Ironically the only two locations in the US to host the Winter Olympics are part of the few places to have ever gotten a return on the games. Salt Lake Cities facilities are used by Team USA for training and are available to the public otherwise and make more than enough to pay for continued operation with enough return left over to pay the construction bonds where they were required.
Though it seems it's easier to make money on the Winter Olympics than it is the summer Olympics as the last place to ever make money on the Summer Olympics was Los Angeles.
Wow, proof right there. I mean what are the chances that there would be aluminum and steel in the rubble.
And no, I didn't just google it. High school chemistry and I've worked with both of them on some field work I've done.
Wow my apologies, High school Chemistry. You're clearly an expert.
By the way I'm really glade you brought up the ACSE report, I actually hadn't originally paid attention to the team that put it together, I was very surprised to see several names I had also come across while researching another investigation involving the destruction of a building under suspicious circumstances.
Wow, you're right I did miss that. That's evidence right there, I mean consulting experts in Civil Engineering about the mechanism of a building collapse, when they could have just consulted people with high school chemistry.
What you want to believe is your choice and I'm not going to argue with you, the rather heated reaction you displayed in your comment is a very clear indication that you feel your "comfort zone" is being threatened so I will leave you to your view of a world where the government would never kill thousands of civilians to accomplish some goal.
You're right, my belief in Science and evidence based conclusions is clearly at odds with your desires in this regard. I should simply turn my brain off, accept whatever conclusion you want to draw no matter how ridiculous as the fact of the situation. Well at least that's what you want me to do. I was actually relaying the actual engineering understanding of the collapse to counter the crap you posted and you aren't interested in discussing that at all, even though you claimed otherwise. Because the actual engineering puts the lie to your beliefs and like all beliefs when challenged with science and facts you will resort to what we see in this post.
You're a fool and in this world people need to stand up and point out to the crowd that people like you are fools. Otherwise you might hoodwink some impressionable young mind with nonsense, or better yet give a motive to a paranoid schizophrenic like Jared Loughner.
You are a fool and everything you've posted is nonsense. You should seek counseling and medication before you hurt someone.
No, they are right there with two utterly unrelated quotes that have nothing at all to do with the issue. It's almost like they don't think he's a real candidate so they put up a quote that's meaningless and unrelated intentionally. I wonder why.
His position on government snooping is well known. He's one of the few that voted against the Patriot Act, not just the first time but No for both re-authorizations as well. In fact as far as I know he's the only one in congress that did that. So to reflect this record they dig up an unrelated quote and put it up to make him look like a dottering fool, because he's not a "real" candidate.
I don't know about you but I did watch the second impact live on TV. They were doing a live story on the first impact when the second plane came in, so it wasn't almost live, it was live. I'll never forget the gasp of the news lady that was doing the live story when the second plane came in.
For someone that claims to have a background in engineering you are devoid of logic and haven't bothered to read ANY of the engineering studies. The ASCE study in particular is quite good and even includes a finite element analysis of WTC 1 and 2 based on the number of structural members that were cut and the damage the fire did. Going on memory here, if you want to read the report and you have the intelligence to understand it you should have no problem finding it.
WTC 1 was hit almost level, all the damage was at a single floor about 2/3rds of the way up the building and it was a clean solid hit almost on the middle of the building. The WTC towers were designed to carry most of the gravity structural strength in the exterior concrete columns. The hit on WTC damaged only about 1/3rd of these concrete columns on just a couple floors. The amount of building weight above the impact point was not sufficient even with the damaged members and fire softening of the impact to bring the the building down, were the foundation not severely damaged by the collapse of building 2.
WTC 2 was hit at and angle at about 40% up from the ground floor. The structural damage extended for almost 10 floors below the impact point. In addition the plan hit at and angle aimed at the side of the building. It appears the pilot aimed to hit as many of the exterior structural columns as possible. The number of structural members that were cut by the impact was almost 3 times the number as the WTC impact including destroying almost an entire corners worth of columns meaning all the load had to be transferred across to the other columns on the beams. In addition the impacting plane distributed most of it's fuel among a significant number of additional floors. With the number of concrete exterior columns destroyed and the fire weakening all the internal beams and almost 60% of the buildings weight being borne collapse was almost guaranteed.
