Now all they need to do is make a motherboard and hard drives that can push 5 GB/s though the bridge and stream the data to a hard drive that can actually write 5 GB/s.
is a perfect example of the "sport" where you can not make it without taking massive amounts of steroids at some point in your life (to grow the muscles and stretch the muscle fiber sacks).
The benefits of taking steroids at one point in the body builder's life are long lasting (almost for life). Even when the body builder goes off steroids, their muscles are stretched and it's easier to fill them up years later.
Everyone knows it, except perhaps little children and yet there are people who still support the sport where one can not ever make it naturally.
Besides the standards of achievement for the sport were set in an era where steroids were legal. Every body builder could go to their doctor and ask for steroids.
Today it's illegal, so the only difference is that body builders get the steroids illegally (often times of suspicious quality and purity), and they shoot themselves instead a qualified professional doing it for them, which is more dangerous. And the doses have gone up 10-100 times as much.
If that were only true. Large percentage of the population votes for who ever their pastor (religious leader) tells them to vote for, without ever discussing any issues at all.
All that is needed is that the leader tells them that certain politician is born again and stands for christian values:D.
I don't understand your reasoning. Where does the taking (esp by force) take place?
Rich people are already being taxed a lot more than poorer people. The question is really how is the money collected from taxes spent.
Social justice, or responsibility would dictate that more of that money is spent on universal health care, rather than military expenses. It's really about prioritizing the budget based on more social priorities, which I honestly don't think will happen in the states any time soon.
The often quoted (out of context mind you) Jesus' words:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
do NOT mean that it is wrong to be rich nor that rich people can not go to heaven. If you read a few passages before the quote you will see that a rich man rejected the offer to follow Jesus because he could not part with the money (that was the condition Jesus requested of him: sell all you have and follow me).
The question any "rich" man or anybody who holds something really dear to their heart is always "is this more important to me than God. Am I serving that something and not God and people around me, failing to see them as my brothers".
If the honest answer is no, then you are in the exact same danger as the rich man in the Bible.
Note that money is just a tool, so is knowledge, reason or any talent. People often forget that.
What you are saying has some merit, however strength training increases fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fiber ratio, i.e. you have more fast twitch fibers.
Fast twitch fibers rely on a completely different metabolic reserve which is depleted in a minute or less. So if the activity is longer and esp. if it is 20 min or more long your big fast twitch muscles do not help you at all (as a matter of fact they hinder you since your slow twitch fibers have to carry that extra weight around:D).
doing aerobic kind of activity produces more mitochondria in the cells than doing weight training. Hence, cyclists and runners don't choke when they run, unlike body builders.
Aerobic training is metabolic training. You push your metabolism to its limits and it produces adaptations to become more efficient at delivering energy, oxygen uptake, heart stroke volume (i.e. how much blood is pushed by heart with each heart beat) etc, but you never get stronger (as in ability to lift more weight).
The only difference between the winner of the Tour de France and couch potato is that couch potato can only push the pedals with the force equivalent of 20 kg sitting on the pedal a few times and he will fatigue because his metabolism is not able to deliver energy, whereas the tour winner can keep doing it for hours and hours.
People often think that aerobic sport winners are "stronger" (as in able to push more or lift more). But that is not true. They are equally weak in relative terms to untrained people (certainly compared to people who lift weights), but can sustain the activity for amazingly long periods, because of their amazingly efficient metabolism.
Being understood is not a property of the system, but of the observer of the system. I am capable of observing a computer program and understanding it. Are you saying then that a computer program is capable of being understood? That is simply wrong.
but not in the AI kind of self-discovery and discovery of the world around it way, but in the big brother kind of way.
Google is amassing huge amounts of data on us and mining it discovering patterns of our digital selves (that perhaps don't exist in the real us) and successfully making money off of it too.
This is like a private company collecting all the purchasing information you make on your credit card assigning it a score (aka credit score) and then selling the information to you and your bank, but taken to a much higher extreme.
Google is only just starting to branch into more private aspects of our lives with medical history search etc. There is no telling where all this will end, but we can make guesses.
Well it is fundamentally different. If I ask a non-trained mathematician how many sides a 3d cube has, one can visualize a cube they have seen in the real word and count its sides in their head.
What if I ask you how many sides n-dimensional hyper cube has in n dimensional space? How about n-dimensional hyper-cube in m dimensional space where m > n?
You be the judge if these are fundamentally different.
Spacial judgment - you know like parking a car in a really narrow space, or driving really fast through a narrow bridge etc. Imagine a 3d object and rotate it in your head and observe its properties.
I always thought the claim was that boys (after a certain age) have a better spacial judgment than girls, and that perhaps can translate into some very narrow and specific 3d geometry problem solving abilities (since presumably boys might have a better 3d visualization ability as a consequence).
But the claim always seemed a bit tenuous and overstated.
