The WiFi area appears to be roughly centered on Google's building at 15th-16th from 7th to 8th.
Migraines really mess up your thinking. Google's building runs from 8th to 9th... and it's where I work (though I had nothing to do with the wifi) so I should know better.
How about wireless access for a lower income area of the city instead of one of its wealthiest?
Allow me to direct you to the Robert Fulton Houses, located between 16th and 19th and Ninth and Tenth. These fine establishments are run by the New York City Housing Authority for the benefit of New York's poorest citizens (and meanest pit bulls). In short, they are projects. So, poor people: covered.
Chelsea is much larger than what the article relates. It encompasses the area (roughly) from 9th St (and that weird triangle area with Gansevoort) up to about 28th and from 5th Avenue to 12th (there is a 13th Ave but it's no longer accessible).
IMO, Chelsea runs from 6th all the way west (Flatiron is east of that), but doesn't include anything south of 14th. The WiFi area appears to be roughly centered on Google's building at 15th-16th from 7th to 8th.
If you think paying taxes is "punishment," you have already placed yourself outside of society as commonly defined.
Paying (some) taxes has been a form of punishment since taxes began to be used to implement social policy rather than as a means of raising revenue. The Obamacare tax on the uninsured is a recent example of this.
Most gun deaths are spur of the moment killings because someone lost their temper.
Most gun deaths are suicides. Gun homicides in the US are split -- about 16% happen during the course of another felony. About 40% are unknown. Of the rest, about half are "other arguments" -- that is, not a romantic triangle, not a drunken/drugged brawl, not an argument over money or property, not a gang killing, not an institutional killing, and not a sniper attack.
I actually read all the articles in depth before reading the slashdot coverage and it's shocking how mind-numbingly idiotic the commentary here is when you compare it to the science itself.
What's shocking is that with most stories, it's the other way around... and the commentary doesn't change.
They're opening these shops in Florida. They're not targeting us. They're targetting our parents.
My Mom has her own photo printer. My grandma would never have gotten a camera phone, and in any case she's a lousy market as she passed away some time ago.
The target market is clearly Instagram users, people who think that filtering the crap out of their digital photos to make them look "vintage" is cool.
I think you mean filtering the crap INTO them.
I miss the photo labs of the early 2000s, which had restoration services which tried to filter the crap OUT of your actual vintage photos.
my thoughts exactly... it's not the first time we hear about some wiz-kid who's done something special. than we read that his father was already a known figure in the trade...
Has the author ever seen a slaughterhouse? Huge animals hanging from bleed rails, their throats cut, blood gushing out of the gaping wound, snot and saliva hanging down from their mouths and noses, secretions on their eyes?
Ever smelled a cow, or a pig?
I drive by a farm, I don't even see the cow anymore. All I see is top round, tenderloin, chuck. Now I want a steak.
This may come as a chock for you, but the printing cost of a paper book is something like 10% of the total production price of the book.
Every time they raise book prices (typically by a lot more than 10%), publishers blame the rising costs of materials and printing. Every time they're challenged on eBook prices, they claim the actual printing costs are small. When are they lying?
Are you suggesting that your ebook library works well when wet?
My eBook library exists on a couple of different hard drives, and a large part of it can still be re-downloaded from the publisher.
The future is 20 years from now. Let me know if your library is still usable then, when your 350 gram e-reader is an oversized museum piece and Amazon has declared bankruptcy.
Why wouldn't it be? It's nearly all in.epub format, which is a thin wrapper around slightly-customized XHTML, which itself is just marked-up text. The exceptions are PDF, which isn't going anywhere in a mere 20 years. Some of my paper books won't be around, though -- non-acid-free paper turns to brown dust within a few decades.
And if DRM is the objection, I have a personal policy of not buying any eBook I can't remove the DRM from. The only time I violated that policy is when I needed an example of a DRMed book to learn to remove it.
There's also a lot of people who want the physical reminder of the story, or who want to go back to their favorite bits of language (not just the story, but the actual, specific words chosen by a really clever author) again and again.
And eBooks work great for the latter, especially since you can search for the phrase.
There's a lot of people who like to be able to share those favorite stories with friends, or children, or grandchildren, and you'll never be able to serve that niche with ebooks.
I can do it now. It might not be legal, but that's a problem with the law, not with the books. If the paper book industry had had their way, you wouldn't be able to legally resell or loan them either -- early "EULA"s were restrictions printed inside book covers telling you what you could not do with the book.
