7" is not long enough for a chef's knife. Even 8", the most popular length with home/amateur cooks, is pushing it.
10" is what you want. That might seem long to you, but it won't after you use it for a while (or, as my instructor at L'Academie de Cuisine said, "get over it). And once you get used to it, you'll wonder how you got by without the benefits of a longer knife.
Imagine that you're presenting an equation to an audience. Consider the following four ways that you might choose to present that equation:
1. You could write it out in front of them on a chalkboard;
2. You could type it into PP or some other display software, live, with the equation being displayed on a screen of some sort as you type it;
3. You could type it into PP or some other display software in advance, and have the equation slowly revealed to the audience as if it was being written out;
4. You could type it into PP or some other display software in advance, and simply have the equation presented immediately in its entirety (akin to the entirety of a PP slide being revealed at once).
With admittedly nothing but personal experience, and the experience of professional acquaintances, to base this on, I claim that these four approaches will differ in the (for lack of a better term) psychological response they obtain from the audience, that those differences have to do with fundamental characteristics of how human beings process their environment, that much of those differences have to do with the psychological perception that the presenter is creating the information being presented at the time the presentation is taking place, and as a result those differences have nothing really to do with the effective use of software.
I could be wrong, but you seem to me to be operating from the premise that the only meaningful difference between communicating via chalkboard and communicating via PP is that PP is more featureful -- hence, referring to using a chalkboard as "regressing to using ONLY CHALK." I don't think that's true at all.
What TFA is suggesting is that communicating by chalkboard has fundamental differences from communicating by PP, in the same way (if not to the same severity) that communicating by in-person lecture is fundamentally different from communicating by a video on YouTube. It's conceivable that you could eliminate some of those differences by using PP in a way similar to how one uses the chalkboard -- for example, by entering content into slides live, in front of your audience -- but it's not obvious to me that there's a gain to doing that.
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant.
Presumably, because you agreed to it in the contract between you and the ISP. You know, the clause that says that they're free to alter the terms of service you're required to obey, at any time -- it's in the contract you didn't read, because nobody ever does.
The least you could have done was post something at the bottom of your post like:
Disclosure: I serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare
To hold an Information Warfare position for US military organisations and then make broad political statements about how bad people who displease the US are without disclosing your position... even if these are your genuine personal opinions, well... let's just agree that you set yourself up for this one?
Myself? I don't think I have anything which would cause my opinion to be overly biased. I am a nerd, I own a Raspberry Pi, I play with Linux, I am doing a postgrad in robotics. Sorry, not a shill.
How in the world does that make any kind of logical sense?
What he posted was a series of links to NY Times articles. Would your knowledge of his employer have changed your interpretation of those New York Times articles, which he didn't author? If the stories he linked to are accurate, would your knowledge of his employer have changed the conclusions you would draw from them?
I might have some sympathy for this argument if he'd posted an extended opinion piece; but he didn't.
The truth is this: his point-of-view is an unpopular one one here, and so people (for example, you) are going to seize on anything they can to smear him, even if irrelevant. It's one step up from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
How have GRACE GPS radio occultation results compared with TEC data from other observations at the same time and along nearby paths (from GPS ground sites, from other radio occultation observations from e.g. C/NOFS or COSMIC, etc.)? Is the GRACE GPS R/O data publicly available? If so, with how much delay? Thanks.
I find the author has found 10 chords in a key where only 8 are possible, frankly it takes his credibility away.
Why would you say that only 8 chords are possible in a key? All chords can be played in any key you choose; they're just in different positions in the mode (whichever mode that might be). For instance, if you really want, a C#m7 can appear in your tune no matter what key you're playing.
It's not the fifth largest telescope in the United States. It's the fifth largest optical telescope in the continental United States. There are several larger optical telescopes on Mauna Kea, in Hawaii.
Which large chunks am I talking about? The ones that live in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, etc. The ones that live on my block. The ones that live down the street from you.
/. is not a tech or science site. It covers news for nerds. Often tech/science stuff falls into that category; but so do other things too. In particular, nerds tend to be interested in what's happening to famous (among nerds) nerds.
