You know how figure skaters pull their arms into their bodies to increase their rotational momentum?
Angular momentum is always conserved, it's actually the angular velocity (spinning) that's increased when rotational inertia (resistance to spinning) is decreased (by bringing in the arms).
My guess is that tucking has as much, if not more, to do with momentum than aerodynamics.
The momentum of a system (skier) is unaffected by interactions withing the system (standing up or tucking). So it technically has nothing to do with momentum.
A liberal arts educaition is often underrated and underappreciated by students. The familiar gripe of "I am never going to use this in life" is more often a display of the ignorance of the student, or a frustration with difficult subject material than a relfection of the actual (lack of) usefulness.
Learning a little about a lot is invaluable to those who aren't 100% sure what of what occupation they wish to pursue for the rest of their lives (I am included in that group). Also, education should serve to not only prepare you for the job you ultimately decide to take, but also make you a knowledgeable person, with a base of understanding of general concepts from which to formulate opinions and perceptions.
A person who has decided to work in the computer science field for the rest of their life would have no use for learning about history, correct? Absolutely not. It is my opinion that since everyone over the age of 18 has a say in our government, then any effort to educate these individuals about the mistakes of our past would improve society's lot by obtaining a larger group of more educated voters.
Also, in reference to the argument made that students should be prepared for entry level positions instead of leadership roles. I find three flaws with that theory.
First, I would venture to say that most people have aspirations of advancing themselves and their station in life. To say that they shouldnt at least recieve some preparation for a higher than entry level position would indicate that they will likely not advance past this position.
Second, giving someone insights into how decisions are made by the "higher ups" would help them to understand the motives and perspectives of those who have a large hand in their economic future.
Third, an entry level position implies that there will be someone at the company that has worked their for longer than you, is more experienced, and knows more about the job than you do. This person can train you and teach you the ins and outs of an etry level position. A CEO of a company does not have this luxury, however. The person with the most immediate experience in his job most likely is no longer employed by the company. This makes training students to become CEO's logical.
I doubt that any/.er would be happy with surveillance at the workplace or otherwise. Common sense and legal prededent (in the interest of privacy, the judiciary should adopt the least intrusive, rather than the most intrusive, means of discouraging Internet misuse. -- TNR Online ) dictate that the least invasive means should be employed when attempting to block abuse of the system.
So, the fact is that the monitoring of internet use is a gross over reaction to something that isn't really a problem at all.
So how is this good for us?
This may be exactly what is necessary to galvanize judges into action in the fight to preserve privacy. Like that guy in The Patriot they may finally fight the threat after it has hit too close to home.
--------
Remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.
I think that patents are more generally used for inventions that a company produces, while trademarks protect the logo or name of a company.
So Motorola would patent its chip manufacturing techniques, but it would get a trademark on the way they write the word "Motorola" on their products.
Slashdot Mirror
i think they meant 4.1 bil
it don't get much more educational than http://www.howstuffworks.com
of Dante's inferno would recieving an endless loop of tips on "How to please your man" fall under?
I hate to nitpick, but
You know how figure skaters pull their arms into their bodies to increase their rotational momentum?
Angular momentum is always conserved, it's actually the angular velocity (spinning) that's increased when rotational inertia (resistance to spinning) is decreased (by bringing in the arms).
My guess is that tucking has as much, if not more, to do with momentum than aerodynamics.
The momentum of a system (skier) is unaffected by interactions withing the system (standing up or tucking). So it technically has nothing to do with momentum.
May your first child be a nerdy child
A liberal arts educaition is often underrated and underappreciated by students. The familiar gripe of "I am never going to use this in life" is more often a display of the ignorance of the student, or a frustration with difficult subject material than a relfection of the actual (lack of) usefulness.
Learning a little about a lot is invaluable to those who aren't 100% sure what of what occupation they wish to pursue for the rest of their lives (I am included in that group). Also, education should serve to not only prepare you for the job you ultimately decide to take, but also make you a knowledgeable person, with a base of understanding of general concepts from which to formulate opinions and perceptions.
A person who has decided to work in the computer science field for the rest of their life would have no use for learning about history, correct? Absolutely not. It is my opinion that since everyone over the age of 18 has a say in our government, then any effort to educate these individuals about the mistakes of our past would improve society's lot by obtaining a larger group of more educated voters.
Also, in reference to the argument made that students should be prepared for entry level positions instead of leadership roles. I find three flaws with that theory.
First, I would venture to say that most people have aspirations of advancing themselves and their station in life. To say that they shouldnt at least recieve some preparation for a higher than entry level position would indicate that they will likely not advance past this position.
Second, giving someone insights into how decisions are made by the "higher ups" would help them to understand the motives and perspectives of those who have a large hand in their economic future.
Third, an entry level position implies that there will be someone at the company that has worked their for longer than you, is more experienced, and knows more about the job than you do. This person can train you and teach you the ins and outs of an etry level position. A CEO of a company does not have this luxury, however. The person with the most immediate experience in his job most likely is no longer employed by the company. This makes training students to become CEO's logical.
When you think of paper, hug a tree.
I doubt that any /.er would be happy with surveillance at the workplace or otherwise. Common sense and legal prededent (in the interest of privacy, the judiciary should adopt the least intrusive, rather than the most intrusive, means of discouraging Internet misuse. -- TNR Online ) dictate that the least invasive means should be employed when attempting to block abuse of the system.
So, the fact is that the monitoring of internet use is a gross over reaction to something that isn't really a problem at all.
So how is this good for us?
This may be exactly what is necessary to galvanize judges into action in the fight to preserve privacy. Like that guy in The Patriot they may finally fight the threat after it has hit too close to home.
--------
Remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.
I think that patents are more generally used for inventions that a company produces, while trademarks protect the logo or name of a company.
So Motorola would patent its chip manufacturing techniques, but it would get a trademark on the way they write the word "Motorola" on their products.