Oh come on, the US Constitution is a silly old document that nobody really pays any mind to nowadays. It's just a goddamned piece of paper. I know it's true because King^H^H^H^HPresident George said so.
As an academic resource, it is nonciteable and nontrustable, due to the volatile nature and anonymous content.
I can't speak for all "academic" topics, but I find Wikipedia to be extremely reliable on the math topics I've looked up there. Sometimes the Wikipedia article does a better job of explaining a topic than the textbook for which I shelled out $125. Maybe that's a bizarre anomaly caused by a small number of math geeks taking the time to make the articles useful and correct, though. Is it really so unreliable for other topics?
Unfortunately, (as I understand it) if enough people decide not to vaccinate their children, the "herd immunity" can fail, and the disease(s) in question can propagate. Then those stupid people are putting everybody at risk, not just themselves and their own offspring. If anybody more knowledgeable about immunology could share their take on that, I'd be interested to hear it.
In all honesty, I think it more likely that we will see an Obama v. Huckabee or Obama v. Paul race.
I'd like for Paul to win the Republican nomination, but I don't think he's "more likely" to win it than Rudy. I've voted for libertarian-leaning candidates many times, and I think it's worth the effort to do so, even if it's just a protest vote. But I really think the current culture in the US will never support anybody that's as libertarian as Paul. Do you really think a significant number of people will vote for somebody whose general approach to federal government is, "you're pretty much on your own, it's not the fed's job to give you an education, health care, etc." In a political environment where federal involvement in health care, education, helping the poor, etc., is expected/demanded by a majority of the population, I don't think a guy like Paul has a chance in hell.
Nature wasn't just being nice by giving us the ability to enjoy our lives while we live them, these things would have never made it through natural selection have they not been necessary for us to function.
Is this necessarily the case though? As I understand it, natural selection generally weeds things out when there's a net competitive disadvantage. If "enjoying your life" has a negative impact on survival, but is more than overcome by some other positive attribute that happens to be present in the same population at the same time, then the "enjoying your life" bit gets to propagate until somebody comes along that can compete better. Can somebody more clued in on evolution tell me if my thinking is wrong here?
Didn't you get the memo? It's not about laws making sense, or actually helping prevent terrorism. For a lot of these politicians and bureaucrats it's all about *looking* like you're doing something so you can get reelected and/or be perceived as somebody who's "doing something about it." Bonus points if you can work something in there that empowers the bureaucracy a little bit, extra bonus if you can limit any kind of pesky individualism or unmonitored behavior. </cynical bastard>
Er, it's not that somebody "assumed" that it works that way out of the blue; hundreds of years of observations of objects interacting via gravity led some smart people to figure out that those observations are best explained by a gravity that falls off as 1/r^2 (or something very, very, very close to it).
Does it count as schadenfreude if you're laughing at your own coding misfortunes? I've worked with people that were able to laugh at their own mistakes...generally they were easier to get along with than those that got defensive or denied there was a problem.:P
So there would be tides without the Moon orbiting a rotating earth? How does that work? (Yes, I know there would be tiny tides produced by the sun, but probably not enough to be useful in the way the GP post suggests.) ISTM you need a moon in a non-geosynchronous orbit for tides like we have, so saying the moon is not responsible for the tides is like saying your mugger's muscles and not his fist are responsible for your black eye.:P
Just a tiny nit: I thought Python had closures? Or is there some aspect of them in Python that makes them "not quite real closures?" (I'm not trolling, it's a serious question)
I would like to point people especially to the video at http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=1702&js=1&navjs=1. Now, watch the rotation of the planet, then re-start the movie and observe the lack of movement for the jets. You can see for yourself that the jets are rotating across the planet rather than with it, presumably along the rilles. The video is rather undeniable.... People, you will perhaps get no better opportunity to see for yourself that space plasmas can be highly electrical.
God, I must deserve a big helping of DEE-DEE-DEE, because I can't see much detail in that movie consisting of a whopping four (count them, 4) fuzzy, grainy frames*. Especially since I'll never get a better opportunity to see for myself that EU is undeniably true, and yet I'm not convinced. If EU has any elements of truth to it, then (as you so defensively gushed) it will win out eventually and you EU proponents will all be heroes. But all I'm seeing right now is a Richard-Hoaglandish theme: whining about being Kept Quiet By The Establishment(TM) while pointing out "amazing" and "undeniable" details in fuzzy images instead of writing serious scientific papers that include testable predictions.