Sigh. I submitted this story in a hurry this morning before I left for work; and I typed "one-in-a-million" when the part of my brain that isn't dead had meant to type "once-in-a-millenium," which is the actual argument TEPCO makes.
Actually elements up to iron can be made in a star. Elements heavier than iron can only be created in a supernova. This is because a star can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, up to iron. Iron cannot be fused into heavier elements without energy, lighter elements when fused release energy, and so keep the star going. But once the star has started to make iron, it starts to loose energy while gaining mass. Eventually the energy output cannot keep up with the force of gravity from the increasing mass in the star's core and then the star 'implodes'. This is one form of a supernova.
Right. That's why, in the post to which you replied, I wrote "That big boom also serves to make very heavy elements -- such as uranium, for instance -- that cannot be made even in a star while it's burning away."
This is a good post, and expresses valid concerns.
As far as the best use of talented minds, I think the best use of a talented mind is generally not to tell them what problem to work on, but rather to let them decide for themselves. If you take a smart person, and give them a problem to work on that they have no interest in or love for, and you order them to do something brilliant and creative . ..generally, they won't.
Money, OTOH, is another matter. You're absolutely right that resources are finite, and that sometimes we have to make tough decisions. That's very pertinent to this discussion, because we made such a decision almost twenty years ago when we decided not to build the SSC, which would likely have answered all the questions the LHC can a long time ago, and other stuff too. But we decided we couldn't afford it; and maybe that was the right decision. All I can really say in response is that we absolutely should ask the kind of questions you're asking, and we do; and sometimes the folks in control of the money say "yea" and sometimes "nay," and rarely does everyone agree. Any one of us can think that a funding decision or decisions should have played out differently (for or against a line of research); but the mechanism for asking those questions and using the answers to motivate the funding decisions does exist.
Full disclosure: I'm a physicist with some high energy/field theory in my background; but I stopped doing anything with high energy theory twenty years ago. Maybe someone who works in the field will disagree with me. And also, some of what I'm saying here I said on/. nine years ago, when someone asked what the practical implications were of experiments that were shedding light on the quark-gluon plasma, because my answer is close to the same.
With that said . ..I can't imagine any short (or even medium) term practical application. In fact, I can't even imagine practical value in the long term. Mind, it's certainly possible that down the road someone cleverer than I am will come up with something. In fact, that's the normal way in which major technological advances have occurred. For instance, Schottky wasn't trying to invent the transistor when he started studying the quantum behavior of transition metals. Michael Faraday didn't really see any public benefit to understanding electromagnetism, either. It's always worked like this: pure research has historically been without such obvious benefit.
But nevertheless, I don't want to suggest that that's the eventual result here, because I don't believe it will be. I think that would be disingenuous of me. I highly doubt that an improved understanding of Higgs physics will ever produce any wonderful and amazing technological advance. To me, the motivation is simply that understanding and knowledge -- especially of something like how the Universe got to be the way it is, and why it works the way it does -- is inherently a good thing. It has value by definition. Perhaps my least favorite thing about our society is that we are trained to evaluate the worth of things in terms of their economic value. Just like love, understanding has its own value, in my mind -- bereft of any "practical" value.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. To the best of our ability to tell, there's only one place where elements heavier than carbon (such as nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, etc. etc.) can be formed in large amounts -- and that's inside a star. Only elements as heavy as carbon or lighter can be formed in the early universe (and, for that matter, the amounts of Li, Be, B and C formed in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis are very very small); for heavier elements, and for larger amounts of carbon etc., you need a star. Now, if you didn't already know this, stop and think about it for a second. A huge chunk of you, perhaps all of you, was inside a star at one time. It appears that you and I are star debris. And it gets even better. The way that large amounts of these elements, forged within a star, can get out of the star is if the star supernovas -- dies at the end of its lifetime with a big boom. That big boom also serves to make very heavy elements -- such as uranium, for instance -- that cannot be made even in a star while it's burning away. There's uranium, and other similar very heavy elements, on our planet. Do you see what I'm getting at? Much of the atoms that make all of us up, that make this planet up, were at one time inside a star (or stars) that lived its life, supernovaed, and spewed out debris. Eventually, maybe a few hundred million years later, that stuff is part of our planet, part of our atmosphere, our water, part of you and me. We are all brothers and sisters; we all came from the same place, sorta.
