Being a middle aged science nerd, and thus having been around the block a few times, I can confirm that what one majors in in a much more accurate metric of the rigor of ones college education than what university, or college one graduated from.
I graduated from junior college with an Associate of Arts with a concentration in engineering at the end same term that Brooks Shields graduated Princeton with a B.A.. Life had a copy of her transcript which it published that summer. When you reviewed her course work it was manifest that her course work was complete puffery. If Life had published my junior college transcript it would have shown 12 credits of calculus, 12 credits in physics, 16 credits in chemistry, and 15 credits in engineering. (1 credit = 1 semester hour) Every one of these credits were transferable to *any* university here in Texas. Every single credit was acceptable as credit toward a major in that subject. Further, all 12 of my credits in english would have counted toward an english major, the same for all my credits in political "science", social "science" and history.
In summary: It is the rigor of you studies at college, and university that people, at least knowledgeable people, find impressive, not the 'brand' of the college, or university that you attended, and/or graduated from.
"I always am skeptical when I see articles about new exciting energy sources in the popular press,"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/u ot -nnp010705.php
The above URL will get you to an article that provides a bit more information.
NATURE has, in my opinion, become to political when it comes to Global Warming etc. That being said, NATURE is not generally considered to be a hotbed of junk science.
"Now, can you explain how it is not taking something for nothing."
You failed to understand the meaning of the word 'taking'.
" A given set contains x, an operation is preformend the results of which is that x is removed from that set, and tranfered to another set."--this is taking. i.e. subtracting.
" A given set contains x, an operation is preformend, and x remains in the orginal set, but is also placed in an additional set or sets."--this is copying. i.e. multiplying.
Thus, nothing has been taken in the second case. So, nothing was taken for nothing.
First off I was talking about property, whereas you're discussing money. Money is not property, it is a medium of exchange. Also, property is not equivalent to profit$!
Theft occurs when one is deprived of one's property. While money is not property, certainly if one is robed of money that is theft. Theft therefore occurs when one is deprived of property or of currency that one is currently in possession of. However, it is of more than passing import to make the distinction between *potential* profits, and property or currency that is currently in one's possession.
[[[This is the difference between actual, and potential.]]]
potential:
1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality 2 : expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in "it may rain") synonym see LATENT
actual:
1 obsolete : ACTIVE 2 a : existing in act and not merely potentially b : existing in fact or reality c : not false or apparent 3 : existing or occurring at the time : CURRENT (Both definitions are from www.m-w.com)
Theft occurs only when dealing with that which is actual, and can not occur with that which is just potential. Thus, one can not steal future or potential profits.
"Now please explain how this is not taking somethign from someone else."
Can do...
x - x = 0 This is what happens when you take something from somebody. A given set contains x, an operation is preformend the results of which is that x is removed from that set, and tranfered to another set.
x * n = nx where n is a natural number This is what happens when you copy something. A given set contains x, an operation is preformend, and x remains in the orginal set, but is also placed in an additional set or sets.
The difference is that it the former x is removed from the orginal set where in the latter x remains in the orginal set.
Marathon had up/down movement whereas Doom did not. This is the first thing that you notice when switching from one to the other. Frankly it took Quake for Id to catch up with Bungie.
What makes me sad is that M$ got Bungie before Halo was finished for the Mac. Booo, hissss! Now I guess I'll have to wait for a couple of years for Halo 2 to make it to Mac OSX.
I refuse to buy an XBox, or any other game box. I'm not going to spend money on a bit of hardware that's only for games when I have a perfectly good G5 that can handle high end graphics very nicely.
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--34
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
To get to the *whole* truth statistically speaking one needs to: A) deal with both percentages, and raw numbers, AND B) deal with *all* pertinent statistics (note the plural) rather than *a* statistic.
An example of the former would be to not only determine what the mean of a population is, but also to determine the variance of the population. In other words to determine note only the central tendency, but the distribution as well.
In the context of the 'youth' vote in the 2004, and 2000 Presidential Elections, as well as earlier elections one needs to look at two things, the total number of 'youths' voting, and the percentage of the youth vote with respect to the total vote in that particular election.
I terms of the number of votes cast by 'youth' this months election saw an increase compared to the 2000 election. That said, the percent of the 'youth' vote relative to the total vote saw no change from 2000. In other words 'youth' has not changed its level of participation compared to that of older voters in this years election relative to the 2000 election. The increased level of the 'youth' turning out to vote matched that for other age groups, but did not exceed it.
