Random out-the-ass idea, but being that most of these flight paths use the gravity of planets (ours and others) to sling them for fuel-free acceleration, is it possible that we've incorrectly measured the mass of a planet (or planets), or perhaps they have changed since the time they were measured for use in their calculations? A more massive planet would give a bigger gravity assist, would it not?
There have been multiplayer story-oriented RPGs before that were extremely successful, though I wonder if many took advantage of the multiplayer option. One success that comes to mind is Secret of Mana. I have played this online through an emulator with a friend, and it is loads of fun. Coordinating playing times to complete a long story-based RPG can be difficult, but we had a blast finishing the game. To a degree, I believe FF6 (FF3 US) had multiplayer capability, too. I remember being able to set the 2P to control a member of the party in battles. Not nearly as interesting or enjoyable as the multiplayer functionality of Secret of Mana, but it was there. Games like FF12 had the possibility for multiplayer (considering all party members were on-screen and controlled by AI in the field, and the PS2 has online capabilities, I consider it a huge failure of the game to not allow multiplayer play), but did not offer support.
My personal acronym for DRM (see sig) is pretty accurate, I think. If HBO or others change the acronym from DRM to "DCE," I propose we instead call it "Digital Copyright Enforcement." Or some other ominous label designed to combat their flowery language. Deliberately Crippled Entertainment is another possibility, though this couldn't be used when discussing restricted software. Any better suggestions?
In civil cases, like the RIAA are notoriously pursuing against thousands of citizens, the DMCA prescribes the following punishment for copyright infringment:
(IANAL, but I've taught myself to parse legalese and legislation, as it seems increasingly important in today's political climate...) Chap 13, Sec 1323 of the DMCA
`(a) DAMAGES- Upon a finding for the claimant in an action for infringement under this chapter, the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement. In addition, the court may increase the damages to such amount, not exceeding $50,000 or $1 per copy, whichever is greater, as the court determines to be just. The damages awarded shall constitute compensation and not a penalty. The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages. In other words, the court may award up to $1 per copy the infringer has shared, up to a total of $50,000 per item. The RIAA is meanwhile attempting to collect "$750 statutory damages per song file" (Wikipedia) in pre-suit settlement offers to supposed copyright infringers it identifies. Basically, the RIAA's settlements suggest that every infringer it threatens to sue allowed 750 other people to infringe the RIAA's copyright. Yet, both the RIAA's settlement pyramid scheme, and the DMCA's prescription of up to $50,000 according to the whim of a judge and expert testimony (rather than hard evidence) to "prove" the level of infringement the defendent is responsible for, seems dubious now that EMI is offering DRM-less music through Apple for only $1.29. One must now wonder if the true *compensation* cost per infringer is really $750-a-song as the RIAA typically claims (it's important to distinguish the cost of compensation, because the DMCA explicitely excludes a penalty, see my quote for that tidbit), if EMI is able to afford placing their songs in unprotected format online for only 30% more. Hopefully a suave lawyer will pick up on this, and point out that the RIAA is fluffing their claims to recieve more money than the law allows for pure compensation of infringement.
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Nice work!
I'll qualify this troll-like statement by pointing out that The Economist IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING CONTENT. Take a look at their website, since you've obviously never even heard of the little magazine they run that puts Newsweek and Time to shame, and you'll realize how uninformed your comment is: http://www.economist.com/index.html
I have no idea if this plan will result in some way for The Economist to survive, but I hope they find a way to modernize where so many other papers are currently failing, because I've found them to be one of the single best sources for news in the world. Sure it's a week old by the time the paper (okay, "magazine") reaches my mailbox, but I still find myself learning more about topics that I'd previously only find headlines and blurbs about in mainstream national media. Sometimes the paper takes a stance I don't agree with (for instance, they basically support Bush's troop surge), however they present their stance on hot issues like this one in such a way that you really understand how someone can hold that belief rationally, rather than traditional media which simply tries to dismiss opposing viewpoints (or sometimes doesn't even present them, ala Fox "News"). It's refreshing to read compared to, say, AP source articles, which are written to the lowest common denominator. I suggest everybody take a look at their website to see what quality journalism in today's world can look like. The full content of next week's issue is available for free online (such is the nature of the internet), as well as some additional media content. If any paper deserves to survive the tradition to the new electronic era, it's this one....oh and I guess the NY Times should live, too.
