I did grad school after several years in the working world. My advice: take some good solid math classes on the side before beginning grad school. I had forgotten alot of Diff Eq, and my linear algebra was weak. The math courses also helped my confidence. You can amaze your new colleagues by explaining the difference between eigenvalues, eigenvectors, and eigenfunctions!!
Yep, I noticed that connection with "Focus" in Vinge's science fiction world too. In the book, "Focus" can be used not just for brain enhancement, but for enslavement. It seems to turn people into a combination of obsessive-compulsive on their assigned task, and autistic in their emotional lives (these two traits may be on the same spectrum in undrugged people too). In the book, enslavability seemed to be the major negative side effect of the drug.
Unfortunately, the ugly truth is that North Korea bought some nuke technology from Pakistan, who has proven their nukes with underground testing. They've also been manufacturing plutonium since about 1990, which, unlike uranium 235, doesn't need complicated enrichment. As for their missile technology, they tested their first successfully in 1984. Some of Iraq's Scuds from the 1991 war may have been built in North Korea. Also check out their amusingly named "Nodong" missile. Here are some details.
... light sensitive color emulsion photo paper,
exposed to a laser and then sealed in photo
chemicals to produce their results. Lasting far
longer than a simple dye could....
I sort of wonder about this. Seems to me all color pigments are one form of dye or another. The "old fashioned" photo emulsions are constrained to choosing among dyes that are light sensitive, and each of the three dye colors has to be equally light sensitive. Meanwhile, the inkjet dyes are constrained to those that can be squirted out of an inkjet printer. But they're both dyes.
So the question is, which is the more onerous constraint. I ain't no dye chemist, but intuitively, 'squirtable' seems less constraining than 'light sensitive,' because almost anything that could be deposited by old-fashioned photo processes can also be ground up fine and suspended in liquid for squirting. Any dye chemists out there who can shed some light (and color) on the question?
One other thing that definitely favors inkjet: Inkjets are not restricted to a mere 3 primaries. HP uses 6 (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow) while Epson adds black to the mix (and sometimes gray) for a grand total or 7 or 8. This will at minimum give you a larger color gamut, and probably blacker blacks.
Here's the real definition of client and server. A server waits and listens for clients to initiate connections, while the client initiates the connections. That's all there is to it. If your process just opens a listening port and waits, it's a server. If your process suddenly grabs a port and opens a new connection to a specific port at a specific IP address, it's a client. Usually we're talking about TCP connections, but it can be UDP or ICMP, or even low level ethernet packets in the case of a DHCP server. OK, yeah, sometimes the client sends a broadcast packet, but the client still expects to be answered; the server doesn't.
Now you may argue that it's silly to base the definition of client an server on low level packet handling. I agree, but at this point in time, it's sort of a frozen accident. It's like picking a particular pole of a battery as positive, and then discovering that electrons, the primary charge transporter, are negative. Confusing and counter intuitive, but locked in the language now and too late to change.
I second the vote for Wirth. It's true his languages never made anyone a ton of money, but they definitely influenced language designers. For example, one of the beautiful things about Pascal was that once you got your pascal program to compile, it was usually pretty close to functioning the way you intended it to. This was back in the days before C had function prototypes, so any old pile of C statements would compile, but the executable would core dump on a zillion little variable type errors. In Wirth's languages, the type system was an aid, not an impediment, to coders. Not only that, but TurboPascal was fast, even on a 4.77MHz 8088. Thank you, Niklaus!
None of the rpms I've been able to find work on my redhat fedora core 2 system. Why is that? Maybe I'm just lousy at searching, but I've looked on pbone and dag and rpmseek. I've tried srpms and binaries, but none of them work out of the box.
The truth is that for decades, earth observing satellites have used pushbroom sensors. These sensors continuously sweep out an image, accumulating pixels 24/7, and some of them have up to eight wavebands (think "colors"). For example, Landsat 7 does 14 orbits per day, and takes 16 days to image the entire planet. Its view is 185km wide, with a combination of 15m and 30m pixels depending on the band. This works out to an image about 12000 pixels wide. To exceed the puny TNO 2.5 Gigapixel image, just accumulate a strip that's 208400 pixels (3125km) long. This is about a quarter of an orbit for the satellite, which happens in under 52 minutes (faster than the 70 minute TNO image). And as mentioned above, there are eight wavebands in the image, so it'll be well over 10 gigs.
Statistical anomalies alone prove nothing, but they are a useful indicator of where to concentrate resources for further investigation.