We've already got a machine which produces meat. It's almost fully-automatic; it gathers a large proportion of its nutrients on its own, eliminates the waste products, and in the process exercises the muscle tissue to produce the desired texture (though some external work is typically required before harvesting to "finish" the meat). It requires no electricity or other energy input aside from the nutrients it gathers. In short, the cow sets a pretty high standard for meat machines.
Allow me to translate: Virgin Galactic has signed a lease to become the spaceport's anchor tenant, but may pull out if New Mexico is unable to provide liability subsidies for manufacturers and part suppliers, similar to subsidies already passed by Texas, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia.
Allow me to present a slightly different spin:
Virgin Galactic has signed a lease to become the spaceport's anchor tenant, but may pull out if New Mexico retains its unreasonable liability laws for manufacturers and parts suppliers, such laws already having been ameliorated in Texas, Colarado, Florida, and Virginia.
If this country can't get any big things done privately because the liability laws result in finite risk at unlimited potential cost (and thus an infinitely negative expected ROI), there's a problem with the liability laws. I don't think we should be patching it piecemeal like this, but I think the chance of actual reform is less than zero (that is, any comprehensive reform would make things worse).
Gambling in New York isn't legal. Writing software to be used in New York for gambling is therefore committing a crime.
This does not follow. It's not particularly unusual to build something "for export only" -- to use a car analogy, cars which aren't street legal in the US but are street legal in other countries. And if you prefer booze, the Jack Daniels distillery is located in a county where it is unlawful to sell alcohol.
No there actually are not multiple definitions of mass in physics.
There are at least two. They always result in the same value, but they are different definitions and as far as I know, no one has shown why the equivalence principle holds (but it does).
There is a physical quantity for which the English word is "mass" and another, different physical quantity for which the English word is "weight".
English is not that simple. There are at least two quantities for which an English word is "weight", and one of those is "mass". If a shipment of metal is listed as being "net weight 1000 pounds", it is expected to have a mass of 453.6 kg (within tolerances) whether it was packed on the Equator or the North Pole or the Moon for that matter.
we hear all the time on slashdot about how science is a social good, how it should be supported by taxpayers dollars, how it benefits mankind, cures disease, etc etc etc.
Please tell me you're trolling and not seriously trying to treat all of science, or all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as a monolithic whole?
Most of the 'great STEM' people, like Einstein, Sahkarov, Sagan, and many others, would argue that STEM people are not only responsible, they are the vanguard and should take the lead in examining the impact their work has on society.
What of Werner von Braun? You never hear of any hand-wringing from his quarter. Nor from Otto or Daimler or Diesel or Ford for that matter. Wilbur Wright? He developed an early "flying bomb". And as for Sakharov, he designed nukes for Stalin with nary a thought -- he later said "in those long-gone years, the question didnâ(TM)t even arise".
There is only one definition each for mass and weight and that is the physics one.
This is simply false. There are several definitions of mass even within the field of physics.
Actually your point clearly was that a balance measured mass as opposed to a spring scale which measured weight.
Ah, I see your problem. You are assuming I am speaking some form of English, far more precise and complete than the common language actually is, where "measure" always means a direct measurement of the item in question and all undefined conditions are irrelevant. In fact, what I was getting at is that when you use a balance scale, the particular local value of "g" is irrelevant, so the only thing that affects the scale's measurement is the mass. I admit, I was assuming that the scale was in a reasonably constant gravitational field and that no other forces were acting on the masses in question.
True. However given that there are unexplained observed anomalies in flight, some highly correlated with personal electronics, I think the somewhat academic argument offered is rightly less persuasive.
For some value of "highly correlated". "The problem went away 1 minute after turning off the PED" is not really much of a correlation.
Perhaps handset manufacturers should get some sort of airline rating for devices.
Even if they did, you wouldn't accept it, because you'd then demand every possible combination of devices be tested.
It's great to hear that they taught you this at primary school. However had you continued in your physics education beyond this level you would have learnt that mass and weight are not the same thing: mass is a scalar and an intrinsic property of an object; weight is a vector and is the force acting on an object due to gravity.
This is the definition if you're doing physics. It is not the definition if you're buying and selling stuff.
Not a bad argument for primary school level physics but unfortunately not correct. A balance measures force not mass: the forces acting on each arm have to balance, not the masses.
Technically the balance is measuring the difference of forces; my point is that 'g' cancels and all that you're left with is mass; different values of 'g' do not change the balance point of the scale (unlike with a spring scale). Ignoring very small effects like buoyancy. (if you're using the scale in water, you're doing it wrong)
If there's video then you shouldn't have to justify anything, right? Because it records the whole interaction.
