Nor is intelligence a predictor of wealth. Current wealth is the best predictor of future wealth. Beyond that you need a good plan and a willingness to ignore any impulses toward ethical behavior.
To the extent that repeat testing gives similar answers, IQ measures how you do on IQ tests.
On the contrary, it measures whether you're going to get special ed. or join the "gifted and talented" program. I aggregate, they might measure how much money the school is going to get from the state for such things.
You're right. An IQ test is designed to measure things well near the norm and not so well away from the norm. That's because people who use IQ test are worried about accurately measuring most people and not worried about accurately measuring you. Once you're below 75, nobody much cares about your score other than the fact that it's below 80. Once you're above 125, nobody much cares other than that you're above 125. My parents didn't tell me my score because they thought it would be demotivational because I had a high score and wouldn't work hard because of it. Sorry Mom and Dad, I was smart enough to negotiate with my teachers to avoid work that I didn't want to do.
Back in the old days, when we didn't have "gifted and talented" programs, they didn't care what your score was as long as it wasn't too low. The teachers found out soon enough how much of a smart ass you were, and those annual "Iowa Basic" or "Stanford Standardized" tests told them that you were reading and doing math at a 12th grade level in 4th grade.
Do you watch TV? Go to movies? Play video games? Listen to music? Why do you spend your money in such an irresponsible, unethical and morally questionable manner when we haven't eradicated certain issues that plague humanity such as poverty, illiteracy, poor or no education, using non-renewable as well as environmentally disruptive and destructive fuels, etc. You have no business wasting money on entertainment until we've done so.
I think they might have closed cycle LN2 refrigerators at each telescope so as not to require require refills Refilling dewars at 42 dishes will keep you busy. Refilling them at 350 dishes would drive you nuts.
I don't think that picture is to scale on dish size. I think the runway is at least 3000 feet long and 60 feet wide. The dishes are much smaller than what's shown.
The goal with ATA was to use small inexpensive dishes to get about 10,000 m^2 of collecting area. To get the best interferometry you want to use a wide variety of baselines. Short spacing give large structure. Long spacings give you small scale structure. Without a large number of baselines you have a hard time getting absolute intensities of structures. With regularly spaced arrays, such as the VLA, intensities are often normalized to single dish measurements. Most of the time VLBI is used only for positional information (i.e. to measure the parallax and proper motion of a pulsar) rather than intensity information and only gives information along the axis perpendicular to the baseline of the telescopes used.
ATA was a tradeoff between expense, difficulty of routing signal fibers, available land, collecting area, and angular resolution. Had it been fully built, it would be an amazing instrument.
Thanks.;) Hibernation is like a warm shutdown. The receivers are kept at cryogenic temperatures and some systems are powered on. When they run out of money to pay the power bills they'll need to start disassembling things to protect sensitive parts from the elements. Which means reassembling it if they get funded. Both the disassembly and the reassembly are expensive.
It's inside knowledge. I don't think it's published anywhere. My understanding is they are keeping the receivers cold and power to some systems on to preserve them. That costs some real money, and that determines how long they can stay in that state. The trade off is that you can return to operation from hibernation state fairly quickly and cheaply. Once they go to full shutdown, they'll be disassembling the telescopes and bringing critical components inside. Coming back from that state would be very expensive.
Before everyone starts arguing about the merit of SETI, I should point out that SETI was only one small part of what this telescope would have done. I would estimate that less that 5% of the observations made were SETI related.
But, unfortunately, with only 42 dishes, the ATA was outclassed by other telescopes for most any purpose for which it was used. Even in SETI observation, the Arecibo telescope is more sensitive, and has a wider simultaneous field of view. The Green Bank Telescope also has a larger field of view covers, the same range of sky, and has about the same sensitivity. If ATA had been completed, it would have had much better sensitivity (although still a tiny field of view). I won't guess at Paul Allen's motivation in not funding further construction.