I haven't drawn any conclusions from the Florida oddities. But having seen them, I'd like them to be studied. I've run enough T-tests in my time to know from eyeballing the e-voting / scan dichotomy that it hase an extremely low likelihood of coming from chance. Who knows, maybe they'll all clear up as easily as Palm Beach County did. Let's not jump to conclusions; let's find out the facts.
By the way, just to clear something up, if you have a hypothesis beforehand, and your stats say it is very unlikely to have to have come about by chance (low p-value), then you may be on the road to drawing some scientific conclusions.
But. If you calculate some low p-values after the fact, then, as a scientist, all you can say is it may be worth investigating further. It may be fairly simple to pose a new hypothesis (such as "I hypothesize that the exit polling in Florida will correlate with registrations in all counties; not just e-voting counties the way the election outcome correlated.") But you can't jump to conclusions on a post-facto hypothesis.
Well, there was a tiny little mention of Pennsylvania. It just said some voters were denied provisional ballots. No mention of what county, city, precinct or any other useful information. No mention of how many voters were turned away. No way to estimate if they were likely Kerry voters (i.e urban) or not. So no, the AC isn't quite making shit up, but neither is s/he providing anything we can check...
Yes, calcium carbonate is a great way to sequester carbon. Atmospheric carbon moves into limestone through the activity of the little guys that build coral reefs. So we need lots of healthy reefs to keep sequestering carbon. Limestone can metamorphose into marble under the right conditions of heat and pressure.
Actually, it's a joke. The way I heard it, the Lone Ranger says to Tonto "those Indians are killers; we're gonna die!" And Tonto says "What you mean 'we,' paleface?" It's a joking way to say "speak for yourself." But the substitution of 'white man' for 'paleface' makes it harder to trace to the original Lone Ranger joke.
Thanks for your kudos. I take it you are a fan of using the economic pressures of the marketplace to sort out as many issues as possible.
(1)... The Kerry campaign trying to stop the broadcast through legal and procedural actions. How does this enhance free speech?
Interesting issue. Are there any limits on the freedom of a broadcaster? Just ask Howard Stern!
A TV station or a radio station uses a public resource, the RF spectrum, essentially for free. That's a big government subsidy (think how much cell phone providers pay for a few MHz of spectrum.). Not only that, but the FCC polices the spectrum -- if I try to set up a 50KW RF amp and broadcast in any Sinclair licensed frequency/area, the FCC will come down on me like a ton of bricks, shut me down and throw me in jail.
In return for exclusive use of protected spectrum, broadcasters agree to certain conditions. For a long time they had no choice, but now there's cable, and satellite, neither of which has exclusive use of a public resource, and on those media broadcasters are much more free to define content (Howard Stern will be moving to satellite radio, and I've heard that Michael Moore is trying to present a cable pay per view event before Nov 2).
What are the FCC conditions? Here's the FCC's brief description. In particular there's the FCC Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rule. I think a fair application of equal time might be to broadcast the anti- Kerry movie one night, and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in the same timeslot the next night. Somehow I doubt Sinclair Broadcasting is devoted enough to free speech to do that.
Actually, your free speech question may be a red herring here. Sinclair doesn't have a great track record on free speech. Last May, Sinclair
censored Ted Koppel's Nightline broadcast of the names of our Iraq war dead. Check out this story quoting John McCain:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sent a letter to the president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, David Smith, about the broadcaster's decision to pre-empt Friday night's broadcast of "Nightline.
"I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq," McCain wrote.
"I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision," McCain continued.
"But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat," he wrote.
. ..
"It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves," he concluded.
My conclusion: these Sinclair folks are hardly paragons of free speech.
(2) I would suggest you see the broadcast before protesting. Maybe it isn't what you think it is -- who knows?
Great idea! Will you babysit my kids while I'm doing that? I'm willing to let the marketplace decide this issue too. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a for-profit venture that has earned somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000,000. I'd say th
script: I'm an occasional customer at _ _ _ _. We usually go to the one in _ _ _. I'm calling because I see your company is an advertiser with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Hunt Valley, MD.
I'm calling because I'm unhappy with something Sinclair is planning to do: pre-empt their regular shows to broadcast an anti- Kerry propaganda movie. SBC uses a public resource, the airwaves, and I feel they are abusing it by broadcasting this movie. As users of public FCC licensed spectrum, they have a responsibility to be fair. Broadcasting this propaganda is not fair.
Appleby's left message at (913) 967-2718
Circuit city: spoke to cust assist at 800-843-2489 got bumped up to managment.