The proposal was a circular buffer, so by the time I found out a complaint had been made, my own video would be gone and only the accuser's would exist. But even if my video is available as well, it doesn't necessarily exonerate me. Something could have happened that was not visible in either video (either by chance or design). Even grade-school bullies can figure out how to blindside someone and then get them in trouble for reacting; it's literally child's play.
Right, weed is in US customary units (or sometimes arbitrary ones based only on price), but cocaine and heroin are in SI units. I'm not sure about meth; it's a redneck drug which argues for customary, but it comes out of the pharmaceutical industry which argues for SI. Some searching indicates that small measures of meth are metric but large ones are customary.
Don't believe everything they told you in primary school. It is true that the kilogram is a measure of mass. It is also a measure of weight, and that is because weight (again, despite what they tell you in primary school) is usually synonymous with mass. A balance scale is used with calibrated weights of known mass; it's measuring mass, not force. A spring or strain scale legal for trade is technically measuring force, but it will be calibrated with known masses, not with known forces.
This means that the pound, nominally a unit of force, is also a unit of mass, but really, given all the other inconsistencies and contradictions in the traditional system, is that so hard to swallow? Note that the US metric act of 1866 listed the kilogram as a unit of weight equal to 2.2406 avoirdupois pounds (and this legally defined the pound, not the kilogram); this was not because of ignorant legislators, but because weight usually means mass.
The term "weight" does also refer to gravitational weight, but that's not its common meaning, and it is particularly not its meaning in trade.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is merely the subset of philosophy where the questions actually have objective answers.
Migraines really mess up your thinking. Google's building runs from 8th to 9th... and it's where I work (though I had nothing to do with the wifi) so I should know better.
Allow me to direct you to the Robert Fulton Houses, located between 16th and 19th and Ninth and Tenth. These fine establishments are run by the New York City Housing Authority for the benefit of New York's poorest citizens (and meanest pit bulls). In short, they are projects. So, poor people: covered.
IMO, Chelsea runs from 6th all the way west (Flatiron is east of that), but doesn't include anything south of 14th. The WiFi area appears to be roughly centered on Google's building at 15th-16th from 7th to 8th.
Paying (some) taxes has been a form of punishment since taxes began to be used to implement social policy rather than as a means of raising revenue. The Obamacare tax on the uninsured is a recent example of this.
Most gun deaths are suicides. Gun homicides in the US are split -- about 16% happen during the course of another felony. About 40% are unknown. Of the rest, about half are "other arguments" -- that is, not a romantic triangle, not a drunken/drugged brawl, not an argument over money or property, not a gang killing, not an institutional killing, and not a sniper attack.
Crime stats
Which leaves your statement about "spur of the moment" killings completely unsupported.
What's shocking is that with most stories, it's the other way around... and the commentary doesn't change.
My Mom has her own photo printer. My grandma would never have gotten a camera phone, and in any case she's a lousy market as she passed away some time ago.
I think you mean filtering the crap INTO them.
I miss the photo labs of the early 2000s, which had restoration services which tried to filter the crap OUT of your actual vintage photos.
Damn that Robert Morris Jr.
I drive by a farm, I don't even see the cow anymore. All I see is top round, tenderloin, chuck. Now I want a steak.
Every time they raise book prices (typically by a lot more than 10%), publishers blame the rising costs of materials and printing. Every time they're challenged on eBook prices, they claim the actual printing costs are small. When are they lying?
My eBook library exists on a couple of different hard drives, and a large part of it can still be re-downloaded from the publisher.
Why wouldn't it be? It's nearly all in .epub format, which is a thin wrapper around slightly-customized XHTML, which itself is just marked-up text. The exceptions are PDF, which isn't going anywhere in a mere 20 years. Some of my paper books won't be around, though -- non-acid-free paper turns to brown dust within a few decades.
And if DRM is the objection, I have a personal policy of not buying any eBook I can't remove the DRM from. The only time I violated that policy is when I needed an example of a DRMed book to learn to remove it.
And eBooks work great for the latter, especially since you can search for the phrase.
I can do it now. It might not be legal, but that's a problem with the law, not with the books. If the paper book industry had had their way, you wouldn't be able to legally resell or loan them either -- early "EULA"s were restrictions printed inside book covers telling you what you could not do with the book.