The level of participation as a percent of the voters by 'youth' in the election this years election was very comparable to that of the 2000 election. Thus, the various groups that tried to get 'youth' more involved in voting failed to do so. While the total numbers of 'youth' voting increased, the influence of the 'youth' vote was static, and thus neither progressive, nor regressive. It appears that the increased number of 'youth' voting in this years election was a result of an overall increase in interest in this election as compared to the 2000 election. The goal of the 'rock the vote' movement was to get the percentage of the 'youth' participation to more closely align with that of older voters. This did not happen. One must therefore conclude that the 'rock the vote' program failed.
I'm constantly having to remind my University Physics I & II students that Newton's Second Law is NOT F=ma, but rather F=dp/dt where F, a, and p are vectors. Recall: p=mv (v is also a vector). Therefore, according to the multiplication rule from calculus, dp/dt= m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt. Now if m is constant with time then dm/dt=0, and F=ma holds as the second term disappears.
"We now have an new level of absolutely insane gerrymandering that simply dwarfs anything that the Dems. ever tried. I live in Austin. Our city was chopped into slivers by the Republicans' redistricting to try to dilute our votes."
It figures that you live in Travis County, the most Democratic County in Texas. Martin Frost did a MAJOR gerrymandering job in 1991, with the help of the DNC.
I live in Northwest Tyler. Prior to the 1992 election I was in Texas US Congressional District 4, and was represented by a very conservative Democrat, Ralph Hall (who became a Republican this year). After the 1991 gerrymander I found myself in Texas US Congressional District 5 being represented by a 'liberal' Democrat named John Bryan. Almost all of Tyler continued to be in Texas US Congressional District 4 being represented by Ralph Hall.
The exception was that a narrow tentacle of District 5 extended from the Western side of Smith County into North Tyler. The reason for this was in fact racial, as most of the populace of North Tyler is African-American, and reliably Democratic in their voting. This bolstered Bryan's slim Democratic majority. Bryan was ultimately unseated by Pete Sessions, who ironically is now in District 32 which is a new district for him, and in which he is opposed by none other than the aforementioned Martin Frost. Martin Frost was especially targeted by the GOP to have his district shredded. This for his roll in denying the GOP more seats in the US House from Texas in the 90s. Frankly, Frost has (pun intended) has a frost balls chance of winning the district as it is currently constituted.
Such gerrymandering was not limited to the US House. District 5 of the Texas House of Representatives previous to the 1992 election had a crooked tentacle that snaked down from Wood County, and West around Lindale, and the Garden Valley area, then back East into North Tyler to encompass the African-American community in North Tyler and thus a rich vain of Democratic support. The redistricting in 1991 chopped off said tentacle. This gave Bryan Hughes (GOP) a victory in the 2002 election.
The Demos were every bit as bad as the GOP in gerrymandering. The Demos did not surrender political power gracefully here in Texas. As a result once the GOP gain control of the Texas Legislature they (the GOP) were bound and determined to get redistricting, both at the state, and national levels to be gerrymandered to benefit them (the GOP)
Texas is strongly Republican. FACT: *all* statewide elected offices in Texas are held by Republicans. It has come to the point that if you're going to run for elected office in very large chunks of Texas you've got to run as a Republican if you're going to have any chance of winning in the general election.
It has long been inevitable that the US House delegation from Texas was going to be predominately Republican. Now that the moment is here the Demos are wailing and gnashing their teeth, because they now have to face the music of being the political minority in Texas.
What's unfair about you not getting to vote in the US. I don't get to vote in the UK.
One might be tempted to believe that you don't think that your own country is relevant in the 21st Century, and that the only country that is, is the USA.
Re:Water in a frypan can be similar
on
Solder in Space
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it should be 'not all those who wonder are Leidenfrost.'
I think that IBM has managed to devise a legal "fork". IOW IBM has created the legal equivalent of a logical tautology.
IF A THEN B, IF NOT A THEN B.
IF the GPL is Valid then SCO has violated Copyright law. AND IF the GPL is InValid then SCO has violated Copyright law. THEREFORE: SCO has violated Copyright law. QED
A no win situation for SCO.
Poetic justice based on hard Logic. Gotta love it.
Slashdot Mirror
Being a middle aged science nerd, and thus having been around the block a few times, I can confirm that what one majors in in a much more accurate metric of the rigor of ones college education than what university, or college one graduated from.
