Risks to human health (globe-wide) have increased with the passage of Obamacare, but that hasn't deterred this White House. Politicizing science doesn't make for better science. The tax on medical devices (part of Obamacare) is literally a tax on medical research. If nothing else, it puts a heavier reporting burden on research which is already under incredibly high reporting constraint. The only industry more heavily regulated than doctors are bankers (yes, more than chemical companies or power industry). Not surprisingly, lawyers are almost entirely unregulated. Even the bar association is a private organization which reserves the right to refuse membership based on its sole discretion.
Comparing porn to abortion services? Not really a fair comparison now, is it? Porn is there to appeal to a primal instinct which turns off higher level functions of the brain, while abortion services are there to fulfil a need made after some somber deliberation. These use completely different parts of the brain. And it's not that difficult to imagine that providing help with one would require less thought than providing help with the other. It could just be a matter of a simpler technical challenge rather than a choice of equally difficult challenges (which is suggested by this comparison).
North Korea would enter the fight with the full knowledge that they would lose. It would be a MAD (mutually assured destruction) fight. They would be reaching for the largest body count they can reach before having their military completely disabled. They are posing this threat because they believe the survival of the regime is at stake. So threat is that if the regime is destabilized by any means (military or not), they will cause havoc while going down. It would be all the logic of a suicide bomber living without hope for the future and only seeking to destroy as much as he can before his own death. After the key infrastructure is destroyed, the Korean military would have its hands full maintaining order and attempting to provide life-sustaining operations in the city. This would give the North Korea more time to continue shelling. Unlike the city of Seoul, they would be shooting from sparsely-spaced targets. So it would take longer to take them out.
No. The rest of his comment makes it clear he is generalising. He talks about "the women we work with", clearly meaning "us men". The replies to his comment all assume he is generalising too.
No, he is talking about specific experiences of his friends in the paragraph before that one. So "we" clearly refers to the specific group of individuals composed of him and his friends. Therefore, it's not a generalization. You are the one grasping for straws to support your weak argument.
Linear algebra is probably the single most useful math subject to CS majors. But then again, I am biased because I think it's the single most useful subject to mathematicians as well (because representation theory is).
"I've never found a woman coworker to be even half as passionate about technology and computers as I am."
+5 for this misogynist crap?
While it does seem like he is implying a sweeping generalization based on his personal experience, he does stop short of actually making such a generalization. So his response is less knee-jerk than yours.
The focus has shifted from menially making punch cards to writing OOP in a high level language.
I hope this is a joke. It was more difficult to create something simple because no tools existed to create it. That made the effort more challenging rather than less challenging. Having to balance real-world considerations and algorithmic considerations is, by definition, more complicated than only concerning oneself with real-world impact of the programs. Decoupling the algorithmic considerations and allowing majority of programmers to be application programmers, who are only concerned with real-world considerations, made programming simpler rather than more complicated.
What if it's generated based on a diagram? What is if someone was too lazy to write something repetitive by hand and generated it with a throw-away script?... something huge. Really huge. You still haven't really addressed generation with an IDE. Do you have to disclose which IDE was used? I am talking about a 1-time generation with everything else hand-tweaked after. What if no one remembers how they generated it? You are thinking of a traditional source code development process. What if it's even worse than that? Code which measures timing parameters of a device and generates code based on that? And the code which is generated this way is then hand-tweaked. When it comes to custom-made operating system for hardware which has analog components, you can get into some very grey areas about what is actually known to people and what isn't with code produced through genetic algorithms. The overall point is that "code" is only something you can talk about when it's a program written by a small group of people. When you have a larger organization or even a large group, without understanding the full process and having access to the people who produced the end code, you might not see anything more meaningful in C-level code than you would in assembly level code.