Typically I would take the stance that if an industry can't adapt to the information age, it deserves to die... Leaner and meaner companies are still capable of competing in some markets, but journalism is an industry that by its vary nature requires more manpower to achieve success, yet their revenue streams are failing as people flock to the internet for news. The problem is, people ignore advertisements online and nobody has found another model that can support news organizations. Some companies will survive this "great dying": CNN and Fox News, for example, are owned by parent companies and are essentially pet projects of very rich men. It helps that television is still profitable, too. But must all independent news organizations be purchased to survive? Will the news industry solely survive as the philanthropic arm of gigantic megacorps in the future?
How about having two tiers of patents, with differing levels of difficulty required to have your patent accepted for the second tier? This is a rough idea, as I'm not entirely knowledgeable of the patent system, but it can be expanded by those paid to think of these things by the USPTO.
The first tier of patents would cover everything currently accepted by the patent office. In essence, it would make all patents that follow the current patent application procedures last a much shorter period of time, let's say 5 years, instead of the current 20-year patent length. Note that to avoid controversy, this new plan should not change the length of patents already granted, only new ones. At this point you're probably thinking that a reduction of the patent's length will only solve one problem (that people are holding patents on obvious technology for two decades simply to sue people who pursue said technology). The genius of this two-part solution is actually in the second step.
The second tier patent could be applied for once your initial five year patent is accepted (HOWEVER, it would have to be applied for within the first year (or so) of the first patent, to prevent possible abuses). This second tier would be more difficult to qualify for: you would need to prove to a more specialized board that your invention or idea is unique (non-obvious), and that you're using or will be using the patented idea before your five year patent expires, and that there is absolutely no prior art of your invention or idea. Because there is more burden on the patent applicant to prove they qualify for this second tier, there will then hopefully be much less applicants applying and the USPTO will be able to more quickly process these patents with patent reviewers that specialize in reviewing these more advanced patents. Perhaps deals can be struck with universities, some kind of tax incentive or grant, to temporarily borrow their brainpower to process some of the most difficult or controversial patents. Also, a public input phase would be feasible with this second tier, because of the lower number of applicants.
This idea can obviously be expanded further. It seems quite obvious to me, however, that this process will naturally weed out the more controversial patents, because they would need to pass a more difficult application process with people who aren't burdened by the weight of a zillion stupid patent applications a day. Those who are just looking to make a quick buck off their invention can still do so with the same amount of effort, yet those looking to abuse the system will easily be caught and denied. The length of the first and second tier patents can be tinkered with to find a system that works with today's economy. Lots of things in this idea can be tinkered with. But I don't think any problems will be solved with the current patent system, unless they realize that some patents are always going to be more controversial than others, and adapt some system designed to catch and evaluate them.
The comet is visible in DAYLIGHT from any hemisphere, because the sun is visible FROM BOTH HALVES OF THE EARTH. C'mon, this is basic geometry. Go outside, block the sun with the shadow from a building, and look about 5 degrees (a fist's width at arm's length) to the east of the Sun (northern hemisphere, this is to your left when looking towards the sun). If the sun is clear, you should see it in a moment or two.
Haven't you ever heard of a solar sail? This car is shiny because shiny reflects sunlight and generates propulsion. Leave it to Slashdot to complain once a major auto manufacturer finally produces the first mainstream solar powered car...
Vouchers would only improve the quality of school in communities which have options. Competition only works when there isn't a monopoly on that service or product. Vouchers will not solve the problem of small communities with one school, if that one school decides that evolution is now one plausible explanation among many.
I support the voucher program, if the government is also willing to build and staff new schools in every backwater town in America. Otherwise, I think we're better off setting guidelines to improve what we already have.
After it reaches its closest point to the sun and begins the return trip half of its orbit, it will still be viewable from Earth... but only from the southern hemisphere at night. So for us (the civilized northern hemisphere, I'm temporarily ignoring Australia because it's usually convenient to do so), January 15th is the end of visibility.
They've had it coming, and it should be no surprise to anybody that you'll go bankrupt fast if you're giving what little money you have left to lawyers. The RIAA and MPAA should take notice. Rampant legal action is not the solution to your failed business model, but it will certainly solve your company from the marketplace, so I guess in the end the consumer really does win!
Um, I don't have those answers per se, but I can provide rampant speculation which should quell your concerns!