The SETI Institute's main efforts recently have used this telescope. Those are shut down. SETI efforts unrelated to the ATA (Berkeley, Harvard, JPL, Greenbank, etc) are unaffected.
If you manage to get to be a tenured prof at a decent university then it is probably pretty satisfying...
Which is why every tenure-track job at a decent University will get 300 or more applicants. Most people who graduate with a Ph.D. won't end up in that position.
If you are a project scientist developing something amazing...
There are even fewer of those than there are faculty positions, and that position is going to run out of money in 3 years. So you spend all of your time writing proposals while grad students and postdocs do the actual science.
For pretty much anything else it seems like science sucks as a career...
That's probably pretty accurate. Mainly it's endless disappointment when your proposals aren't funded while you compete for funds with all the people that didn't get tenure-track positions. Meanwhile the funding agencies don't want to pay for your salary even if you do win, because you should be a faculty member who only needs summer salary. They want to fund grad students who will graduate and compete with you for funding.
There are some major misunderstandings in congress, the white house, and the funding agencies. There is no shortage of scientists. In fact there's way to many of them. Open a few thousand jobs for physicists tomorrow, and I promise you'll be able to fill them in two weeks, so long as you don't expect every one to have spent at least 10 years as tenured faculty or to have won a nobel prize. Till then for a lot of them, it's $100 a classroom hour teaching at the community college and a day job as IT support for the library.
Whether a particular GPL developer feels that have been infringed or not, however, doesn't decide if the GPL was infringed.
Of course not, that developer's opinion decides whether a lawsuit will be filed. A court decides whether the GPL was infringed, assuming the case is not settled before then. If no developer attempts legal action, then they all believe that the GPL has not been violated in any way that impacts them, or that they have standing to challenge.
Actually, you won't find non-GPL code from companies like nVidia in the kernel. They provide a GPLed interface that they then write proprietary blobs to.
But your claim is that since those blobs are dependent upon the kernel and useless without it they must be subject to the GPL. At least that's the claim you are making for Android. But somehow kernel modules aren't derivative works?
If this is the first time you've heard of Coral Cache, you must be newer than your user ID number suggests. It's one of those things that falls somewhere between really useful and indespensible. If you need to transmit a 10MB file to 250k people in a couple hours using a desktop machine that might get 20Mbps to the backbone on a good day, or if you get charged by the bit at a remote site, it's indespensible. Just do a http redirect to a coral cached version of the file.
Now you are making the absurd claim that the GPL can't set the conditions for it's license. Software licenses routinely dictate how the the program they are distributed with may be sub-licensed.
The absurd claim being made is that somehow you have the legal standing to interpret whether Android is a derivative work under the GPL. Unless you are a contributor to the kernel being used, that interpretation isn't up to you. The primary author, Linus Torvalds, is of the opinion that programs run under a linux kernel are not derivative works. If he didn't have that opinion, he would have a lot of court battles ahead of him, and most commercial uses of linux in devices would disappear. Feel free to send him an email and tell him he has to sue TiVo, and Cisco, and Google, and D-link, and AMD, and nVidia and most other audio and video device makers. I'm sure he'll appreciate your opinion.
When it's finally released, a time bridge will appear which joins all of the announced release dates. That's how the terminators will travel. Judgement day will have happened long ago crosswhen.
It would be nice to think that you could pretty much say "we've proven they're not adhering to the GPL, the GPL is backed with copyright law, therefore they need to be censured" -- I'm just not sure you might not find yourself fighting Microsoft or some other large company for years, only for them to say "OK, we'll release 4 year old code, and we'll give you $200 for your legal defense fund, but we admit no wrong doing".
Except by violating GPL they never had the right to distribute, and are legally responsible for distributing. Agreeing to distribute code is not a remedy, nor can the plaintiff demand that they distribute code. Ceasing distribution and paying damages for each copy improperly distributed is a remedy. In practice, most plaintiffs will accept an undisclosed cash settlement and an agreement for them to follow the license in the future which is why we've never seen a full test in the courts.