Now, that knowledge will never make me any money. It will never have any practical benefit in my life. And yet, I consider myself immensely richer for knowing it.
The reason it isn't surprising that such a law was passed in Takoma Park is because since the early-60s, Takoma Park has been famous for being a very-left-leaning home for granola-munching ex-hippies who have become financially stable boomers. For decades it was referred to as the Berkeley of the East; people in DC still often call it "the People's Republic of Takoma Park." I can't think of a time when Takoma Park was a town of "dumb rednecks"; and even now, when it's less leftist than it used to be, it's still far more that way than any place else anywhere near DC.
Seconded. In the eight months, I've had some really, really bad experiences with Newegg.
In one case, I ordered a UPS from them. They took a while to ship (they used to be really, really fast); and when the shipment arrived, it was the wrong item. It took a lot of effort, including emailing several photos of the item from different angles at their request, to get them to accept they screwed up and issue an RMA; they told me they couldn't ship the item I'd actually ordered until they received the return. This sucked, because I really needed the UPS I'd ordered. Anyway, after they received the return, they waited a while before telling me that they couldn't send me the item I'd ordered because they were out of stock. At that point, I told them to forget it, cancel the order, and refund my money; I'd order the UPS from someone else. Which I did. But in the meantime, rather than refunding my money, they sat on my money, and then shipped me the UPS when they got it back in stock. When I contacted them and told them they'd screwed up, they told me they couldn't refund my money until they got the UPS they'd accidentally shipped back.
After many, many thousands of dollars of business with them in the past, I haven't given them a dollar since.
Slashdot Mirror
7" is not long enough for a chef's knife. Even 8", the most popular length with home/amateur cooks, is pushing it.
10" is what you want. That might seem long to you, but it won't after you use it for a while (or, as my instructor at L'Academie de Cuisine said, "get over it). And once you get used to it, you'll wonder how you got by without the benefits of a longer knife.
Let me put what I'm trying to say differently.
Imagine that you're presenting an equation to an audience. Consider the following four ways that you might choose to present that equation:
1. You could write it out in front of them on a chalkboard;
2. You could type it into PP or some other display software, live, with the equation being displayed on a screen of some sort as you type it;
3. You could type it into PP or some other display software in advance, and have the equation slowly revealed to the audience as if it was being written out;
4. You could type it into PP or some other display software in advance, and simply have the equation presented immediately in its entirety (akin to the entirety of a PP slide being revealed at once).
With admittedly nothing but personal experience, and the experience of professional acquaintances, to base this on, I claim that these four approaches will differ in the (for lack of a better term) psychological response they obtain from the audience, that those differences have to do with fundamental characteristics of how human beings process their environment, that much of those differences have to do with the psychological perception that the presenter is creating the information being presented at the time the presentation is taking place, and as a result those differences have nothing really to do with the effective use of software.
I could be wrong, but you seem to me to be operating from the premise that the only meaningful difference between communicating via chalkboard and communicating via PP is that PP is more featureful -- hence, referring to using a chalkboard as "regressing to using ONLY CHALK." I don't think that's true at all.
What TFA is suggesting is that communicating by chalkboard has fundamental differences from communicating by PP, in the same way (if not to the same severity) that communicating by in-person lecture is fundamentally different from communicating by a video on YouTube. It's conceivable that you could eliminate some of those differences by using PP in a way similar to how one uses the chalkboard -- for example, by entering content into slides live, in front of your audience -- but it's not obvious to me that there's a gain to doing that.
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant.
Presumably, because you agreed to it in the contract between you and the ISP. You know, the clause that says that they're free to alter the terms of service you're required to obey, at any time -- it's in the contract you didn't read, because nobody ever does.
Unfortunately it looks like she couldn't live with the results of her bad decision. I feel zero sympathy for this girl.
For someone who was tricked into exposing herself when she was 12??!?!
What a sad, sad person you are.
I wish I could mod you up.
No, he's trying to tell you that cyclotrons and nuclear reactors are completely different things. What you said was inaccurate.