It will be in more or less the same location TOMORROW morning and night (I doubt you'd notice a difference as a casual observer, although precise equipment of course would need new numbers and stuff to find it), but past tomorrow it should begin moving much faster as it's reaching the curvy-fast part of its orbit where it comes closest to the sun and slingshots back around. Then unfortunately, after it ricochets back around and will probably be brighter than any comet we've observed in the last 100 years, it will only be visible from the southern hemisphere at night (and daytime observations of comets are boring). How unlucky:(
Regarding different times based on longitude, that is easy as heck. It's relative to sunrise and sunset, because really all you're trying to do is get as good a shot before it heads out of view. Think of it this way, in a few days (middle of this month) it will be closer to our sun than Mercury. It is rapidly speeding in that direction now. It is actually visible every day from sunrise to sunset, but the sun is a bright bastard and does not allow the comet to outshine it. You must observe it at sunrise or sunset because that's the only time when the sun's bastard rays are hidden long enough for the comet to become visible, but of course since the comet is almost the same relative location in space from our perspective, it will quickly follow the the sun over the horizon. I suggest going out at around 5pm local time, or whenever sunset is. Enjoy the sunset, and keep an eye on the horizon right after the sun dips below. It should be fairly easy to find if you have a clear view of the horizon and proper viewing conditions (no haze or low clouds), as it has been growing brighter every night for a while.
I'm going out to observe it tonight, but being that I live in such a southern latitude (Florida), I suspect I have little chance of spotting it even with good viewing conditions... my only saving grace is that I have the ultimate horizon to view this comet from (the beach), and we've got beautiful clear skies tonight... high pressure and insanely low humidity, so I may in fact get a better view than some of my cloudy neighbors in the north! I hope!
So you're saying that those three books teach a significant amount of science that you won't find on TV? Sure, perhaps if you're comparing a 1 hour program to a book, the book (if it's worth reading, that is) is going to win. But if you compare the equivalent of 1 book's worth time of television programs, some programs will win. The fact that you're so easily able to dismiss an entire medium (television) is JUST AS BAD as those who forgo reading books and spend their lives wasting away watching television.
These three programs (and almost no television program to date, though there are exceptions which I'll point out in a moment) do not claim to teach you everything there is to know about Science_X, instead they introduce the viewer to new and newsworthy science in varying fields. This BROADENS YOUR MIND. Books are terrible at this when compared to a well-created television program, because books can't be produced as often (on the period of years rather than weeks). Books also generally only present a single topic, and thus you would have to read many books to learn of many topics, while each of these 1 hour television programs introduces 6 or 7 current scientific endeavors. I consider myself to at least have a grasp of the basics in many fields, and believe I'm aware of many of the challenges and advancements of today's technology and sciences, but each of these shows managed to find at least one topic that I have never heard of before. If I were seriously interested in any of them, beyond the simple briefing, it would be trivial to find more detailed information on the subjects online or in a library. The best comparison I can find for these programs is a video slashdot: they take tech stories, and provide their own discussion and dissection of the topic. As you're commenting here, it's somewhat obvious you find slashdot worth your time, so it puzzles me why you'd so easily discount a television program you've never watched before.
I watched all three, and the only one I found worth my time was the Science Investigators. It's kind of like Mythbusters, but without the goofy and fun part, and more with the research and footwork part. And instead of myths, they research cool or novel technologies.
Who gives a shit what's on digg? Precisely. Digg.Reddit. Slashdot is all about intense commentary (nay, we have discussion, even!) on topics which interest a wide geek user base, NOT about who got the news out first (although Slashdot is still quick enough to get the big news out in a meaningful time frame). If you care about is hearing things first, stick to Digg with their 1-3 line comment of "I agree with the article." and 40 responses of "Me too." Honestly, what purpose does it serve to find articles one day earlier, if there are no comments as insightful as those here on Slashdot to bring meaning and a wider perspective to it? Same article, sure. They both had it yesterday, sure. Slashdot has 50x as many comments in 1/20th the time. I'll be sticking here, thanks.
that make me hate my generation. I'm going to have to spend the rest of my life saving their asses from this kind of neglect and apathy, and I can only hope that enough of them wake up to help me.
