
Since the margin on this stuff is razer thin, wholesellers and distributors that sell this stuff generally travel only with 1 staff person and hire from a pool of local support. The smaller importers can't really afford the booth-babes, so they often just barter for staff (exchanging free-tradeshow access where after their shift, the staff can do their christmas shopping buying tradeshow samples at under wholesale prices since they don't want to pay to ship all the samples to the next location). Small wholeseller and distributors often build networks of people to do booth-support all over the country.
How do I know about this? My mom used to do this. Trading her time for discount christmas gifts for us and all her friends...
On the high end of booth-babes (for the large toy companies), they often don't hire models, but actresses (and sometime actors). I've worked tradeshows as an exhibitor before (gifts and high-tech electronics), and in my experience "model" booth-babes are largely just eye-candy. On the other hand, the "actress" booth-babes only cost a little bit more and are generally are better at memorizing lines so they can be quickly trained to actually speak to tradeshow attendees and most actually have the ability to improvise (so they don't sound like they are reading from teleprompters) and this with only 10-15 minutes of training (I guess that's a skill actors need to learn). Sometimes they sound better than the in-house marketing staff that often staff the booths (although their knowledge is pretty shallow w/ only 15-minutes of training). After these "actress" booth-babes watch the marketing staff interact with attendees and learn some more improv, it's often hard to tell them apart. The "actress" booth-babes tend to have a better attitude as well as they often are just treating the whole experience as an acting workshop of sorts (pretend they are playing the role).
Actresses come in all shapes and sizes, although the ones that work booths are generally young (they are doing this gig because their resumes are short) and the tend to be pretty good looking (sort of a generic requirement for young actresses these days).
A small technicality, but if have "naturalized" in the US, you are a naturalized US citizen. If you have not become a US citizen, but have the visa to live in the US on a permanent basis (via a "green-card"), you are technically called a permanent resident.
When I hear about situations like this (e.g., permanent residents that do not wish to return to their country of origin, nor become US citizens). I don't really feel sorry for them. Like everyone in live we make choices and many times, those choices have consequences, and sometimes it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Very few groups respond positively to criticism from outside, why not join us and complain from the inside? I say to such folks, you live in one of the few countries in the world where it is fairly easy (although slowly) to become a citizen. If you really want to own your life, join with us. Then you can gripe with us about our government and vote your choice, rather than scold us with one foot out-of-the-door with a "holier-than-thou" chip on your shoulder...
If someone objects to taking the "modified" oath (as allowed by law and listed below), then I suggest that they don't believe in our constitution, have no desire to support the people of our country more than a typical random joe in a random country in the world, or more likely are just being difficult on purpose to set themselves apart for some personal reason... That's a choice you are free to make, but don't expect the US to help...
I hereby declare, and solemnly affirm, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
...There was never any Austrian presence in China...
Although there was some "china" presence in Austria...
In case you didn't know, in 1241, Mongol forces under Ögedei Khan invaded Vienna and probably would have conquered Poland Hugary and Austria had he not died leading the the Mongol forces to withdraw...
Perhaps their ancestors are just finishing the job of plundering europe;^)
you are correct, But a simply heads up like "hey, we really like your town, we like it so much in fact we are going to replicate it in our country" would have been good enough. I personally dont care or have any issue with it, a builder can build what it wants, where it wants, but a heads up would be nice is all im saying
Although that might be a reasonable sentiment, who do you give this "heads up" to? It's not like you call up the mayor and say we want to copy your town (as if any good would come of that). I'm sure the Open Office didn't call up Bill Gates and give him a "head-up" they were building an office suite that was compatible with msft-office files. Uhm, that might have been nice (hard to say that with a straight face)... Look what happened to Google when they mentioned to Sun that they might want to license Java (if the terms were right)...
If making something less valuable just by existing is the problem, how is this different than copyright?
<SARCASM> If you were, say Microsoft and some open source programmers made a program that imitated your Office program well enough for people to use a replacement for all but diehard power users, it likely wouldn't matter to you if they wrote all-original code for the program; you'd be perfectly within your rights to be affronted, because they'd be litterally be dilluting the value of your program. Would you still take it as flattery if some if some cost-cutting company went with Libre Office instead of your program? A lot of people will be using Libre Office instead of Microsoft Office. Some portion of those will use it because they can't afford Microsoft Office, to be fair.
Prior to the Libre Office project, people would have to use Microsoft Office to experience the document interchange capability between new and old versions of the office suite programs to remind you of and allow you to read the old documents that you produced with older versions of the program. This was valuable because access to compatibility with these documents used to be inherent. Moreso, if you are talking about a program that is special because it allowed you document compatibilty with programs that ran on OSs that were 16-bit and decades old and it's not quite like any other interpoperability. </SARCASM>
So how is this different again? They just need to get over themselves...
I don't think "Give me your tired, your poor..." was ever said out of the goodness of the nation's collective heart. It was said at a time where we had factories that needed workers. Now we have workers that need factories.
Actually, the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor..." is from a poem (The New Colossus written by Emma Lazarus in 1883) which was inspired by about the US experience of poor Jewish immigrants escaping persecution in Eastern Europe.