Increase a number of dimensions by one or more and spacial visualization in 3d advantage disappears and one has to use pure intellect to see anyway.
I don't want my screen to look like oil slick. Also, it's much easier to click on a very small area (think small icons in an IDE on high res screen) with a mouse than it is to touch it on screen (finger surface area is much larger than tip of mouse pointer).
Did you ever notice how enormous the letters and icons are on touch screens in grocery stores? I prefer to use my screen real estate better.
Facial recognition won't work either. When I program I don't want to have to make expressions and grimaces to make an UI gesture.
I think the keyboard works the best and will always work the best.
1. There is a way to apply view settings to all folders in Finder. In view options choose "Use as defaults"
2. Mac comes with 4 button mouse with scroll wheel. It's a simple preference change to enable the right click button. Or you can even use a Microsoft mouse with your Mac (I did for a while).
3, Yes file transfer during upgrade works though firewire only. But you can actually manually copy your user folder and applications from another machine through the network. I do it all the time.
So, all your problems are non issues. Perhaps you need a good book on OS X. I'd recommend "OS X Leopard: The missing manual".
You are assuming that the distribution of bright people is uniform across populations of nations. In that case most populous nations would have highest number of bright people.
However, brightness is highly dependent on economy, except for a small number of scientific disciplines that do not require huge sums of money to fund research in (like pure math).
Even theoretical physicists like their particle accelerators, or expensive telescopes:D.
that's awesome. I live in Waterloo and I'd be honored to have someone like Hawking live here as fellow citizen. University of Waterloo has one of the strongest math departments in North America as well, so Hawking would not be bored here:D.
Slashdot Mirror
Now all they need to do is make a motherboard and hard drives that can push 5 GB/s though the bridge and stream the data to a hard drive that can actually write 5 GB/s.
Wouldn't that be great.
is a perfect example of the "sport" where you can not make it without taking massive amounts of steroids at some point in your life (to grow the muscles and stretch the muscle fiber sacks).
The benefits of taking steroids at one point in the body builder's life are long lasting (almost for life). Even when the body builder goes off steroids, their muscles are stretched and it's easier to fill them up years later.
Everyone knows it, except perhaps little children and yet there are people who still support the sport where one can not ever make it naturally.
Besides the standards of achievement for the sport were set in an era where steroids were legal. Every body builder could go to their doctor and ask for steroids.
Today it's illegal, so the only difference is that body builders get the steroids illegally (often times of suspicious quality and purity), and they shoot themselves instead a qualified professional doing it for them, which is more dangerous. And the doses have gone up 10-100 times as much.
at least you get to have a cup of tea with someone and chat before you "read the leaves".
If that were only true. Large percentage of the population votes for who ever their pastor (religious leader) tells them to vote for, without ever discussing any issues at all.
All that is needed is that the leader tells them that certain politician is born again and stands for christian values :D.
According to this, 43% of the budges is spent on military and wars, whereas only 2.9% is spent on social programs:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
Truth be told 12% is spent of responses to poverty (which probably includes international aid).
However, the budget could be re-organized and national health care could be financed out of the budget without increase in taxes.
I don't understand your reasoning. Where does the taking (esp by force) take place?
Rich people are already being taxed a lot more than poorer people. The question is really how is the money collected from taxes spent.
Social justice, or responsibility would dictate that more of that money is spent on universal health care, rather than military expenses. It's really about prioritizing the budget based on more social priorities, which I honestly don't think will happen in the states any time soon.
The often quoted (out of context mind you) Jesus' words:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
do NOT mean that it is wrong to be rich nor that rich people can not go to heaven. If you read a few passages before the quote you will see that a rich man rejected the offer to follow Jesus because he could not part with the money (that was the condition Jesus requested of him: sell all you have and follow me).
The question any "rich" man or anybody who holds something really dear to their heart is always "is this more important to me than God. Am I serving that something and not God and people around me, failing to see them as my brothers".
If the honest answer is no, then you are in the exact same danger as the rich man in the Bible.
Note that money is just a tool, so is knowledge, reason or any talent. People often forget that.
What you are saying has some merit, however strength training increases fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fiber ratio, i.e. you have more fast twitch fibers.
Fast twitch fibers rely on a completely different metabolic reserve which is depleted in a minute or less. So if the activity is longer and esp. if it is 20 min or more long your big fast twitch muscles do not help you at all (as a matter of fact they hinder you since your slow twitch fibers have to carry that extra weight around :D).
Look up on physiology of cycling for example here: http://www.midweekclub.ca/articles/coggan.pdf
It's fascinating.
doing aerobic kind of activity produces more mitochondria in the cells than doing weight training. Hence, cyclists and runners don't choke when they run, unlike body builders.
