You mean if people want to find out what reasons someone came up with for choosing her (which may or may not have anything to do with real qualification as much as with appearing justified).
Oh, please. I'll list some reason why your insinuations are crap: 1) This is a technical institution, with research (at least historically) heavily subsidised by the government. They're churning out some of the best engineers in the country without breaking a sweat. Do you think that the people picking the new prez really care how the hippie reverse-descriminists see their school? 2) Charles Vest, the previous president of the school, was, in colloquial terms, the man. From what I gather, he was brilliant, innovative, and well-liked by students and faculty alike. To follow up someone like him with someone who would not be able to make a smooth transition (either because they weren't qualified, had little respect from their field/collegues, etc) would be a nice big lead pellet in the foot. After the initial, and inevitable, media hype about the new prez being female wears off, people will start to realize that their new leader is not cut out to do the job, and the media will in turn jump on that, and we all get to watch the school's image plummet. 3) Noam Chompsky is the coolest fucking name ever.
Okay, so that last one wasn't a reason. Maybe I'm a bit biased in all this myself, but whatever.
If you want to read a real article about why she was chosen, head over to web.mit.edu.
Oh, and "historically gender-biased institution"? It's a fucking tech school, what do people expect? I should also point out that the entering freshman class (the one I'm in) is about 55% male and 45% female. Please, let's at least be reasonable when coming up with non-news, mmkay?
I have 5.5 Honda four-stroke engine on my lobster boat to power a hydraulic winch. Running about two-thirds throttle, it runs for 8 hours on maybe a tad over half a gallon of gasoline. Not gonna get into the math, as there would be too much speculation, but you can see that a 2-3 hp engine could go for a good long time on only a gallon. If you looked at the cars they made, there's certainly not going to be much in the way or resistance, either air or friction. In conclusion, if you own a boat that still has a clunky two-stroke outboard, trade it and get a four-stroke!
Remember Physics 101, and that little thing you might have learned about the conservation of energy? If all we used was solar power, then yes, that energy would not/directly/ be heating the surface of the earth. But our panels collect that energy, and it gets used to heat homes, to power transportation, whatever. All that energy will eventually be converted back to heat. All of it. The earth won't miss one bit of it.
Feasibility is not the question. It was feasible 5 years ago. The problem is that all the big companies, oil, car, etc., are unwilling to make the shift from a gasoline industry to a hydrogen industry. If I recall correctly, Iceland was planning to start converting their entire economy to hydrogen power somewhere around last year, but I'm not sure if it ever went through...
In any case, it will probably take another 20 or so years for the US of A to see the light and move away from oil/gasoline powered vehicles (and vehicles are the starting point for hydrogen power). If only we would sign the damned Kyoto...
I thought it was common knowledge that those things were programmed...
They can be set to take certain percentage, or even give back a payout. They usually take around 5-10%.
One major casino strategy is to put slot machines that give a 2 or 3% payback right at the front door, so people win a little, stay, and go over to another machine that take 15% of what they play.
Much like all the other games you play in casinos, the house will always win if they want to.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean if people want to find out what reasons someone came up with for choosing her (which may or may not have anything to do with real qualification as much as with appearing justified).
Oh, please. I'll list some reason why your insinuations are crap:
1) This is a technical institution, with research (at least historically) heavily subsidised by the government. They're churning out some of the best engineers in the country without breaking a sweat. Do you think that the people picking the new prez really care how the hippie reverse-descriminists see their school?
2) Charles Vest, the previous president of the school, was, in colloquial terms, the man. From what I gather, he was brilliant, innovative, and well-liked by students and faculty alike. To follow up someone like him with someone who would not be able to make a smooth transition (either because they weren't qualified, had little respect from their field/collegues, etc) would be a nice big lead pellet in the foot. After the initial, and inevitable, media hype about the new prez being female wears off, people will start to realize that their new leader is not cut out to do the job, and the media will in turn jump on that, and we all get to watch the school's image plummet.
3) Noam Chompsky is the coolest fucking name ever.
Okay, so that last one wasn't a reason.
Maybe I'm a bit biased in all this myself, but whatever.
Mmkay?
Cheers.
It's been said, but this is just crap.
If you want to read a real article about why she was chosen, head over to web.mit.edu.
Oh, and "historically gender-biased institution"? It's a fucking tech school, what do people expect? I should also point out that the entering freshman class (the one I'm in) is about 55% male and 45% female. Please, let's at least be reasonable when coming up with non-news, mmkay?
Mmkay.
I have 5.5 Honda four-stroke engine on my lobster boat to power a hydraulic winch. Running about two-thirds throttle, it runs for 8 hours on maybe a tad over half a gallon of gasoline. Not gonna get into the math, as there would be too much speculation, but you can see that a 2-3 hp engine could go for a good long time on only a gallon. If you looked at the cars they made, there's certainly not going to be much in the way or resistance, either air or friction.
In conclusion, if you own a boat that still has a clunky two-stroke outboard, trade it and get a four-stroke!
If Ford made a car that, when driven in the fast lane, the brakes and cooling system failed, yes.
Uhhh... and what do you think just about any war in the history of world has been based on?
Seen the price tag on Win2k3?
Remember Physics 101, and that little thing you might have learned about the conservation of energy? If all we used was solar power, then yes, that energy would not /directly/ be heating the surface of the earth. But our panels collect that energy, and it gets used to heat homes, to power transportation, whatever. All that energy will eventually be converted back to heat. All of it. The earth won't miss one bit of it.
In Capitalist America, the software company buys YOU!
"Maybe the police should be allowed to enter everyones home and listen to everyones phone calls to search for something illegal."
Uhhh, ever heard of Echelon? yeah...
Actaully, it sounds a lot like the Open Source community...
Notice a connection?
Feasibility is not the question. It was feasible 5 years ago. The problem is that all the big companies, oil, car, etc., are unwilling to make the shift from a gasoline industry to a hydrogen industry. If I recall correctly, Iceland was planning to start converting their entire economy to hydrogen power somewhere around last year, but I'm not sure if it ever went through...
In any case, it will probably take another 20 or so years for the US of A to see the light and move away from oil/gasoline powered vehicles (and vehicles are the starting point for hydrogen power). If only we would sign the damned Kyoto...
I thought it was common knowledge that those things were programmed...
They can be set to take certain percentage, or even give back a payout. They usually take around 5-10%.
One major casino strategy is to put slot machines that give a 2 or 3% payback right at the front door, so people win a little, stay, and go over to another machine that take 15% of what they play.
Much like all the other games you play in casinos, the house will always win if they want to.
RAM: www.crucial.com
everything else: www.newegg.com
reviews: www.anandtech.com
general price updates: www.pricewatch.com
questions, web boards: www.arstechnica.com
first, kill all macro$ux programmers. then it dont matter.
thats a classic
Well, it's back to the drawing board for Ben Bova