The Chinese will be the first humans on Mars, but that's okay because we are paying for it. Just hit that WalMart up again - the brothers need another oxygen tank.
Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying, but I am. It's like bad guys vs badder guys. I don't know who to root against from day to day.
It is not a Chinese holiday, any more than celebrating the Julian New Year would be celebrating a Roman holiday. The lunar calendar is universially recognized, even if not followed. The holiday is not Chinese, as many countries celebrate it.
Quick Google: Vietnam celebrates the same day, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand do not
I assume that schools in San Fran get their funding by Average Daily Attendance (ADA) mechanisms. Also given the heavy asian population there, it stands to reason that a lot of children are kept home. This means that opening school on that day isn't very profitable. So it makes sense to keep them closed in favor of a day in which kids will likely attend and get the school money.
I think that's "demographic reality" in the sense that politicians understand it.
Some high schools in certain states close for a week on the opening of deer hunting season.
It is incorrect that ideas only reach the status of "theory" when there's overwhelming evidence. A theory is a theory because it makes a testable, falsifiable, hypothesis. We have theories that aren't well tested. We don't go teaching them in science class, but that doesn't mean they aren't theories. This idea that "theory" means "proven beyond any reasonable doubt" is silly. It doesn't.
A hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable conjecture. A theory is arrived at by testing one or more hypotheses in a model and finding them not to be untrue. You are correct that there are theories which have not been exhaustively tested. The TOE is not one of those. A shitload of observations in many fields support it - or rather, do not support an alternative to it.
So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?
If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.
Pornography isn't speech.
If the girl is wearing US flag stud earrings, it's political speech. Hell, if she's even thinking about her tax return while blowing the guy, it's political speech.
Otherwise, who gets to define what is politica,l protected speech and what is not?
Not true at all. Most researchers (I would say it's a large majority) prefer open-access because of the better exposure of their work, and because of an innate desire to share their science with everybody. There are scientists with views differing from this, but they are, as far as I could see (and I, as a researcher that travels a lot to conferences and does research abroad often, have met a huge number of my colleagues) a small minority.
Not always true in my experience. One's enthusiasm for open access scientific publishing changes radically depending on whether you are publishing a paper or trying to access a paper. If you are publishing a paper then you want to have it in the most prestigious vehicle you can get into. It looks better on the CV come tenure or job interview time. For chemistry, say, you want to publish in JACS or JOC. But if I am reading the literature then I curse the bastards who published in JACS and JOC because I might not have free access to those journals.
If there were an official definition of 'ignorant douche' you would be it.
Problem is there are any number of official dictionaries. In mine, your picture is next to the 'ignorant douche' entry. In yours, my picture is there. And in everyone's copy, their own picture is next to the 'sane patriotic American' entry.
1. Carry a spare battery.
2. Clamp your replacement tablet over your bed so you can masturbate without the tablet slipping off the bed and breaking.
3. Clamp your tablet in front of your treadmill - fuck it, you're never going to use that thing. Forget 3.
I thought Tetrahedron Letters in general was notorious for allowing very low quality articles to be printed. There must be a reason my professor in organic chemistry insisted on calling it "tetrahedron liars".
TettLet is for rapid publications. The methods are not always fully worked out and there is no detailed experimental. The function of TetLett is to give the chemical world a heads up of a new way of doing something. Where I expect a paper from the Journal of Organic Chemistry to be detailed, I don't expect the same of TettLet.
And you generally don't know what type of reaction you are going to have on your hands just by looking at it on paper.
If this distinction is so important and difficult to figure out, why is it almost never mentioned which class of reaction is going on in the paper that describes the synthesis? Why don't reviewers, and other chemists, demand that such information be included?
Sometimes the researchers will mention it when discussing their results. Plateau reactions are good, and if you find one you tout it, but often the original researcher has not run enough variations on the conditions to even be able to define it. It is often later when several papers are available that you realize that the new reagent, say, works well hot or cold, works well in protic or aprotic solvents, tolerates a wide range of functional groups, etc.
Papers are not little textbooks. We don't expect them to be complete and always accurate. I expect a paper to give me a hint about how to use a new tool to solve a problem I have been working on.
Frankly, Chemistry is among the easiest of the physical sciences. I say this as the physicist who was tasked by the chemists to fix their gear when it broke down.
Organic chemistry is quite difficult. The purpose of synthesis is not as you suppose, just mix A and B, see what happens and publish. Most organic chemists are trying to make specific transformations on certain parts of molecules in high conversion and trying to control the variables of time, temperature, concentration, reagent reactivity with substrate functional groups, etc.
Physics is just a block on an inclined plane and variations.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hi there! This is Bippy, your personal interactive video helper! I see you have your pants off! Shall I show you what's on Cinemax?"
The Chinese will be the first humans on Mars, but that's okay because we are paying for it. Just hit that WalMart up again - the brothers need another oxygen tank.
Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.
Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying, but I am. It's like bad guys vs badder guys. I don't know who to root against from day to day.
I stopped wearing a watch years ago because I could pull my phone (not even a smart one) out of my pocket to see what time it was.
Ten years from now: "I stopped carrying a cell phone in my pocket years ago because I can just speak to my wearable device to make a call."
It is not a Chinese holiday, any more than celebrating the Julian New Year would be celebrating a Roman holiday. The lunar calendar is universially recognized, even if not followed. The holiday is not Chinese, as many countries celebrate it.