As for the US immigration policies of the 1900's, there were certainly lots of factories that needed workers and eastern and southern Europe had people that wanted to work resulting in immigration of about ~700K/year (out of 1M/year total or ~1%/year) per year from those countries. However, this level of immigration didn't last long as in the 1920's there was an immigrant backlash and the government eventually put tight restrictions and quotas on immigrations. The immigration rate didn't recover to the 1900's levels until the 1990's (of course the US was much bigger by then, so the percentage was much lower ~0.30%/year).
During 1950-1960 was still another period in US history where we needed lots of factory workers, but immigration was much lower during those times (250K/year or 0.15%/year) than it was in 1970's and 1980's (450K/year or ~0.20%/year) which saw the current decline of factory jobs and even today (950K/year or ~0.35%/year) when we don't have factory jobs.
My conclusion: immigration restrictions by the US seem to be more related to cultural immigrant backlash than economic issues like the availability of factory jobs, but generally, the US has been quite open to immigration historically.
Of course no country participates in immigration by doing it totally out of the goodness of the nation's collective hearts, most countries do it for the net economic benefits (more younger workers, net economic growth, even though the immigrants that come are poor)... Historically, the US seems to do immigration better than most countries, though (except maybe Canada) and right now the US is pretty much in the middle of the pack immigration population percentage-wize (leading europe by 2:1, but Canada and Australia are currently kicking US's butt). However simple explanations like number of available factory jobs and current economic conditions don't explain these things very well.
So why not issue credit "chits" that contain the bits describing the money, and not individual notes?
Kind of like the debit cards we have now. But instead of a relatively short ID number, they have a quantum fingerprint?
Debit cards do not describe money, a debit card is a pointer to a database that stores number (which correspond to money). Perhaps you are talking about stored-value "smart-cards" that use cryptographic techniques (and many have been "broken). Similarly a bitcoin, is also sort of a description of money, but it uses a publically accessible distributed database of current ownership to avoid forgeries (by storing histories of transactions in a huge database).
Cash with an anonymous verfiable quantum signature would have the advantages 1. Anonymous like cash and stored-value cards (exchanged w/o a bank intermediary) 2. Verifiable w/o a point-of-sale device (unlike current store-value cards) 3. Hard to counterfeit (unlike cash)
Unfortunatly, this mythical anonymous verifiable quantum signature technology is currently only theoretical (either the practical signatures are forgeable, or require a centralized data base for verfication purposes). On the other hand, current stored value card security seems to be adequate for many purposes, so this is basically just better encryption...
Sure, you can bash NCLB implementation all you want, but if you agree that leaving no children behind is a good goal, how would you do it?
It's easy to bash the armchair 'experts' that crafted the law or the electorate that has no domain knowledge, so how to get there just "unknowable", or we just shouldn't try to do it, because it's not doable. If you have the secret, there are many people willing to listen.
Or are you arguing that public education should be doing something else and "not leaving children behind" isn't a goal of public education, and we should be spending our money instead on people that have better prospects by providing enrichment, after school programs, and advanced programs for students. It's a potentially valid argument to spend public money that way instead (not that I would advocate it), but there's only so much money to spend (and the US is spending quite a bit of it on primary education compared to the rest of the world normalized for purchasing power), and at some point, we (collectively) should make a choice compatible with our goals.
Actually comment like this are just annoying. So what specifically is wrong with the concept of NCLB? Sure it isn't perfect, but it's the government, no policy will be perfect.
Are you against the goals? Against the implementation? Against who gets the credit/blame?
Should we leave some children behind? Should we not hold teachers accountable? Should we not hold school administration accountable? Should we not measure student progress? Should we not give people options instead of force them to attend failing schools?
Certainly implementation of penalties in the current NCLB program are harsh. Some of the penalties are also against many long standing union and school board negotiated policies, causing lots of friction. Also the implementation of standardized student testing may not be the best way to hold teachers and administrators accountable or measure student progress, but no other means has emerged (e.g., reviews by peers, students, administrators have all been rejected). In the current NCLB implementation, states are allowed to set their own standards, and each state can certainly can set them low enough to get any passing rate they want, but of course there is some pressure to set them high enough to not get laughed at and that points to a basic problem.
The problem: what we say we are doing with public education is not really what is happening and we are starting to see that.
It's easy to say that none of the goals of NCLB are possible so we shouldn't try, but perhaps we should really just be re-examining the goals of public education rather than continue to throw money at something that we don't think is working? Is public school a babysiting service so that people can go to work? should it be a kid prep programs for jobs, college? should we be teaching academics, vocational, arts, sports, or all of the above? Or is it really just the indoctrination factory for incorporation into american society (not indoctrination in the political sense, although many may debate the reality of that, but I mean in the social sense)?
At least in my opinion, public school should be simply striving for simple literacy (in academics, vocations, arts, sports, politics) a and inter-personal socialization to be a proper adult society indoctrination factory. Literacy is not the same as being accomplished in a subject. In this context, the goals of NCLB makes perfect sense.
However, other people have other goals in education, but they don't seem to want to articulate it. To solve the problem, it must be articulated. Here is a question: do we leave some behind to concentrate our public resources on the more promising prospects? Not everyone is college bound (or a sports star) so is if fair to have the same goal for everyone? That is an interesting debate, one often made at the college level, but rarely heard in the elemetary school level. I suspect that many would agree to leave some behind is preferable (even some teachers may probably at least subconciously agree). I think the debate about resource allocation is a open issue, but by not talking about it, it's not possible to solve it. What other unspoken goals do the "enemies" of NCLB have?