Only if they are destroyed pre-emptively. Massive battery shelling with explosive charges against high-density targets would reduce the city to rubble within half hour. Even if a counter strike took them out within 10 minutes, the mount Seoul which would be destroyed would make it unlivable. High-density city are very interdependent. Think about how much damage destruction of two sky scrapers did in NYC. It caused massive outages of civilian services in the surrounding areas (electric, internet, etc.) for months after. Now think about a city of the same size which sees 1/3 of its buildings destroyed and most roads damaged. Artillery is easily suppressed in a battlefield because its rate of hitting sparsely-spaced targets is low. But if it's hitting high-density targets like a city, each shot would do massive damage without even aiming. It's an equivalent of carpet-bombing with the only exception that there is no need to fly back to reload. The shells are sitting next to the artillery itself. The proximity of Seoul to the border is a huuuge problem. Don't underestimate it.
Unfortunately, Seoul is within reach of conventional artillery. So it can be reduced to rubble within minutes without a single plane. It is roughly 20 miles away from the closest NK's border point. Katyusha's max range is 25miles. Modern artillery can reach much further. Pyongyang is ~75miles from the border with South Korea. But that doesn't really matter. If South Korea were destroyed, US would almost certainly carpet bomb the North because it now has a reason to fear it enough to justify a preemptive strike.
They tried to ease the tensions. This is the result. There was an joint north-south office park where business from both countries could work. North has not used this as an opportunity to expand ties. It now effectively closed the park and increased its military posturing.
the ensemble of all the points that are the same distance from each end point of the segment.
Not the "ensemble". The "place" of all the points which are the same distance from each end point of the line segment. And you have to say perpendicular bisector, because even if "line segment bisector" were a standard term, it would not mean perpendicular. There is infinitely many non-perpendicular lines intersecting a given line segment in the middle.
Her "theorem" also needs to use the fact that three distinct points define at most one triangle.
The fact that three distinct points define a unique triangle follows from the definition of a triangle and the fifth postulate. It does not use her theorem or any circles. So this is pretty clean.
And this is also basic math to prove: a circle is defined by three variables (the coordinates of the center, a and b, and the radius)
This is waaaay unnecessary. You are bringing in a DesCartian geometry into a proof which only requires Euclidean geometry (and precedes it by roughly 2000 years). And if you do think of the center of a circle as its coordinates, then why only 2? Circle can be embedded in a hyperplane with as many dimensions as you want.
You can derive from that that the center of said circle is the intersection of the line segments bisectors (the center has to be the same distance from all the points, hence on the line segments bisectors). If the points are non aligned, the circle exists and thus the three bisectors cross at the same points.
And finish again : if a point is the end point of three segments of equal length, it is therefore on the bisectors of the three sides of the triangle made by the three other end points.
Therefore it is the the center of the circle passing through the other three points and the length of the segments is the radii.
You are more or less proving that a circle is defined by 3 points by first proving the student's theorem and then using it.
True, but what she proved had probably been proven countless times by countless students as part of math exercises. Maybe her young age makes it noteworthy, but it's definitely not worth an article and it's not a new theorem.
The academic claim (rather than the news-article's claim) is that she provided an original proof for the theorem rather than proved an original theorem.
The idea that a CEO is worth hundreds of times the average salary is a relatively recent and ridiculous one.
It's as recent as the ability to take a company from nothing to a billion dollar company within a period of 5 years. If a company explodes in value like that, that value will be in someone's hands. It won't be workers who agreed to exchange their time for fixed wages.
The value of the work output cannot be established without the ability to sell the work product after producing it. If producing the product costs 0 (after its design), then whatever cost didn't have to be expanded on production can be expanded on design. The cost in production of physical things will always be non-zero. The cost of production of an extra copy of a program is $0. If the program makes it big (which is what you are gambling on when you pay someone to write it), you pay nothing to sell extra copies of it. If a gadget (a physical one) makes it big, you have to pay material costs to make extra gadgets. This difference in cost allows programmers to bid up their salaries higher.
Depends on your preference, from where I stand. If you have a very sophisticated templating or macros and they produce easy-to-read but humongous case statement, which would you prefer to modify if you only need to modify one of the cases? The macros? Or the generated code? What if the generated code was not generated by a text-based mechanism? What if it were generated by an IDE? What's the "source code", then? You have a switch statement with 30,000 cases. This is the state machine of your routine running in a perpetual event loop. You think you'd figure out what do with it? What if it's 3,000,000 case statements?