Quick Google: Vietnam celebrates the same day, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand do not
I assume that schools in San Fran get their funding by Average Daily Attendance (ADA) mechanisms. Also given the heavy asian population there, it stands to reason that a lot of children are kept home. This means that opening school on that day isn't very profitable. So it makes sense to keep them closed in favor of a day in which kids will likely attend and get the school money.
I think that's "demographic reality" in the sense that politicians understand it.
Some high schools in certain states close for a week on the opening of deer hunting season.
It is incorrect that ideas only reach the status of "theory" when there's overwhelming evidence. A theory is a theory because it makes a testable, falsifiable, hypothesis. We have theories that aren't well tested. We don't go teaching them in science class, but that doesn't mean they aren't theories. This idea that "theory" means "proven beyond any reasonable doubt" is silly. It doesn't.
A hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable conjecture. A theory is arrived at by testing one or more hypotheses in a model and finding them not to be untrue. You are correct that there are theories which have not been exhaustively tested. The TOE is not one of those. A shitload of observations in many fields support it - or rather, do not support an alternative to it.
For instance, Eldredge and Gould pretty much shook the foundations of evolution when they published their paper on Punctuated equilibrium.
Not really. Dawkins describes PE in the link above as a "minor wrinkle" in evolutionary theory.
How much C4 do you need one of these things to carry before it becomes a nice way to take out the target after it finds one?
All based on differing definitions of 'prefer'.
So you can't get animal porn and violent porn. Are you missing anything important?
If anything, this act is pure sanity by defining "free speech" not as any speech, but as political speech, which was most likely the original intent.
Pornography isn't speech.
If the girl is wearing US flag stud earrings, it's political speech. Hell, if she's even thinking about her tax return while blowing the guy, it's political speech.
Otherwise, who gets to define what is politica,l protected speech and what is not?
Not true at all. Most researchers (I would say it's a large majority) prefer open-access because of the better exposure of their work, and because of an innate desire to share their science with everybody. There are scientists with views differing from this, but they are, as far as I could see (and I, as a researcher that travels a lot to conferences and does research abroad often, have met a huge number of my colleagues) a small minority.
Not always true in my experience. One's enthusiasm for open access scientific publishing changes radically depending on whether you are publishing a paper or trying to access a paper. If you are publishing a paper then you want to have it in the most prestigious vehicle you can get into. It looks better on the CV come tenure or job interview time. For chemistry, say, you want to publish in JACS or JOC. But if I am reading the literature then I curse the bastards who published in JACS and JOC because I might not have free access to those journals.
"I think we have spotted Dick!"
Will you be interred, cremated, or blended?
A large portion of fraud cases are based on contract violations. Now, stop making suggestions without knowing about the subject.
You know what I meant, but thanks for the helpful addition of your insight tweaking and adding to my broad suggestion.
No wonder you have a mod stalker.
The fight should be to make any and all contract violations noncriminal.
If there were an official definition of 'ignorant douche' you would be it.
Problem is there are any number of official dictionaries. In mine, your picture is next to the 'ignorant douche' entry. In yours, my picture is there. And in everyone's copy, their own picture is next to the 'sane patriotic American' entry.
128GB should be enough for anyone.
Color me surprised. Or maybe code me surprised. I thought the term 'hacker' was forever lost, stained by the media beyond redemption.
http://www.aane.org/asperger_resources/articles/miscellaneous/aspergers_syndrome_humor.html
1. Carry a spare battery.
2. Clamp your replacement tablet over your bed so you can masturbate without the tablet slipping off the bed and breaking.
3. Clamp your tablet in front of your treadmill - fuck it, you're never going to use that thing. Forget 3.
I thought Tetrahedron Letters in general was notorious for allowing very low quality articles to be printed. There must be a reason my professor in organic chemistry insisted on calling it "tetrahedron liars".
TettLet is for rapid publications. The methods are not always fully worked out and there is no detailed experimental. The function of TetLett is to give the chemical world a heads up of a new way of doing something. Where I expect a paper from the Journal of Organic Chemistry to be detailed, I don't expect the same of TettLet.
If this distinction is so important and difficult to figure out, why is it almost never mentioned which class of reaction is going on in the paper that describes the synthesis? Why don't reviewers, and other chemists, demand that such information be included?
Sometimes the researchers will mention it when discussing their results. Plateau reactions are good, and if you find one you tout it, but often the original researcher has not run enough variations on the conditions to even be able to define it. It is often later when several papers are available that you realize that the new reagent, say, works well hot or cold, works well in protic or aprotic solvents, tolerates a wide range of functional groups, etc.
Papers are not little textbooks. We don't expect them to be complete and always accurate. I expect a paper to give me a hint about how to use a new tool to solve a problem I have been working on.
Frankly, Chemistry is among the easiest of the physical sciences. I say this as the physicist who was tasked by the chemists to fix their gear when it broke down.
Organic chemistry is quite difficult. The purpose of synthesis is not as you suppose, just mix A and B, see what happens and publish. Most organic chemists are trying to make specific transformations on certain parts of molecules in high conversion and trying to control the variables of time, temperature, concentration, reagent reactivity with substrate functional groups, etc.
Physics is just a block on an inclined plane and variations.