And a sure sign of anti-intellectual pedant is someone who doesn't recognize the scientific term fictitious force.
In my classes, we avoid fictitious forces not because they are not "real", but because they are difficult—you shouldn't bring up centrifugal forces unless you are also ready to handle the Coriolis force, but that's more of upper-division level classical mechanics, where you are taught Euler-Lagrange equation on the first day.
So, that "launch loop or space fountain" is at an unstable equilibrium with respect to Earth, right? Meaning it would need constant expenditure of fuel to maintain its "orbit".
They are both at science-fiction (and not that hard on the Mohs scale) level of feasibility, but I somehow think finding the magic material for space elevator will happen long before where we have such a well-established space-based economy that the astronomical maintenance of launch loop/space fountain would be practical.
P.S. The length of space elevator is precisely what is calculated for a stable equilibrium position. I do imagine it can be designed so that the travelers don't need to go all the way out to the geosynchronous orbit.
What kind of houses do you live in? Half-life of a house (a fixed installation, not something that floats on a tumultuous sea) is much shorter than 600 years, even in U.S., where they don't demolish houses every few decades or so like they do in Japan.
Not to mention Newton's Third Law necessarily puts a very harsh and unforgiving limit on possible payloads on those floating endpoints.
Ignoring material strength requirements, rotational physics alone dictates a functional space elevator has a minimum required size, and that's nowhere near where a label "mini" would be appropriate.
Well, I was half-joking, but "economic model" is... vastly underestimating the scope of these ideologies.
Sure, they are "economic model", in the sense that everything you do involves money (even the communist USSR used money, just as the Federation uses gold-pressed latinum, despite the usual propaganda).
These "economic models" aren't just about how to handle your finances; they are about how you live your entire life (your "livelihood", if you will). The fact that totalitarian versions also include genocidal agendas (see: annihilation of the Maquis) doesn't quite set them apart enough to make them incomparable to their "gentler" counterparts.
Um, I wish you had put quotation around "good people," because you are clearly using it in a different sense than I have used. Going to and graduating from state university isn't some pinnacle of elitism.
Back then? There are linear algebra libraries still in use which is written in Fortran. Other languages just link to it, rather than re-implementing it natively.
That's not how articulation works. Courses transfer in place of specific degree requirements at the target school. It's not changeable at will, and certainly not retroactively, unless they are changing the requirements of major itself (in which case the change is not targeted at the transfer students).
Later on, OSD #10 was added (which IMO was not necessary as it's implied by OSD#6).
I thought #10 was definitely different from #6. #10 prevents someone (maybe an Intel employee) from saying "This license applies only for code written to be compiled and run on x86 architecture." One could argue this is not a field-of-endeavor restriction, and nothing else in OSD prevents an exclusion against porting.
Also, a community college is (in most parts of US) a 2-year college. If the job "requires" a B.A. or B.S., of course the HR should not take an A.A. or A.S. as fulfilling the requirement.
If your HR is throwing out resumes from people with degrees from your state universities, then, yes, they have issues, and they will have problems (with being able to hire good people).
More like it wasn't true, possibly, and if that was the case, that was a very long time ago. ASSIST.org has been around a very long time (when I used it as a student, its design didn't look crappy; that's how old that website is), and students have certain rights which prevents universities from making courses not transferable retroactively.
P.S. My recommendation to any current high-school student would be to use CC + transfer model as a "second bite at the apple." Apply to all the UCs and CSUs you want as a freshman admit, and if you don't get into your first- or second-choice school and you are willing to risk an extra year, go to a community college instead, focus on getting a 4.0 GPA and stellar extra-curriculars, and apply again as a transfer student (or follow a TAG program, as long as you aren't trying to go to UC Berkeley). Even with last decade's increases, in-state tuition at UCs are low enough (CSUs are even lower, and for many students, going to CSU directly could end up costing less than CC+transfer to CSU) that if you are accumulating a crippling amount of debt, that's not because you went to a UC directly out of high school rather than transferring after 2 years in community college.
