Sorry to have confused you. I don't think it is all about Linux. Far from it. It is all about GNU, of which the Linux kernel is a very useful part.
Also, I think you are confusing what you call "open source projects", and "oss". OSS does not predate GNU. While there was an openess in computer science before GNU, it was the closing of that very same openess that lead to GNU. OSS is a Johnny-come-lately with an interesting point of view. Whether or not "harm" to oss means harm to Free software is open to debate. If I had to choose between losing either OSS or GNU, I'd pull the plug on OSS without hesitation.
Net interest includes net profits or losses on marketable investments. Beginning in 1967, administrative expenses are charged to the trust fund on an estimated basis, with a final adjustment, including interest, made in the following fiscal year. The amounts of these interest adjustments are included in net interest. For years prior to 1967, a description of the method of accounting for administrative expenses is contained in the 1970 Annual Report. Beginning in October 1973, the figures shown include relatively small amounts of gifts to the fund. Net interest for 1983-86 reflects payments from a borrowing trust fund to a lending trust fund for interest on amounts owed under the interfund borrowing provisions. During 1983-90, interest paid from the trust fund to the general fund on advance tax transfers is reflected. The amount shown for 1985 includes an interest adjustment of $88 million on unnegotiated checks issued before April 1985.
"Special public-debt obligation
Securities of the United States Government issued exclusively to the OASI, DI, HI, and SMI Trust Funds and other Federal trust funds. Section 201(d) of the Social Security Act provides that the public-debt obligations issued for purchase by the OASI and DI Trust Funds shall have maturities fixed with due regard for the needs of the funds. The usual practice in the past has been to spread the holdings of special issues, as of each June 30, so that the amounts maturing in each of the next 15 years are approximately equal. Special public-debt obligations are redeemable at par value at any time and carry interest rates determined by law (see "Interest rate"). See tables VI.A5 and VI.A6 for a listing of the obligations held by the OASI and DI Trust Funds, respectively. "
Except of course that "Pete-Classic" bonds aren't likely to be trusted as well as US Treasury bonds. But go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd love to see more experimental derivatives. Tip your hat to Financial Engineering!
(Just remember that to get it to work, you need other people investing, and not just your own funds...)
It's called "drowning the baby in the bathwater." It's one of the reasons that fiscial conservatives aren't as happy as the ideological conservatives, right now.
Well actually, it is *all* their money. Think it *belongs* to you? Try burning it. Against the law. Because it is a *marker* representing an idea (like a pointer to a pointer to a memory register...which has an encoded symbol stored there). You can certainly use (spend) it. It is illegal for someone else to misuse (steal) it. But don't pretend it is *really* yours. If you want "money" that belongs to you, get gold, or for that matter any commodity. Most things are (say bushels of wheat) are too inconvienent, though. (Ever try bartering with a service manager at walmart?) So we accept cash. The US Government's cash. It works.
The social security system receives an IOU from the government in the amount of the surplus that is filed somewhere, and is sometimes referred to as a "treasury security". Unlike a treasury security, however, it cannot be traded. It is not marketable in any way.
Pardon me, but what a communist! To suggest US Treasury bonds are worthless!
Social Security does not own junk bonds or third-world debt; it invests in U.S. Treasuries, considered the safest investment on the planet. Since 1970 there have been 11 years in which Social Security has operated at a deficit; each time, it redeemed bonds from the trust fund without a fuss.
Also: "By law, Social Security invests that surplus in Treasury securities, which it deposits into a reserve known as a trust fund, which now holds more than one and a half trillion dollars."
Currently, Social Security is running a hefty surplus; the payroll tax brings in more dollars than what goes out in benefits.
By law, Social Security invests that surplus in Treasury securities, which it deposits into a reserve known as a trust fund, which now holds more than one and a half trillion dollars.
Lets repeat that: one and a half trillion dollars.
It is FUD, in the most SCO-MS manner, that you spread. Please get a clue, and stop. Thanks.
A shareholder in a utility filed suit, claiming that the payroll tax was unconstitutional. The case went to the Supreme Court, where, in 1937, Justice Benjamin Cardozo, as if to resolve the historic debate over federalism, ruled, ''The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . . has prevailed over that of Madison.''
Now get over this silly idea that because you don't want to participate, it must be unconstituitional. The undisputed *fact* is that acting in unision the ROI is higher with SS than it would be if privatized. It is only idealism that leads towards inefficincies as an "optimum" solution. Idealism that flies in the face of reality makes you a dreamer. Dreaming of a world where your ideals are imposed at a great cost to the aged and infirm makes your dreams a nightmare.
Consider this statement. You must therefor either be against Government (likely), and/or for Government having a purpose that isn't the public will (today, not so unlikely). The former is irresponsible, the latter is criminal.