Re:Do first things first!
on
More A's, More Pay
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The reason there is no discipline in American schools is because we live in a nation where even if you skip classes and cheat on the exams, you'll get a job that pays enough to live comfortably. Most countries you would likely cite for discipline have actual competitive markets if you want a job that will keep you out of relative poverty. The solution is not simple, and would likely require a reform of our nation's entire education system. One idea that comes to mind is a two-tiered high school degree. One basic high school diploma, and one advanced high school diploma which is awarded to students to excel in standard courses or does average in advanced placement courses.
I have some experience which proves that Americans can learn discipline in school: here in Niceville Florida, some high school students are allowed to attend what is called a "collegiate high school." What this means is that they are taking college level courses with other high school and college students at Okaloosa Walton College. They are given high school credit AND college credit, and after two years taking a college work load they are given a high school diploma AND a two-year AA degree, which transfers 100% to any Florida university or college. Obviously this explanation is greatly simplified, but the system works and the students are far more disciplined than those at any high school I ever attended. Note that I'm just a college student at OWC, so I don't have much info on the college high school system, but I'm sure you could find more on their website: http://www.owcollegiatehigh.org/ . I believe the system is funded by state taxes and the students pay absolutely nil, but they are dropped from the system if they do not maintain a reasonable GPA, and attendance is as strict as high school.
This is one of the worst "solutions" to solve our nation's education crisis that I've ever heard suggested, and to see it actually going into effect is more horrifying than the mere suggestion. When you create systems like this, with punishment or incentives hanging over the average person, that average person is going to find the simplest away around the system to get their carrot or avoid their spanking. This will not solve any problems, and may cause MORE problems if the material becomes watered down in an attempt to make tests easier and thus grades better. Perhaps that is the true purpose of this legislation: the further stupidification of our once-great nation.
Legislators need to begin asking these questions when they propose, vote, and pass new laws: 1) What is the SIMPLEST way to defeat the intent of the law? 2) Is this vulnerability worth the risk, or does the law's intent require it be solved before the bill is passed? 3) Does this law solve the problem I intend it to, and could it create any new problems that should be addressed before the bill is passed?
I could argue that there needs to be new legislation that educates legislatures on problem solving techniques. First IDENTIFY the problem, then discover relevant information to the problem, and finally devise SOLUTIONS. The problem in America is that the level of education aimed at those in standard (non-Advanced Placement) courses is specifically lowered to the level of the slowest person in the class. The ideal solution to solve this problem is to reward and penalize the STUDENTS. Grow some balls and hold students back if they do not put effort into learning the material, rather than slowing the entire school down to their lazy-fucking pace. At the same time, it's important you provide resources to support their extracurricular learning: tutors, additional reading and work material, extra class hours at the end of the day, incentives for a high GPA (it doesn't have to be money, one idea: I wonder how many people would work a little harder if it meant they get the last day of school off?)... This is not an easy problem to resolve, but for fucks sake it's not rocket science either. Find the people who want to learn, give them the opportunity... Find the people who don't, and bring them into the fold or kick them out of the system.
Excuse my randomly capitalized words, but I'm trying to convey passionate speech through a neutral text medium.
A quote from the article: "Similar ideas are used in the private sector all the time. 'In any other profession, when you do well, you get rewarded.'" UGH. OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOT A STOCK-HELD CORPORATION, THIS MINDSET IS WHAT HAS CAUSED THESE PROBLEMS TO BEGIN WITH. Corporations are expected to make results: profit, products, whatever. Education is supposed to raise the level of intelligence of a country, and socialize people so they are capable of surviving in our complex and modern world. The idea is to create as many intelligent students as possible, so society advances. Stop fucking the rest of us so your numbers look better, and start worrying about the future!
The last line in their official announcement takes the swipe, and I agree it's wholly inappropriate when this is their fault.
"As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it." http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/
I'd love to own a computer buff enough to play the latest games (RoN for instance), but transportable enough to easily unplug and move to another location, for playing LAN games with friends. I think this market is fairly slim.
...this guy sure used a lot of them, and managed to say nothing at all. I can't decide if the article was fluff because of the subject hoping to speak big from a small position, or if the people writing the article wishing they had some scoop, but working with their nothing instead.
We've already begun calling it a "Wii" amongst my very excited friends, none of which could be considered Nintendo fanboys. The name doesn't matter, the Wii will be big, and this next round of Sony vs Nintendo may be the most exciting yet for us consumers. We'll get the best of both worlds: great and innovative gameplay from Nintendo, and stunning graphics with revolutionary technology from Sony. This is the first time that I'll be purchasing both next-gen systems upon release, regardless of what they're called.