WTC 7 was hit by a large concrete and steel chunk of one of the towers during the collapse, the piece hit nearly dead square on the center of the roof and penetrated (IIRC) about 24 floors. WTC 7 was a modern "glass and steel" design with a central column that carried something like 80% of the building load, that column was damaged massively by the impacting debris. The damage was such that the building was a total loss. It was either going to fall down or it was going to have to be demolished. As luck would have it, all the foundation damage from the tower collapse along with the fire that gutted the structure was eventually enough that a small wind gust probably knocked it down.
I'm not going to bother even addressing your bullshit conspiracy theory garbage about thermite residue and such. It's just so beyond the pale of reasonableness as to be just plain crazy. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what thermite is as far as the chemistry and composition goes or you'd know just how ridiculous such a claim is.
The knowledge of what happened to those buildings has been analyzed to death by professionals. There are several very good engineering studies, and what you claimed has no relation whatsoever to those studies.
You should also google Frodo the Chimpanzee and read about his exploits. This chimpanzee has displayed a level of aggression and meanness that if he were human we'd call him pure evil.
The terrorists don't need to write their own encryption software, it already exists. The problem with trying to backdoor or ban encryption is that the cat is already out of the bag and it's not going to back in no matter how hard your try. Even if all the western states, Russia, China, etc gang up and make non-backdoored encryption illegal all someone has to do is simply setup a business in a jurisdiction that doesn't care, say like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or Cuba or any other smaller state that's immune to larger state pressure.
You can't retroactively take encryption away. It's already out there and it works and any effort to remove it is only going to remove it from regular people.
The problem is they want to read everyone's communications but the amount of data that generates is far more than even machine learning could ever process, let alone the inclination to call it something else. How is a computer ever going to be able to read texts and process out that someone talking about an upcoming wedding is talking about a terrorist attack?
The reality is that this desire to have access to all communications has nothing at all to do with terrorism. In the nearly 16 years they've had access to the data it's NEVER been used to stop a terrorist attack. When they were called out on this fact at the congressional hearing they started lying about it by claiming it stopped attacks that the FBI themselves created with stooges.
They don't want this access for terrorism, so ask yourself why do they really want it?
Because that would negate all the cable companies agreements with content providers. They need a method so that the cable company isn't forced to do something that violates their existing contracts.
Cable card would have been a solution had the FCC not allowed the cable companies to create a certification laboratory that allowed them to throw red tape in front of any manufacturer. They also should have required that the Cable companies provide cable cards at no charge. The companies quickly figured out that charged a $10 rental fee for the card while only charging $12 for a full DVR quickly killed any market for the cards.
Unfortunately because of the mistakes the FCC made in the cable card specification it's essentially a dead standard at this point as can be seen in the marketplace as the only commercially available DVR at this point is the Tivo.
India has a problem with birth rates. Poverty is endemic when everyone is having 7 kids. Think of all the wealth China has built up. Now imagine 30 years from now when the one child policy begins having massive impacts to the population. The lifetime wealth of 8 people will be consolidating to a single person. Even if those people are poor the consolidation will be substantial.
China has dragged about a billion people out of poverty and then population implosion will turn that value into substantially more for the survivors. Providing the nation survives the population implosion they will come out the other side far wealthier.
India on the other hand still have a birth rate around 6 per family. Even accounting for mortality that divides accumulated wealth a minimum of 4 ways. This breed poverty and creates hereditary poverty. Until India can get their birth rate down they will continue to suffer from poverty even if they spend their money on infrastructure.
India is a country that very much wanted communism to win. Yes they are conscious of class and they try to provide goods to the poor but you know what happens you subsidize a phone for $4? They all get purchased and sold aboard for huge profits to those that can purchase them. If the sale price abroad is $50 they will pay the poor $25 to get them subsidized and then sell them abroad.
They can compel them, but Apple could submit preliminary costs. I suggest they submit an invoice to the court and FBI demanding about 10 billion dollars to create this software, this would include the cost of the damage to their reputation. That will be enough that the FBI could not conceivably pay the amount. This will tie the issue up in court for a decade while they fight over costs such that by the time the FBI prevails (if they do) the 5c and versions like it will be long gone.