Spout insults and cast aspirsions, the fact remains you make no case.
Wow. Things are different here in the midwest. Only four girls have participated in the Physics BS program since I've been here (6 years, now) and only two went on to a Physics MS program (so far). It isn't that they aren't wanted, it is that we can't recruit them. Every one that I know (students and faculty) where willing to go out of there way to help because it is *nice* having women around. What to do? To my knowledge there has never been a female applicant who has been denied a graduate assistantship here. We don't have enough grad students, period.
Since I've been around, one professor has died, one has retired, and one left for another position. They were men, and they were replaced by men. It would have been hard to replace them with women because not a single woman applied. It wasn't especially easy to replace them at all. What to do?
Actually DBDesigner is more than a replacement for Access. You can start visually building the Entity Relationship Model, then click to build said database in MySQL. Likewise, you can import an exsisting database into the ER model view, and edit the model from there. If you actually need to document what you are doing (as we had to in school, or if it's more than a list of your DVDs) then DBDesigner & MySQL will save you a *lot* of time.
Computer learning vs. brain learning. But if its learning, its learning. I detect bias.
I don't suggest that students should learn the basics first and then use the computer to speed up repetitive tasks, but rather that computers could be used to teach vocabulary and concepts while doing the detail work for the student. Repetition and by-hand drilling would come after the motivation of seeing what can be accomplished (i.e., solved) with the toolset.
Consider: very few people memorize logarithms any more. Lots of work, little return. Hmmm...
Visualization is a wonderful example, by the way, but for exactly the other side of the arguement. I've worked with students who couldn't get through Solid State because they couldn't visualize well enough. The thing is that with practice one can develop the skills to visualize. One has to be able to see it, first, to be able to imagine variations. Exposure to visual models (ball and stick, etc...) eventually almost always helps.
Of course "real men" don't use computers. And true "real men" don't use chalk, they draw with a stick in the sand. I guess uber-geeks should take classes in the dark, visualizing everything. Might take longer to get through an equivalent amount of material, though.
"99.99% of high schools and high school students can't even begin to handle it?"
Bullshit.
"DiffEq in high school is extremely rare."
Exactly. And it doesn't need to be. Look, I'm not talking about teaching the same old classes the same old way to everybody in school today. But a previous poster suggested an IQ of 175 was necessary, and my point is that a lot of Math and Physics can be taught conceptually. The concepts aren't nearly as hard as learning (or being able) to do *all* the details (by hand) without making a mistake. So quess what, QM can be taught to people with IQs of 100. They won't (ever) be solving 2nd order linear differential equations in their head, but they don't need to in order to understand the concepts. You can teach what Linear Independence *means* without drilling the skills to reduce a 5x5 matrix.
Bottom line: Especially in calculations where mistakes carry through, the devil is in the details. There will always be a place for those who can wrestle with satan and win, but we don't have to force the fight to teach a lot more concepts to a lot more people. Especially if we let software deal with the details.
Aside: consider the difference between SQL and assembly language. If we insist on teaching assembly, and requiring students to build libraries and write their own DBMS in assembly, they can't "learn" very fast. The homework will take forever. Higher level (and domain specific) languages move us faster by hiding alot of the details. Why not employee this paradimn in education? Teach what "slope" means, but let third graders apply a differential operator to an expression (while solving word problems) in an enviornment like Mathematica long before showing them how to differentiate by hand.
Actually my point was that if we used Mathematica then *more* students would be able todo a lot more math through grade 12. You say the top 0.001% of the population could handle Mathematica in high school as though Mathematica were hard. Mathematica makes it *easier*.
Actually its totally appropriate. Highschools that want to do CalculusI thru DiffEq for their advanced students use Mathematica and Calculus Remote from The Ohio State University (CROSU), or University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Netmath program. I believe Harvard does the same.
I think a problem might be that you associate highschool math with trig. Using Mathematica in a self-based course of instruction they can move as fast as is natural for them. Why not let the kids move past dull rote mechanical skills and learning by doing something useful?
Is there really any reason why (the undergrad intro) QM can't be taught in HS using visualization and moderate Linear Algebra skills? I mean, if they can get as far as DiffEq? Isn't it more the *style* of instruction (chalk vs. powerpoint), and what we have them do for homework that holds them back more than the concepts?
Actually I disagree with your first three sentences, but totally agree with the rest of your post. RPN is a much more natural approach once you get used to it.
What is more fundamental about a book of tables than, say, a sliderule? I'd suggest that the sliderule is *more* fundamental. Likewise, the graphs are more *real* than tables.