*Note: I'm not saying those 4 frames convince me the NASA interpretation of conditions on Enceladus is "undeniably true," either. I'll be interested to see what turns up as we look at Enceladus over the years. But I know the professional scientific community is able to update its hypotheses and theories to match observed reality. Here's hoping the EU camp can do that too.
Ugh...I've seen the commercials, and if they're indicative of the product, I'd say bypass them in favor of reading textbooks or Wikipedia (especially if your intent is to learn math). I'd be willing to bet if someone does a sizeable study, it'll show that consistently putting work into actually learning new things makes for better mental flexibility than any quantity of simple games. JMNSHO.
You don't need a fargin' Gulfstream...all you need is a little $30-40K Piper Cherokee or Cessna 172 and go fly yerself practically anywhere in the USA you damn well please.
Yeah, for now. I agree that it's a great thing if you can work it into your budget, but how long do you think you'll have that "anywhere you damn well please (except the ADIZ)" freedom? There are people that would really like to restrict it, and AOPA and others won't be able to hold them off forever.
MBA's are teh big thing to get and law degrees. These jobs are staying in the us because they are valued more.
Simple economics.
If those MBA's actually produce something of value, then they'll be valued in the future. If not, at some point those hard-working techie people in other countries will realize there's no reason American MBA's should make so much money off their work. They'll find management locally or in other countries that won't skim so much off the top, and American MBAs will be looking for new jobs.
Why is it taboo for a woodworker to use an electric screwdriver over a hand-powered screwdriver? Oh right its not. Woodworkers have realized that the technology has improved over the years. Now replace electric screwdiver with IDE, woodworker with hacker, and hand-powered screwdriver with seperate text-editor and compiler.
Oh I'm not saying it should be taboo to use an IDE. I've used them quite a lot, and they can be real time-savers in a lot of cases. What I'm saying is that you're doing students a disservice if you let them go "out into the world" from a degree program without even knowing it's possible to do their job without fancy tools. (I say "from a degree program" because the post I originally replied to referenced IDE's and simple lab assignments)
Another question: why does everyone assume you need an IDE, even for simple lab assignments?
Just a wild guess: Because there's too many CS and IT graduates who don't know how their favorite magical IDE works under the hood. They think it's über-complicated and scary to do development in a terminal using emacs/vi/nano and make/gcc/etc. Some of them have graduate degrees, and some of them teach.
If you make a living of supplying items in Second Life, you should already be paying taxes (including sales tax). IMHO, tax laws need not be altered because the goods are 'virtual'.
Unfortunately, I am pretty confident that the "ZOMG, M0R3 TAXX MONIES!!!!!!11" instinct of politicians will overcome any such common-sense approach to what kind of changes should be made to tax codes...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on, the US Constitution is a silly old document that nobody really pays any mind to nowadays. It's just a goddamned piece of paper. I know it's true because King^H^H^H^HPresident George said so.
Unfortunately, (as I understand it) if enough people decide not to vaccinate their children, the "herd immunity" can fail, and the disease(s) in question can propagate. Then those stupid people are putting everybody at risk, not just themselves and their own offspring. If anybody more knowledgeable about immunology could share their take on that, I'd be interested to hear it.
I'd like for Paul to win the Republican nomination, but I don't think he's "more likely" to win it than Rudy. I've voted for libertarian-leaning candidates many times, and I think it's worth the effort to do so, even if it's just a protest vote. But I really think the current culture in the US will never support anybody that's as libertarian as Paul. Do you really think a significant number of people will vote for somebody whose general approach to federal government is, "you're pretty much on your own, it's not the fed's job to give you an education, health care, etc." In a political environment where federal involvement in health care, education, helping the poor, etc., is expected/demanded by a majority of the population, I don't think a guy like Paul has a chance in hell.
heh..."you're grounded until you get me 16 [Primal Mana], 10 [Primal Fire], 6 [Spellcloth], and your room is clean."
Is this necessarily the case though? As I understand it, natural selection generally weeds things out when there's a net competitive disadvantage. If "enjoying your life" has a negative impact on survival, but is more than overcome by some other positive attribute that happens to be present in the same population at the same time, then the "enjoying your life" bit gets to propagate until somebody comes along that can compete better. Can somebody more clued in on evolution tell me if my thinking is wrong here?