Walmart: store in framingham spoke to cust assist at 800-925-6278. Asked for a callback
Taco Bell: Cambridgeside; spoke to cust assist 800-822 6235 (800-tacobell)
Subway: 800 888-4848 long wait for cust assist. familiar with issue; only wanted town.
Mattel: 800 524-TOYS, 888-909-9922, 888 628-8359 (888 MATTEL9) told me to dial Val Rogers, 310-252-wxyz, tell her consumer relations gave me her number. I did so; she asked for my number & promised to call back. Did so after 10 min; took my name & concern.
Good. OK, then we're agreed: neither candidate has ever reversed himself or changed his mind in any way that's the least bit detrimental, and any claims that either candidate did so are just so much partisan claptrap.
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- In a cramped corner of the state Democratic Party headquarters here, David Sullivan and seven other full-time volunteers are frantically dialing lawyers to ask them to monitor Election Day polling places.
. . .
Republicans, meanwhile, are placing lawyers on call in battleground states, where coveted electoral votes could, theoretically, be determined by which side is best prepared to prove that voters have or have not been disenfranchised.
President Bush's campaign has said it is targeting about 30,000 precincts in 17 states, places seen as key to victory or where past election problems have arisen. Lawyers, law students and others will watch those precincts or be on call there.
But it's here in Ohio that experts believe there is the greatest potential for another Florida, primarily because more than two-thirds of voters will use punch-card ballots similar to those that produced the infamous hanging chads of 2000.
"Ohio is ground zero," said Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor who studies election procedures. "We are one of the last bastions of the punch-card ballot and there has been a lot of controversy relating to provisional balloting."
. ..
There is also concern among Democrats that Republicans will use a provision in Ohio law that allows "challengers" to review voter registration information at polling places. They fear the challenges could slow election lines and ultimately discourage some Democrats from voting.
. ..
It comes as no shock that both sides are lining up the legal talent.
Fewer new jobs in September than in August. August corrected downward. Neither month kept up with population growth.
A weak June and a weak July, which didn't keep up with population growth either.
The last strong months for job creation were March, April, and May. Those were great months, but May is a long way back.
We are entering the fourth quarter, and the last strong job growth was Q2. Looks like the recovery is fading to me. It probably has something to do with $50+/barrel oil.
My bad.
When I wrote He's explicitly withholding support for Bush's way of disarming Saddam. I should have said "He's explicitly withholding support for Bush's unilateral way of disarming Saddam." Let's take it from the top. You quote Kerry as saying:
George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
Now translate it phrase by phrase:
I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,
Kerry objects to Bush's unilateralism;
but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Kerry objects to Bush's unilateralism, but doesn't object to having Saddam disarmed.
And when the president made the decision, I supported him,
Kerry supports his president in time of war. "All disagreements end at the borders of the US" and all that.
and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
Kerry supports th fact of disarming Saddam. Not the unilateral way.
Your interpretation only works by taking sentences out of context. In context, at the beginning, Kerry explicitly states his reservations about Bush's unilateral ways. Then he states what parts of Bush's actions he does support. I hope this is finally clear.
Also, don't forget that I'm making a two pronged argument here. One prong is that Kerry didn't reverse himself; the other is that there's no crime in reversals, even unacknowledged reversals, and that Bush does the latter all the time. Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, I repeat my list:
(1) Opposing campaign finance reform, then supporting it? Nope.
(2) Reversing himself on the Dept. of Homeland Security? Nope.
(3) Reversing himself on the 9/11 commission? Nope.
(4) Reversing himself on a US role in Israel/Palestine? Nope.
(5) Switching from a fee-trade platform to steel tariffs? Nope.
(6) Switching from a states rights platform to supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Nope.
(7) Bush- "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush- "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." But no "owning up" to the change
(8) Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will. No "owning up."
(9) Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
You're lying.
No, I'm just not taking your narrow and slanted interpretation of Kerry's words. Kerry said "... and I support the fact that we did disarm him." He's supports the fact of disarming Saddam. He's explicitly withholding support for Bush's way of disarming Saddam. Is this really so hard to see?
No, it does not. That's the problem. It mentions a high deficit, but does not say how this is a flip-flop. Same thing with Medicare problems, and the emphasis on Hussein and Iraq. It's one thing to say those things are bad, but it does not say how they are flip-flops.
I guess you don't remember any of Bush's claims from the 2000 general election. OK, no problem, I'll make the list even more explicit.
Regarding Kerry's right to change his mind:Yes, if he owns up to it. He refuses to.
Your double standard is showing again. Has Bush owned up to changing his mind on
(1) Opposing campaign finance reform, then supporting it? Nope.