The reality would belay that conclusion. There was a news article today about a guy that had a marshals swat team raid is house, arrest him and take him to jail then court where a bank lawyer acting as a prosecutor took him before a judge about an unpaid student loan from 30 year ago that they didn't even bother writing him a letter about. He was ordered to pay triple the amount in 2 weeks or they would arrest him again.
They had to pass a law because the car companies were being dicks about it.They should pass another law to take care of Apple and the phone companies being dicks about repairing phones as it's obviously become an issue.
Right to repair shouldn't only apply to cars, it should apply to any product that the consumer owns.
This sounds very very difficult to exploit if for no other reason than needing to control a DNS server and reply with malformed packets that won't trigger an intrusion detection system like Snort (there is probably already a rule built).
I hated it to at first, but it IS much easier to find options that were once 10 minute hunting trips in the menu's mostly because the menu's were jumbled and not broken down into certain tasks like view, review, etc.
Having gotten used to the Ribbon I can say I completely believe the millions MS spent on usability testing that the Ribbon is easier to learn for new users and not just a little bit, it's significantly easier to learn. Though it was a pain to learn as an experienced user it's far more productive and easier to find lessor used options than before IMO, this is mostly because the ribbon titles now accurately reflect the type of commands to be found on the ribbon which was almost never true of the old menus.
Speaking scientifically you are correct. But the problem is that plain language when mixed with scientific taxonomic classes can cause confusion. Chances are when someone says humanity evolved from apes they will be confused to be talking specifically about the existing great apes. We did not evolve from chimpanzees or other great apes and it's important to draw this distinction because the confusion between the scientific speech and layman speech is exploited by creationists. By using speech that indicates humans evolved from apes the layman implication is that humans evolved from the existing great apes because those are the apes that the layman knows. This breeds confusion and such statements should be avoided even if taxonomically correct.
Where these statements are made it's important to draw the distinction that humans did not evolve from the great apes, if for no other reason than to avoid confusing those not familiar with the taxonomic classifications for primates and more importantly because it reinforces that evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line. The weakness of evolutionary understanding in the US is partly because of these lazy uses of words that confuse the layman.
BTW I never said humans evolved from Lemurs, I said that current evidence indicates the common ancestor looked kind of like one as far as size of body and structural similarities.
He went a little quick, as I misunderstood his statement at first too and had to reread it a couple time. Let me extract the relevant data and using that go back and re-read what he said and it might make more sense.
The 1967 prediction for warming generates an ultimate warming value 2.3C, taking that value and using the PPM they predicted you can extract a PPM/degree C. Using that equation over 50 years where the now known change in PPM of CO2 was 320ppm to 400ppm you end up with a calculated change of 0.74C. The measured temperature rise over the same period was 0.7C, with a difference of 0.04 degrees C.
Given that a prediction of 2.3C for the ultimate warming in the 1967 paper coincides with a current prediction of 1.5C to 4.5C, the prediction is a bit at the lower end of the error bars but it's still well within the predicted range demonstrating very good science.
They don't understand it because like my early education they were taught memorization, not problem solving. Common core focuses on the later, not the former.
I grew up in the same time period, what I remember is teaching the same math every single year from 1st to 6th grade. Maybe a shade more difficult but I agree, pages and pages of mind numbingly boring problems.
One of the more interesting thing about Common Core is the effort to change this, to teach problem solving rather than memorization. It's also one of the reasons common core is lamented so heavily by some people, that is because the answer is less important than the method of developing the answer. Some people look at a common core kids math problem, and these people grew up memorizing answers, and they can't conceivably solve a problem that is based on the premise of teaching solving the problem rather than memorizing the solution. This makes the parent feel stupid so they blame common core, rather than their own memorization focused education. Though I'm sure there are some bad common core problems, as there are always bad problems regardless of teaching method.
I've seen some of the posted problems that target common core as absurd and what I saw was ingenious problems that teach problem solving and not memorization. My first year of college math courses was spent undoing the damage of elementary and secondary math education that taught memorization. If we can send kids out of elementary and secondary education with problem solving skills, that at least in my generation weren't taught at all, we will do good things for a significant number of students.
We did NOT evolve from the great apes. We evolved from a common ancestor. Though we share much of our DNA with Chimpanzees and other great apes our lineage diverged from theirs a LONG time ago. They have evolved independently from us for that same amount of time. The common ancestor we share looks nothing like either humans or great apes (speculated to look much like a Lemur).