I graduated from junior college with an Associate of Arts with a concentration in engineering at the end same term that Brooks Shields graduated Princeton with a B.A.. Life had a copy of her transcript which it published that summer. When you reviewed her course work it was manifest that her course work was complete puffery. If Life had published my junior college transcript it would have shown 12 credits of calculus, 12 credits in physics, 16 credits in chemistry, and 15 credits in engineering. (1 credit = 1 semester hour) Every one of these credits were transferable to *any* university here in Texas. Every single credit was acceptable as credit toward a major in that subject. Further, all 12 of my credits in english would have counted toward an english major, the same for all my credits in political "science", social "science" and history.
In summary: It is the rigor of you studies at college, and university that people, at least knowledgeable people, find impressive, not the 'brand' of the college, or university that you attended, and/or graduated from.
Gives new meaning to Queen's: 'Fat Bottomed Girls'
"I always am skeptical when I see articles about new exciting energy sources in the popular press,"
u ot -nnp010705.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/
The above URL will get you to an article that provides a bit more information.
NATURE has, in my opinion, become to political when it comes to Global Warming etc. That being said, NATURE is not generally considered to be a hotbed of junk science.
"Now, can you explain how it is not taking something for nothing."
You failed to understand the meaning of the word 'taking'.
" A given set contains x, an operation is preformend the results of which is that x is removed from that set, and tranfered to another set."--this is taking. i.e. subtracting.
" A given set contains x, an operation is preformend, and x remains in the orginal set, but is also placed in an additional set or sets."--this is copying. i.e. multiplying.
Thus, nothing has been taken in the second case. So, nothing was taken for nothing.
First off I was talking about property, whereas you're discussing money. Money is not property, it is a medium of exchange. Also, property is not equivalent to profit$!
Theft occurs when one is deprived of one's property. While money is not property, certainly if one is robed of money that is theft. Theft therefore occurs when one is deprived of property or of currency that one is currently in possession of. However, it is of more than passing import to make the distinction between *potential* profits, and property or currency that is currently in one's possession.
[[[This is the difference between actual, and potential.]]]
potential:
1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality
2 : expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in "it may rain")
synonym see LATENT
actual:
1 obsolete : ACTIVE
2 a : existing in act and not merely potentially b : existing in fact or reality c : not false or apparent
3 : existing or occurring at the time : CURRENT
(Both definitions are from www.m-w.com)
Theft occurs only when dealing with that which is actual, and can not occur with that which is just potential. Thus, one can not steal future or potential profits.
"Now please explain how this is not taking somethign from someone else."
Can do...
x - x = 0
This is what happens when you take something from somebody. A given set contains x, an operation is preformend the results of which is that x is removed from that set, and tranfered to another set.
x * n = nx where n is a natural number
This is what happens when you copy something. A given set contains x, an operation is preformend, and x remains in the orginal set, but is also placed in an additional set or sets.
The difference is that it the former x is removed from the orginal set where in the latter x remains in the orginal set.
It's a wavical!
...took the US a little too serously when we told them to go fly a kite.
(ducking)
Glad to help out with your beauty sleep. You know a good nights sleep will do wonders for your outlook on life.
Marathon had up/down movement whereas Doom did not. This is the first thing that you notice when switching from one to the other. Frankly it took Quake for Id to catch up with Bungie.
What makes me sad is that M$ got Bungie before Halo was finished for the Mac. Booo, hissss! Now I guess I'll have to wait for a couple of years for Halo 2 to make it to Mac OSX.
I refuse to buy an XBox, or any other game box. I'm not going to spend money on a bit of hardware that's only for games when I have a perfectly good G5 that can handle high end graphics very nicely.
My $0.02
Lawyer nothing, what's appropriate is to get a TRO from a JUDGE!
When all else fails...
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--34
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
To get to the *whole* truth statistically speaking one needs to:
A) deal with both percentages, and raw numbers,
AND
B) deal with *all* pertinent statistics (note the plural) rather than *a* statistic.
An example of the former would be to not only determine what the mean of a population is, but also to determine the variance of the population. In other words to determine note only the central tendency, but the distribution as well.
In the context of the 'youth' vote in the 2004, and 2000 Presidential Elections, as well as earlier elections one needs to look at two things, the total number of 'youths' voting, and the percentage of the youth vote with respect to the total vote in that particular election.
I terms of the number of votes cast by 'youth' this months election saw an increase compared to the 2000 election. That said, the percent of the 'youth' vote relative to the total vote saw no change from 2000. In other words 'youth' has not changed its level of participation compared to that of older voters in this years election relative to the 2000 election. The increased level of the 'youth' turning out to vote matched that for other age groups, but did not exceed it.