(2) Reversing himself on the Dept. of Homeland Security? Nope.
(3) Reversing himself on the 9/11 commission? Nope.
(4) Reversing himself on a US role in Israel/Palestine? Nope.
(5) Switching from a fee-trade platform to steel tariffs? Nope.
(6) Switching from a states rights platform to supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Nope.
(7) Bush- "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden." Bush- "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care." But no "owning up" to the change
(8) Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will. No "owning up."
(9) Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.
This is by no means a complete list; I just got tired of typing. Now don't get me wrong; in many (but not all) of these cases I think Bush switched from a silly position to a saner one. And I'm not the one impugning his right to switch positions either.
You, however, expect Kerry to explicitly "own up to" every position change. It's clear you have no such requirement for Bush. Hence the double standard. When you start holding Bush to the same standard as Kerry, then and only then will your complaints about Kerry's flip-flopping sound like anything other than partisan cant.
Let me direct your attention to a long article in the Atlantic. Oops, it seems to have become subscriber only; here are some large excerpts. This looks like the full text.
Let me quote a few paragraphs:
But the 2000 election was not Rove's closest race. That had come earlier, and serves as a greater
testament to his skill. In 1994 a group called the Business Council of Alabama appealed to Rove to
help run a slate of Republican candidates for the state supreme court....
Newspaper coverage on November 9, the morning after the election, focused on the Republican Fob
James's upset of the Democratic Governor Jim Folsom. But another drama was rapidly unfolding. In the race for chief justice, which had been neck and neck the evening before, Hooper awoke to
discover himself trailing by 698 votes. Throughout the day ballots trickled in from remote corners
of the state, until at last an unofficial tally showed that Rove's client had lost--by 304 votes.
Hornsby's campaign declared victory.
Rove had other plans, and immediately moved for a recount. "Karl called the next morning," says a
former Rove staffer. "He said, 'We came real close. You guys did a great job. But now we really
need to rally around Perry Hooper. We've got a real good shot at this, but we need to win over the people of Alabama.'" Rove explained how this was to be done. "Our role was to try to keep people motivated about Perry Hooper's election," the staffer continued, "and then to undermine the other side's support by casting them as liars, cheaters, stealers, immoral--all of that." (Rove did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.)
...
The race came down to a dispute over absentee ballots. Hornsby's campaign fought to include
approximately 2,000 late-arriving ballots that had been excluded because they weren't notarized or
witnessed, as required by law. Also mindful of public relations, the Hornsby campaign brought
forward a man who claimed that the absentee ballot of his son, overseas in the military, was in
danger of being disallowed. The matter wound up in court. "The last marching order we had from
Karl," says a former employee, "was 'Make sure you continue to talk this up. The only way we're
going to be successful is if the Alabama public continues to care about it.'"...
The recount stretched into the following year. On Inauguration Day both candidates appeared for the
ceremonies. By March the all-Democratic Alabama Supreme Court had ordered that the absentee ballots be counted. By April the matter was before the Eleventh Federal Circuit Court. The byzantine legal maneuvering continued for months. In mid-October a federal appeals-court judge finally ruled that the ballots could not be counted, and ordered the secretary of state to certify Hooper as the winner--only to have Hornsby's legal team appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which temporarily stayed the case. By now the recount had dragged on for almost a year.
When I went to visit Hooper, not long ago, we sat in the parlor of his Montgomery home as he
described the denouement of Karl Rove's closest race. "On the afternoon of October the nineteenth," Hooper recalled, "I was in the back yard planting five hundred pink sweet Williams in my wife's garden, and she hollered out the back door, 'Your secretary just called--the Supreme Court just made a ruling that you're the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court!'" In the final tally he had
prevailed by just 262 votes. Hooper smiled broadly and handed me a large photo of his swearing-in
ceremony the next day. "That Karl Rove w
I lived most of my life, 20 years, in SE Mass. And most people there only vote Democratic because they historically do.
Impressive mind reading. Thanks for giving them credit for being independent people whose substantial life experience may have led them to disagree with you!
Yes, and no, look it up yourself.
In graduate school, I took a number of courses covering linear algebra and machine vision. I'm familiar with affine & perspective transforms, edge finders, Wiener filtering, blind deconvolution, quantization errors, and a number of models of imaging systems. But I don't know what you're talking about here -- please elucidate.
You said he did not call the invasion the right decision. He clearly did say that, directly. And now he says it was the wrong war.