I once had a meeting with a media conglomerate lawyer about a joint project released under the GPL that some of their developers thought would be useful for them to work on. I've never seen such terror in a man's eyes. Of course he's a lawyer who didn't have a thousand page book on the GPL, so he couldn't comprehend it didn't encompass all their software, and he killed any cooperative effort. But he wouldn't have been so afraid if he had thought there was a chance it was invalid.
I'm certainly not convinced that one of the references you cite actually authoritatively establish this in enough jurisdictions to say the matter has been resolved.
I'm not sure what choice the judge would have in the matter. Either find the GPL to be valid and enforceable, of find it to be invalid and the work covered by standard copyright law. Which would be worse for the defendant? I think they would be nearly equivalent outcomes. Are you saying a judge could somehow find works released under the GPL are in the public domain, despite that being a violation of copyright law and international treaty?
I really wish people would stop saying that. Such statements means mankind is doomed to war over tiny stores of fuel.
You have too much faith in humanity. Mankind IS doomed to war over tiny stores of fuel. And, of course, has been conducting wars over tiny stores of fuel for quite some time.
All web access being a right means is the government should not stop you from accessing the web without due process of law. If you go to Starbucks, and use their wifi, the cops aren't going to arrest you. It also means that governments shouldn't be passing laws or acting to prevent political groups from accessing the web or conveying speech via it. Aren't these things obvious? That doesn't mean you get to steal services. You don't get to go into a TV station and force them to broadcast your manifesto even though you have the right to free speech.
Similarly, throwing a tennis ball against your dining room wall is also a right. But that right ends if you neighbor's apartment is on the other side of that wall.
Slashdot Mirror
IQ scores are not a free ticket.
Nor is intelligence a predictor of wealth. Current wealth is the best predictor of future wealth. Beyond that you need a good plan and a willingness to ignore any impulses toward ethical behavior.
Actually, both are caused by ear wax.
I take the test drunk and wearing my wife's glasses just to even things out for the rest of the people taking the test.
To the extent that repeat testing gives similar answers, IQ measures how you do on IQ tests.
On the contrary, it measures whether you're going to get special ed. or join the "gifted and talented" program. I aggregate, they might measure how much money the school is going to get from the state for such things.
You're right. An IQ test is designed to measure things well near the norm and not so well away from the norm. That's because people who use IQ test are worried about accurately measuring most people and not worried about accurately measuring you. Once you're below 75, nobody much cares about your score other than the fact that it's below 80. Once you're above 125, nobody much cares other than that you're above 125. My parents didn't tell me my score because they thought it would be demotivational because I had a high score and wouldn't work hard because of it. Sorry Mom and Dad, I was smart enough to negotiate with my teachers to avoid work that I didn't want to do.
Back in the old days, when we didn't have "gifted and talented" programs, they didn't care what your score was as long as it wasn't too low. The teachers found out soon enough how much of a smart ass you were, and those annual "Iowa Basic" or "Stanford Standardized" tests told them that you were reading and doing math at a 12th grade level in 4th grade.
Do you watch TV? Go to movies? Play video games? Listen to music? Why do you spend your money in such an irresponsible, unethical and morally questionable manner when we haven't eradicated certain issues that plague humanity such as poverty, illiteracy, poor or no education, using non-renewable as well as environmentally disruptive and destructive fuels, etc. You have no business wasting money on entertainment until we've done so.
I think they might have closed cycle LN2 refrigerators at each telescope so as not to require require refills Refilling dewars at 42 dishes will keep you busy. Refilling them at 350 dishes would drive you nuts.
I'll probably get shit on for this, but if the average science grad is anything like the average CS grad
Well the average "science grad" isn't a scientist. A scientist is what they, or a CD grad becomes when they get a Ph.D.
And now I'll get shit from the "I'm smart and I don't have a Ph.D. and people with Ph.D.s are dumb" crowd.
I don't think that picture is to scale on dish size. I think the runway is at least 3000 feet long and 60 feet wide. The dishes are much smaller than what's shown.