Slashdot Mirror
Random out-the-ass idea, but being that most of these flight paths use the gravity of planets (ours and others) to sling them for fuel-free acceleration, is it possible that we've incorrectly measured the mass of a planet (or planets), or perhaps they have changed since the time they were measured for use in their calculations? A more massive planet would give a bigger gravity assist, would it not?
There have been multiplayer story-oriented RPGs before that were extremely successful, though I wonder if many took advantage of the multiplayer option. One success that comes to mind is Secret of Mana. I have played this online through an emulator with a friend, and it is loads of fun. Coordinating playing times to complete a long story-based RPG can be difficult, but we had a blast finishing the game. To a degree, I believe FF6 (FF3 US) had multiplayer capability, too. I remember being able to set the 2P to control a member of the party in battles. Not nearly as interesting or enjoyable as the multiplayer functionality of Secret of Mana, but it was there. Games like FF12 had the possibility for multiplayer (considering all party members were on-screen and controlled by AI in the field, and the PS2 has online capabilities, I consider it a huge failure of the game to not allow multiplayer play), but did not offer support.
My personal acronym for DRM (see sig) is pretty accurate, I think. If HBO or others change the acronym from DRM to "DCE," I propose we instead call it "Digital Copyright Enforcement." Or some other ominous label designed to combat their flowery language. Deliberately Crippled Entertainment is another possibility, though this couldn't be used when discussing restricted software. Any better suggestions?
(IANAL, but I've taught myself to parse legalese and legislation, as it seems increasingly important in today's political climate...)
Chap 13, Sec 1323 of the DMCA `(a) DAMAGES- Upon a finding for the claimant in an action for infringement under this chapter, the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement. In addition, the court may increase the damages to such amount, not exceeding $50,000 or $1 per copy, whichever is greater, as the court determines to be just. The damages awarded shall constitute compensation and not a penalty. The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages. In other words, the court may award up to $1 per copy the infringer has shared, up to a total of $50,000 per item. The RIAA is meanwhile attempting to collect "$750 statutory damages per song file" (Wikipedia) in pre-suit settlement offers to supposed copyright infringers it identifies. Basically, the RIAA's settlements suggest that every infringer it threatens to sue allowed 750 other people to infringe the RIAA's copyright. Yet, both the RIAA's settlement pyramid scheme, and the DMCA's prescription of up to $50,000 according to the whim of a judge and expert testimony (rather than hard evidence) to "prove" the level of infringement the defendent is responsible for, seems dubious now that EMI is offering DRM-less music through Apple for only $1.29. One must now wonder if the true *compensation* cost per infringer is really $750-a-song as the RIAA typically claims (it's important to distinguish the cost of compensation, because the DMCA explicitely excludes a penalty, see my quote for that tidbit), if EMI is able to afford placing their songs in unprotected format online for only 30% more. Hopefully a suave lawyer will pick up on this, and point out that the RIAA is fluffing their claims to recieve more money than the law allows for pure compensation of infringement.
Oh, and yay! For once, my sig is on-topic!
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. Nice work!
I'll qualify this troll-like statement by pointing out that The Economist IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING CONTENT. Take a look at their website, since you've obviously never even heard of the little magazine they run that puts Newsweek and Time to shame, and you'll realize how uninformed your comment is: http://www.economist.com/index.html
I have no idea if this plan will result in some way for The Economist to survive, but I hope they find a way to modernize where so many other papers are currently failing, because I've found them to be one of the single best sources for news in the world. Sure it's a week old by the time the paper (okay, "magazine") reaches my mailbox, but I still find myself learning more about topics that I'd previously only find headlines and blurbs about in mainstream national media. Sometimes the paper takes a stance I don't agree with (for instance, they basically support Bush's troop surge), however they present their stance on hot issues like this one in such a way that you really understand how someone can hold that belief rationally, rather than traditional media which simply tries to dismiss opposing viewpoints (or sometimes doesn't even present them, ala Fox "News"). It's refreshing to read compared to, say, AP source articles, which are written to the lowest common denominator. I suggest everybody take a look at their website to see what quality journalism in today's world can look like. The full content of next week's issue is available for free online (such is the nature of the internet), as well as some additional media content. If any paper deserves to survive the tradition to the new electronic era, it's this one....oh and I guess the NY Times should live, too.