Holding positions and titles does not demonstrate a quality of mind. Only original work products produced by his mind could demonstrate the quality of his mind. Lack of such works would not disprove it, but such lack would prove that the claim is not substantiated by any evidence. If it is indeed the case that there are no legal writings to be found to demonstrate his ability to produce cohesive original legal thoughts, then that would justify the conclusion the the claim of his "great legal mind" is unsubstantiated.
You can have have a few levels of difficulty to recover with each escalation based on how likely it is that the lower level has failed. Let's say the lowest level is on a piece of paper in your pocket which you can burn and destroy by mixing ashes with water (or some electronic equivalent thereof). The next level is multi-part key which requires access to a few bank accounts and destroying even one of them makes the combined key unrecoverable. The next level... entrusting multiple parts of the key to multiple people who don't know each other with different storage schemes only known to those people (and not to you)? It goes on. But at each stage, destroying a part of the key has to make the rest of the parts useless. The next stage is having each of the or mechanisms remove it from themselves in similar ways. Each escalating level increases the cost of recovery, but is less likely to be utilized.
He didn't say it was "questionable" (which would imply that there is evidence against it). He said it was "unsubstantiated", which mean that there is no evidence for it.
"source code" is becoming a fairly stretched concept. Which stage? Assembly code is "source code". Code can be generated by code. What is they have a system which emits C code which then gets compiled? Would turning over C code be turning over the "source code"? They can essentially get it by decompiling the assembly. They might be able to claim that the signing key is "existing evidence", so they can demand that, but Apple can make that useless as well, by using completely asymmetric signing (so any they wouldn't have the signing keys in the future). In fact, this may already be the case. They might already be distributing differently-signed software to each phone based on a handshake which only the security chip itself can negotiate.
It is if there are currently not instructions available which would change these variables and they can only be changed as a side effect of other operations performed internally by the chip.
The office of the President is the "executive" branch of the government. Which is to say that it is the responsibility of this office to "execute" or "enforce" the laws. In this context, "execute" and "enforce" are synonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
Risks to human health (globe-wide) have increased with the passage of Obamacare, but that hasn't deterred this White House. Politicizing science doesn't make for better science. The tax on medical devices (part of Obamacare) is literally a tax on medical research. If nothing else, it puts a heavier reporting burden on research which is already under incredibly high reporting constraint. The only industry more heavily regulated than doctors are bankers (yes, more than chemical companies or power industry). Not surprisingly, lawyers are almost entirely unregulated. Even the bar association is a private organization which reserves the right to refuse membership based on its sole discretion.
Comparing porn to abortion services? Not really a fair comparison now, is it? Porn is there to appeal to a primal instinct which turns off higher level functions of the brain, while abortion services are there to fulfil a need made after some somber deliberation. These use completely different parts of the brain. And it's not that difficult to imagine that providing help with one would require less thought than providing help with the other. It could just be a matter of a simpler technical challenge rather than a choice of equally difficult challenges (which is suggested by this comparison).
BBC complaining about propaganda. Oh, the irony.
North Korea would enter the fight with the full knowledge that they would lose. It would be a MAD (mutually assured destruction) fight. They would be reaching for the largest body count they can reach before having their military completely disabled. They are posing this threat because they believe the survival of the regime is at stake. So threat is that if the regime is destabilized by any means (military or not), they will cause havoc while going down. It would be all the logic of a suicide bomber living without hope for the future and only seeking to destroy as much as he can before his own death. After the key infrastructure is destroyed, the Korean military would have its hands full maintaining order and attempting to provide life-sustaining operations in the city. This would give the North Korea more time to continue shelling. Unlike the city of Seoul, they would be shooting from sparsely-spaced targets. So it would take longer to take them out.
No. The rest of his comment makes it clear he is generalising. He talks about "the women we work with", clearly meaning "us men". The replies to his comment all assume he is generalising too.
No, he is talking about specific experiences of his friends in the paragraph before that one. So "we" clearly refers to the specific group of individuals composed of him and his friends. Therefore, it's not a generalization. You are the one grasping for straws to support your weak argument.
Linear algebra is probably the single most useful math subject to CS majors. But then again, I am biased because I think it's the single most useful subject to mathematicians as well (because representation theory is).