The level of participation as a percent of the voters by 'youth' in the election this years election was very comparable to that of the 2000 election. Thus, the various groups that tried to get 'youth' more involved in voting failed to do so. While the total numbers of 'youth' voting increased, the influence of the 'youth' vote was static, and thus neither progressive, nor regressive. It appears that the increased number of 'youth' voting in this years election was a result of an overall increase in interest in this election as compared to the 2000 election. The goal of the 'rock the vote' movement was to get the percentage of the 'youth' participation to more closely align with that of older voters. This did not happen. One must therefore conclude that the 'rock the vote' program failed.
Only if you're married to one.
Otherwise you get charged with rape.
"Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant."
Irrelevance is irrelevant.
I'm constantly having to remind my University Physics I & II students that Newton's Second Law is NOT F=ma,
but rather F=dp/dt
where F, a, and p are vectors.
Recall: p=mv (v is also a vector).
Therefore, according to the multiplication rule from calculus,
dp/dt= m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt.
Now if m is constant with time then dm/dt=0, and F=ma holds as the second term disappears.
"We now have an new level of absolutely insane gerrymandering that simply dwarfs anything that the Dems. ever tried. I live in Austin. Our city was chopped into slivers by the Republicans' redistricting to try to dilute our votes."
It figures that you live in Travis County, the most Democratic County in Texas. Martin Frost did a MAJOR gerrymandering job in 1991, with the help of the DNC.
I live in Northwest Tyler. Prior to the 1992 election I was in Texas US Congressional District 4, and was represented by a very conservative Democrat, Ralph Hall (who became a Republican this year). After the 1991 gerrymander I found myself in Texas US Congressional District 5 being represented by a 'liberal' Democrat named John Bryan. Almost all of Tyler continued to be in Texas US Congressional District 4 being represented by Ralph Hall.
The exception was that a narrow tentacle of District 5 extended from the Western side of Smith County into North Tyler. The reason for this was in fact racial, as most of the populace of North Tyler is African-American, and reliably Democratic in their voting. This bolstered Bryan's slim Democratic majority. Bryan was ultimately unseated by Pete Sessions, who ironically is now in District 32 which is a new district for him, and in which he is opposed by none other than the aforementioned Martin Frost. Martin Frost was especially targeted by the GOP to have his district shredded. This for his roll in denying the GOP more seats in the US House from Texas in the 90s. Frankly, Frost has (pun intended) has a frost balls chance of winning the district as it is currently constituted.
Such gerrymandering was not limited to the US House. District 5 of the Texas House of Representatives previous to the 1992 election had a crooked tentacle that snaked down from Wood County, and West around Lindale, and the Garden Valley area, then back East into North Tyler to encompass the African-American community in North Tyler and thus a rich vain of Democratic support. The redistricting in 1991 chopped off said tentacle. This gave Bryan Hughes (GOP) a victory in the 2002 election.
The Demos were every bit as bad as the GOP in gerrymandering. The Demos did not surrender political power gracefully here in Texas. As a result once the GOP gain control of the Texas Legislature they (the GOP) were bound and determined to get redistricting, both at the state, and national levels to be gerrymandered to benefit them (the GOP)
Texas is strongly Republican. FACT: *all* statewide elected offices in Texas are held by Republicans. It has come to the point that if you're going to run for elected office in very large chunks of Texas you've got to run as a Republican if you're going to have any chance of winning in the general election.
It has long been inevitable that the US House delegation from Texas was going to be predominately Republican. Now that the moment is here the Demos are wailing and gnashing their teeth, because they now have to face the music of being the political minority in Texas.
"I'm just glad that two wrongs make a right."
On the other hand:
"Two Wrights can invent the aeroplane." --Spock the Baptist
6) 80% tracks downloaded from Limewire that I have previously purchased on vinyl, 8-Track Tapes, and cassettes.
"It was about oil. Only."
You've obviously bought into the New Left party line, hook, line, and sinker.
What's unfair about you not getting to vote in the US. I don't get to vote in the UK.
One might be tempted to believe that you don't think that your own country is relevant in the 21st Century, and that the only country that is, is the USA.
Maybe it should be 'not all those who wonder are Leidenfrost.'
The sig was cut off not by myself,but by /..
I accutally prefer to think of the statment: "An object at rest can not be stoped." as Newton's Zeroth Law of Motion.
I think that IBM has managed to devise a legal "fork". IOW IBM has created the legal equivalent of a logical tautology.
IF A THEN B, IF NOT A THEN B.
IF the GPL is Valid then SCO has violated Copyright law.
AND
IF the GPL is InValid then SCO has violated Copyright law.
THEREFORE: SCO has violated Copyright law.
QED
A no win situation for SCO.
Poetic justice based on hard Logic. Gotta love it.