The least you could have done was post something at the bottom of your post like:
Disclosure: I serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare
To hold an Information Warfare position for US military organisations and then make broad political statements about how bad people who displease the US are without disclosing your position... even if these are your genuine personal opinions, well... let's just agree that you set yourself up for this one?
Myself? I don't think I have anything which would cause my opinion to be overly biased. I am a nerd, I own a Raspberry Pi, I play with Linux, I am doing a postgrad in robotics. Sorry, not a shill.
How in the world does that make any kind of logical sense?
What he posted was a series of links to NY Times articles. Would your knowledge of his employer have changed your interpretation of those New York Times articles, which he didn't author? If the stories he linked to are accurate, would your knowledge of his employer have changed the conclusions you would draw from them?
I might have some sympathy for this argument if he'd posted an extended opinion piece; but he didn't.
The truth is this: his point-of-view is an unpopular one one here, and so people (for example, you) are going to seize on anything they can to smear him, even if irrelevant. It's one step up from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
Don't forget the black helicopters that have been hovering near your house since you posted!
I'd go for the tinfoil if I were you, man.
How have GRACE GPS radio occultation results compared with TEC data from other observations at the same time and along nearby paths (from GPS ground sites, from other radio occultation observations from e.g. C/NOFS or COSMIC, etc.)? Is the GRACE GPS R/O data publicly available? If so, with how much delay? Thanks.
You were mostly correct; but Horace Silver definitely did.
I find the author has found 10 chords in a key where only 8 are possible, frankly it takes his credibility away.
Why would you say that only 8 chords are possible in a key? All chords can be played in any key you choose; they're just in different positions in the mode (whichever mode that might be). For instance, if you really want, a C#m7 can appear in your tune no matter what key you're playing.
It's not the fifth largest telescope in the United States. It's the fifth largest optical telescope in the continental United States. There are several larger optical telescopes on Mauna Kea, in Hawaii.
Which large chunks am I talking about? The ones that live in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, etc. The ones that live on my block. The ones that live down the street from you.
/. is not a tech or science site. It covers news for nerds. Often tech/science stuff falls into that category; but so do other things too. In particular, nerds tend to be interested in what's happening to famous (among nerds) nerds.
Large chunks of the Muslim world *has* followed suit. Unfortunately, other chunks of the Muslim world haven't.
No argument.
Sigh. I submitted this story in a hurry this morning before I left for work; and I typed "one-in-a-million" when the part of my brain that isn't dead had meant to type "once-in-a-millenium," which is the actual argument TEPCO makes.
I hate getting old.
Actually elements up to iron can be made in a star. Elements heavier than iron can only be created in a supernova. This is because a star can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, up to iron. Iron cannot be fused into heavier elements without energy, lighter elements when fused release energy, and so keep the star going. But once the star has started to make iron, it starts to loose energy while gaining mass. Eventually the energy output cannot keep up with the force of gravity from the increasing mass in the star's core and then the star 'implodes'. This is one form of a supernova.
Right. That's why, in the post to which you replied, I wrote "That big boom also serves to make very heavy elements -- such as uranium, for instance -- that cannot be made even in a star while it's burning away."
This is a good post, and expresses valid concerns.
As far as the best use of talented minds, I think the best use of a talented mind is generally not to tell them what problem to work on, but rather to let them decide for themselves. If you take a smart person, and give them a problem to work on that they have no interest in or love for, and you order them to do something brilliant and creative . . .generally, they won't.
Money, OTOH, is another matter. You're absolutely right that resources are finite, and that sometimes we have to make tough decisions. That's very pertinent to this discussion, because we made such a decision almost twenty years ago when we decided not to build the SSC, which would likely have answered all the questions the LHC can a long time ago, and other stuff too. But we decided we couldn't afford it; and maybe that was the right decision. All I can really say in response is that we absolutely should ask the kind of questions you're asking, and we do; and sometimes the folks in control of the money say "yea" and sometimes "nay," and rarely does everyone agree. Any one of us can think that a funding decision or decisions should have played out differently (for or against a line of research); but the mechanism for asking those questions and using the answers to motivate the funding decisions does exist.