No, he said disarming Saddam was the right decision. He also, consistently, opposed doing it unilaterally. Your claim only makes sense when you ignore (that word again) Kerry's remarks about methods of disarmament. Kerry has consistently said (a) he supported the war at the time; and (b) he's consistently said he opposed Bush's unilateral method of going to war. Part (b) allows him to be consistent and criticise the war; why can't you see that? And Kerry has (c) consistently accepted the "Pottery Barn Rule" that says however we got there, we have to win in Iraq regardless of Bush's errors.
I don't see how you can't consider that a significant difference between the two.
I still see a double standard here. Republicans are free to change their minds; Kerry is not unless he follows special rules. Personally, I'm willing to allow my leaders to change their minds occasionally; I'm trying to get you to explain why you think it's such a crime for Kerry to change his. At the end of your post, you finally say that he is allowed to change his mind. Thank you!
There's only one "flip flop" mentioned in that story
No, in addition it mentions flip-flops on the budget, big government, healthcare, and Saddam over al Qaeda. I can lead to to a link, but I can't make you read it. Never the less, your habit of ignoring what's in the link doesn't reflect well upon your commitment to getting the whole story.
That's a good point overall, but this US pres. election will probably see relatively high turnout anyway, don't you think?
Yes, and that may a key reason why the opinion polls are more variable this year than most. Polls try to measure "likely voters," but how do you identify "likely" in a high-turnout year? Hence the argument between Gallop and MoveOn.org.
But there's still room for improvement. Check out this table of registered voter turnout. In the USA in 2000, it was 67.4%. Many nations have much igher turnout. Here's some turnout figures as a percent of population from wikipedia
My point with this data is to underscore that if either party could get a third of its stay-at-homes in battleground states to turn out on Nov 2, they would sweep the battlegrounds. There is plenty of gold to be mined there.
Historically, Republicans have optained higher turnout than Democrats (sorry I couldn't easily google the numbers to support this). In any case, the Bush campaign is addressing the question "why do our people stay at home?" Maybe their voters are disgusted with both candidates. If so, maybe gay marriage or a similar issue will get them to the polls. Otherwise, try and make the race about the other guy; make him even more disgusting.
Historically, the demographic groups that vote Democratic tend to under-register and turn out less. Also, historically according to Charlie Cook late undecided voters eventually vote 2:1 or 3:1 against the incumbent.
They also tend to come from the middle of the political spectrum; hence undecided. So Kerry has two ways to draw voters: one is to reach for the middle -- keep the undecideds from going to Bush -- if they merely stay undecided, he gets a big chunk of them. The other is to register and turn out his traditional demographic supporters.
Why don't the republicans reach for the middle, the undecideds? An excellent question. Their strategy is set by Karl Rove and he's the best in the business, so I'm confident it's their best bet. My guess is that going negative will repel some of the middle, but increase turnout of the base, while staying positive would do a little of the opposite. Rove must have weighed the two carefully and chosen what he thought would get the most votes.
Good points, all of 'em. One other tactical area where Kerry could improve is in asking for that extra minute to rebut the rebuttal. There were a few cases where Bush rebutted strongly and Kerry let it go. Bush, on the other hand, was all over Lehrer asking "could I respond to that?"
Another Bush error Kerry missed: regarding the bilateral talks with North Korea, Bush opposed them because the Chinese wouldn't be at the table. But according to Joe Biden, the Chinese have asked us to enter bilateral talks. Pointing that out in realtime would have made Bush look even sillier.
Even so, Bush was simply outclassed at the debate. He couldn't speak in paragraphs, he seemed to struggle to fill his 2 minutes, and at times he let this little whine come into his voice that was most unpresidential. Memo to Bush: lose the whine.
Blogs may not influence many swing voters, But blogs may help fire up the base.
There are different election strategies at work here. The Bush strategy is to energize the Republican base. His campaign wants to get voters so angry about Kerry or some other issue (e.g. Gay Marriage) that they won't stay home on election night. One of the ways Bush fires up the base by demonizing and mocking Kerry. Blogs may help with that.
Kerry's strategy is partly to sign up new voters (AKA "the ground game") and partly to reach for the center and the undecided voter. Blogs probably won't help as much with either of those approaches.
Slashdot Mirror
I did grad school after several years in the working world. My advice: take some good solid math classes on the side before beginning grad school. I had forgotten alot of Diff Eq, and my linear algebra was weak. The math courses also helped my confidence. You can amaze your new colleagues by explaining the difference between eigenvalues, eigenvectors, and eigenfunctions!!