"I've never found a woman coworker to be even half as passionate about technology and computers as I am."
+5 for this misogynist crap?
While it does seem like he is implying a sweeping generalization based on his personal experience, he does stop short of actually making such a generalization. So his response is less knee-jerk than yours.
The focus has shifted from menially making punch cards to writing OOP in a high level language.
I hope this is a joke. It was more difficult to create something simple because no tools existed to create it. That made the effort more challenging rather than less challenging. Having to balance real-world considerations and algorithmic considerations is, by definition, more complicated than only concerning oneself with real-world impact of the programs. Decoupling the algorithmic considerations and allowing majority of programmers to be application programmers, who are only concerned with real-world considerations, made programming simpler rather than more complicated.
How much are downtown + key infrastructure points (electric plants, sewage treatment, water purification)?
What if it's generated based on a diagram? What is if someone was too lazy to write something repetitive by hand and generated it with a throw-away script?... something huge. Really huge. You still haven't really addressed generation with an IDE. Do you have to disclose which IDE was used? I am talking about a 1-time generation with everything else hand-tweaked after. What if no one remembers how they generated it? You are thinking of a traditional source code development process. What if it's even worse than that? Code which measures timing parameters of a device and generates code based on that? And the code which is generated this way is then hand-tweaked. When it comes to custom-made operating system for hardware which has analog components, you can get into some very grey areas about what is actually known to people and what isn't with code produced through genetic algorithms. The overall point is that "code" is only something you can talk about when it's a program written by a small group of people. When you have a larger organization or even a large group, without understanding the full process and having access to the people who produced the end code, you might not see anything more meaningful in C-level code than you would in assembly level code.
Only if they are destroyed pre-emptively. Massive battery shelling with explosive charges against high-density targets would reduce the city to rubble within half hour. Even if a counter strike took them out within 10 minutes, the mount Seoul which would be destroyed would make it unlivable. High-density city are very interdependent. Think about how much damage destruction of two sky scrapers did in NYC. It caused massive outages of civilian services in the surrounding areas (electric, internet, etc.) for months after. Now think about a city of the same size which sees 1/3 of its buildings destroyed and most roads damaged. Artillery is easily suppressed in a battlefield because its rate of hitting sparsely-spaced targets is low. But if it's hitting high-density targets like a city, each shot would do massive damage without even aiming. It's an equivalent of carpet-bombing with the only exception that there is no need to fly back to reload. The shells are sitting next to the artillery itself. The proximity of Seoul to the border is a huuuge problem. Don't underestimate it.
Unfortunately, Seoul is within reach of conventional artillery. So it can be reduced to rubble within minutes without a single plane. It is roughly 20 miles away from the closest NK's border point. Katyusha's max range is 25miles. Modern artillery can reach much further. Pyongyang is ~75miles from the border with South Korea. But that doesn't really matter. If South Korea were destroyed, US would almost certainly carpet bomb the North because it now has a reason to fear it enough to justify a preemptive strike.
They tried to ease the tensions. This is the result. There was an joint north-south office park where business from both countries could work. North has not used this as an opportunity to expand ties. It now effectively closed the park and increased its military posturing.
Patriot, Arrow. Probably some others whose names are classified.
the ensemble of all the points that are the same distance from each end point of the segment.
Not the "ensemble". The "place" of all the points which are the same distance from each end point of the line segment. And you have to say perpendicular bisector, because even if "line segment bisector" were a standard term, it would not mean perpendicular. There is infinitely many non-perpendicular lines intersecting a given line segment in the middle.
Her "theorem" also needs to use the fact that three distinct points define at most one triangle.
The fact that three distinct points define a unique triangle follows from the definition of a triangle and the fifth postulate. It does not use her theorem or any circles. So this is pretty clean.
And this is also basic math to prove: a circle is defined by three variables (the coordinates of the center, a and b, and the radius)
This is waaaay unnecessary. You are bringing in a DesCartian geometry into a proof which only requires Euclidean geometry (and precedes it by roughly 2000 years). And if you do think of the center of a circle as its coordinates, then why only 2? Circle can be embedded in a hyperplane with as many dimensions as you want.