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically the only two locations in the US to host the Winter Olympics are part of the few places to have ever gotten a return on the games. Salt Lake Cities facilities are used by Team USA for training and are available to the public otherwise and make more than enough to pay for continued operation with enough return left over to pay the construction bonds where they were required.
Though it seems it's easier to make money on the Winter Olympics than it is the summer Olympics as the last place to ever make money on the Summer Olympics was Los Angeles.
Wow, proof right there. I mean what are the chances that there would be aluminum and steel in the rubble.
Wow my apologies, High school Chemistry. You're clearly an expert.
Wow, you're right I did miss that. That's evidence right there, I mean consulting experts in Civil Engineering about the mechanism of a building collapse, when they could have just consulted people with high school chemistry.
You're right, my belief in Science and evidence based conclusions is clearly at odds with your desires in this regard. I should simply turn my brain off, accept whatever conclusion you want to draw no matter how ridiculous as the fact of the situation. Well at least that's what you want me to do. I was actually relaying the actual engineering understanding of the collapse to counter the crap you posted and you aren't interested in discussing that at all, even though you claimed otherwise. Because the actual engineering puts the lie to your beliefs and like all beliefs when challenged with science and facts you will resort to what we see in this post.
You're a fool and in this world people need to stand up and point out to the crowd that people like you are fools. Otherwise you might hoodwink some impressionable young mind with nonsense, or better yet give a motive to a paranoid schizophrenic like Jared Loughner.
You are a fool and everything you've posted is nonsense. You should seek counseling and medication before you hurt someone.
No, they are right there with two utterly unrelated quotes that have nothing at all to do with the issue. It's almost like they don't think he's a real candidate so they put up a quote that's meaningless and unrelated intentionally. I wonder why.
His position on government snooping is well known. He's one of the few that voted against the Patriot Act, not just the first time but No for both re-authorizations as well. In fact as far as I know he's the only one in congress that did that. So to reflect this record they dig up an unrelated quote and put it up to make him look like a dottering fool, because he's not a "real" candidate.
Oh they don't even mention Bernie Sanders. He's not a real candidate. At least that's what all the establishment folks want you to believe.
I don't know about you but I did watch the second impact live on TV. They were doing a live story on the first impact when the second plane came in, so it wasn't almost live, it was live. I'll never forget the gasp of the news lady that was doing the live story when the second plane came in.
For someone that claims to have a background in engineering you are devoid of logic and haven't bothered to read ANY of the engineering studies. The ASCE study in particular is quite good and even includes a finite element analysis of WTC 1 and 2 based on the number of structural members that were cut and the damage the fire did. Going on memory here, if you want to read the report and you have the intelligence to understand it you should have no problem finding it.
WTC 1 was hit almost level, all the damage was at a single floor about 2/3rds of the way up the building and it was a clean solid hit almost on the middle of the building. The WTC towers were designed to carry most of the gravity structural strength in the exterior concrete columns. The hit on WTC damaged only about 1/3rd of these concrete columns on just a couple floors. The amount of building weight above the impact point was not sufficient even with the damaged members and fire softening of the impact to bring the the building down, were the foundation not severely damaged by the collapse of building 2.
WTC 2 was hit at and angle at about 40% up from the ground floor. The structural damage extended for almost 10 floors below the impact point. In addition the plan hit at and angle aimed at the side of the building. It appears the pilot aimed to hit as many of the exterior structural columns as possible. The number of structural members that were cut by the impact was almost 3 times the number as the WTC impact including destroying almost an entire corners worth of columns meaning all the load had to be transferred across to the other columns on the beams. In addition the impacting plane distributed most of it's fuel among a significant number of additional floors. With the number of concrete exterior columns destroyed and the fire weakening all the internal beams and almost 60% of the buildings weight being borne collapse was almost guaranteed.
WTC 7 was hit by a large concrete and steel chunk of one of the towers during the collapse, the piece hit nearly dead square on the center of the roof and penetrated (IIRC) about 24 floors. WTC 7 was a modern "glass and steel" design with a central column that carried something like 80% of the building load, that column was damaged massively by the impacting debris. The damage was such that the building was a total loss. It was either going to fall down or it was going to have to be demolished. As luck would have it, all the foundation damage from the tower collapse along with the fire that gutted the structure was eventually enough that a small wind gust probably knocked it down.