The goal with ATA was to use small inexpensive dishes to get about 10,000 m^2 of collecting area. To get the best interferometry you want to use a wide variety of baselines. Short spacing give large structure. Long spacings give you small scale structure. Without a large number of baselines you have a hard time getting absolute intensities of structures. With regularly spaced arrays, such as the VLA, intensities are often normalized to single dish measurements. Most of the time VLBI is used only for positional information (i.e. to measure the parallax and proper motion of a pulsar) rather than intensity information and only gives information along the axis perpendicular to the baseline of the telescopes used.
ATA was a tradeoff between expense, difficulty of routing signal fibers, available land, collecting area, and angular resolution. Had it been fully built, it would be an amazing instrument.
Thanks. ;) Hibernation is like a warm shutdown. The receivers are kept at cryogenic temperatures and some systems are powered on. When they run out of money to pay the power bills they'll need to start disassembling things to protect sensitive parts from the elements. Which means reassembling it if they get funded. Both the disassembly and the reassembly are expensive.
It's inside knowledge. I don't think it's published anywhere. My understanding is they are keeping the receivers cold and power to some systems on to preserve them. That costs some real money, and that determines how long they can stay in that state. The trade off is that you can return to operation from hibernation state fairly quickly and cheaply. Once they go to full shutdown, they'll be disassembling the telescopes and bringing critical components inside. Coming back from that state would be very expensive.
Before everyone starts arguing about the merit of SETI, I should point out that SETI was only one small part of what this telescope would have done. I would estimate that less that 5% of the observations made were SETI related.
But, unfortunately, with only 42 dishes, the ATA was outclassed by other telescopes for most any purpose for which it was used. Even in SETI observation, the Arecibo telescope is more sensitive, and has a wider simultaneous field of view. The Green Bank Telescope also has a larger field of view covers, the same range of sky, and has about the same sensitivity. If ATA had been completed, it would have had much better sensitivity (although still a tiny field of view). I won't guess at Paul Allen's motivation in not funding further construction.
The SETI Institute's main efforts recently have used this telescope. Those are shut down. SETI efforts unrelated to the ATA (Berkeley, Harvard, JPL, Greenbank, etc) are unaffected.
If you manage to get to be a tenured prof at a decent university then it is probably pretty satisfying...
Which is why every tenure-track job at a decent University will get 300 or more applicants. Most people who graduate with a Ph.D. won't end up in that position.
If you are a project scientist developing something amazing...
There are even fewer of those than there are faculty positions, and that position is going to run out of money in 3 years. So you spend all of your time writing proposals while grad students and postdocs do the actual science.
For pretty much anything else it seems like science sucks as a career...
That's probably pretty accurate. Mainly it's endless disappointment when your proposals aren't funded while you compete for funds with all the people that didn't get tenure-track positions. Meanwhile the funding agencies don't want to pay for your salary even if you do win, because you should be a faculty member who only needs summer salary. They want to fund grad students who will graduate and compete with you for funding.
There are some major misunderstandings in congress, the white house, and the funding agencies. There is no shortage of scientists. In fact there's way to many of them. Open a few thousand jobs for physicists tomorrow, and I promise you'll be able to fill them in two weeks, so long as you don't expect every one to have spent at least 10 years as tenured faculty or to have won a nobel prize. Till then for a lot of them, it's $100 a classroom hour teaching at the community college and a day job as IT support for the library.
Until two people want to watch TV.
Whether a particular GPL developer feels that have been infringed or not, however, doesn't decide if the GPL was infringed.
Of course not, that developer's opinion decides whether a lawsuit will be filed. A court decides whether the GPL was infringed, assuming the case is not settled before then. If no developer attempts legal action, then they all believe that the GPL has not been violated in any way that impacts them, or that they have standing to challenge.
Actually, you won't find non-GPL code from companies like nVidia in the kernel. They provide a GPLed interface that they then write proprietary blobs to.