Check them out: http://www.economist.com/index.html
Typically I would take the stance that if an industry can't adapt to the information age, it deserves to die... Leaner and meaner companies are still capable of competing in some markets, but journalism is an industry that by its vary nature requires more manpower to achieve success, yet their revenue streams are failing as people flock to the internet for news. The problem is, people ignore advertisements online and nobody has found another model that can support news organizations. Some companies will survive this "great dying": CNN and Fox News, for example, are owned by parent companies and are essentially pet projects of very rich men. It helps that television is still profitable, too. But must all independent news organizations be purchased to survive? Will the news industry solely survive as the philanthropic arm of gigantic megacorps in the future?
How about having two tiers of patents, with differing levels of difficulty required to have your patent accepted for the second tier? This is a rough idea, as I'm not entirely knowledgeable of the patent system, but it can be expanded by those paid to think of these things by the USPTO.
The first tier of patents would cover everything currently accepted by the patent office. In essence, it would make all patents that follow the current patent application procedures last a much shorter period of time, let's say 5 years, instead of the current 20-year patent length. Note that to avoid controversy, this new plan should not change the length of patents already granted, only new ones. At this point you're probably thinking that a reduction of the patent's length will only solve one problem (that people are holding patents on obvious technology for two decades simply to sue people who pursue said technology). The genius of this two-part solution is actually in the second step.
The second tier patent could be applied for once your initial five year patent is accepted (HOWEVER, it would have to be applied for within the first year (or so) of the first patent, to prevent possible abuses). This second tier would be more difficult to qualify for: you would need to prove to a more specialized board that your invention or idea is unique (non-obvious), and that you're using or will be using the patented idea before your five year patent expires, and that there is absolutely no prior art of your invention or idea. Because there is more burden on the patent applicant to prove they qualify for this second tier, there will then hopefully be much less applicants applying and the USPTO will be able to more quickly process these patents with patent reviewers that specialize in reviewing these more advanced patents. Perhaps deals can be struck with universities, some kind of tax incentive or grant, to temporarily borrow their brainpower to process some of the most difficult or controversial patents. Also, a public input phase would be feasible with this second tier, because of the lower number of applicants.
This idea can obviously be expanded further. It seems quite obvious to me, however, that this process will naturally weed out the more controversial patents, because they would need to pass a more difficult application process with people who aren't burdened by the weight of a zillion stupid patent applications a day. Those who are just looking to make a quick buck off their invention can still do so with the same amount of effort, yet those looking to abuse the system will easily be caught and denied. The length of the first and second tier patents can be tinkered with to find a system that works with today's economy. Lots of things in this idea can be tinkered with. But I don't think any problems will be solved with the current patent system, unless they realize that some patents are always going to be more controversial than others, and adapt some system designed to catch and evaluate them.
The comet is visible in DAYLIGHT from any hemisphere, because the sun is visible FROM BOTH HALVES OF THE EARTH. C'mon, this is basic geometry. Go outside, block the sun with the shadow from a building, and look about 5 degrees (a fist's width at arm's length) to the east of the Sun (northern hemisphere, this is to your left when looking towards the sun). If the sun is clear, you should see it in a moment or two.
Haven't you ever heard of a solar sail? This car is shiny because shiny reflects sunlight and generates propulsion. Leave it to Slashdot to complain once a major auto manufacturer finally produces the first mainstream solar powered car...
Vouchers would only improve the quality of school in communities which have options. Competition only works when there isn't a monopoly on that service or product. Vouchers will not solve the problem of small communities with one school, if that one school decides that evolution is now one plausible explanation among many.
I support the voucher program, if the government is also willing to build and staff new schools in every backwater town in America. Otherwise, I think we're better off setting guidelines to improve what we already have.
After it reaches its closest point to the sun and begins the return trip half of its orbit, it will still be viewable from Earth... but only from the southern hemisphere at night. So for us (the civilized northern hemisphere, I'm temporarily ignoring Australia because it's usually convenient to do so), January 15th is the end of visibility.
"LOL."
They've had it coming, and it should be no surprise to anybody that you'll go bankrupt fast if you're giving what little money you have left to lawyers. The RIAA and MPAA should take notice. Rampant legal action is not the solution to your failed business model, but it will certainly solve your company from the marketplace, so I guess in the end the consumer really does win!
Um, I don't have those answers per se, but I can provide rampant speculation which should quell your concerns!