Actually Coal will also release water. Simple example: CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Yes its methane but you get the point. Fossil fuels create CO2 and water.
Ignoring the fact for a moment the high temperatures it takes to burn real "anthracite" coal which would probably make it impractical for a light weight drone, burning coal is mostly C + O2 -> CO2 (and some carbon monoxide). The problem with coal is not that it has much Hydrogen in it (which would be volatile gases like hydrocarbons dissolved like Cannel Coal or residual sugars from organic molecules), but most coal has lots of Sulfur which makes acid rain. Whatever hydrogen there is in coal usually doesn't make water, it often makes phenols (carbolic acid) and other benzene ring compounds due to high heat and insufficient oxidation. Also the high temperatures also cause secondary reactions with the nitrogen in the air to make various fun nitrogen oxides which are great for smog...
I think some people are making an unwarrented assumption that somehow social skill are somehow "easier" than an artistic or scientific insight/discovery/production. If we thought about how hard it is to solve some of the social interactionss from the point of view of instructing computer to perform those tasks, perhaps we would see this in another way. What most people recognize as genius, is often at best labled "creative", since if it were beyond the understanding of others, then it is likely going to go unrecognized.
Perhaps this is where the link between genious and insanity really is. If you knew or created something that was so clever that you could not communicate it to others in a way they could understand, wouldn't you go crazy? On the other hand if you knew or created something that was so stupid other people thought you were crazy, how could people tell the difference...
Yeah, the day anybody develops that speculative crapola into a working device which validates Trekkie fantasies about Trek-pseudoscience being in any way real, let me know. Also you then have the job of showing that it has any real relationship with Trek (and no, retconning doesn't count).
For the record, I don't think any trekkie-pseudoscience is real, and it isn't my job to show a technical relationship with fictional technology that doesn't work, but if you interview the one of they people that made some similar tech into reality and they say that they were inspired by (fill-the-blank***) to make the tech, who are you to say that that inspiration doesn't deserve any credit?
*** Examples Simon Lake and Igor Sikorsky both gave credit to Jules Verne when each made the submarine and helicopter (respectively). Robert Goddard gave credit to H. G. Wells as early inspiration when he developed the rocket. Leo Szilard read H. G. Wells's The World Set Free, when working on the problem of creating chain reactions, and credited the novel for inspiring his campaign for peaceful use of nuclear power after WWII Jack Cover was inspired to name the Taser (an acroymn for Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle) after the book of that name. Philip Rosedale credited Neil Stephenson's book Snow Crash as the inspiration for Second Life
(and as I mentioned, Gene Roddenberry yields credit to John Campbell's "Islands in space" for the idea of the warp drive, although as you noted, nobody has made anything like that yet)...
...If real, usable, economic warp speed spacecraft propulsion is ever invented, that doesn't mean the "star trek" writers should get credit...
Although I agree that making up shit that happens to be correct (the stopped clock analogy) isn't worth of credit. Perhaps you are taking the analogy too far. I wouldn't hesitate to give Star Trek writers some credit for the cell phone (Martin Cooper of Motorola has stated that watching Captain Kirk using his communicator on the television show Star Trek inspired him to develop the handheld mobile phone), so it's not too much of a stretch on the warp drive.
As a prelude to how this might credit chain might go in the future, apparently Dr Miguel Alcubierre (who published the paper The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity. in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity), even tips his hat to Star Trek***
Many true techies (not all of whom are trekies) that make things happen often credit the people that give the inspiration.
***To be pedantic about giving credit where it is due, it appears that Gene Roddenberry mentions that got the idea for warp drive from Star Trek tech consultant Harvey Lynn (a scientist with the Rand Corporation) and John Campbell (the writer of the short story Islands of Space which appeared in Astounding Stories in the 1930's, and later as its own book in 1956 available here)...
Long answer: News is "new". It isn't news whatever breathroughs in art, science that Bach or Newton did as it isnt' new. What is being reported on is the novelty of his early graduation, not a prediction of his potential future contributions to society or his IQ (which is merely background filler material for an article). Since his graduation is happening now and it's apparently noteworthy and new, therefore it "news". It wouldn't be news if you reported on his IQ after he took a test, when he still hadn't graduated (who would care), nor would it be news if you reported on this story 1 year from now when he was doing some sort of medical residency (but still has a high IQ and still has the degree)... They don''t call this 15 minutes of fame for nothing...
A feature story on the relationship of genius and IQ might be an interesting feature story, but it's been beaten to death. There apparently is no corrolation. You can read one of the people that espose this theory in this book (which by the way was "news" when it was published, but now is just background filler material).
As if biological virus detection works any differently. There's an inherent problem of identifying what is "good" and what is "bad" if you have a complicated system. The virus detection companies have a problem that mirrors the complexity of the biological varieties. Sure you can detect certain "signatures" of potentially bad invaders, but evolutionary pressure will weed those out and then you are leave you the ones that are harder to detect...
Another option seems to be to attempt to identify "self" and not-self. Unfortutnatly, although that's potentially easier, the fact that the apple closed eco-system and the proposed win8 closed eco-system ruffles so many feathers, yet doesn't seem to be fool-proof either.
Sadly for many of us (meaning the tinkers of the world), perhaps the better answer is complete lock-down. If you can't install or un anything, then less options exist for problems. Although this probably won't work either (bugs are inevitible and now they will be hard coded-in).