I'm not going to bother even addressing your bullshit conspiracy theory garbage about thermite residue and such. It's just so beyond the pale of reasonableness as to be just plain crazy. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what thermite is as far as the chemistry and composition goes or you'd know just how ridiculous such a claim is.
The knowledge of what happened to those buildings has been analyzed to death by professionals. There are several very good engineering studies, and what you claimed has no relation whatsoever to those studies.
You should also google Frodo the Chimpanzee and read about his exploits. This chimpanzee has displayed a level of aggression and meanness that if he were human we'd call him pure evil.
The terrorists don't need to write their own encryption software, it already exists. The problem with trying to backdoor or ban encryption is that the cat is already out of the bag and it's not going to back in no matter how hard your try. Even if all the western states, Russia, China, etc gang up and make non-backdoored encryption illegal all someone has to do is simply setup a business in a jurisdiction that doesn't care, say like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or Cuba or any other smaller state that's immune to larger state pressure.
You can't retroactively take encryption away. It's already out there and it works and any effort to remove it is only going to remove it from regular people.
The problem is they want to read everyone's communications but the amount of data that generates is far more than even machine learning could ever process, let alone the inclination to call it something else. How is a computer ever going to be able to read texts and process out that someone talking about an upcoming wedding is talking about a terrorist attack?
The reality is that this desire to have access to all communications has nothing at all to do with terrorism. In the nearly 16 years they've had access to the data it's NEVER been used to stop a terrorist attack. When they were called out on this fact at the congressional hearing they started lying about it by claiming it stopped attacks that the FBI themselves created with stooges.
They don't want this access for terrorism, so ask yourself why do they really want it?
Because that would negate all the cable companies agreements with content providers. They need a method so that the cable company isn't forced to do something that violates their existing contracts.
Cable card would have been a solution had the FCC not allowed the cable companies to create a certification laboratory that allowed them to throw red tape in front of any manufacturer. They also should have required that the Cable companies provide cable cards at no charge. The companies quickly figured out that charged a $10 rental fee for the card while only charging $12 for a full DVR quickly killed any market for the cards.
Unfortunately because of the mistakes the FCC made in the cable card specification it's essentially a dead standard at this point as can be seen in the marketplace as the only commercially available DVR at this point is the Tivo.
India has a problem with birth rates. Poverty is endemic when everyone is having 7 kids. Think of all the wealth China has built up. Now imagine 30 years from now when the one child policy begins having massive impacts to the population. The lifetime wealth of 8 people will be consolidating to a single person. Even if those people are poor the consolidation will be substantial.
China has dragged about a billion people out of poverty and then population implosion will turn that value into substantially more for the survivors. Providing the nation survives the population implosion they will come out the other side far wealthier.
India on the other hand still have a birth rate around 6 per family. Even accounting for mortality that divides accumulated wealth a minimum of 4 ways. This breed poverty and creates hereditary poverty. Until India can get their birth rate down they will continue to suffer from poverty even if they spend their money on infrastructure.
India is a country that very much wanted communism to win. Yes they are conscious of class and they try to provide goods to the poor but you know what happens you subsidize a phone for $4? They all get purchased and sold aboard for huge profits to those that can purchase them. If the sale price abroad is $50 they will pay the poor $25 to get them subsidized and then sell them abroad.
They can compel them, but Apple could submit preliminary costs. I suggest they submit an invoice to the court and FBI demanding about 10 billion dollars to create this software, this would include the cost of the damage to their reputation. That will be enough that the FBI could not conceivably pay the amount. This will tie the issue up in court for a decade while they fight over costs such that by the time the FBI prevails (if they do) the 5c and versions like it will be long gone.
The reality would belay that conclusion. There was a news article today about a guy that had a marshals swat team raid is house, arrest him and take him to jail then court where a bank lawyer acting as a prosecutor took him before a judge about an unpaid student loan from 30 year ago that they didn't even bother writing him a letter about. He was ordered to pay triple the amount in 2 weeks or they would arrest him again.