We've already got a machine which produces meat. It's almost fully-automatic; it gathers a large proportion of its nutrients on its own, eliminates the waste products, and in the process exercises the muscle tissue to produce the desired texture (though some external work is typically required before harvesting to "finish" the meat). It requires no electricity or other energy input aside from the nutrients it gathers. In short, the cow sets a pretty high standard for meat machines.
Allow me to present a slightly different spin:
Virgin Galactic has signed a lease to become the spaceport's anchor tenant, but may pull out if New Mexico retains its unreasonable liability laws for manufacturers and parts suppliers, such laws already having been ameliorated in Texas, Colarado, Florida, and Virginia.
If this country can't get any big things done privately because the liability laws result in finite risk at unlimited potential cost (and thus an infinitely negative expected ROI), there's a problem with the liability laws. I don't think we should be patching it piecemeal like this, but I think the chance of actual reform is less than zero (that is, any comprehensive reform would make things worse).
Of course. That's part of being a "real man". Or, in less sexist terms, an adult.
This does not follow. It's not particularly unusual to build something "for export only" -- to use a car analogy, cars which aren't street legal in the US but are street legal in other countries. And if you prefer booze, the Jack Daniels distillery is located in a county where it is unlawful to sell alcohol.
There are at least two. They always result in the same value, but they are different definitions and as far as I know, no one has shown why the equivalence principle holds (but it does).
English is not that simple. There are at least two quantities for which an English word is "weight", and one of those is "mass". If a shipment of metal is listed as being "net weight 1000 pounds", it is expected to have a mass of 453.6 kg (within tolerances) whether it was packed on the Equator or the North Pole or the Moon for that matter.
Please tell me you're trolling and not seriously trying to treat all of science, or all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as a monolithic whole?
What of Werner von Braun? You never hear of any hand-wringing from his quarter. Nor from Otto or Daimler or Diesel or Ford for that matter. Wilbur Wright? He developed an early "flying bomb". And as for Sakharov, he designed nukes for Stalin with nary a thought -- he later said "in those long-gone years, the question didnâ(TM)t even arise".
This is simply false. There are several definitions of mass even within the field of physics.
Ah, I see your problem. You are assuming I am speaking some form of English, far more precise and complete than the common language actually is, where "measure" always means a direct measurement of the item in question and all undefined conditions are irrelevant. In fact, what I was getting at is that when you use a balance scale, the particular local value of "g" is irrelevant, so the only thing that affects the scale's measurement is the mass. I admit, I was assuming that the scale was in a reasonably constant gravitational field and that no other forces were acting on the masses in question.
For some value of "highly correlated". "The problem went away 1 minute after turning off the PED" is not really much of a correlation.
Even if they did, you wouldn't accept it, because you'd then demand every possible combination of devices be tested.
This is the definition if you're doing physics. It is not the definition if you're buying and selling stuff.
Technically the balance is measuring the difference of forces; my point is that 'g' cancels and all that you're left with is mass; different values of 'g' do not change the balance point of the scale (unlike with a spring scale). Ignoring very small effects like buoyancy. (if you're using the scale in water, you're doing it wrong)
The proposal was a circular buffer, so by the time I found out a complaint had been made, my own video would be gone and only the accuser's would exist. But even if my video is available as well, it doesn't necessarily exonerate me. Something could have happened that was not visible in either video (either by chance or design). Even grade-school bullies can figure out how to blindside someone and then get them in trouble for reacting; it's literally child's play.
Right, weed is in US customary units (or sometimes arbitrary ones based only on price), but cocaine and heroin are in SI units. I'm not sure about meth; it's a redneck drug which argues for customary, but it comes out of the pharmaceutical industry which argues for SI. Some searching indicates that small measures of meth are metric but large ones are customary.
Don't believe everything they told you in primary school. It is true that the kilogram is a measure of mass. It is also a measure of weight, and that is because weight (again, despite what they tell you in primary school) is usually synonymous with mass. A balance scale is used with calibrated weights of known mass; it's measuring mass, not force. A spring or strain scale legal for trade is technically measuring force, but it will be calibrated with known masses, not with known forces.
This means that the pound, nominally a unit of force, is also a unit of mass, but really, given all the other inconsistencies and contradictions in the traditional system, is that so hard to swallow? Note that the US metric act of 1866 listed the kilogram as a unit of weight equal to 2.2406 avoirdupois pounds (and this legally defined the pound, not the kilogram); this was not because of ignorant legislators, but because weight usually means mass.
The term "weight" does also refer to gravitational weight, but that's not its common meaning, and it is particularly not its meaning in trade.