If you want to teach people to calculate without necessarily understanding, you can do it either way. But if you want them to see what it really means, then *show* them. Use graphics. Use animated vector fields and potential fields. Will it help them calculate a cube root swiftly by hand? No. Will it help them get through Jackson someday? Yeah.
NumAnalII was taught in MatLab, but Octave worked for me. Never had any problems. Loved the emacs modes! Write scripts in one emacs window, run an octave process in another emacs window...send the current line (or function, or selected text...etc) to the process for evaluation. Very sweet.
Actually its correct to say Canada is in America. Ditto mexico. For that matter its correct to say Brazil. Is in America.
Main Entry: America
Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k&
Usage: geographical name
1 either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
2 or the Americas/-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
An open-source word processor with many features, including autotext and overline. Read how you can type Arabic, Cyrillic, or Hebrew. Users of Windows 95/98/ME need a third-party CJK enabler such as NJStar Communicator or AsianSuite X2 to input Chinese, Japanese or Korean.
http://zsigri.tripod.com/fontboard/arabic.html
Windows 2000 and XP support right-to-left languages at the system level.
Users of Windows 95, 98 or ME can type right-to-left
in
bidirectional applications such as
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to have confused you. I don't think it is all about Linux. Far from it. It is all about GNU, of which the Linux kernel is a very useful part.
Also, I think you are confusing what you call "open source projects", and "oss". OSS does not predate GNU. While there was an openess in computer science before GNU, it was the closing of that very same openess that lead to GNU. OSS is a Johnny-come-lately with an interesting point of view. Whether or not "harm" to oss means harm to Free software is open to debate. If I had to choose between losing either OSS or GNU, I'd pull the plug on OSS without hesitation.
BSD doesn't stop me from mixing BSD-ed code with GPL-ed code and releasing it under the GPL. So Solaris is thus *far* different from BSD.
My question was this: Can Solaris code be mixed with other codebases? Or is it a "standalone" collection of isolated and lonely code?
"Special public-debt obligation Securities of the United States Government issued exclusively to the OASI, DI, HI, and SMI Trust Funds and other Federal trust funds. Section 201(d) of the Social Security Act provides that the public-debt obligations issued for purchase by the OASI and DI Trust Funds shall have maturities fixed with due regard for the needs of the funds. The usual practice in the past has been to spread the holdings of special issues, as of each June 30, so that the amounts maturing in each of the next 15 years are approximately equal. Special public-debt obligations are redeemable at par value at any time and carry interest rates determined by law (see "Interest rate"). See tables VI.A5 and VI.A6 for a listing of the obligations held by the OASI and DI Trust Funds, respectively. "
Except of course that "Pete-Classic" bonds aren't likely to be trusted as well as US Treasury bonds. But go ahead, prove me wrong. I'd love to see more experimental derivatives. Tip your hat to Financial Engineering!
(Just remember that to get it to work, you need other people investing, and not just your own funds...)
Well you can't mix and match with Linux or other GPLed SW...what about the BSDs? What about Darwin? If it is open source but not usable, what is it?
It's called "drowning the baby in the bathwater." It's one of the reasons that fiscial conservatives aren't as happy as the ideological conservatives, right now.
Well actually, it is *all* their money. Think it *belongs* to you? Try burning it. Against the law. Because it is a *marker* representing an idea (like a pointer to a pointer to a memory register...which has an encoded symbol stored there). You can certainly use (spend) it. It is illegal for someone else to misuse (steal) it. But don't pretend it is *really* yours. If you want "money" that belongs to you, get gold, or for that matter any commodity. Most things are (say bushels of wheat) are too inconvienent, though. (Ever try bartering with a service manager at walmart?) So we accept cash. The US Government's cash. It works.
It is FUD, in the most SCO-MS manner, that you spread. Please get a clue, and stop. Thanks.
How can you confuse death by starvation with "pursuit of happiness" right after quoting "life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness"?
Might not "life" have more to do with the prevention of a cruel death than mere happiness?
Spout insults and cast aspirsions, the fact remains you make no case.
Wow. Things are different here in the midwest. Only four girls have participated in the Physics BS program since I've been here (6 years, now) and only two went on to a Physics MS program (so far). It isn't that they aren't wanted, it is that we can't recruit them. Every one that I know (students and faculty) where willing to go out of there way to help because it is *nice* having women around. What to do? To my knowledge there has never been a female applicant who has been denied a graduate assistantship here. We don't have enough grad students, period.
Since I've been around, one professor has died, one has retired, and one left for another position. They were men, and they were replaced by men. It would have been hard to replace them with women because not a single woman applied. It wasn't especially easy to replace them at all. What to do?