Debtors prisons are apparently back.
They had to pass a law because the car companies were being dicks about it.They should pass another law to take care of Apple and the phone companies being dicks about repairing phones as it's obviously become an issue.
Right to repair shouldn't only apply to cars, it should apply to any product that the consumer owns.
This sounds very very difficult to exploit if for no other reason than needing to control a DNS server and reply with malformed packets that won't trigger an intrusion detection system like Snort (there is probably already a rule built).
Did you bother to submit a bug report and include the document in the bug report? Or do you expect the developers to be psychic?
I hated it to at first, but it IS much easier to find options that were once 10 minute hunting trips in the menu's mostly because the menu's were jumbled and not broken down into certain tasks like view, review, etc.
Having gotten used to the Ribbon I can say I completely believe the millions MS spent on usability testing that the Ribbon is easier to learn for new users and not just a little bit, it's significantly easier to learn. Though it was a pain to learn as an experienced user it's far more productive and easier to find lessor used options than before IMO, this is mostly because the ribbon titles now accurately reflect the type of commands to be found on the ribbon which was almost never true of the old menus.
Speaking scientifically you are correct. But the problem is that plain language when mixed with scientific taxonomic classes can cause confusion. Chances are when someone says humanity evolved from apes they will be confused to be talking specifically about the existing great apes. We did not evolve from chimpanzees or other great apes and it's important to draw this distinction because the confusion between the scientific speech and layman speech is exploited by creationists. By using speech that indicates humans evolved from apes the layman implication is that humans evolved from the existing great apes because those are the apes that the layman knows. This breeds confusion and such statements should be avoided even if taxonomically correct.
Where these statements are made it's important to draw the distinction that humans did not evolve from the great apes, if for no other reason than to avoid confusing those not familiar with the taxonomic classifications for primates and more importantly because it reinforces that evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line. The weakness of evolutionary understanding in the US is partly because of these lazy uses of words that confuse the layman.
BTW I never said humans evolved from Lemurs, I said that current evidence indicates the common ancestor looked kind of like one as far as size of body and structural similarities.
He went a little quick, as I misunderstood his statement at first too and had to reread it a couple time. Let me extract the relevant data and using that go back and re-read what he said and it might make more sense.
The 1967 prediction for warming generates an ultimate warming value 2.3C, taking that value and using the PPM they predicted you can extract a PPM/degree C. Using that equation over 50 years where the now known change in PPM of CO2 was 320ppm to 400ppm you end up with a calculated change of 0.74C. The measured temperature rise over the same period was 0.7C, with a difference of 0.04 degrees C.
Given that a prediction of 2.3C for the ultimate warming in the 1967 paper coincides with a current prediction of 1.5C to 4.5C, the prediction is a bit at the lower end of the error bars but it's still well within the predicted range demonstrating very good science.
They don't understand it because like my early education they were taught memorization, not problem solving. Common core focuses on the later, not the former.
I grew up in the same time period, what I remember is teaching the same math every single year from 1st to 6th grade. Maybe a shade more difficult but I agree, pages and pages of mind numbingly boring problems.
One of the more interesting thing about Common Core is the effort to change this, to teach problem solving rather than memorization. It's also one of the reasons common core is lamented so heavily by some people, that is because the answer is less important than the method of developing the answer. Some people look at a common core kids math problem, and these people grew up memorizing answers, and they can't conceivably solve a problem that is based on the premise of teaching solving the problem rather than memorizing the solution. This makes the parent feel stupid so they blame common core, rather than their own memorization focused education. Though I'm sure there are some bad common core problems, as there are always bad problems regardless of teaching method.
I've seen some of the posted problems that target common core as absurd and what I saw was ingenious problems that teach problem solving and not memorization. My first year of college math courses was spent undoing the damage of elementary and secondary math education that taught memorization. If we can send kids out of elementary and secondary education with problem solving skills, that at least in my generation weren't taught at all, we will do good things for a significant number of students.
We did NOT evolve from the great apes. We evolved from a common ancestor. Though we share much of our DNA with Chimpanzees and other great apes our lineage diverged from theirs a LONG time ago. They have evolved independently from us for that same amount of time. The common ancestor we share looks nothing like either humans or great apes (speculated to look much like a Lemur).