What does that leave? Probably we need to flip this around evolve and learn to live with viruses. Viruses are inevitable, and the problem we have is that we trust each other too much. So how do we (as in human biological systems) deal with viruses? In addition to the ability to We have evolved get "sick" (when we get a virus) and evolved to learn how to detect when our comrades are sick and avoid them. Perhaps OS vendors and anti-virus firms should concentrate more on teaching our computers how to recognize when they are in contact with other "sick" computer (basically a firewall on steroids). Some commercial devices are doing this already (they look through emails, torrents, etc to try to identify stuff like high-risk data, etc). We probably need to get better at this stuff... On how to force computers to get "sick" (other than slow down), perhaps anonymity is the biggest problem (in an anonymous situation, biological vectors tend to spread faster).
This is perhaps the most unfortunate realization that open-ness and anonymity are perhaps the environment that actually allows for viruses to cause the problem that exists to day (think shared needles in a heroin den or any other analogy you might think of).
... Iran, a country that has no history of aggression (although plenty of rhetoric, but that is not uncommon for the region).
Not that I don't disagree with you in principle, but since you claim to have grown up in the 60's and 70's, you may have selectively forgotten about the USA-Iran hostage situation and the Iran-Iraq war...
Just like most states, the prerequisites for getting a teaching certificate for math in grades 7-12, NYS requires a Bachelor's degree, 40 days as a student teacher, pass the generic teacher certification exam (LAST and ATS-W), and the State administered Content Specialty Test in Mathematics. You can check it out http://eservices.nysed.gov/teach/certhelp/CertRequirementHelp.do
Of course in parts of the state like NYC, you've got lots of competition for teaching spots, so you probably won't get a job if you don't have a Master's degree, but it's not required in NYS for the certificate, so there are probably some less desirable locations in the state (I'm thinking upstate), that a Bachelor's would be more than enough...
Agreed. Tutoring will pay better than regular teaching, will generally involve better students and will always have the best administrator you can be.
The reality is that for some high demand subjects like math, tenured teaching pays surprisingly well. Also you have have summers off, and the pension and heathcare benefits. A tutor in those subjects generally doesn't do as well as thier teacher counterparts, end up working irregular hours (weekends/evenings), and lack similar benefits.
For example, in San Jose (a pricy area), you might get $65K as a math tutor if you work for someone and that is probably pretty flat over time (limited pay-bumps for senority), but as a tenured teacher, by the time you get some senority, you can pull in maybe up to $85K or even higher in secondary school (and still have summer's off, pensions and healthcare benefits). I know a couple math teachers that have looked into tutoring or going to private schools, but once you have senority and tenure, they found it's hard to walk away from the money... If you happen to have an ivy league degree, another other option is to go work in one of those SAT tutoring centers that claim they have ivy league tutors (they tend to pay more). On the other hand going out by yourself requires lots of hustle (like any small business). Of course, if find a few insanely rich person willing to pay you a small fortune to privately tutor their kids, maybe it might be worth it, but in this economy, maybe that's not realistic...
However, entry level public school teachers get paid squat (and they are the ones w/o the job security either). That is a topic for another day...
In many states you do. And in this case, the summary notes that she has her master's in education.
In nearly all states, all you need is a generic bachelor's degree to teach in primary or secondary levels as a prerequisite for getting a teaching credential.
Of course, there is an additional requirement of verification of subject matter competence. This might be satisfied with a master's degree in the subject matter specific to their teaching credential, but in nearly all states it can also be satisfied by enrollment in a teacher-subject certificate program at a community college, or by just taking (and passing) a state administered teacher-subject exam. Although many teachers have master's degrees and higher (because of union contracts, higher degrees affords them a higher pay grade), some (like the teacher mentioned in the summary) have that master's degree in education, and not the subject matter of their teaching credential.
Also, for some hard to fill positions like math and science teachers, some districts even can waive the subject matter competence requirement if the bachelor degree happens to be in the subject matter. The teacher can be granted a temporary emergency credential, which allows the teacher to teach and gives the teacher a few years to pass the subject exam (w/o requiring any more courses). Sometime this emergency credential can be extended nearly indefinetly. I'm not saying this is the case with the teacher mentioned in the summary, just that it's quite possible to have a teacher just have a bachelor's degree in math and teach math w/o any other qualifications.
Well maybe (white on tail, red on left, green on right).
I originally thought the spatial separation for the red and green isn't very high (just either side of the solar panel on one side of the dragon trunk) which makes it only visible from one orientation so it's not very useful at all, but if you assume they are only using it for docking with people in control having it be something common is a good idea to save brainspace...
FWIW, I think the russian module uses flashing nav lights for automatic docking (flashing lights are usable on a monochrome camera), red/green lights seem mostly tailored for human consumption...
The history of Indigenous Australians is thought to have spanned 40000 to 45000 years, although some estimates have put the figure at up to 80 000 years before European settlement.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me where a 40 yr old male or 50 yr old female can apply for the job as booth babe?
Surprisingly, there is a market for "booth-support" that includes 40yo males and 50yo females, but just not in the tech-conferences.
Around june-august, there are toy/gift shows that make their way around the country. If you have ever wondered where some of the smaller tourist shops get their stuff (the larger ones get their junk through distribution, so that's why it always looks the same in larger stores), it's at these gift shows.