Looks like a false dichotomy to me. Also looks like a gratuitous, incendiary editorial comment pretty much unrelated to the article.
Wow, thanks for mentioning that....I got caught up in reading the trolls and responders, and wouldn't have RTFA if you hadn't mentioned the author. :)
Didn't you get the memo? It's not about laws making sense, or actually helping prevent terrorism. For a lot of these politicians and bureaucrats it's all about *looking* like you're doing something so you can get reelected and/or be perceived as somebody who's "doing something about it." Bonus points if you can work something in there that empowers the bureaucracy a little bit, extra bonus if you can limit any kind of pesky individualism or unmonitored behavior.
</cynical bastard>
Er, it's not that somebody "assumed" that it works that way out of the blue; hundreds of years of observations of objects interacting via gravity led some smart people to figure out that those observations are best explained by a gravity that falls off as 1/r^2 (or something very, very, very close to it).
Does it count as schadenfreude if you're laughing at your own coding misfortunes? I've worked with people that were able to laugh at their own mistakes...generally they were easier to get along with than those that got defensive or denied there was a problem. :P
Nitpickery: I think you mean late 19th and early 20th centuries. :)
What does convection in the mantle have to do with the tides?
So there would be tides without the Moon orbiting a rotating earth? How does that work? (Yes, I know there would be tiny tides produced by the sun, but probably not enough to be useful in the way the GP post suggests.) ISTM you need a moon in a non-geosynchronous orbit for tides like we have, so saying the moon is not responsible for the tides is like saying your mugger's muscles and not his fist are responsible for your black eye. :P
Just a tiny nit: I thought Python had closures? Or is there some aspect of them in Python that makes them "not quite real closures?" (I'm not trolling, it's a serious question)
God, I must deserve a big helping of DEE-DEE-DEE, because I can't see much detail in that movie consisting of a whopping four (count them, 4) fuzzy, grainy frames*. Especially since I'll never get a better opportunity to see for myself that EU is undeniably true, and yet I'm not convinced. If EU has any elements of truth to it, then (as you so defensively gushed) it will win out eventually and you EU proponents will all be heroes. But all I'm seeing right now is a Richard-Hoaglandish theme: whining about being Kept Quiet By The Establishment(TM) while pointing out "amazing" and "undeniable" details in fuzzy images instead of writing serious scientific papers that include testable predictions.
*Note: I'm not saying those 4 frames convince me the NASA interpretation of conditions on Enceladus is "undeniably true," either. I'll be interested to see what turns up as we look at Enceladus over the years. But I know the professional scientific community is able to update its hypotheses and theories to match observed reality. Here's hoping the EU camp can do that too.
Ugh...I've seen the commercials, and if they're indicative of the product, I'd say bypass them in favor of reading textbooks or Wikipedia (especially if your intent is to learn math). I'd be willing to bet if someone does a sizeable study, it'll show that consistently putting work into actually learning new things makes for better mental flexibility than any quantity of simple games. JMNSHO.
If those MBA's actually produce something of value, then they'll be valued in the future. If not, at some point those hard-working techie people in other countries will realize there's no reason American MBA's should make so much money off their work. They'll find management locally or in other countries that won't skim so much off the top, and American MBAs will be looking for new jobs.
Oh I'm not saying it should be taboo to use an IDE. I've used them quite a lot, and they can be real time-savers in a lot of cases. What I'm saying is that you're doing students a disservice if you let them go "out into the world" from a degree program without even knowing it's possible to do their job without fancy tools. (I say "from a degree program" because the post I originally replied to referenced IDE's and simple lab assignments)
Just a wild guess: Because there's too many CS and IT graduates who don't know how their favorite magical IDE works under the hood. They think it's über-complicated and scary to do development in a terminal using emacs/vi/nano and make/gcc/etc. Some of them have graduate degrees, and some of them teach.
Unfortunately, I am pretty confident that the "ZOMG, M0R3 TAXX MONIES!!!!!!11" instinct of politicians will overcome any such common-sense approach to what kind of changes should be made to tax codes...
Lord Xykon as the new world boss, who was quoted as saying, "I think I just had an evilgasm!"