You can derive from that that the center of said circle is the intersection of the line segments bisectors (the center has to be the same distance from all the points, hence on the line segments bisectors). If the points are non aligned, the circle exists and thus the three bisectors cross at the same points. And finish again : if a point is the end point of three segments of equal length, it is therefore on the bisectors of the three sides of the triangle made by the three other end points. Therefore it is the the center of the circle passing through the other three points and the length of the segments is the radii.
You are more or less proving that a circle is defined by 3 points by first proving the student's theorem and then using it.
True, but what she proved had probably been proven countless times by countless students as part of math exercises. Maybe her young age makes it noteworthy, but it's definitely not worth an article and it's not a new theorem.
The academic claim (rather than the news-article's claim) is that she provided an original proof for the theorem rather than proved an original theorem.
The idea that a CEO is worth hundreds of times the average salary is a relatively recent and ridiculous one.
It's as recent as the ability to take a company from nothing to a billion dollar company within a period of 5 years. If a company explodes in value like that, that value will be in someone's hands. It won't be workers who agreed to exchange their time for fixed wages.
The value of the work output cannot be established without the ability to sell the work product after producing it. If producing the product costs 0 (after its design), then whatever cost didn't have to be expanded on production can be expanded on design. The cost in production of physical things will always be non-zero. The cost of production of an extra copy of a program is $0. If the program makes it big (which is what you are gambling on when you pay someone to write it), you pay nothing to sell extra copies of it. If a gadget (a physical one) makes it big, you have to pay material costs to make extra gadgets. This difference in cost allows programmers to bid up their salaries higher.
Depends on your preference, from where I stand. If you have a very sophisticated templating or macros and they produce easy-to-read but humongous case statement, which would you prefer to modify if you only need to modify one of the cases? The macros? Or the generated code? What if the generated code was not generated by a text-based mechanism? What if it were generated by an IDE? What's the "source code", then? You have a switch statement with 30,000 cases. This is the state machine of your routine running in a perpetual event loop. You think you'd figure out what do with it? What if it's 3,000,000 case statements?
"qualified"
No. Justified.
Holding positions and titles does not demonstrate a quality of mind. Only original work products produced by his mind could demonstrate the quality of his mind. Lack of such works would not disprove it, but such lack would prove that the claim is not substantiated by any evidence. If it is indeed the case that there are no legal writings to be found to demonstrate his ability to produce cohesive original legal thoughts, then that would justify the conclusion the the claim of his "great legal mind" is unsubstantiated.
You can have have a few levels of difficulty to recover with each escalation based on how likely it is that the lower level has failed. Let's say the lowest level is on a piece of paper in your pocket which you can burn and destroy by mixing ashes with water (or some electronic equivalent thereof). The next level is multi-part key which requires access to a few bank accounts and destroying even one of them makes the combined key unrecoverable. The next level... entrusting multiple parts of the key to multiple people who don't know each other with different storage schemes only known to those people (and not to you)? It goes on. But at each stage, destroying a part of the key has to make the rest of the parts useless. The next stage is having each of the or mechanisms remove it from themselves in similar ways. Each escalating level increases the cost of recovery, but is less likely to be utilized.
Are you proposing that Oppenheimer should get an emeritus chemistry doctorate posthumously?
He didn't say it was "questionable" (which would imply that there is evidence against it). He said it was "unsubstantiated", which mean that there is no evidence for it.
"source code" is becoming a fairly stretched concept. Which stage? Assembly code is "source code". Code can be generated by code. What is they have a system which emits C code which then gets compiled? Would turning over C code be turning over the "source code"? They can essentially get it by decompiling the assembly. They might be able to claim that the signing key is "existing evidence", so they can demand that, but Apple can make that useless as well, by using completely asymmetric signing (so any they wouldn't have the signing keys in the future). In fact, this may already be the case. They might already be distributing differently-signed software to each phone based on a handshake which only the security chip itself can negotiate.
It is if there are currently not instructions available which would change these variables and they can only be changed as a side effect of other operations performed internally by the chip.
The office of the President is the "executive" branch of the government. Which is to say that it is the responsibility of this office to "execute" or "enforce" the laws. In this context, "execute" and "enforce" are synonymous.