Yep, I noticed that connection with "Focus" in Vinge's science fiction world too. In the book, "Focus" can be used not just for brain enhancement, but for enslavement. It seems to turn people into a combination of obsessive-compulsive on their assigned task, and autistic in their emotional lives (these two traits may be on the same spectrum in undrugged people too). In the book, enslavability seemed to be the major negative side effect of the drug.
Unfortunately, the ugly truth is that North Korea bought some nuke technology from Pakistan, who has proven their nukes with underground testing. They've also been manufacturing plutonium since about 1990, which, unlike uranium 235, doesn't need complicated enrichment. As for their missile technology, they tested their first successfully in 1984. Some of Iraq's Scuds from the 1991 war may have been built in North Korea. Also check out their amusingly named "Nodong" missile. Here are some details.
So the question is, which is the more onerous constraint. I ain't no dye chemist, but intuitively, 'squirtable' seems less constraining than 'light sensitive,' because almost anything that could be deposited by old-fashioned photo processes can also be ground up fine and suspended in liquid for squirting. Any dye chemists out there who can shed some light (and color) on the question?
One other thing that definitely favors inkjet: Inkjets are not restricted to a mere 3 primaries. HP uses 6 (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow) while Epson adds black to the mix (and sometimes gray) for a grand total or 7 or 8. This will at minimum give you a larger color gamut, and probably blacker blacks.
Now you may argue that it's silly to base the definition of client an server on low level packet handling. I agree, but at this point in time, it's sort of a frozen accident. It's like picking a particular pole of a battery as positive, and then discovering that electrons, the primary charge transporter, are negative. Confusing and counter intuitive, but locked in the language now and too late to change.
I second the vote for Wirth. It's true his languages never made anyone a ton of money, but they definitely influenced language designers. For example, one of the beautiful things about Pascal was that once you got your pascal program to compile, it was usually pretty close to functioning the way you intended it to. This was back in the days before C had function prototypes, so any old pile of C statements would compile, but the executable would core dump on a zillion little variable type errors. In Wirth's languages, the type system was an aid, not an impediment, to coders. Not only that, but TurboPascal was fast, even on a 4.77MHz 8088. Thank you, Niklaus!
None of the rpms I've been able to find work on my redhat fedora core 2 system. Why is that? Maybe I'm just lousy at searching, but I've looked on pbone and dag and rpmseek. I've tried srpms and binaries, but none of them work out of the box.
Yeah, well, I'm gonna patent IsToo, so there!
IsNot
IsToo
IsNot
IsToo
I win!!
The truth is that for decades, earth observing satellites have used pushbroom sensors. These sensors continuously sweep out an image, accumulating pixels 24/7, and some of them have up to eight wavebands (think "colors"). For example, Landsat 7 does 14 orbits per day, and takes 16 days to image the entire planet. Its view is 185km wide, with a combination of 15m and 30m pixels depending on the band. This works out to an image about 12000 pixels wide. To exceed the puny TNO 2.5 Gigapixel image, just accumulate a strip that's 208400 pixels (3125km) long. This is about a quarter of an orbit for the satellite, which happens in under 52 minutes (faster than the 70 minute TNO image). And as mentioned above, there are eight wavebands in the image, so it'll be well over 10 gigs.
I haven't drawn any conclusions from the Florida oddities. But having seen them, I'd like them to be studied. I've run enough T-tests in my time to know from eyeballing the e-voting / scan dichotomy that it hase an extremely low likelihood of coming from chance. Who knows, maybe they'll all clear up as easily as Palm Beach County did. Let's not jump to conclusions; let's find out the facts.
By the way, just to clear something up, if you have a hypothesis beforehand, and your stats say it is very unlikely to have to have come about by chance (low p-value), then you may be on the road to drawing some scientific conclusions.
But. If you calculate some low p-values after the fact, then, as a scientist, all you can say is it may be worth investigating further. It may be fairly simple to pose a new hypothesis (such as "I hypothesize that the exit polling in Florida will correlate with registrations in all counties; not just e-voting counties the way the election outcome correlated.") But you can't jump to conclusions on a post-facto hypothesis.
Well, there was a tiny little mention of Pennsylvania. It just said some voters were denied provisional ballots. No mention of what county, city, precinct or any other useful information. No mention of how many voters were turned away. No way to estimate if they were likely Kerry voters (i.e urban) or not. So no, the AC isn't quite making shit up, but neither is s/he providing anything we can check...
Yes, calcium carbonate is a great way to sequester carbon. Atmospheric carbon moves into limestone through the activity of the little guys that build coral reefs. So we need lots of healthy reefs to keep sequestering carbon. Limestone can metamorphose into marble under the right conditions of heat and pressure.