Aerobic training is metabolic training. You push your metabolism to its limits and it produces adaptations to become more efficient at delivering energy, oxygen uptake, heart stroke volume (i.e. how much blood is pushed by heart with each heart beat) etc, but you never get stronger (as in ability to lift more weight).
The only difference between the winner of the Tour de France and couch potato is that couch potato can only push the pedals with the force equivalent of 20 kg sitting on the pedal a few times and he will fatigue because his metabolism is not able to deliver energy, whereas the tour winner can keep doing it for hours and hours.
People often think that aerobic sport winners are "stronger" (as in able to push more or lift more). But that is not true. They are equally weak in relative terms to untrained people (certainly compared to people who lift weights), but can sustain the activity for amazingly long periods, because of their amazingly efficient metabolism.
"if a system capable of being understood"...
Being understood is not a property of the system, but of the observer of the system. I am capable of observing a computer program and understanding it. Are you saying then that a computer program is capable of being understood? That is simply wrong.
but not in the AI kind of self-discovery and discovery of the world around it way, but in the big brother kind of way.
Google is amassing huge amounts of data on us and mining it discovering patterns of our digital selves (that perhaps don't exist in the real us) and successfully making money off of it too.
This is like a private company collecting all the purchasing information you make on your credit card assigning it a score (aka credit score) and then selling the information to you and your bank, but taken to a much higher extreme.
Google is only just starting to branch into more private aspects of our lives with medical history search etc. There is no telling where all this will end, but we can make guesses.
So will they sell you American English version for the same price as in the US then?
Well it is fundamentally different. If I ask a non-trained mathematician how many sides a 3d cube has, one can visualize a cube they have seen in the real word and count its sides in their head.
What if I ask you how many sides n-dimensional hyper cube has in n dimensional space? How about n-dimensional hyper-cube in m dimensional space where m > n?
You be the judge if these are fundamentally different.
No one can see an object with more than 3 dimensions, so one has to rely on purely intellectual and analytical reasoning to "see" its properties.
Spacial judgment - you know like parking a car in a really narrow space, or driving really fast through a narrow bridge etc. Imagine a 3d object and rotate it in your head and observe its properties.
That kind of judgment.
I always thought the claim was that boys (after a certain age) have a better spacial judgment than girls, and that perhaps can translate into some very narrow and specific 3d geometry problem solving abilities (since presumably boys might have a better 3d visualization ability as a consequence).
But the claim always seemed a bit tenuous and overstated.
Increase a number of dimensions by one or more and spacial visualization in 3d advantage disappears and one has to use pure intellect to see anyway.
if it weren't true. But unfortunately there are people out there who think exactly like that.
I don't want my screen to look like oil slick. Also, it's much easier to click on a very small area (think small icons in an IDE on high res screen) with a mouse than it is to touch it on screen (finger surface area is much larger than tip of mouse pointer).
Did you ever notice how enormous the letters and icons are on touch screens in grocery stores? I prefer to use my screen real estate better.
Facial recognition won't work either. When I program I don't want to have to make expressions and grimaces to make an UI gesture.
I think the keyboard works the best and will always work the best.
Have you figured out how to use expose?
Seriously, get a good book on OS X. OS X Leopard: The missing manual is a good start.
How much more intuitive can it get then to have + and - buttons at the bottom of the list to ... well add or remove items to and from the list?
If you find that confusing do it from the terminal, like you are supposed to on a UNIX system :D.
1. There is a way to apply view settings to all folders in Finder. In view options choose "Use as defaults"
2. Mac comes with 4 button mouse with scroll wheel. It's a simple preference change to enable the right click button. Or you can even use a Microsoft mouse with your Mac (I did for a while).
3, Yes file transfer during upgrade works though firewire only. But you can actually manually copy your user folder and applications from another machine through the network. I do it all the time.
So, all your problems are non issues. Perhaps you need a good book on OS X. I'd recommend "OS X Leopard: The missing manual".
I hated it at first. But now I kind of like it. You can type pretty fast with it since the key travel is ultra short.
You do have to be pretty precise though. It's a great touch typing learning keyboard.
You are assuming that the distribution of bright people is uniform across populations of nations. In that case most populous nations would have highest number of bright people.
However, brightness is highly dependent on economy, except for a small number of scientific disciplines that do not require huge sums of money to fund research in (like pure math).
Even theoretical physicists like their particle accelerators, or expensive telescopes :D.
Ah taxes in Canada are atrociously high. I pay 46% in taxes and then I pay 13% sales taxes on everything I buy, i.e. I really pay 59% in taxes.
In addition to that everything is more expensive in
Canada. Some things up to 2 times as much as in the US.
If your primary concern is making money, then don't come to Canada.
that's awesome. I live in Waterloo and I'd be honored to have someone like Hawking live here as fellow citizen. University of Waterloo has one of the strongest math departments in North America as well, so Hawking would not be bored here :D.
I just hope he accepts the invitation.