And if this sort of thing is something that matters to you, put in a morality clause somewhere, so that people know something like this is a firing offense (or an excommunicable offense) when they commit to that relationship (employer-employee, or core contributor to a project).
What if there are no witnesses? What if the recording device on the autonomous car was conveniently damaged?
Rebuttable presumption is exactly what it sounds like. It merely places the burden of proof on the autonomous car manufacturer (so they will have proper incentive to keep accurate records to prove the "innocence" of their car). Take human-human accident for example: it is a rebuttable presumption that in a rear-end collisions, it's the car that was following that was at fault. But the driver that is presumed to be at fault is allowed to prove that it was in fact the other car that was at fault (maybe they were backing up, or maybe their brake light was broken and they stopped suddenly).
All I am saying is that it is unreasonable to put an autonomous car on the same legal ground as a human being.
Apparently you haven't heard of Teslas slamming into perfectly stationary freeway dividers. If you replace all cars with perfect self-driving cars (a non-existent object, if it ever will), then sure, by definition, mistakes wouldn't occur, because they are perfect.
To be less glib, at least that should be the rebuttable presumption. In every accident involving an autonomous car and a human driver, the presumption should be that the fault lies with the autonomous car, until the autonomous car manufacturer can prove otherwise. That is the only way proper incentives can be built into those who are responsible for the autonomous car. So many autonomous car developers/manufacturers (Uber and Tesla being the worst offenders) act as though if the autonomous car can drive like the worst driver on the road, that is sufficient—the bar for autonomous car should be so much higher. They should be able to drive as well as the best human drivers.
Um, there are no accredited "schools" offering MOOCs (or rather, it's not part of their credit offering, since MIT has some MOOCs, but they don't count for anything).
Even University of Phoenix isn't offering MOOCs; they are offering proper online classes.
Slashdot Mirror
And a sure sign of anti-intellectual pedant is someone who doesn't recognize the scientific term fictitious force.
In my classes, we avoid fictitious forces not because they are not "real", but because they are difficult—you shouldn't bring up centrifugal forces unless you are also ready to handle the Coriolis force, but that's more of upper-division level classical mechanics, where you are taught Euler-Lagrange equation on the first day.
So, that "launch loop or space fountain" is at an unstable equilibrium with respect to Earth, right? Meaning it would need constant expenditure of fuel to maintain its "orbit".
They are both at science-fiction (and not that hard on the Mohs scale) level of feasibility, but I somehow think finding the magic material for space elevator will happen long before where we have such a well-established space-based economy that the astronomical maintenance of launch loop/space fountain would be practical.
P.S. The length of space elevator is precisely what is calculated for a stable equilibrium position. I do imagine it can be designed so that the travelers don't need to go all the way out to the geosynchronous orbit.
In a kiln?
It's comparable to geosynchronous orbit. It's a decent first-semester physics problem (once you get rid of references to fictitious forces).
What kind of houses do you live in? Half-life of a house (a fixed installation, not something that floats on a tumultuous sea) is much shorter than 600 years, even in U.S., where they don't demolish houses every few decades or so like they do in Japan.
Not to mention Newton's Third Law necessarily puts a very harsh and unforgiving limit on possible payloads on those floating endpoints.
Ignoring material strength requirements, rotational physics alone dictates a functional space elevator has a minimum required size, and that's nowhere near where a label "mini" would be appropriate.
Well, I was half-joking, but "economic model" is ... vastly underestimating the scope of these ideologies.
Sure, they are "economic model", in the sense that everything you do involves money (even the communist USSR used money, just as the Federation uses gold-pressed latinum, despite the usual propaganda).
These "economic models" aren't just about how to handle your finances; they are about how you live your entire life (your "livelihood", if you will). The fact that totalitarian versions also include genocidal agendas (see: annihilation of the Maquis) doesn't quite set them apart enough to make them incomparable to their "gentler" counterparts.
Don't you mean "Nazis were not true socialists"?
Power users don't need "advanced" options. They edit conf files and reg keys directly.
Um, I wish you had put quotation around "good people," because you are clearly using it in a different sense than I have used. Going to and graduating from state university isn't some pinnacle of elitism.