Actually, it's a joke. The way I heard it, the Lone Ranger says to Tonto "those Indians are killers; we're gonna die!" And Tonto says "What you mean 'we,' paleface?" It's a joking way to say "speak for yourself." But the substitution of 'white man' for 'paleface' makes it harder to trace to the original Lone Ranger joke.
(1) ... The Kerry campaign trying to stop the broadcast through legal and procedural actions. How does this enhance free speech?
Interesting issue. Are there any limits on the freedom of a broadcaster? Just ask Howard Stern!
A TV station or a radio station uses a public resource, the RF spectrum, essentially for free. That's a big government subsidy (think how much cell phone providers pay for a few MHz of spectrum.). Not only that, but the FCC polices the spectrum -- if I try to set up a 50KW RF amp and broadcast in any Sinclair licensed frequency/area, the FCC will come down on me like a ton of bricks, shut me down and throw me in jail.
In return for exclusive use of protected spectrum, broadcasters agree to certain conditions. For a long time they had no choice, but now there's cable, and satellite, neither of which has exclusive use of a public resource, and on those media broadcasters are much more free to define content (Howard Stern will be moving to satellite radio, and I've heard that Michael Moore is trying to present a cable pay per view event before Nov 2).
What are the FCC conditions? Here's the FCC's brief description. In particular there's the FCC Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rule. I think a fair application of equal time might be to broadcast the anti- Kerry movie one night, and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in the same timeslot the next night. Somehow I doubt Sinclair Broadcasting is devoted enough to free speech to do that.
Actually, your free speech question may be a red herring here. Sinclair doesn't have a great track record on free speech. Last May, Sinclair censored Ted Koppel's Nightline broadcast of the names of our Iraq war dead. Check out this story quoting John McCain:
My conclusion: these Sinclair folks are hardly paragons of free speech.
(2) I would suggest you see the broadcast before protesting. Maybe it isn't what you think it is -- who knows?
Great idea! Will you babysit my kids while I'm doing that? I'm willing to let the marketplace decide this issue too. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a for-profit venture that has earned somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000,000. I'd say th
Good. OK, then we're agreed: neither candidate has ever reversed himself or changed his mind in any way that's the least bit detrimental, and any claims that either candidate did so are just so much partisan claptrap.
We are entering the fourth quarter, and the last strong job growth was Q2. Looks like the recovery is fading to me. It probably has something to do with $50+/barrel oil.
When I wrote He's explicitly withholding support for Bush's way of disarming Saddam. I should have said "He's explicitly withholding support for Bush's unilateral way of disarming Saddam." Let's take it from the top. You quote Kerry as saying: Now translate it phrase by phrase:
I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,
Kerry objects to Bush's unilateralism;
but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein.
Kerry objects to Bush's unilateralism, but doesn't object to having Saddam disarmed.
And when the president made the decision, I supported him,
Kerry supports his president in time of war. "All disagreements end at the borders of the US" and all that.
and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
Kerry supports th fact of disarming Saddam. Not the unilateral way.
Your interpretation only works by taking sentences out of context. In context, at the beginning, Kerry explicitly states his reservations about Bush's unilateral ways. Then he states what parts of Bush's actions he does support. I hope this is finally clear.
Also, don't forget that I'm making a two pronged argument here. One prong is that Kerry didn't reverse himself; the other is that there's no crime in reversals, even unacknowledged reversals, and that Bush does the latter all the time. Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, I repeat my list:
No, I'm just not taking your narrow and slanted interpretation of Kerry's words. Kerry said "... and I support the fact that we did disarm him." He's supports the fact of disarming Saddam. He's explicitly withholding support for Bush's way of disarming Saddam. Is this really so hard to see?
No, it does not. That's the problem. It mentions a high deficit, but does not say how this is a flip-flop. Same thing with Medicare problems, and the emphasis on Hussein and Iraq. It's one thing to say those things are bad, but it does not say how they are flip-flops.
I guess you don't remember any of Bush's claims from the 2000 general election. OK, no problem, I'll make the list even more explicit.
Regarding Kerry's right to change his mind:Yes, if he owns up to it. He refuses to.
This is by no means a complete list; I just got tired of typing. Now don't get me wrong; in many (but not all) of these cases I think Bush switched from a silly position to a saner one. And I'm not the one impugning his right to switch positions either.Your double standard is showing again. Has Bush owned up to changing his mind on
You, however, expect Kerry to explicitly "own up to" every position change. It's clear you have no such requirement for Bush. Hence the double standard. When you start holding Bush to the same standard as Kerry, then and only then will your complaints about Kerry's flip-flopping sound like anything other than partisan cant.