Since the margin on this stuff is razer thin, wholesellers and distributors that sell this stuff generally travel only with 1 staff person and hire from a pool of local support. The smaller importers can't really afford the booth-babes, so they often just barter for staff (exchanging free-tradeshow access where after their shift, the staff can do their christmas shopping buying tradeshow samples at under wholesale prices since they don't want to pay to ship all the samples to the next location). Small wholeseller and distributors often build networks of people to do booth-support all over the country.
How do I know about this? My mom used to do this. Trading her time for discount christmas gifts for us and all her friends...
On the high end of booth-babes (for the large toy companies), they often don't hire models, but actresses (and sometime actors). I've worked tradeshows as an exhibitor before (gifts and high-tech electronics), and in my experience "model" booth-babes are largely just eye-candy. On the other hand, the "actress" booth-babes only cost a little bit more and are generally are better at memorizing lines so they can be quickly trained to actually speak to tradeshow attendees and most actually have the ability to improvise (so they don't sound like they are reading from teleprompters) and this with only 10-15 minutes of training (I guess that's a skill actors need to learn). Sometimes they sound better than the in-house marketing staff that often staff the booths (although their knowledge is pretty shallow w/ only 15-minutes of training). After these "actress" booth-babes watch the marketing staff interact with attendees and learn some more improv, it's often hard to tell them apart. The "actress" booth-babes tend to have a better attitude as well as they often are just treating the whole experience as an acting workshop of sorts (pretend they are playing the role).
Actresses come in all shapes and sizes, although the ones that work booths are generally young (they are doing this gig because their resumes are short) and the tend to be pretty good looking (sort of a generic requirement for young actresses these days).
A small technicality, but if have "naturalized" in the US, you are a naturalized US citizen. If you have not become a US citizen, but have the visa to live in the US on a permanent basis (via a "green-card"), you are technically called a permanent resident.
When I hear about situations like this (e.g., permanent residents that do not wish to return to their country of origin, nor become US citizens). I don't really feel sorry for them. Like everyone in live we make choices and many times, those choices have consequences, and sometimes it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Very few groups respond positively to criticism from outside, why not join us and complain from the inside? I say to such folks, you live in one of the few countries in the world where it is fairly easy (although slowly) to become a citizen. If you really want to own your life, join with us. Then you can gripe with us about our government and vote your choice, rather than scold us with one foot out-of-the-door with a "holier-than-thou" chip on your shoulder...
If someone objects to taking the "modified" oath (as allowed by law and listed below), then I suggest that they don't believe in our constitution, have no desire to support the people of our country more than a typical random joe in a random country in the world, or more likely are just being difficult on purpose to set themselves apart for some personal reason... That's a choice you are free to make, but don't expect the US to help...
I hereby declare, and solemnly affirm, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
And then there was "sleeper" agent Anna Chapman... Hard to forget about that one ;^)
Actually, i forgot about this tidbit... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_colonial_policy#Tianjin
So actually, there *was* Austrian presence in China...
...There was never any Austrian presence in China...
Although there was some "china" presence in Austria...
In case you didn't know, in 1241, Mongol forces under Ögedei Khan invaded Vienna and probably would have conquered Poland Hugary and Austria had he not died leading the the Mongol forces to withdraw...
Perhaps their ancestors are just finishing the job of plundering europe ;^)
you are correct, But a simply heads up like "hey, we really like your town, we like it so much in fact we are going to replicate it in our country" would have been good enough. I personally dont care or have any issue with it, a builder can build what it wants, where it wants, but a heads up would be nice is all im saying
Although that might be a reasonable sentiment, who do you give this "heads up" to? It's not like you call up the mayor and say we want to copy your town (as if any good would come of that). I'm sure the Open Office didn't call up Bill Gates and give him a "head-up" they were building an office suite that was compatible with msft-office files. Uhm, that might have been nice (hard to say that with a straight face)... Look what happened to Google when they mentioned to Sun that they might want to license Java (if the terms were right)...
If making something less valuable just by existing is the problem, how is this different than copyright?
<SARCASM>
If you were, say Microsoft and some open source programmers made a program that imitated your Office program well enough for people to use a replacement for all but diehard power users, it likely wouldn't matter to you if they wrote all-original code for the program; you'd be perfectly within your rights to be affronted, because they'd be litterally be dilluting the value of your program. Would you still take it as flattery if some if some cost-cutting company went with Libre Office instead of your program? A lot of people will be using Libre Office instead of Microsoft Office. Some portion of those will use it because they can't afford Microsoft Office, to be fair.
Prior to the Libre Office project, people would have to use Microsoft Office to experience the document interchange capability between new and old versions of the office suite programs to remind you of and allow you to read the old documents that you produced with older versions of the program. This was valuable because access to compatibility with these documents used to be inherent. Moreso, if you are talking about a program that is special because it allowed you document compatibilty with programs that ran on OSs that were 16-bit and decades old and it's not quite like any other interpoperability.
</SARCASM>
So how is this different again? They just need to get over themselves...
Let me see, china copied the castle, that disney copied from germany...
http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/05/02/disneyland-in-china/
I guess now they just decided to just bypass the middle man... ;^)
I don't think "Give me your tired, your poor..." was ever said out of the goodness of the nation's collective heart. It was said at a time where we had factories that needed workers. Now we have workers that need factories.
Actually, the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor..." is from a poem (The New Colossus written by Emma Lazarus in 1883) which was inspired by about the US experience of poor Jewish immigrants escaping persecution in Eastern Europe.