Full disclosure: I'm a physicist with some high energy/field theory in my background; but I stopped doing anything with high energy theory twenty years ago. Maybe someone who works in the field will disagree with me. And also, some of what I'm saying here I said on /. nine years ago, when someone asked what the practical implications were of experiments that were shedding light on the quark-gluon plasma, because my answer is close to the same.
With that said . . .I can't imagine any short (or even medium) term practical application. In fact, I can't even imagine practical value in the long term. Mind, it's certainly possible that down the road someone cleverer than I am will come up with something. In fact, that's the normal way in which major technological advances have occurred. For instance, Schottky wasn't trying to invent the transistor when he started studying the quantum behavior of transition metals. Michael Faraday didn't really see any public benefit to understanding electromagnetism, either. It's always worked like this: pure research has historically been without such obvious benefit.
But nevertheless, I don't want to suggest that that's the eventual result here, because I don't believe it will be. I think that would be disingenuous of me. I highly doubt that an improved understanding of Higgs physics will ever produce any wonderful and amazing technological advance. To me, the motivation is simply that understanding and knowledge -- especially of something like how the Universe got to be the way it is, and why it works the way it does -- is inherently a good thing. It has value by definition. Perhaps my least favorite thing about our society is that we are trained to evaluate the worth of things in terms of their economic value. Just like love, understanding has its own value, in my mind -- bereft of any "practical" value.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. To the best of our ability to tell, there's only one place where elements heavier than carbon (such as nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, etc. etc.) can be formed in large amounts -- and that's inside a star. Only elements as heavy as carbon or lighter can be formed in the early universe (and, for that matter, the amounts of Li, Be, B and C formed in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis are very very small); for heavier elements, and for larger amounts of carbon etc., you need a star. Now, if you didn't already know this, stop and think about it for a second. A huge chunk of you, perhaps all of you, was inside a star at one time. It appears that you and I are star debris. And it gets even better. The way that large amounts of these elements, forged within a star, can get out of the star is if the star supernovas -- dies at the end of its lifetime with a big boom. That big boom also serves to make very heavy elements -- such as uranium, for instance -- that cannot be made even in a star while it's burning away. There's uranium, and other similar very heavy elements, on our planet. Do you see what I'm getting at? Much of the atoms that make all of us up, that make this planet up, were at one time inside a star (or stars) that lived its life, supernovaed, and spewed out debris. Eventually, maybe a few hundred million years later, that stuff is part of our planet, part of our atmosphere, our water, part of you and me. We are all brothers and sisters; we all came from the same place, sorta.
Now, that knowledge will never make me any money. It will never have any practical benefit in my life. And yet, I consider myself immensely richer for knowing it.
Understanding has its own value.
Yesterday's discussion
Huh? Is this a troll?
The reason it isn't surprising that such a law was passed in Takoma Park is because since the early-60s, Takoma Park has been famous for being a very-left-leaning home for granola-munching ex-hippies who have become financially stable boomers. For decades it was referred to as the Berkeley of the East; people in DC still often call it "the People's Republic of Takoma Park." I can't think of a time when Takoma Park was a town of "dumb rednecks"; and even now, when it's less leftist than it used to be, it's still far more that way than any place else anywhere near DC.
You're already being paid for your personal information.
You're being paid with access to Farmville, or other Facebook features, or whatever.
I thought this was obvious to everyone.
Seconded. In the eight months, I've had some really, really bad experiences with Newegg.
In one case, I ordered a UPS from them. They took a while to ship (they used to be really, really fast); and when the shipment arrived, it was the wrong item. It took a lot of effort, including emailing several photos of the item from different angles at their request, to get them to accept they screwed up and issue an RMA; they told me they couldn't ship the item I'd actually ordered until they received the return. This sucked, because I really needed the UPS I'd ordered. Anyway, after they received the return, they waited a while before telling me that they couldn't send me the item I'd ordered because they were out of stock. At that point, I told them to forget it, cancel the order, and refund my money; I'd order the UPS from someone else. Which I did. But in the meantime, rather than refunding my money, they sat on my money, and then shipped me the UPS when they got it back in stock. When I contacted them and told them they'd screwed up, they told me they couldn't refund my money until they got the UPS they'd accidentally shipped back.
After many, many thousands of dollars of business with them in the past, I haven't given them a dollar since.