But your claim is that since those blobs are dependent upon the kernel and useless without it they must be subject to the GPL. At least that's the claim you are making for Android. But somehow kernel modules aren't derivative works?
If this is the first time you've heard of Coral Cache, you must be newer than your user ID number suggests. It's one of those things that falls somewhere between really useful and indespensible. If you need to transmit a 10MB file to 250k people in a couple hours using a desktop machine that might get 20Mbps to the backbone on a good day, or if you get charged by the bit at a remote site, it's indespensible. Just do a http redirect to a coral cached version of the file.
Now you are making the absurd claim that the GPL can't set the conditions for it's license. Software licenses routinely dictate how the the program they are distributed with may be sub-licensed.
The absurd claim being made is that somehow you have the legal standing to interpret whether Android is a derivative work under the GPL. Unless you are a contributor to the kernel being used, that interpretation isn't up to you. The primary author, Linus Torvalds, is of the opinion that programs run under a linux kernel are not derivative works. If he didn't have that opinion, he would have a lot of court battles ahead of him, and most commercial uses of linux in devices would disappear. Feel free to send him an email and tell him he has to sue TiVo, and Cisco, and Google, and D-link, and AMD, and nVidia and most other audio and video device makers. I'm sure he'll appreciate your opinion.
Like Apple did for OSX? They certainly haven't released source for the whole operating system.
When it's finally released, a time bridge will appear which joins all of the announced release dates. That's how the terminators will travel. Judgement day will have happened long ago crosswhen.
It would be nice to think that you could pretty much say "we've proven they're not adhering to the GPL, the GPL is backed with copyright law, therefore they need to be censured" -- I'm just not sure you might not find yourself fighting Microsoft or some other large company for years, only for them to say "OK, we'll release 4 year old code, and we'll give you $200 for your legal defense fund, but we admit no wrong doing".
Except by violating GPL they never had the right to distribute, and are legally responsible for distributing. Agreeing to distribute code is not a remedy, nor can the plaintiff demand that they distribute code. Ceasing distribution and paying damages for each copy improperly distributed is a remedy. In practice, most plaintiffs will accept an undisclosed cash settlement and an agreement for them to follow the license in the future which is why we've never seen a full test in the courts.
I once had a meeting with a media conglomerate lawyer about a joint project released under the GPL that some of their developers thought would be useful for them to work on. I've never seen such terror in a man's eyes. Of course he's a lawyer who didn't have a thousand page book on the GPL, so he couldn't comprehend it didn't encompass all their software, and he killed any cooperative effort. But he wouldn't have been so afraid if he had thought there was a chance it was invalid.
I'm certainly not convinced that one of the references you cite actually authoritatively establish this in enough jurisdictions to say the matter has been resolved.
I'm not sure what choice the judge would have in the matter. Either find the GPL to be valid and enforceable, of find it to be invalid and the work covered by standard copyright law. Which would be worse for the defendant? I think they would be nearly equivalent outcomes. Are you saying a judge could somehow find works released under the GPL are in the public domain, despite that being a violation of copyright law and international treaty?
I really wish people would stop saying that. Such statements means mankind is doomed to war over tiny stores of fuel.
You have too much faith in humanity. Mankind IS doomed to war over tiny stores of fuel. And, of course, has been conducting wars over tiny stores of fuel for quite some time.
The temperature in the containment building was sufficiently low that both the hydrogen and oxygen were bi. The twisted combination was inevitible.
All web access being a right means is the government should not stop you from accessing the web without due process of law. If you go to Starbucks, and use their wifi, the cops aren't going to arrest you. It also means that governments shouldn't be passing laws or acting to prevent political groups from accessing the web or conveying speech via it. Aren't these things obvious? That doesn't mean you get to steal services. You don't get to go into a TV station and force them to broadcast your manifesto even though you have the right to free speech.
Similarly, throwing a tennis ball against your dining room wall is also a right. But that right ends if you neighbor's apartment is on the other side of that wall.