As for the US immigration policies of the 1900's, there were certainly lots of factories that needed workers and eastern and southern Europe had people that wanted to work resulting in immigration of about ~700K/year (out of 1M/year total or ~1%/year) per year from those countries. However, this level of immigration didn't last long as in the 1920's there was an immigrant backlash and the government eventually put tight restrictions and quotas on immigrations. The immigration rate didn't recover to the 1900's levels until the 1990's (of course the US was much bigger by then, so the percentage was much lower ~0.30%/year).
During 1950-1960 was still another period in US history where we needed lots of factory workers, but immigration was much lower during those times (250K/year or 0.15%/year) than it was in 1970's and 1980's (450K/year or ~0.20%/year) which saw the current decline of factory jobs and even today (950K/year or ~0.35%/year) when we don't have factory jobs.
My conclusion: immigration restrictions by the US seem to be more related to cultural immigrant backlash than economic issues like the availability of factory jobs, but generally, the US has been quite open to immigration historically.
Of course no country participates in immigration by doing it totally out of the goodness of the nation's collective hearts, most countries do it for the net economic benefits (more younger workers, net economic growth, even though the immigrants that come are poor)... Historically, the US seems to do immigration better than most countries, though (except maybe Canada) and right now the US is pretty much in the middle of the pack immigration population percentage-wize (leading europe by 2:1, but Canada and Australia are currently kicking US's butt). However simple explanations like number of available factory jobs and current economic conditions don't explain these things very well.
So why not issue credit "chits" that contain the bits describing the money, and not individual notes?
Kind of like the debit cards we have now. But instead of a relatively short ID number, they have a quantum fingerprint?
Debit cards do not describe money, a debit card is a pointer to a database that stores number (which correspond to money). Perhaps you are talking about stored-value "smart-cards" that use cryptographic techniques (and many have been "broken). Similarly a bitcoin, is also sort of a description of money, but it uses a publically accessible distributed database of current ownership to avoid forgeries (by storing histories of transactions in a huge database).
Cash with an anonymous verfiable quantum signature would have the advantages
1. Anonymous like cash and stored-value cards (exchanged w/o a bank intermediary)
2. Verifiable w/o a point-of-sale device (unlike current store-value cards)
3. Hard to counterfeit (unlike cash)
Unfortunatly, this mythical anonymous verifiable quantum signature technology is currently only theoretical (either the practical signatures are forgeable, or require a centralized data base for verfication purposes). On the other hand, current stored value card security seems to be adequate for many purposes, so this is basically just better encryption...
Sure, you can bash NCLB implementation all you want, but if you agree that leaving no children behind is a good goal, how would you do it?
It's easy to bash the armchair 'experts' that crafted the law or the electorate that has no domain knowledge, so how to get there just "unknowable", or we just shouldn't try to do it, because it's not doable. If you have the secret, there are many people willing to listen.
Or are you arguing that public education should be doing something else and "not leaving children behind" isn't a goal of public education, and we should be spending our money instead on people that have better prospects by providing enrichment, after school programs, and advanced programs for students. It's a potentially valid argument to spend public money that way instead (not that I would advocate it), but there's only so much money to spend (and the US is spending quite a bit of it on primary education compared to the rest of the world normalized for purchasing power), and at some point, we (collectively) should make a choice compatible with our goals.
Actually comment like this are just annoying. So what specifically is wrong with the concept of NCLB? Sure it isn't perfect, but it's the government, no policy will be perfect.
Are you against the goals? Against the implementation? Against who gets the credit/blame?
Should we leave some children behind?
Should we not hold teachers accountable?
Should we not hold school administration accountable?
Should we not measure student progress?
Should we not give people options instead of force them to attend failing schools?
Certainly implementation of penalties in the current NCLB program are harsh. Some of the penalties are also against many long standing union and school board negotiated policies, causing lots of friction. Also the implementation of standardized student testing may not be the best way to hold teachers and administrators accountable or measure student progress, but no other means has emerged (e.g., reviews by peers, students, administrators have all been rejected). In the current NCLB implementation, states are allowed to set their own standards, and each state can certainly can set them low enough to get any passing rate they want, but of course there is some pressure to set them high enough to not get laughed at and that points to a basic problem.
The problem: what we say we are doing with public education is not really what is happening and we are starting to see that.
It's easy to say that none of the goals of NCLB are possible so we shouldn't try, but perhaps we should really just be re-examining the goals of public education rather than continue to throw money at something that we don't think is working? Is public school a babysiting service so that people can go to work? should it be a kid prep programs for jobs, college? should we be teaching academics, vocational, arts, sports, or all of the above? Or is it really just the indoctrination factory for incorporation into american society ( not indoctrination in the political sense, although many may debate the reality of that, but I mean in the social sense)?
At least in my opinion, public school should be simply striving for simple literacy (in academics, vocations, arts, sports, politics) a and inter-personal socialization to be a proper adult society indoctrination factory. Literacy is not the same as being accomplished in a subject. In this context, the goals of NCLB makes perfect sense.
However, other people have other goals in education, but they don't seem to want to articulate it. To solve the problem, it must be articulated. Here is a question: do we leave some behind to concentrate our public resources on the more promising prospects? Not everyone is college bound (or a sports star) so is if fair to have the same goal for everyone? That is an interesting debate, one often made at the college level, but rarely heard in the elemetary school level. I suspect that many would agree to leave some behind is preferable (even some teachers may probably at least subconciously agree). I think the debate about resource allocation is a open issue, but by not talking about it, it's not possible to solve it. What other unspoken goals do the "enemies" of NCLB have?