Actually DBDesigner is more than a replacement for Access. You can start visually building the Entity Relationship Model, then click to build said database in MySQL. Likewise, you can import an exsisting database into the ER model view, and edit the model from there. If you actually need to document what you are doing (as we had to in school, or if it's more than a list of your DVDs) then DBDesigner & MySQL will save you a *lot* of time.
God help us if nuclear reactors are controlled with WinXP! Brings a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death"!
Computer learning vs. brain learning. But if its learning, its learning. I detect bias.
I don't suggest that students should learn the basics first and then use the computer to speed up repetitive tasks, but rather that computers could be used to teach vocabulary and concepts while doing the detail work for the student. Repetition and by-hand drilling would come after the motivation of seeing what can be accomplished (i.e., solved) with the toolset.
Consider: very few people memorize logarithms any more. Lots of work, little return. Hmmm...
Visualization is a wonderful example, by the way, but for exactly the other side of the arguement. I've worked with students who couldn't get through Solid State because they couldn't visualize well enough. The thing is that with practice one can develop the skills to visualize. One has to be able to see it, first, to be able to imagine variations. Exposure to visual models (ball and stick, etc...) eventually almost always helps.
Of course "real men" don't use computers. And true "real men" don't use chalk, they draw with a stick in the sand. I guess uber-geeks should take classes in the dark, visualizing everything. Might take longer to get through an equivalent amount of material, though.
"99.99% of high schools and high school students can't even begin to handle it?"
Bullshit.
"DiffEq in high school is extremely rare."
Exactly. And it doesn't need to be. Look, I'm not talking about teaching the same old classes the same old way to everybody in school today. But a previous poster suggested an IQ of 175 was necessary, and my point is that a lot of Math and Physics can be taught conceptually. The concepts aren't nearly as hard as learning (or being able) to do *all* the details (by hand) without making a mistake. So quess what, QM can be taught to people with IQs of 100. They won't (ever) be solving 2nd order linear differential equations in their head, but they don't need to in order to understand the concepts. You can teach what Linear Independence *means* without drilling the skills to reduce a 5x5 matrix.
Bottom line: Especially in calculations where mistakes carry through, the devil is in the details. There will always be a place for those who can wrestle with satan and win, but we don't have to force the fight to teach a lot more concepts to a lot more people. Especially if we let software deal with the details.
Aside: consider the difference between SQL and assembly language. If we insist on teaching assembly, and requiring students to build libraries and write their own DBMS in assembly, they can't "learn" very fast. The homework will take forever. Higher level (and domain specific) languages move us faster by hiding alot of the details. Why not employee this paradimn in education? Teach what "slope" means, but let third graders apply a differential operator to an expression (while solving word problems) in an enviornment like Mathematica long before showing them how to differentiate by hand.
Actually my point was that if we used Mathematica then *more* students would be able todo a lot more math through grade 12. You say the top 0.001% of the population could handle Mathematica in high school as though Mathematica were hard. Mathematica makes it *easier*.
Actually its totally appropriate. Highschools that want to do CalculusI thru DiffEq for their advanced students use Mathematica and Calculus Remote from The Ohio State University (CROSU), or University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Netmath program. I believe Harvard does the same.
I think a problem might be that you associate highschool math with trig. Using Mathematica in a self-based course of instruction they can move as fast as is natural for them. Why not let the kids move past dull rote mechanical skills and learning by doing something useful?
Is there really any reason why (the undergrad intro) QM can't be taught in HS using visualization and moderate Linear Algebra skills? I mean, if they can get as far as DiffEq? Isn't it more the *style* of instruction (chalk vs. powerpoint), and what we have them do for homework that holds them back more than the concepts?
Actually I disagree with your first three sentences, but totally agree with the rest of your post. RPN is a much more natural approach once you get used to it.
What is more fundamental about a book of tables than, say, a sliderule? I'd suggest that the sliderule is *more* fundamental. Likewise, the graphs are more *real* than tables.
If you want to teach people to calculate without necessarily understanding, you can do it either way. But if you want them to see what it really means, then *show* them. Use graphics. Use animated vector fields and potential fields. Will it help them calculate a cube root swiftly by hand? No. Will it help them get through Jackson someday? Yeah.
NumAnalII was taught in MatLab, but Octave worked for me. Never had any problems. Loved the emacs modes! Write scripts in one emacs window, run an octave process in another emacs window...send the current line (or function, or selected text...etc) to the process for evaluation. Very sweet.
Actually its correct to say Canada is in America. Ditto mexico. For that matter its correct to say Brazil. Is in America.
/-k&z/ the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Main Entry: America Pronunciation: &-'mer-&-k& Usage: geographical name 1 either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere 2 or the Americas
http://zsigri.tripod.com/fontboard/wplinks.html#a
AbiWord BiDi
http://zsigri.tripod.com/fontboard/arabic.html