:(
It will be in more or less the same location TOMORROW morning and night (I doubt you'd notice a difference as a casual observer, although precise equipment of course would need new numbers and stuff to find it), but past tomorrow it should begin moving much faster as it's reaching the curvy-fast part of its orbit where it comes closest to the sun and slingshots back around. Then unfortunately, after it ricochets back around and will probably be brighter than any comet we've observed in the last 100 years, it will only be visible from the southern hemisphere at night (and daytime observations of comets are boring). How unlucky
Regarding different times based on longitude, that is easy as heck. It's relative to sunrise and sunset, because really all you're trying to do is get as good a shot before it heads out of view. Think of it this way, in a few days (middle of this month) it will be closer to our sun than Mercury. It is rapidly speeding in that direction now. It is actually visible every day from sunrise to sunset, but the sun is a bright bastard and does not allow the comet to outshine it. You must observe it at sunrise or sunset because that's the only time when the sun's bastard rays are hidden long enough for the comet to become visible, but of course since the comet is almost the same relative location in space from our perspective, it will quickly follow the the sun over the horizon. I suggest going out at around 5pm local time, or whenever sunset is. Enjoy the sunset, and keep an eye on the horizon right after the sun dips below. It should be fairly easy to find if you have a clear view of the horizon and proper viewing conditions (no haze or low clouds), as it has been growing brighter every night for a while.
I'm going out to observe it tonight, but being that I live in such a southern latitude (Florida), I suspect I have little chance of spotting it even with good viewing conditions... my only saving grace is that I have the ultimate horizon to view this comet from (the beach), and we've got beautiful clear skies tonight... high pressure and insanely low humidity, so I may in fact get a better view than some of my cloudy neighbors in the north! I hope!
Good luck, yourself!
Here you are, the morning skymap: http://spaceweather.com/images2007/08jan07/skymap_ north_m.gif
So you're saying that those three books teach a significant amount of science that you won't find on TV? Sure, perhaps if you're comparing a 1 hour program to a book, the book (if it's worth reading, that is) is going to win. But if you compare the equivalent of 1 book's worth time of television programs, some programs will win. The fact that you're so easily able to dismiss an entire medium (television) is JUST AS BAD as those who forgo reading books and spend their lives wasting away watching television.
n et/
These three programs (and almost no television program to date, though there are exceptions which I'll point out in a moment) do not claim to teach you everything there is to know about Science_X, instead they introduce the viewer to new and newsworthy science in varying fields. This BROADENS YOUR MIND. Books are terrible at this when compared to a well-created television program, because books can't be produced as often (on the period of years rather than weeks). Books also generally only present a single topic, and thus you would have to read many books to learn of many topics, while each of these 1 hour television programs introduces 6 or 7 current scientific endeavors. I consider myself to at least have a grasp of the basics in many fields, and believe I'm aware of many of the challenges and advancements of today's technology and sciences, but each of these shows managed to find at least one topic that I have never heard of before. If I were seriously interested in any of them, beyond the simple briefing, it would be trivial to find more detailed information on the subjects online or in a library. The best comparison I can find for these programs is a video slashdot: they take tech stories, and provide their own discussion and dissection of the topic. As you're commenting here, it's somewhat obvious you find slashdot worth your time, so it puzzles me why you'd so easily discount a television program you've never watched before.
I watched all three, and the only one I found worth my time was the Science Investigators. It's kind of like Mythbusters, but without the goofy and fun part, and more with the research and footwork part. And instead of myths, they research cool or novel technologies.
An example of a program which attempts to inform the viewer quite a bit about a single subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/bluepla
that make me hate my generation. I'm going to have to spend the rest of my life saving their asses from this kind of neglect and apathy, and I can only hope that enough of them wake up to help me.
The reason there is no discipline in American schools is because we live in a nation where even if you skip classes and cheat on the exams, you'll get a job that pays enough to live comfortably. Most countries you would likely cite for discipline have actual competitive markets if you want a job that will keep you out of relative poverty. The solution is not simple, and would likely require a reform of our nation's entire education system. One idea that comes to mind is a two-tiered high school degree. One basic high school diploma, and one advanced high school diploma which is awarded to students to excel in standard courses or does average in advanced placement courses.