Actually Coal will also release water. Simple example: CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O
Yes its methane but you get the point. Fossil fuels create CO2 and water.
Ignoring the fact for a moment the high temperatures it takes to burn real "anthracite" coal which would probably make it impractical for a light weight drone, burning coal is mostly C + O2 -> CO2 (and some carbon monoxide). The problem with coal is not that it has much Hydrogen in it (which would be volatile gases like hydrocarbons dissolved like Cannel Coal or residual sugars from organic molecules), but most coal has lots of Sulfur which makes acid rain. Whatever hydrogen there is in coal usually doesn't make water, it often makes phenols (carbolic acid) and other benzene ring compounds due to high heat and insufficient oxidation. Also the high temperatures also cause secondary reactions with the nitrogen in the air to make various fun nitrogen oxides which are great for smog...
I think some people are making an unwarrented assumption that somehow social skill are somehow "easier" than an artistic or scientific insight/discovery/production. If we thought about how hard it is to solve some of the social interactionss from the point of view of instructing computer to perform those tasks, perhaps we would see this in another way. What most people recognize as genius, is often at best labled "creative", since if it were beyond the understanding of others, then it is likely going to go unrecognized.
Perhaps this is where the link between genious and insanity really is. If you knew or created something that was so clever that you could not communicate it to others in a way they could understand, wouldn't you go crazy? On the other hand if you knew or created something that was so stupid other people thought you were crazy, how could people tell the difference...
Yeah, the day anybody develops that speculative crapola into a working device which validates Trekkie fantasies about Trek-pseudoscience being in any way real, let me know. Also you then have the job of showing that it has any real relationship with Trek (and no, retconning doesn't count).
For the record, I don't think any trekkie-pseudoscience is real, and it isn't my job to show a technical relationship with fictional technology that doesn't work, but if you interview the one of they people that made some similar tech into reality and they say that they were inspired by (fill-the-blank***) to make the tech, who are you to say that that inspiration doesn't deserve any credit?
*** Examples
Simon Lake and Igor Sikorsky both gave credit to Jules Verne when each made the submarine and helicopter (respectively).
Robert Goddard gave credit to H. G. Wells as early inspiration when he developed the rocket.
Leo Szilard read H. G. Wells's The World Set Free, when working on the problem of creating chain reactions, and credited the novel for inspiring his campaign for peaceful use of nuclear power after WWII
Jack Cover was inspired to name the Taser (an acroymn for Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle) after the book of that name.
Philip Rosedale credited Neil Stephenson's book Snow Crash as the inspiration for Second Life
(and as I mentioned, Gene Roddenberry yields credit to John Campbell's "Islands in space" for the idea of the warp drive, although as you noted, nobody has made anything like that yet)...
...If real, usable, economic warp speed spacecraft propulsion is ever invented, that doesn't mean the "star trek" writers should get credit...
Although I agree that making up shit that happens to be correct (the stopped clock analogy) isn't worth of credit. Perhaps you are taking the analogy too far. I wouldn't hesitate to give Star Trek writers some credit for the cell phone (Martin Cooper of Motorola has stated that watching Captain Kirk using his communicator on the television show Star Trek inspired him to develop the handheld mobile phone), so it's not too much of a stretch on the warp drive.
As a prelude to how this might credit chain might go in the future, apparently Dr Miguel Alcubierre (who published the paper The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity. in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity), even tips his hat to Star Trek***
Many true techies (not all of whom are trekies) that make things happen often credit the people that give the inspiration.
***To be pedantic about giving credit where it is due, it appears that Gene Roddenberry mentions that got the idea for warp drive from Star Trek tech consultant Harvey Lynn (a scientist with the Rand Corporation) and John Campbell (the writer of the short story Islands of Space which appeared in Astounding Stories in the 1930's, and later as its own book in 1956 available here)...
Short answer: this is news.
Long answer: News is "new". It isn't news whatever breathroughs in art, science that Bach or Newton did as it isnt' new. What is being reported on is the novelty of his early graduation, not a prediction of his potential future contributions to society or his IQ (which is merely background filler material for an article). Since his graduation is happening now and it's apparently noteworthy and new, therefore it "news". It wouldn't be news if you reported on his IQ after he took a test, when he still hadn't graduated (who would care), nor would it be news if you reported on this story 1 year from now when he was doing some sort of medical residency (but still has a high IQ and still has the degree)... They don''t call this 15 minutes of fame for nothing...
A feature story on the relationship of genius and IQ might be an interesting feature story, but it's been beaten to death. There apparently is no corrolation. You can read one of the people that espose this theory in this book (which by the way was "news" when it was published, but now is just background filler material).
As if biological virus detection works any differently. There's an inherent problem of identifying what is "good" and what is "bad" if you have a complicated system. The virus detection companies have a problem that mirrors the complexity of the biological varieties. Sure you can detect certain "signatures" of potentially bad invaders, but evolutionary pressure will weed those out and then you are leave you the ones that are harder to detect...
Another option seems to be to attempt to identify "self" and not-self. Unfortutnatly, although that's potentially easier, the fact that the apple closed eco-system and the proposed win8 closed eco-system ruffles so many feathers, yet doesn't seem to be fool-proof either.