Terrorists are eroding our borders? I thought they were trying to "erode" our skyscrapers.
It would have been obligatory, if the news story was that of a cell-phone dropping the seagull in the ocean.
Back then? There are linear algebra libraries still in use which is written in Fortran. Other languages just link to it, rather than re-implementing it natively.
That's not how articulation works. Courses transfer in place of specific degree requirements at the target school. It's not changeable at will, and certainly not retroactively, unless they are changing the requirements of major itself (in which case the change is not targeted at the transfer students).
I thought #10 was definitely different from #6. #10 prevents someone (maybe an Intel employee) from saying "This license applies only for code written to be compiled and run on x86 architecture." One could argue this is not a field-of-endeavor restriction, and nothing else in OSD prevents an exclusion against porting.
'Shows what you know.
--
Where there is will, there is a way
Also, a community college is (in most parts of US) a 2-year college. If the job "requires" a B.A. or B.S., of course the HR should not take an A.A. or A.S. as fulfilling the requirement.
If your HR is throwing out resumes from people with degrees from your state universities, then, yes, they have issues, and they will have problems (with being able to hire good people).
More like it wasn't true, possibly, and if that was the case, that was a very long time ago. ASSIST.org has been around a very long time (when I used it as a student, its design didn't look crappy; that's how old that website is), and students have certain rights which prevents universities from making courses not transferable retroactively.
P.S. My recommendation to any current high-school student would be to use CC + transfer model as a "second bite at the apple." Apply to all the UCs and CSUs you want as a freshman admit, and if you don't get into your first- or second-choice school and you are willing to risk an extra year, go to a community college instead, focus on getting a 4.0 GPA and stellar extra-curriculars, and apply again as a transfer student (or follow a TAG program, as long as you aren't trying to go to UC Berkeley). Even with last decade's increases, in-state tuition at UCs are low enough (CSUs are even lower, and for many students, going to CSU directly could end up costing less than CC+transfer to CSU) that if you are accumulating a crippling amount of debt, that's not because you went to a UC directly out of high school rather than transferring after 2 years in community college.
And if this sort of thing is something that matters to you, put in a morality clause somewhere, so that people know something like this is a firing offense (or an excommunicable offense) when they commit to that relationship (employer-employee, or core contributor to a project).
Except here, the principles should have been these.
What if there are no witnesses? What if the recording device on the autonomous car was conveniently damaged?
Rebuttable presumption is exactly what it sounds like. It merely places the burden of proof on the autonomous car manufacturer (so they will have proper incentive to keep accurate records to prove the "innocence" of their car). Take human-human accident for example: it is a rebuttable presumption that in a rear-end collisions, it's the car that was following that was at fault. But the driver that is presumed to be at fault is allowed to prove that it was in fact the other car that was at fault (maybe they were backing up, or maybe their brake light was broken and they stopped suddenly).
All I am saying is that it is unreasonable to put an autonomous car on the same legal ground as a human being.
Apparently you haven't heard of Teslas slamming into perfectly stationary freeway dividers. If you replace all cars with perfect self-driving cars (a non-existent object, if it ever will), then sure, by definition, mistakes wouldn't occur, because they are perfect.
Yes.
...
To be less glib, at least that should be the rebuttable presumption. In every accident involving an autonomous car and a human driver, the presumption should be that the fault lies with the autonomous car, until the autonomous car manufacturer can prove otherwise. That is the only way proper incentives can be built into those who are responsible for the autonomous car. So many autonomous car developers/manufacturers (Uber and Tesla being the worst offenders) act as though if the autonomous car can drive like the worst driver on the road, that is sufficient—the bar for autonomous car should be so much higher. They should be able to drive as well as the best human drivers.
Um, there are no accredited "schools" offering MOOCs (or rather, it's not part of their credit offering, since MIT has some MOOCs, but they don't count for anything).
Even University of Phoenix isn't offering MOOCs; they are offering proper online classes.
How many human lives are O.K. to kill recklessly? Is "a grand total of 1" the right number for you?