I have some experience which proves that Americans can learn discipline in school: here in Niceville Florida, some high school students are allowed to attend what is called a "collegiate high school." What this means is that they are taking college level courses with other high school and college students at Okaloosa Walton College. They are given high school credit AND college credit, and after two years taking a college work load they are given a high school diploma AND a two-year AA degree, which transfers 100% to any Florida university or college. Obviously this explanation is greatly simplified, but the system works and the students are far more disciplined than those at any high school I ever attended. Note that I'm just a college student at OWC, so I don't have much info on the college high school system, but I'm sure you could find more on their website: http://www.owcollegiatehigh.org/ . I believe the system is funded by state taxes and the students pay absolutely nil, but they are dropped from the system if they do not maintain a reasonable GPA, and attendance is as strict as high school.
This is one of the worst "solutions" to solve our nation's education crisis that I've ever heard suggested, and to see it actually going into effect is more horrifying than the mere suggestion. When you create systems like this, with punishment or incentives hanging over the average person, that average person is going to find the simplest away around the system to get their carrot or avoid their spanking. This will not solve any problems, and may cause MORE problems if the material becomes watered down in an attempt to make tests easier and thus grades better. Perhaps that is the true purpose of this legislation: the further stupidification of our once-great nation.
Legislators need to begin asking these questions when they propose, vote, and pass new laws:
1) What is the SIMPLEST way to defeat the intent of the law?
2) Is this vulnerability worth the risk, or does the law's intent require it be solved before the bill is passed?
3) Does this law solve the problem I intend it to, and could it create any new problems that should be addressed before the bill is passed?
I could argue that there needs to be new legislation that educates legislatures on problem solving techniques. First IDENTIFY the problem, then discover relevant information to the problem, and finally devise SOLUTIONS. The problem in America is that the level of education aimed at those in standard (non-Advanced Placement) courses is specifically lowered to the level of the slowest person in the class. The ideal solution to solve this problem is to reward and penalize the STUDENTS. Grow some balls and hold students back if they do not put effort into learning the material, rather than slowing the entire school down to their lazy-fucking pace. At the same time, it's important you provide resources to support their extracurricular learning: tutors, additional reading and work material, extra class hours at the end of the day, incentives for a high GPA (it doesn't have to be money, one idea: I wonder how many people would work a little harder if it meant they get the last day of school off?)... This is not an easy problem to resolve, but for fucks sake it's not rocket science either. Find the people who want to learn, give them the opportunity... Find the people who don't, and bring them into the fold or kick them out of the system.
Excuse my randomly capitalized words, but I'm trying to convey passionate speech through a neutral text medium.
A quote from the article: "Similar ideas are used in the private sector all the time. 'In any other profession, when you do well, you get rewarded.'" UGH. OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS NOT A STOCK-HELD CORPORATION, THIS MINDSET IS WHAT HAS CAUSED THESE PROBLEMS TO BEGIN WITH. Corporations are expected to make results: profit, products, whatever. Education is supposed to raise the level of intelligence of a country, and socialize people so they are capable of surviving in our complex and modern world. The idea is to create as many intelligent students as possible, so society advances. Stop fucking the rest of us so your numbers look better, and start worrying about the future!
Unfortunately, the materialized furniture is composed primarily of bullshit...
The last line in their official announcement takes the swipe, and I agree it's wholly inappropriate when this is their fault.
"As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it." http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/
Replace "[Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to the rest of this comment at this time. Reason: The Websense category "Proxy Avoidance" is filtered]" with "Torpark" and you have the solution I've started using on my college campus. Runs from a USB drive and runs circles around the filters they use on our computers, at least.
They tried to get Chuck Norris, but his schedule was filled for the next six millenia. Saving the universe is hard work.
I'd love to own a computer buff enough to play the latest games (RoN for instance), but transportable enough to easily unplug and move to another location, for playing LAN games with friends. I think this market is fairly slim.
...this guy sure used a lot of them, and managed to say nothing at all. I can't decide if the article was fluff because of the subject hoping to speak big from a small position, or if the people writing the article wishing they had some scoop, but working with their nothing instead.
We've already begun calling it a "Wii" amongst my very excited friends, none of which could be considered Nintendo fanboys. The name doesn't matter, the Wii will be big, and this next round of Sony vs Nintendo may be the most exciting yet for us consumers. We'll get the best of both worlds: great and innovative gameplay from Nintendo, and stunning graphics with revolutionary technology from Sony. This is the first time that I'll be purchasing both next-gen systems upon release, regardless of what they're called.