Sadly for many of us (meaning the tinkers of the world), perhaps the better answer is complete lock-down. If you can't install or un anything, then less options exist for problems. Although this probably won't work either (bugs are inevitible and now they will be hard coded-in).
What does that leave? Probably we need to flip this around evolve and learn to live with viruses. Viruses are inevitable, and the problem we have is that we trust each other too much. So how do we (as in human biological systems) deal with viruses? In addition to the ability to We have evolved get "sick" (when we get a virus) and evolved to learn how to detect when our comrades are sick and avoid them. Perhaps OS vendors and anti-virus firms should concentrate more on teaching our computers how to recognize when they are in contact with other "sick" computer (basically a firewall on steroids). Some commercial devices are doing this already (they look through emails, torrents, etc to try to identify stuff like high-risk data, etc). We probably need to get better at this stuff... On how to force computers to get "sick" (other than slow down), perhaps anonymity is the biggest problem (in an anonymous situation, biological vectors tend to spread faster).
This is perhaps the most unfortunate realization that open-ness and anonymity are perhaps the environment that actually allows for viruses to cause the problem that exists to day (think shared needles in a heroin den or any other analogy you might think of).
... Iran, a country that has no history of aggression (although plenty of rhetoric, but that is not uncommon for the region).
Not that I don't disagree with you in principle, but since you claim to have grown up in the 60's and 70's, you may have selectively forgotten about the USA-Iran hostage situation and the Iran-Iraq war...
In New York State it's masters or GTFO.
Just like most states, the prerequisites for getting a teaching certificate for math in grades 7-12, NYS requires a Bachelor's degree, 40 days as a student teacher, pass the generic teacher certification exam (LAST and ATS-W), and the State administered Content Specialty Test in Mathematics. You can check it out http://eservices.nysed.gov/teach/certhelp/CertRequirementHelp.do
Of course in parts of the state like NYC, you've got lots of competition for teaching spots, so you probably won't get a job if you don't have a Master's degree, but it's not required in NYS for the certificate, so there are probably some less desirable locations in the state (I'm thinking upstate), that a Bachelor's would be more than enough...
Agreed. Tutoring will pay better than regular teaching, will generally involve better students and will always have the best administrator you can be.
The reality is that for some high demand subjects like math, tenured teaching pays surprisingly well. Also you have have summers off, and the pension and heathcare benefits. A tutor in those subjects generally doesn't do as well as thier teacher counterparts, end up working irregular hours (weekends/evenings), and lack similar benefits.
For example, in San Jose (a pricy area), you might get $65K as a math tutor if you work for someone and that is probably pretty flat over time (limited pay-bumps for senority), but as a tenured teacher, by the time you get some senority, you can pull in maybe up to $85K or even higher in secondary school (and still have summer's off, pensions and healthcare benefits). I know a couple math teachers that have looked into tutoring or going to private schools, but once you have senority and tenure, they found it's hard to walk away from the money... If you happen to have an ivy league degree, another other option is to go work in one of those SAT tutoring centers that claim they have ivy league tutors (they tend to pay more). On the other hand going out by yourself requires lots of hustle (like any small business). Of course, if find a few insanely rich person willing to pay you a small fortune to privately tutor their kids, maybe it might be worth it, but in this economy, maybe that's not realistic...
However, entry level public school teachers get paid squat (and they are the ones w/o the job security either). That is a topic for another day...
In many states you do. And in this case, the summary notes that she has her master's in education.
In nearly all states, all you need is a generic bachelor's degree to teach in primary or secondary levels as a prerequisite for getting a teaching credential.
Of course, there is an additional requirement of verification of subject matter competence. This might be satisfied with a master's degree in the subject matter specific to their teaching credential, but in nearly all states it can also be satisfied by enrollment in a teacher-subject certificate program at a community college, or by just taking (and passing) a state administered teacher-subject exam. Although many teachers have master's degrees and higher (because of union contracts, higher degrees affords them a higher pay grade), some (like the teacher mentioned in the summary) have that master's degree in education, and not the subject matter of their teaching credential.
Also, for some hard to fill positions like math and science teachers, some districts even can waive the subject matter competence requirement if the bachelor degree happens to be in the subject matter. The teacher can be granted a temporary emergency credential, which allows the teacher to teach and gives the teacher a few years to pass the subject exam (w/o requiring any more courses). Sometime this emergency credential can be extended nearly indefinetly. I'm not saying this is the case with the teacher mentioned in the summary, just that it's quite possible to have a teacher just have a bachelor's degree in math and teach math w/o any other qualifications.
Well maybe (white on tail , red on left, green on right).
I originally thought the spatial separation for the red and green isn't very high (just either side of the solar panel on one side of the dragon trunk) which makes it only visible from one orientation so it's not very useful at all, but if you assume they are only using it for docking with people in control having it be something common is a good idea to save brainspace...
FWIW, I think the russian module uses flashing nav lights for automatic docking (flashing lights are usable on a monochrome camera), red/green lights seem mostly tailored for human consumption...
NASA is tasked as a neutral party to manage aviation safety issues
Of course when push comes to shove, the NTSB/FAA calls in the mounties (aka TSB Canada) instead...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians, http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.html
The history of Indigenous Australians is thought to have spanned 40000 to 45000 years, although some estimates have put the figure at up to 80 000 years before European settlement.