Let me quote a few paragraphs:
Impressive mind reading. Thanks for giving them credit for being independent people whose substantial life experience may have led them to disagree with you!
Yes, and no, look it up yourself.
In graduate school, I took a number of courses covering linear algebra and machine vision. I'm familiar with affine & perspective transforms, edge finders, Wiener filtering, blind deconvolution, quantization errors, and a number of models of imaging systems. But I don't know what you're talking about here -- please elucidate.
You said he did not call the invasion the right decision. He clearly did say that, directly. And now he says it was the wrong war.
No, he said disarming Saddam was the right decision. He also, consistently, opposed doing it unilaterally. Your claim only makes sense when you ignore (that word again) Kerry's remarks about methods of disarmament. Kerry has consistently said (a) he supported the war at the time; and (b) he's consistently said he opposed Bush's unilateral method of going to war. Part (b) allows him to be consistent and criticise the war; why can't you see that? And Kerry has (c) consistently accepted the "Pottery Barn Rule" that says however we got there, we have to win in Iraq regardless of Bush's errors.
I don't see how you can't consider that a significant difference between the two.
I still see a double standard here. Republicans are free to change their minds; Kerry is not unless he follows special rules. Personally, I'm willing to allow my leaders to change their minds occasionally; I'm trying to get you to explain why you think it's such a crime for Kerry to change his. At the end of your post, you finally say that he is allowed to change his mind. Thank you!
There's only one "flip flop" mentioned in that story
No, in addition it mentions flip-flops on the budget, big government, healthcare, and Saddam over al Qaeda. I can lead to to a link, but I can't make you read it. Never the less, your habit of ignoring what's in the link doesn't reflect well upon your commitment to getting the whole story.
Yes, and that may a key reason why the opinion polls are more variable this year than most. Polls try to measure "likely voters," but how do you identify "likely" in a high-turnout year? Hence the argument between Gallop and MoveOn.org. But there's still room for improvement. Check out this table of registered voter turnout. In the USA in 2000, it was 67.4%. Many nations have much igher turnout. Here's some turnout figures as a percent of population from wikipedia
My point with this data is to underscore that if either party could get a third of its stay-at-homes in battleground states to turn out on Nov 2, they would sweep the battlegrounds. There is plenty of gold to be mined there.
Historically, Republicans have optained higher turnout than Democrats (sorry I couldn't easily google the numbers to support this). In any case, the Bush campaign is addressing the question "why do our people stay at home?" Maybe their voters are disgusted with both candidates. If so, maybe gay marriage or a similar issue will get them to the polls. Otherwise, try and make the race about the other guy; make him even more disgusting.
Historically, the demographic groups that vote Democratic tend to under-register and turn out less. Also, historically according to Charlie Cook late undecided voters eventually vote 2:1 or 3:1 against the incumbent. They also tend to come from the middle of the political spectrum; hence undecided. So Kerry has two ways to draw voters: one is to reach for the middle -- keep the undecideds from going to Bush -- if they merely stay undecided, he gets a big chunk of them. The other is to register and turn out his traditional demographic supporters.
Why don't the republicans reach for the middle, the undecideds? An excellent question. Their strategy is set by Karl Rove and he's the best in the business, so I'm confident it's their best bet. My guess is that going negative will repel some of the middle, but increase turnout of the base, while staying positive would do a little of the opposite. Rove must have weighed the two carefully and chosen what he thought would get the most votes.
Another Bush error Kerry missed: regarding the bilateral talks with North Korea, Bush opposed them because the Chinese wouldn't be at the table. But according to Joe Biden, the Chinese have asked us to enter bilateral talks. Pointing that out in realtime would have made Bush look even sillier.
Even so, Bush was simply outclassed at the debate. He couldn't speak in paragraphs, he seemed to struggle to fill his 2 minutes, and at times he let this little whine come into his voice that was most unpresidential. Memo to Bush: lose the whine.
There are different election strategies at work here. The Bush strategy is to energize the Republican base. His campaign wants to get voters so angry about Kerry or some other issue (e.g. Gay Marriage) that they won't stay home on election night. One of the ways Bush fires up the base by demonizing and mocking Kerry. Blogs may help with that.
Kerry's strategy is partly to sign up new voters (AKA "the ground game") and partly to reach for the center and the undecided voter. Blogs probably won't help as much with either of those approaches.